I think this one meets all the criteria to be classified as an icebreaker:
The French cruise ship LE COMMANDANT CHARCOT arriving at Lyttelton NZ on February 4 from Ushuaia via Antarctica.
Photo: Nick Tolerton (c)
I think this one meets all the criteria to be classified as an icebreaker:
RV Araon, blt 2009 is already too old and too “weak”. She will be replaced with a larger and more powerful icebreaker:
Another icebreaking ship; CCGS Captain Molly Kool:
She is the ex Vidar Viking, one of three icebreaking AHTSs bought from Viking Supply Ships in 2018
Not only USCG looking at buying existing commercial icebreakers:
Source: Sjöfartstidningen - Sjöfartsverket vill köpa begagnad isbrytare
Not EVERYTHING is getting more expensive:
The price tag for new (Swedish) icebreakers looks set to be lower than the two billion per ship previously announced. Instead, it could be about (SEK) 1.4 billion per ship. It is clear after the Swedish Maritime Administration received a first report from Aker Arctic.
Source: Sjöfartstidningen - Nya isbrytarna blir billigare än beräknat
…or going according to plans; the new icebreakers will be delayed as no valid tenders were received.
Who said it was going to be easy to build ships for arctic patrols?:
And to think once the design office would build a wooden scale model of the cable locker and hawse pipe arrangement to confirm the design. Maybe it will get better when the nerd at the computer is replaced with A1.
Not sure how that would solve the identified issues. Isn’t the scale model used to confirm that the anchor and chain stow properly whereas the problems are related to holding power and flooding of the enclosed mooring deck through the hawsepipe?
I’m kind of tired of reading complains about the 1-metre icebreaking capability. If those are “slushbreakers”, so are the CCG medium icebreakers…
Nobody said this was classed as a heavy Icebreaker. Classified as “Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS)”
There are apparently a lot more than the lack of a cover at the hawsepipes:

That is wrong with these ships.
Yeah, the location of the anchor pockets and the alignment of the hawse pipes turns the forward mooring deck to a swimming pool in heavy seas.
As for their classification, I know they are not supposed to be icebreakers. I was referring to this part in the article:
In 2017, the Senate Defence Committee raised concerns about the capabilities of the AOPS. “This (concern) is based on the fact that these ships cannot operate in ice more than a metre thick, are slower than a BC Ferry, can only operate in the Arctic from June to October and will require a Coast Guard escort when in the northern waters,” the senators pointed out in their report. “These limitations are troubling and raise the question of whether the taxpayers are receiving value for the monies spent.”
Sure, they could have been designed to break 2-metre ice, but they would have been quite different-looking ships then…
My comments were aimed at the inability of some naval architects to design a self stowing cable locker on some of the vessels I have sailed in.
Thanks for the clarification.
My deck outfitting engineer keeps complaining I don’t reserve enough vertical space for the chain lockers…
As a very young OS I vividly remember having to crawl into the chain locker to fake chain as it came aboard. ( large ocean tug) I hated that job. I had to do it right though as it would foul and ball up if not done right.
Canadian light and medium icebreaker programs take a step forward:
2 weeks Until I go on Le Commandant Charcot To East Greenland. At least it has a swimming pool on the outside deck. Looks a lot nicer than the old Russian icebreakers.
I, for one, would be happy to hear what you think of it once you’re back.