But I thought all the ice was melting!? Will we even need icebreakers in 2020? :rolleyes:
Dont worry, Obama will forget all about it once hes back in washington.
[QUOTE=Jeffrox;168151]But I thought all the ice was melting!? Will we even need icebreakers in 2020? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
sigh
Previously, there was so much ice that the possibilities for profitable commercial activity in the polar regions were limited. Now that the polar ice pack has been receding like an old man’s hairline, things have changed and there is a renewed interest in the Arctic and its resources. However, there will still be ice for a long time, perhaps always, and for that reason icebreakers are still needed. One could even say that due to the increasing activity in the Arctic seas, the current ageing icebreaker fleet won’t be enough, so we need more icebreakers than ever. Of course, oil companies and such should invest to their own icebreaking vessels if their normal operations require them, but the USCG should also be present with their own vessels for occasional SAR missions and whatever other tasks they have. The government-owned icebreaker could also be used to support other types of missions such as scientific work.
edit: I’m not sure if the same applies to the Arctic regions, but in the Baltic Sea the climate change is expected to cause difficulties for shipping. Instead of uniform ice cover which is relatively easy to traverse, the sea ice will be more broken and the winds will push the drifting ice against the shorelines, creating vast ridge fields that are difficult to penetrate even for specialized escort icebreakers. Perhaps similar development could be seen in the Great Lakes which is in many ways similar to the Baltic Sea.
Statement by U.S. Coast Guard Commandant, Adm. Paul Zukunft on Proposed Acceleration for Acquisition of U.S. Coast Guard Icebreakers
“The President’s announcement demonstrates that the United States is an Arctic nation and affirms the Coast Guard’s role in providing assured access to the Polar Regions. We look forward to working with the Administration, Congress and the many other Arctic stakeholders to ensure these platforms meet our national security objectives well into the 21st century.”
-End statement-
Background:
The Coast Guard has been the sole operator and custodian of the nation’s polar icebreaking capability since 1965, providing assured access in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions. National Arctic Region policy emphasizes the importance of the Arctic and the broad interests our nation has in the region and our icebreakers are a key component of our strategy there. The Coast Guard utilizes U.S. Coast Guard Cutters Healy and Polar Star to meet present day icebreaking needs in the Arctic and Antarctic.
The missions of U.S. polar icebreakers are to conduct and support scientific research in the Arctic and Antarctic; defend U.S. sovereignty in the Arctic by helping to maintain a U.S. presence in U.S. territorial waters in the region; defend other U.S. interests in polar regions, including economic interests in waters that are within the U.S. exclusive economic zone (EEZ) north of Alaska; monitor sea traffic in the Arctic, including ships bound for the United States; conduct other typical Coast Guard missions (such as search and rescue, law enforcement, and protection of marine resources) in Arctic waters, including U.S. territorial waters north of Alaska.
For the full White House Fact Sheet: President Obama Announces New Investments to Enhance Safety and Security in the Changing Arctic, go to https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/09/01/fact-sheet-president-obama-announces-new-investments-enhance-safety-and
Finland wants in on US icebreaker investment: http://www.adn.com/article/20150908/finland-wants-us-icebreaker-investment
[QUOTE=Drill Bill;168413]Finland wants in on US icebreaker investment: http://www.adn.com/article/20150908/finland-wants-us-icebreaker-investment[/QUOTE]
One way or another, the Finns will be involved, but I seriously doubt the icebreaker will be built in anywhere but the US regardless of the cost.
[QUOTE=Drill Bill;168413]Finland wants in on US icebreaker investment: http://www.adn.com/article/20150908/finland-wants-us-icebreaker-investment[/QUOTE]
Interesting article, however that U.S. at 10 times the cost vs Finn seems suspect. What are they comparing?
For one the design and capiblities difference between a military, USCG Polar class and a commercial polar class work vessel appear to be far different, the cost of a one-off is going to be higher than if development and design cost are spread over several vessels.
