Another reason why the US needs to build some serious new bigassed icebreakers


#41

[QUOTE=Kraken;126675]With the cost of building, maintaining, decommissioning and storing the waste how is it possible to defend the cost of a nuclear icebreaker? I can understand the Russian’s who is 30 years behind the West in technology. But with today’s diesel-electric propulsion systems, what is the advantage in a nuclear powered ship?[/QUOTE]

If we built diesel icebreakers, they would spend more time alongside the dock in Honolulu taking on fuel than they would breaking ice. That assumes that they could afford to buy fuel in between all the government shutdowns.


#42

This is all we need be building more of, right here!

Although I suspect that today it would look something more like this:


#43

It’s surprising that someone wants even more warships in the current economic climate.


#44

[QUOTE=Tups;126715]It’s surprising that someone wants even more warships in the current economic climate.[/QUOTE]

Haven’t you heard? We’re the most oil-rich country in the entire world! In a couple of years, and once we get rid of all these namby-pamby socialists in Washington, we’ll be able to buy whatever we want! Just in case anyone is in doubt as to whether the topic of this thread is a highly bipartisan political one, I can assure you, it is :wink:


#45

[QUOTE=Tups;126715]It’s surprising that someone wants even more warships in the current economic climate.[/QUOTE]

If they are heavily armored and bristling with high caliber naval ordinance then I am aboard and ready to set sail but I fear our Navee of 2014 believes fully in video games, tinfoil and popguns.

the saddest thing is that Congress is willing to spend billions upon billions for useless crap ships!

If we’re going to spend to build ships then build to awe and intimidate!

      • Updated - - -

[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;126708]This is all we need be building more of, right here!.[/QUOTE]

Hear, HEAR!


#46

All this talk of big guns makes me wonder if you know what happened to the biggest battleships ever built…


#47

[QUOTE=Traitor Yankee;126726]All this talk of big guns makes me wonder if you know what happened to the biggest battleships ever built…[/QUOTE]

both sunk to the bottom of the sea by US Naval airpower!

WWII was so disappointing when it came to battleship gun duels. HOOD destroyed almost immediately in her only engagement. BISMARK disabled by air first before being pummeled into submission by the RN. SCHARNHORST likewise being decimated in a one sided duel. Only the night action of the 2nd Naval Battle of Guadalcanal where USS WASHINGTON and SOUTH DAKOTA having a bloody no holds barred barroom brawl in Ironbottom Sound with the IJN KIRISHIMA was perhaps the only true BB on BB action in the war! The rest was bloody U-boats and flattops!

//youtu.be/C2sYtq7hI74

If only Halsey had left Willis Lee and his task force 54 at the exit of San Bernardino Strait then we might have seen the big fast US battlewagons against YAMATO in a real heavy weapons slugfest of epic proportions!


#48

[QUOTE=c.captain;126728]WWII was so disappointing when it came to battleship gun duels. HOOD destroyed almost immediately in her only engagement. BISMARK disabled by air first before being pummeled into submission by the RN. SCHARNHORST likewise being decimated in a one sided duel. Only the night action of the 2nd Naval Battle of Guadalcanal where USS WASHINGTON and SOUTH DAKOTA having a bloody no holds barred barroom brawl in Ironbottom Sound with the IJN KIRISHIMA was perhaps the only true BB on BB action in the war! The rest was bloody U-boats and flattops!

If only Halsey had left Willis Lee and his task force 54 at the exit of San Bernardino Strait then we might have seen the big fast US battlewagons against YAMATO in a real heavy weapons slugfest of epic proportions![/QUOTE]

No! No! No! You’ve forgotten the most glorious heavy gun duel of the ENTIRE WAR!!!

Perhaps the only naval signal in history as famous as “England Expects…” came when Commodore Harwood, at the end of the duel with the Graf Spee, inquired to Captain Bell of HMS Exeter if in his severely damaged condition (heavily flooded, listing, no main armament functioning, and steering only from the emergency steering in the engine room) he could make Port Stanley in the Falklands for repairs. Captain Bell signaled in return, “Would make Plymouth if ordered.”


#49

I’ll take the nuke them from deep orbit option any day of the week, or at least from smart bombs from a couple thousands feet!


#50

Ship vs. ship is now over the horizon weaponry where you don’t even see the enemy. The days of “cross the T” are long gone. I just hope our modern navy still has the warrior mindset that will win wars instead of parading around holding hands and demonstrating diversity and equality. I think we are getting close to finding out.


#51

[QUOTE=salt’n steel;126748]Ship vs. ship is now over the horizon weaponry where you don’t even see the enemy. The days of “cross the T” are long gone. I just hope our modern navy still has the warrior mindset that will win wars instead of parading around holding hands and demonstrating diversity and equality. I think we are getting close to finding out.[/QUOTE]

With the 60+ NM range of the Zummwalt’s new “Advanced Gun System” gun duels today would be well over the horizon as well.


#52

Are u kidding me? Nobody knows how to fight, fart, or fix shit anymore.


#53

[QUOTE=PaddyWest2012;126749]With the 60+ NM range of the Zummwalt’s new “Advanced Gun System” gun duels today would be well over the horizon as well.[/QUOTE]

What ever would be the point of this? Are these supposed to be rocket powered guided cannon projectiles? If so what ever would make any such system anything other than just a new weapons launch system than what is in place now? HOW MUCH MONEY ARE WE SPENDING FOR ALL THIS NONSENSE?

