I don’t recall Damen ever designing an icebreaker on their own. The only icebreaking vessel concept they have published was the one done in co-operation with university students:
However, as experienced shipbuilders they have a lot to give in the field of shipyard technology and engineering.
ironically, today I discovered NBC News has picked up on this story
[B]Meltdown: Where Is the U.S. in the Race for the Arctic?[/B]
by Cynthia McFadden and Jake Whitman
ABOARD THE COAST GUARD CUTTER ALEX HALEY — In the vast Arctic, melting ice caused by global warming is bringing new opportunities, and new problems, to a region that could be the next front in a very cold war — a battle that some say America is losing to the Russians.
It’s the Coast Guard’s job to navigate these turbulent waters — no easy task with an aging fleet stationed off the southern coast of Alaska and tight purse strings nearly 5,000 miles away in Washington, D.C.
The cutter Alex Haley recently made the long trip from the Gulf of Alaska to the Chukchi sea for a 60-day safety and security mission dubbed “Arctic Shield” — and invited NBC News along for part of the patrol.
The painstakingly maintained 44-year-old vessel, nicknamed the “Bulldog of the Bering,” has an old-fashioned brass steering wheel and engines named after famous spirits like Jack Daniels and Johnny Walker.
“A lot of these old engines are like these bottles of liquor,” Lt. Adam Smude explained. "They can be fun and they can be exciting. But they can also cause a lot of headaches.
There are other headaches on the horizon of what retired Adm. Robert Papp, the U.S.’ top man in the Arctic, calls “one of the last frontiers left in the world.”
Rising temperatures have brought more sea traffic to the northern quarters of the planet - along with warnings that nearly 150 years after the United States purchased Alaska from the Russians, it’s fallen behind in the race to dominate the Arctic.
Dozens of commercial ships now traverse the Northwest Passage connecting the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Using the route, which skirts the top of Alaska and Canada, is estimated to be 30 percent cheaper than hauling goods via the Panama Canal.
Next summer, a U.S.-flagged cruise ship, the Crystal Serenity, plans to take more than 1,000 passengers through the passage, which not long ago was considered too treacherous because of nearly year-round ice pack.
““The Arctic is the Mideast of this century.””
The big melt has also made the natural treasures — oil, gas and fish that were frosted over for centuries - newly accessible to the eight countries with territory in the Arctic.
“In the near future, you might find U.S. troops up in Alaska because of security reasons,” said Bob Reiss, who wrote a book on the changing Arctic, “The Eskimo and the Oil Man.”
“The consumer goods that we buy, even on the East Coast, if they end up coming over the top of Alaska through the Northwest Passage, will get cheaper. Our energy might be coming from the Arctic. Our conflicts with Russia might be exacerbated because of the Arctic. Our rivalry with China will certainly heat up in the Arctic.”
The Arctic, he says bluntly, “is the Mideast of this century.”
The U.S. is currently chair of the intergovernmental Arctic Council, and President Barack Obama just became the first commander-in-chief in history to visit the area - but many experts and some government officials think the region isn’t getting the attention and money it deserves.
“We are clearly behind in the Arctic and it’s something that needs to be addressed,” said Papp, who ran the Coast Guard from 2010 to 2014 and now serves as the U.S. special representative to the Arctic Council.
Reiss puts it in even starker terms: “A Coast Guard admiral told me a couple of years ago, if this was a ballgame, the U.S. wouldn’t be in the fields. We wouldn’t be in the stands. We wouldn’t be in the parking lot. We are last.”
Bucking to be first is Russia, which beefed up its military presence in the north, especially after the conflict in Ukraine and its annexation of Crimea. It’s building search-and-rescue stations, rehabbing airports and missile sensors, and staged military exercises to protect its burgeoning oil fields just weeks ago.
“The Russian military has identified the Arctic as a probable place for war in the coming century over resources. Vladimir Putin has called the Bering Strait the next Suez Canal,” Reiss said. “They had immense war games in May. And when the Russians have a war game, well, who’s the opponent? The opponent is NATO, so the opponent is us.”
Russia has 41 icebreakers, some nuclear-powered, to help it get around. The United States only has two aging icebreakers, and just one of them, the Polar Star, is assigned to the Arctic.
New icebreakers cost about $1 billion and take 10 years to build, so unless funding is approved very soon, the U.S. could find itself falling even further behind.
Two weeks ago, Obama called for an accelerated building plan, but that has to be approved by lawmakers. And as Papp notes, if the Polar Star were to break down in the ice today, there would be no way to rescue it.
The U.S. also doesn’t have a deep-water port in the Arctic, so the Alex Haley and its sister ships have to operate out of Kodiak. Earlier this year, the Army Corps of Engineers tentatively approved a plan to build out the Port of Nome. That’s 650 miles to the north of Kodiak, but well south of the Bering Strait, the Pacific gateway to the Arctic.