The latest Finnish icebreaker with ice class [I]Polar Class 4 Icebreaker(+)[/I], three Azipod propulsion units and a 30,000 hp dual-fuel (LSMDO and LNG) power plant was estimated to cost about $140 million to design and build in Finland, and is expected to take three years from start of design to delivery. In terms of size, it’s about the same as Aiviq which cost about $200 million, but has slightly more propulsion power. Of course, both are commercial icebreakers.
Some years ago, I had a chat with a guy from Arctech. He said that they could probably build a high-end polar icebreaker for $300-400 million.
As for the cost of the new US icebreaker, now that everyone has been talking about $1 billion for yeasr, why would any American shipyard ask for less?
edit: I’m not familiar with military spec vessels, so could someone explain why they can be so much more expensive.
[QUOTE=Tups;168422]The latest Finnish icebreaker with ice class [I]Polar Class 4 Icebreaker(+)[/I], three Azipod propulsion units and a 30,000 hp dual-fuel (LSMDO and LNG) power plant was estimated to cost about $140 million to design and build in Finland, and is expected to take three years from start of design to delivery. In terms of size, it’s about the same as Aiviq which cost about $200 million, but has slightly more propulsion power. Of course, both are commercial icebreakers.
Some years ago, I had a chat with a guy from Arctech. He said that they could probably build a high-end polar icebreaker for $300-400 million.
As for the cost of the new US icebreaker, now that everyone has been talking about $1 billion for yeasr, why would any American shipyard ask for less?
edit: I’m not familiar with military spec vessels, so could someone explain why they can be so much more expensive.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think the ten times the cost claim is going to hold up. I’ve managed right here to drop it from ten times the cost to two and a half times the cost just by asking the question.
As far as an explanation for whatever differance I’d like to see one as well. I don’t know much about these vessels but I don’t think it’s just “millitary specs”. For example it looks to me like the Finn ships have a helo deck but the Polar class vessels claim the ability to shelter two helicopters, the CG has labs, support for research etc. All this stuff adds up. It’s like comparing the base price of a car with no options to one that’s “fully loaded”.
I agree that you won’t get ten icebreakers from Finland for the price of one ship built in the US, but you could probably get two or three. While the Finnish shipyards have not built large polar icebreakers since the late 1980s ([I]Taymyr[/I] and [I]Vaygach[/I]), it probably wouldn’t take ten years to build one now.
While it’s true that you can spend a fortune on optional extras, remember that we are not talking about a warship with cutting-edge sensor arrays and guided missile systems. I don’t claim to be a specialist in determining the price of an icebreaker, but as far as I know, the driving factors are the size of the ship and its power plant. I don’t know how much a complete helicopter facility or a full set of dry and wet laboratories would cost, but pretty much every polar research vessel currently in service or on the drawing boards have them, so they can’t be too expensive.
[QUOTE=Tups;168429]I agree that you won’t get ten icebreakers from Finland for the price of one ship built in the US, but you could probably get two or three. While the Finnish shipyards have not built large polar icebreakers since the late 1980s ([I]Taymyr[/I] and [I]Vaygach[/I]), it probably wouldn’t take ten years to build one now.
While it’s true that you can spend a fortune on optional extras, remember that we are not talking about a warship with cutting-edge sensor arrays and guided missile systems. I don’t claim to be a specialist in determining the price of an icebreaker, but as far as I know, the driving factors are the size of the ship and its power plant. I don’t know how much a complete helicopter facility or a full set of dry and wet laboratories would cost, but pretty much every polar research vessel currently in service or on the drawing boards have them, so they can’t be too expensive.[/QUOTE]
You are far more knowledgable about this then I am but to me the stuff I’m seeing on the intertubes is not apples to apples. Do you know what the Taymyr cost and how it compares to the USCG Polar Sea?
EDIT I see that it was built by the Soviets and is nuclear-powered, so difficult to compare.