Anyway, this thread has morphed into something rather odd and it would be good to get back to the point that the US has an extremely weak Arctic hand to play regarding a robust presence in the north polar seas. I believe we need to combine assets with the Canadians to build a fleet of modern icebreakers either with or without nuclear power to at least have parity with the Soviets (oops…Rooshins) for no other reason than to keep our side of the arctic seas ours to use as we desire. It is abundantly clear that the Arctic is laden with energy wealth as well as being a new gateway sea passage to be exploited by global maritime traffic. My point in all this is that the USN is wasting billions upon billions for stoopid aluminum popgun vessels without a serious mission for their use and ignoring the need for vessels to be able to show the flag and protect our interests in the far north. The Congress should reduce the LCS program down drastically and divert the savings to a couple of brand new state of the art icebreakers to replace the antiques we operate now. Whether armed or not and operated by the Navee or USCG is not material. The ships should be true multipurpose platforms with the ability to make the north pole if required in winter but more importantly both be designed to escort shipping and to provide multifaceted emergency services to future energy development. Let Shell partly pay for such ships with a tax on their Arctic operations since they would obviously be big beneficiaries of their presence. Also, of course, is the need to provide antarctic support as well but the ships should be designed primarily with the arctic as their main mission since that is where the action is going to be. Ten to fifteen years from now when the Arctic is very “hot property”, we’d be very glad that we did this.

Let’s do this thing!


#54

speaking of LCS STOOPID BULLSHIT…what the FUCK is the supposed to be for?

[B]Austal receives contract for LCS work[/B]

DECEMBER 24, 2013—The Naval Sea Systems Command recently awarded a $14,057,992 modification to previously awarded contract to shipbuilder Austal USA LLC, Mobile, AL, to exercise options for class service efforts for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program.

Under the contract, Austal USA will provide engineering and design services, as well as affordability efforts to reduce LCS acquisition and lifecycle costs. The work will be performed at its shipyard in Mobile and Pittsfield, MA, and will be completed by December 2014.

Austal currently holds contracts to build six LCSs. Photo at top shows the 417-foot-long USS Independence (LCS-2), the Navy’s first trimaran built by Austal USA, during sea trials in the U.S. Gulf Of Mexico.

can someone here tell me how in the hell did Austal USA get so much political muscle? How much money do they use to bribe our lawmakers to get such gifts? FUCKING BULLSHIT!

THE GODDAMNED LCS PROGRAM IS NOTHING MORE THAN FEDERAL WELFARE SUPPORT FOR AUSTAL AND MARINETTE MARINE!


#55

[QUOTE=c.captain;126876]speaking of LCS STOOPID BULLSHIT…what the FUCK is the supposed to be for?![/QUOTE]

Since they can’t afford to build real ships, or can’t build one without the contract going sideways so far it becomes a public embarrassment, along with the fact that admirals and those who want to become admirals don’t want to be seen on a sissy ship of any sort (like icebreakers) they order those silly ferryboat things. They hope that if the marketing department publishes enough neat graphics of missiles trailing smoke on their way to whack some threat to Chevron, Walmart, or the Southern Baptists. They really hope that some form of mass hypnosis will justify wasting what little remains of the American treasury and America’s respect in the world.

We may not be the greatest generation but we are the last one to be able to write the kind of stuff you post or read here … thanks to the folks who want us to believe crap like the LCS is what the nation needs.


#56

On an interesting side note, the Russians are cancelling the decommissioning of Sevmorput, the only nuclear-powered merchant ship that has carried commercial cargo. Instead of scrapping, the icebreaking lighter will be renovated and brought back to service by February 2016:

(Google translation)

I really wonder what they are going to do with it. Could it be related to the Yamal LNG megaproject?


#57

[QUOTE=Tups;126904]I really wonder what they are going to do with it. [/QUOTE]

Probably support their merchant fleet which is 3 times larger than ours and is supported by their government rather than sabotaged as ours is.


#58

Well, the Russians have sold or scrapped all but three of their SA-15 class freighters and all those new icebreaking cargo ships are serving specific projects (Norilsk-Dudinka, Varandey, Prirazlomnoye) under long-term contracts. Perhaps someone has realized that they need some serious tonnage to support those Arctic settlements and developments…

Still, I’m not sure if a lighter has any place in modern shipping.


#59

There’s some talking in Washington now about a new ice breaker - it’s intended to replace one of the Coast Guard ice breakers. - I kinda doubt it will be armed, at least not very heavily.


#60

An icebreaker would be defenseless against modern anti ship weapons, cruise missiles and laser guided bombs. It is a very poor choice for a combat ship. Better to buy one of Wartsila’s best icebreaker designs, modify it for US Coast Guard law enforcement requirements and build a few of those.

If you want to fight on the ice, you are going to use mobile forces deployed from heavy lift helicopters, tilt rotors and ski equipped LC-130s. The Navy was experimenting with rapidly deploying Marines and Navy ASW forces, primarily helicopters with dipping sonar, to expeditionary ice bases during the Cold War to hunt for Soviet boomers. Icebreakers are just too slow and vulnerable to be credible combat ships. You can achieve the presence and law enforcement value from a commercial design for peacetime use, but when actual shooting starts those icebreakers are going to head for the nearest safe harbor. They have no combat value.