I would like the work to be done stateside but understand that it may take time to train and incorporate a new generation of young, energetic American shipyard employees and contractors.
Doing some work overseas may bridge the gap until we can get back up to speed.
I think it's a matter of priority. Icebreakers are hard to build, and we don't need many of them compared to other vessels. And when you look at acute problems in things like submarine maintenance, it seems like that is where the domestic effort needs to go first.
"Additionally, of the submarine force already in commission, sixteen of those forty-nine boats—or nearly a third of the Navy’s premier offensive force—are in drydocks or tied to piers, lacking required dive certifications. These submarines cannot get underway due to a three-year maintenance backlog in the U.S. Navy."
Peter, would you please clarify what qualifies a shipyard to build a Jones Act ship? My former company bid to provide the galleys, bars, pantries and food prep areas for an intended Jones Act cruise ship in the 1990’s. As I recall, only the hull had to be U.S. steel to meet the requirement.
Jack, there is some push and pull to this. Congress doesn't define what a "U.S.-built" vessel is in the Jones Act; the determination is left to the U.S. Coast Guard. Here are some quotes from a CRS Report about what this actually means:
Coast Guard regulations deem a vessel to be U.S.-built if (1) all “major components” of its hull and superstructure are fabricated in the United States, and (2) the vessel is assembled in the United States. The “superstructure” means the main deck and any other structural part above the main deck (e.g., the bridge, forecastle, pilot house).
The Coast Guard holds that propulsion machinery (the ship’s engine), other machinery, small
engine room equipment modules, consoles, wiring, piping, certain mechanical systems and
outfitting have no bearing on a U.S.-build determination. Consequently, for oceangoing ships,
U.S. shipyards typically import engines from foreign manufacturers. This is allowed because
engines are deemed components that are attached to the hull rather than an integral part of the hull’s structure. A ship part or component that is self-supporting and independent of the vessel’s structure and does not contribute to the overall integrity of the vessel or compromise the watertight envelope of the hull can be manufactured in a foreign country. However, the part or component must be attached or joined to the vessel in a U.S. shipyard, not an overseas yard.
The Coast Guard’s test for “major components” of the hull or superstructure is based on weight; up to 1.5% of the steel weight of hull and superstructure components can be manufactured abroad. By this reasoning, the propeller, stern bulb, bulbous bow, some rudders (depending on their design), and watertight closures used in U.S.-built vessels are often imported, as long as they (in the aggregate) do not exceed the steel weight limit. The Coast Guard also permits steel products in standard forms (“off the shelf”) to be imported with no limit on their weight, but any shaping, molding, and cutting of the steel that is custom to the design of the vessel must be performed in a U.S. shipyard.
Manufacturers often get advanced approval that their ship will meet the U.S. built requirement based on their planned use of foreign components. There have been lawsuits over this in the past. Here is an example of one such letter:
Maybe the USCG can acquire ships built in foreign ports. Maybe it can't. I am not a lawyer, but I do know there are no two words in the CFR that a K Street lawyer can't drive a battleship through. This article is a sad admission on the part of our nation and the industry of our inability to build ships. Alexander Hamilton is weeping.
I would like the work to be done stateside but understand that it may take time to train and incorporate a new generation of young, energetic American shipyard employees and contractors.
Doing some work overseas may bridge the gap until we can get back up to speed.
I think it's a matter of priority. Icebreakers are hard to build, and we don't need many of them compared to other vessels. And when you look at acute problems in things like submarine maintenance, it seems like that is where the domestic effort needs to go first.
"Additionally, of the submarine force already in commission, sixteen of those forty-nine boats—or nearly a third of the Navy’s premier offensive force—are in drydocks or tied to piers, lacking required dive certifications. These submarines cannot get underway due to a three-year maintenance backlog in the U.S. Navy."
https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2024/05/sunk-at-the-pier-crisis-in-the-american-submarine-industrial-base/
I’m going to screenshot this and post on FB because I’m the “Meta-Bear” as Rodney Chronister called me… lol
Keep up the great work Pete! You are leading the charge on getting real problems fixed!
Peter, would you please clarify what qualifies a shipyard to build a Jones Act ship? My former company bid to provide the galleys, bars, pantries and food prep areas for an intended Jones Act cruise ship in the 1990’s. As I recall, only the hull had to be U.S. steel to meet the requirement.
Kind regards,
Jack
Jack, there is some push and pull to this. Congress doesn't define what a "U.S.-built" vessel is in the Jones Act; the determination is left to the U.S. Coast Guard. Here are some quotes from a CRS Report about what this actually means:
Coast Guard regulations deem a vessel to be U.S.-built if (1) all “major components” of its hull and superstructure are fabricated in the United States, and (2) the vessel is assembled in the United States. The “superstructure” means the main deck and any other structural part above the main deck (e.g., the bridge, forecastle, pilot house).
The Coast Guard holds that propulsion machinery (the ship’s engine), other machinery, small
engine room equipment modules, consoles, wiring, piping, certain mechanical systems and
outfitting have no bearing on a U.S.-build determination. Consequently, for oceangoing ships,
U.S. shipyards typically import engines from foreign manufacturers. This is allowed because
engines are deemed components that are attached to the hull rather than an integral part of the hull’s structure. A ship part or component that is self-supporting and independent of the vessel’s structure and does not contribute to the overall integrity of the vessel or compromise the watertight envelope of the hull can be manufactured in a foreign country. However, the part or component must be attached or joined to the vessel in a U.S. shipyard, not an overseas yard.
The Coast Guard’s test for “major components” of the hull or superstructure is based on weight; up to 1.5% of the steel weight of hull and superstructure components can be manufactured abroad. By this reasoning, the propeller, stern bulb, bulbous bow, some rudders (depending on their design), and watertight closures used in U.S.-built vessels are often imported, as long as they (in the aggregate) do not exceed the steel weight limit. The Coast Guard also permits steel products in standard forms (“off the shelf”) to be imported with no limit on their weight, but any shaping, molding, and cutting of the steel that is custom to the design of the vessel must be performed in a U.S. shipyard.
Link to the entire report:
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45725
Manufacturers often get advanced approval that their ship will meet the U.S. built requirement based on their planned use of foreign components. There have been lawsuits over this in the past. Here is an example of one such letter:
https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/NVDC/NVDC%20Response%20Regarding%20Philly%20Ship%20Inc%2005-31-2022.pdf?ver=0lWgJk-T8itBG6F9PHCnsQ%3d%3d
Hope this helps!
Maybe the USCG can acquire ships built in foreign ports. Maybe it can't. I am not a lawyer, but I do know there are no two words in the CFR that a K Street lawyer can't drive a battleship through. This article is a sad admission on the part of our nation and the industry of our inability to build ships. Alexander Hamilton is weeping.