Looks like the Polar class ships cost the CG about 65 million in 1971. That is about 400 million in todays dollars. If those numbers are right then 1000 million does seem high.
Taymyr and Vaygach were the only nuclear-powered icebreakers designed and built outside Russia. Only the reactors were installed later in St. Petersburg.
But yeah, it’s already difficult to compare ships that were built decades ago and about a decade apart, but comparing nuclear and non-nuclear icebreakers without detailed information is next to impossible. However, the first LK-60 -type nuclear-powered icebreaker currently under construction in Russia is predicted to cost around $1.2-1.6 billion.
Brit icebreaker. This article is from April, 2014. The USCG Polar Class vessel specs are 3 kts in 1.8 meter ice. Not sure if that’s the salient spec to focus on.
The £200m investment in an icebreaker was announced by Chancellor George Osborne in a speech in Cambridge.
The ship is likely to be 130m long and sport a helipad, cranes, onboard labs, and have the ability to deploy subs and other ocean survey and sampling gear.
It should be ready to enter service in 2019, and will support scientists in both the Antarctic and the Arctic.
The strength of its hull will allow it to push deeper into pack ice than any previous British research vessel.
George Osborne has committed an inflation-linked £1.1bn per year to be spent on science infrastructure through to 2020-21. A consultation with the science community will now determine where that money will go.
The chancellor listed some disciplines that could benefit - from the search for dark matter to fusion energy, from phenomics to robotics. But it wasn’t for government to choose, he said: “It’s over to you. The government is committing a historic £7bn to science investment. We’re asking you, the science community, and the business community too, how best to invest that funding, how to maintain excellence and where are the new opportunities that will put Britain ahead in the global race?”
The consultation will report back in the autumn.
Initial technical specifications require the ship to be able to maintain a speed of three knots while breaking through 2m-thick floes.
[QUOTE=Kennebec Captain;168462]Brit icebreaker.[/QUOTE]
According to the publicity poster, the required icebreaking capability is “up to 1 m thick at 3 knots”. It looks like they sold a Mustang to the taxpayers, but decided to go for an Anglia instead.
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/whatwedo/engage/consultations/nprv/nprv-poster/
The general arrangement for the concept design can be found here:
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/whatwedo/engage/consultations/nprv/nprv-concept/
I particularly like the fitness center that has a sauna and a changing room, but no showers…
The blogpost from the Healy yesterday on them reaching the North Pole talks about challenges on ice thickness and speeds: United States Coast Guard (USCG) - Pacific Area
[I]HEALY encountered the thickest ice during the 200 mile transit between 82ᵒ and 85ᵒN. It was up to ten feet thick, and demanded three engines and careful ice piloting by the bridge team to keep the ship safe and transiting in the right direction. From time to time, the ice became so thick we were stopped dead in our tracks and needed to back up several hundred yards to give ourselves room to pick up speed and ram into the ice to break it.
…
Though this area of thicker ice slowed us to 3 knots, we daily progressed toward the pole.[/I]
This article (PDF) is intresting: DESIGN OF ICE BREAKING SHIPS
Some photos showing the Fennica’s Z-drives and a discussion of their usefulness in improving maneuvering and flushing ice away. I wonder about their vulnerability compared to a more convential set-up and also if a similar design would be used on a ship the size and power of the Polar Sea.
Instead of Z-drives, I would probably recommend Azipod-type propulsion units for a high ice class polar icebreaker as they have less moving parts and better track record. ABB is committed to designing and producing them up to the highest ice class currently defined by the IACS, “Polar Class 1”.