The commander of NORAD has cautioned that the sensors installed in the Arctic during the Cold War will be obsolete in 10 years. He’s pushing for Canada to install new ones that could track shorter-range cruise missiles, but there is no timetable yet.
Then there’s the underwater land grab. Other members of the Arctic Council have put in claims to extend their continental shelf and expand the amount of seabed they can explore and exploit for natural resources. Russia’s application is the size of France and Spain combined.
The U.S. slice of the ocean floor could be twice the size of California, but it can’t even make a bid because it has not ratified the Law of the Sea Treaty, which has been held up by Senate Republicans even though the Bush and Obama administration, the oil companies and environmentalists all support signing it.
Papp says it’s “embarrassing to me to see that we are not a part of that treaty, where every other major maritime country in the world has signed on to it and is using it as a tool, as a venue to peacefully resolve issues that are happening at sea.”
As Reiss sees it, the problem is in part one of classroom geography. Alaska’s width could cover the mainland from California to North Carolina, but on many maps it shows up as a tiny inset.
“It looks like a flea. It looks smaller than Rhode Island,” he said.
Papp says he knows that one of his jobs as chair of the Arctic Council is to convince the public that the sparsely populated, mysterious frontier at the top of the world is as important as the Lower 48.
“The maritime routes of the world are changing,” he told NBC News. “The focus on the rest of the world is on the Arctic. And we really need to focus the people of the United States on these new challenges.”
After all, he added, “we are a people that have always risen to a challenge.”
but “a U.S.-flagged cruise ship, the Crystal Serenity”? I DON’T THINK SO!
While the US is still thinking about building one new icebreaker, the Russians send their newest one out for sea trials:
all this nonsense about $1B and 10years to build a new heavy icebreaker in the US is misinformation planted by Northrup Grumman and Lockheed Martin to insure they make mega profits when awarded a contract to build one. The ground is already salted now to make sure that everyone in Washingtoon believes that no new breaker can be built in the US for less. Of course, a non nuke heavy icebreaker does not need 10 years or $1B to be built here. I say it can be done in 5 years and $600M if existing designs are adopted.
Frankly, is the Finns want in on this, they should set up a US operation at the old Avondale Shipyard and become bidders when these new ships are put out for bidding. Bring their knowledge to the US and everyone profits plus the taxpayers save! Maybe the Finns can team up with Mister Gary? Afterall, he is a master at winning goobermint contracts and building icebreakers!
[QUOTE=Tups;168818]While the US is still thinking about building one new icebreaker, the Russians send their newest one out for sea trials:[/QUOTE]
that is the vessel the AIVIQ should have been! What was its final delivered cost Tups? How many years did it take to build?
Current budget for the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker is now 1 B USD and it’s Polar Class 2.
The term “Polar Class” means one thing when used by class societies but to the USCG it refers to the class of ships Polar Sea and Polar Star.
Kennebec Captain, I have no idea what has pushed Diefenbreaker’s price tag to ten figures.
[QUOTE=c.captain;168821]that is the vessel the AIVIQ should have been! What was its final delivered cost Tups? How many years did it take to build?[/QUOTE]
I don’t know how much the icebreakers built in Russia cost, but the contract price for a sister ship that is currently under construction in Finland was about $112 million at today’s EUR-USD exchange rate, so I’d guess it’s around $100 million considering lower labor costs across the border. Of course, that might not be how much it [I]actually[/I] cost for the shipyard, but who knows…
Anyway, first steel for Vladivostok was cut in August 2012, so it took about three years to build the icebreaker. It may sound a long time if compared to how quickly Arctech is putting ships together, but remember that it’s the first icebreaker Vyborg Shipyard has built from start to finish based on Russian design. The total construction time for the second vessel of the series is a bit less, but it’s been delayed due to financing issues.
I’m not sure how this ship compares to Aiviq. Sure, it’s a better icebreaker than what Edison Chouest is building at the moment, but I’m not that sure about anchor handling jobs. It’s designed for a different purpose, escorting ships in the Baltic Sea. Despite being the newest, it’s not the best and most modern icebreaker design out there either, but it will probably do its job.
As for co-operation between the Finns and the Americans, it worked with Healy and Mackinaw, so I don’t see any reason why it wouldn’t work with the new heavy icebreaker as well.
I’ve no idea why the cost are what they are but if the Coast Guard needs a U.S. built, heavy-icebreaker to support its missions at both poles than it’s going to have to bite the bullet and build it. If people claim they can build ten ships or a hundred somewhere else for the same price it really doesn’t matter.
It’s always been surprising how this discussion has been ongoing for years and still they (the congress?) just can’t cough up some additional funding for the Coast Guard. They have received some money for preliminary studies and those of course take some time, but if money was already allocated for the construction of a new polar icebreaker, those studies could probably be accelerated…
When the USCG was transferred from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security that cost many billions, and shifted the USCG focus from its traditional marine transportation related activities like ice breaking, to mostly wasteful and unnecessary pseudo Homeland Security tasks.
