Allan said the United States had not built a heavy icebreaker in almost 50 years. Expertise in the design and construction of the ships has to be rebuilt. Just as several Navy programs for carriers, submarines, frigates and other ships are behind schedule and over budget, the Coast Guard faces the same challenges of too many vessels vying for work at too few shipyards short of experienced workers.
There are ways to get icebreakers faster. You just have to want them really hard.
So far there does not seem to be any real hurry.
2 Likes
The USCG (like the rest of the US Government) is not a competent âownerâ that knows how to build anything, much less an icebreaker, on time and on budget.
The USCG icebreaker program is so bad that it actually makes the US Navy shipbuilding programs look semi-competent.
I hope that the new Department of Government Efficiency completely guts, reorganizes and rebuilds the USCG.
You mean like buying second hand, or building foreign icebreaker(s)?
That will NEVER happen. It would mean for far less âporkâ all around,
Oh sorry, that could be seen as anti-American.
Well, I can always blaming on English being a second language
1 Like
For starters, we can forget the second-hand market. Nothingâs available.
We can also forget building outside of the US. Itâs just not happening.
Start by condensing your 700-page requirements specification down to ten pages. Or ten bullet points. Focus on what you need.
Aim for perfect but accept good enough if you can get it faster. Be ready to make reasonable compromises. Accept that there will always be some unknowns, some risks. Trust that things will work out. They always do.
Forget large committees. Form a small team from people who know what they are doing and give them enough firepower to get the job done.
Get a good designer, one who knows how to develop an icebreaker that works from scratch. Forget adapting an existing parent design. No-one has what you need.
Get a good builder, one who can start from building the ship rather than building the shipyard. You already have them in the US. Make them co-operate with the designer early on so that the design matches their production capability. Forget exotic materials.
Require milspec only where absolutely necessary â comms, guns, etc. Accept high commercial standard elsewhere, especially if it has already been proven to work on other non-military icebreakers. We are not building a first-line combatant here.
The list goes on.
I know thatâs not how US government shipbuilding works, but we have already tried that and so far it has failed to deliver.
5 Likes
However, recent progress at Bollinger appears to set the program up for more streamlined processes ahead.
Maybe the House hearing was the kick that was needed.
Bollinger for an icebreaker???
What could possibly go wrong?
As stated in last weekâs hearing, the construction has now been approved.
In a sane world weâd just build these vessels in NATO allies Finland. Would guarantee hulls in the water in 2-3 years and at a significant discount. But this is American Maritime where foreign construction is anathema, so we get bloated budgets and myriad delays â all in the name of national security, of course.
To illustrate how extreme the US position is, consider that even the freakinâ Soviet Union had no problem buying from Finland: https://www.nytimes.com/1976/02/21/archives/icebreakers-cut-a-path-for-finnish-trade.html
Given their experience, the Finns say they could build an icebreaker for half what it would cost the Americans. The United States Coast Guard has opposed such purchases on grounds that the Finnish ships do not meet certain safety provisions. In reply, Wartsila has offered to install whatever American â made equipment the Coast Guard stipulates.
The American Ambassador to Finland, Mark E. Austed, has also been trying to persuade Congress to finance the purchase of Finnish icebreakers. Mr. Austed estimated that the Great Lakes freeze affects 60,000 American jobs, resulting in a wage loss of $1.8 million a day. âIn three months, youâve paid for a Finnish icebreaker,â the Ambassador said.
The Soviet Union, also dependent on iceâfree ports, has displayed no such reluctance. The Russians have their own icebreakers. like the nuclearâpowered Lenin. but they have expanded their fleet with Finnish ships, the largest now being the 443â foot polar icebreaker Yermak.
âThe Russians long ago understood that they have to do something about the Arctic regions,â said Wartsilaâs president. Tankmar Horn. âTheir policy is reflected in our order book. They have evidently had good experience with our icebreakers, because they come back time after time.â
1 Like
Order in Finland. Special Offer this week ONLY!!
Order 3, pay for two!!:
On time delivery guaranteed!!:
In 1977, the US senate actually approved a plan to buy an icebreaker from Finland. However, the Finnish shipyard was forced to withdraw its bid when they found out that they had not included the added cost of military-grade systems into their bid.
1 Like
Interesting! Do you have a link?
Unfortunately itâs in a book and all the sources are offline as well.
Man, bummer. Thanks.
Just wondering if another country could build a âheavyâ breaker? I understand the ânewâ Storis is only good for 5-6 feet of ice. When you get far enough north, that wonât do the job. Also, a breaker will be needed for Operation Deepfreeze, where unless things have changed, you are talking 12-15 feet of ice. And the breaker has to be a âlong-rangeâ ship, not something that has to hit port every week or two.
Why would anyone assume that the USCGâs lack of competence is limited to building icebreakers.
With a few exceptions (such as helicopter SAR), the USCG is incompetent at everything it does.
The USCG cannot run a USCG Academy that is not rife with sexual harassment and sexual assault.
The USCG Vessel Inspection program is inadequate.
The USCGâs licensing system is dysfunctional and a failure.
The Trump Administration and Congress really need to clean house at the USCG.
1 Like
SEE HERE!!!
VARD may be a contender for bid to both design and build heavy icebreakers at reasonable price.
They may also guarantee to deliver on time and at budget:
2 Likes
Your New Year wishes appears to come true:
Well, maybe you should wait a few new years before opening the champagne;
3 Likes
Pick one good US Shipyard (e.g. Bath Iron Works) and task them will learning how to build icebreakers in Finland.
Build a series of three new icebreakers in Finland starting immediately, for completion of all three within 5 years.
Convert the icebreaker contract with Bollinger into building some other government vessels of similar cost that Bollinger already knows how to build. Letâs face it, no American shipyard currently knows how to build an icebreaker.
After the first three icebreakers are delivered from Finland, and proven in use, have the American yard that learned how to build them in Finland start building three more in the US.
Icebreakers are one instance where the US Government should waive Buy American requirements to buy a quality foreign vessel built at reasonable cost within a reasonable timeframe.
2 Likes
There are certainly shipyards in the US that already have the capability to build a heavy polar icebreaker. Philly, for example, especially now that they are owned by Hanwha who have previously co-operated with the Finns in their icebreaking ship projects.
Itâs certainly possible to do some kind of âtechnology transferâ between a Finnish and a US shipyard. The first ship is built mostly in Finland, the second ship has more US content, the third ship is already built mostly in the US, and so on. USCG would get its much-needed icebreakers faster and the US shipyard would gradually build up its production capability and workforce.
Alternatively, you could just accept the fact that it does not make sense to build such niche ships in the US when the naval shipbuilding programs are also falling behind schedule. Focus on your core strengths and let your allies help where they can. After all, they are already buying a shitload of US military hardware.
4 Likes