OPC #1 and #2 May Be Delayed

Artists rendering from Eastern Shipbuilding Group

Two articles report that additional delays to both the future USCGC Argus and USCGC Chase appear likely.

The Marine Log article refers to the Forbes article but appears focused on drive shaft irregularities,

“We received shafting for OPC Hulls 1 and 2 that were not in compliance with the NAVSEA requirements called for in the OPC vessel specifications. These two sets of shafting were delivered to our facility with signed and stamped certificates of approval from the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), the U.S. Government-mandated certification authority for the OPC Program, certifying that they were in physical compliance with the ABS approved design artifacts,” said Eastern Shipbuilding Group President Joey D’Isernia. “We later discovered that both shipsets of shafting were non-compliant due to having out of tolerance physical dimensions. This issue was discovered during shaft installation on OPC Hull 1. The Coast Guard, Rolls-Royce [the supplier of the shafts] , and ABS were made aware of the problem immediately and they each had on-site representatives overseeing shaft installation. We are working closely with ABS, Rolls-Royce, and the USCG to resolve this issue as soon as possible. In the meantime, we are coordinating with the Coast Guard to advance post launch production and test activities to be completed prior to launch, in order to mitigate delivery schedule impacts and launch the ship at an even greater level of completion.”

The Forbes article is a more comprehensive look at Eastern progress, or lack there of,  on the project. Its worth reading both.

8 thoughts on “OPC #1 and #2 May Be Delayed

  1. I hope that these concerns can be worked out so there is no long term delay. Rolls-Royce has a good reputation in the Marine Industry.

  2. Just build two more Legend-Class National Security Cutters instead of the first two OPCs with their defective drive shafts. It’s probably faster to build two more NSCs than to wait for Eastern Shipbuilding to finally get their act together, after years and years of delays and excuses from Eastern! The NSCs are more capable than the OPC anyway, and even though they cost a little bit more up-front, they might have a lower operating cost, since the NSC has a crew of 113, while the OPC requires a crew of 126, even though it’s a smaller ship.

      • Well, the NSC crew is 113 to 148, depending on mission, according to Wikipedia’s numbers, which are sometimes outdated (although Wikipedia editors, including me, try our best to keep it up-to-date). Wikipedia’s entry for Legend-Class cutter says: “Complement: 113 (14 officers + 99 enlisted) and can carry up to 148 depending on mission[9]” — that entry cites “National Security Cutter: Program Profile”. USCG.mil. US Coast Guard. Archived from the original on February 13, 2017. Retrieved February 12, 2017.” — but that USCG.mil link it cites, https://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/nsc/features , is no longer available.

    • Exactly this. There should be some overlap between shipbuilding programs to keep fleet capitalization moving forward if the new program stumbles.

      The NSCs have proven themselves. Additional NSCs would be useful.

  3. It does seem the crew of the NSCs has grown based on a few news releases I have seen that mentioned crew size.

    The 270s operate with a crew of 100. The OPCs should be able to get along with that number, but there are benefits to adding more, particularly as a training ground for non-rates. Still lots of benefits to On the Job Training (OJT).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s