As I mentioned before, the Russians are now building two icebreakers with three Azipod units - two in the stern and one in the bow - that are capable of breaking up to 2-metre level ice both ahead and astern in the Gulf of Ob where the ice is extremely hard. Their ice class, “RMRS Icebreaker8”, requires that they must also be capable of operating in the presence of 3-meter thick floes. Of course, if you turn the bow unit sideways and accelerate into a highly consolidated multi-year ridge, you can expect to limp home with a damaged unit (if you’re lucky), but that’s something you’re just not supposed to do…
Anyway, for the new U.S. polar icebreaker, I would definitely recommend adopting azimuth technology in one way or another as the advantages in ice have been proven time and again during the past decades. As for durability and vulnerability, the Russians have a fleet of icebreaking cargo ships that operate independently year-round in the Northern Sea Route. Some of them (the Norilskiy Nickel series) are fitted with just one Azipod unit and they have never failed. Now they have six oil tankers and sixteen LNG tankers with independent icebreaking capability of 1.5-2.1 meters under construction or on order. And in any case, a polar icebreaker is not expected to tackle the hardest multi-year ice floes in astern direction.
As for the layout, since the USCG probably wants three shafts and ice class Azipods are limited to 15 MW, I would probably recommend a hybrid arrangement with one shaftline and two azimuth thrusters like in the LK-25:
Of course, it would probably be possible to design a heavy icebreaker which would fulfill all the icebreaking needs with just two 15 MW units, but then you would lose to the Canadians who have 34 MW…
edit: By the way, I remember the author of that paper from the university where he was teaching a course about offshore structures. I got an A from him. 
Here’s something you might find interesting:
[I]“Status and foreseeable evolution of the European and International Polar Research Fleets & Equipment”[/I]
Note chapter 4.2.3. The proposed next generation German polar research vessel looks pretty badass (but not very modern).
[QUOTE=Tups;168538]Here’s something you might find interesting:
[I]“Status and foreseeable evolution of the European and International Polar Research Fleets & Equipment”[/I]
Note chapter 4.2.3. The proposed next generation German polar research vessel looks pretty badass (but not very modern).[/QUOTE]
Good overview, very interesting.
At this point modernizing the U.S. fleet is a problem with a lot of moving pieces. Something should have been in the pipeline years ago.
The Navy turned the job over to the CG and the CG managed to build a few nice icebreakers but have since taken their eyes off the ball. The U.S.C.G. does several things very well, maritime aviaiton, law enforcement, SAR and so forth but when it comes to maintaining the U.S. presence in the polar regions, at this point is doesn’t look like they are up for the job. How do you say “sometimes ready” in Latin.
on a slightly different note, I picked up this news only over the weekend. A bit surprising to read the Dutch are going to assist the Russians.
Rosneft to Get Dutch Icebreakers, Vessels for Arctic Exploration
The company is also providing technology and engineering services for the Zvezda facility in Russia’s Far East, which repairs the submarines in the country’s Pacific Fleet.
VLADIVOSTOK, Alexander Mosesov (Sputnik) – The Dutch shipbuilding giant Damen Shipyards Group will work with the Russian oil company Rosneft, supplying it with icebreaking and offshore construction vessels for the Arctic region, CEO Rene Berkvens told Sputnik on Friday.
“The number of ships is still to be determined but the types of vessels are the typical ones that are needed for exploration, production in the fields that Rosneft is targeting including the Arctic, which means highly sophisticated, complex icebreaking supply vessels, anchor-handling vessels, offshore construction vessels,” Berkvens told Sputnik on the sidelines of the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF).
The company is also providing technology and engineering services for the Zvezda facility in Russia’s Far East, which repairs the submarines in the country’s Pacific Fleet.
The CEO added that Damen Shipyards would be happy to discuss further cooperation with Russian companies.
Rosneft, the leader in Russia’s petroleum industry, is the world’s largest publicly traded oil company. The company operates in every hydrocarbon-rich territory in Russia, including the Far East and the Russian continental shelf, specifically in the Arctic region.
Rosneft is one of the two Russian companies that have been granted licenses to explore the nation’s Arctic shelf.
Rosneft to Get Dutch Icebreakers, Vessels for Arctic Exploration - 04.09.2015, Sputnik International