The vast new Homeland Security Industial Complex has become a huge cash cow for politically connected corporate contractors that has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars. In this era of huge budget deficits, this has sucked all the money out of many worthwhile programs, such as ice breaking.
The Russians can’t have enough of them apparently
Well, if you’re already building three, why not make it five to benefit from serial production? That’s what they did with the Moskva-class polar icebreakers in the 50s and 60s - first ordered three, then two more of the same design few years later. Also, they have to replace four (older) Arktika-class and two Taymyr-class shallow-draft nuclear-powered icebreakers with the new dual-draft design, so they need more than three anyway.
for those who like some reading
Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress (PDF) - http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34391.pdf
Today’s icebreaker news from Russia (all translations with Google Translate):
Krylov State Research Center has completed the preliminary design of a new Russian nuclear superledokola that can provide year-round work in the high latitudes in the Arctic.
This was announced by Chief of the design of vessels fishing, transport and research center Vladimir Krylov Navy Shlyachkov.
Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said that the draft of the domestic high-powered nuclear-powered icebreaker, which will consolidate the leadership of Russia in the Arctic will be created before the end of this year.
“The preliminary draft of the icebreaker is made. Now the issue TEHPROEKT development”, - said Shlyachkov at a roundtable at the conference on energy RAO / CIS Offshore-2015.
The icebreaker, named “Leader”, will allow year-round, regardless of the weather, in the Arctic, not only in the Northern Sea Route, but also on the high-road.
Icebreaker capacity will be 120 megawatts. Its length - more than 200 meters and about 50 meters wide. Draft - 13 meters. He is able to break the ice thickness greater than 4 meters. The ship will be able to provide the navigation of ships with deadweight of 100 thousand tons and a width of 44-50 meters from the body Desire Cape to the Bering Strait at a speed of 10 knots.
Krylovskiy Center developed the project “Leader” jointly with specialists CDB “Iceberg” and the company “Rosatom” FSUE “Atomflot”, RIA Novosti reported.
That would be about the same size as the Polar Class 3 module carriers currently under construction in China:
http://www.heavyliftpfi.com/news/first-of-zpmc-red-box-module-carriers-leaves-drydock.html
September 12, 2015 began the factory sea trials brain diesel-electric icebreaker project 21900M (LK-16) “Vladivostok”, built at the JSC “Vyborg Shipyard” (included in the composition of the JSC “United Shipbuilding Corporation” - USC) at the request of the Federal Agency of Sea and River Transport of Russia.
The contract to build three icebreakers Project 21900M (LK-16) with a total value of 12.5 billion rubles was signed by the Federal Agency of Maritime and River Transport of Russia with USC December 2, 2011, the customer-developer in favor of “Rosmorport”. The general contractor for the construction of all three icebreakers serves JSC “Vyborg Shipyard”, which itself is building two icebreakers completely, and the third - in cooperation with the Finnish shipyard Arctech Helsinki Shipyard (100% owned by the USC). It should be noted that the construction of a series of icebreakers this project is the Vyborg plant is actually a loss and the plant regularly requires additional funding of construction.
Head icebreaker “Vladivostok” (building number 230) was laid in Vyborg October 17, 2012, and lowered it into the water April 29, 2014. Under the contract, the icebreaker should have been delivered to the customer by May 9, 2015, however, because of these problems with the financing of the construction, completion of the ship was carried out with a lag, and, apparently, the icebreaker will be handed over only to the end of the year.
edit:
Meanwhile in Russia, even more icebreakers are planned:
FSUE “Rosmorport” submit a proposal to extend the series of icebreakers capacity of 25 MW, as well as icebreakers Project 21900M. This was during the organized IAA “IAA” international conference “Modern port fleet - the basis of security,” said the head of the development and construction of the fleet of the FSUE “Rosmorport” Vladimir Shtrambrand.
In addition, the company offers to the construction of 4 shallow-draft icebreaker of a new project, which, in particular, could work in the ports of Vyborg and Vysotsk and auxiliary icebreaker capacity of 13-14 MW of gas-fired and diesel.
For the record, “Project 21900M” refers to that blue-and-yellow icebreaker I posted earlier in this thread. However, it remains unclear whether “extend the series of icebreakers capacity of 25 MW” refers to building more LK-25 type icebreakers, or just lengthening the one already at the building slip in order to make it float…
Here’s (finally) a broschure for the new Russian icebreakers:
http://akerarctic.fi/sites/default/files/reference/fields/field_attachments/aker_arc_130_130a.pdf
I know this is getting a bit off-topic, but I just like pointing out time after another how Russia is building more icebreakers of latest designs whereas on the other side of the Atlantic ocean… well, there’s Aiviq.
edit:
-2.jpg)
(source: http://flotprom.ru/2015/Всз3/)
No that Obama has killed off Arctic drilling without outright banning it, he will forget all about building any icebreakers. Next, Obama will probably sign an Executive Order declaring the entire Arctic a Marine Sanctuary.
The Russians are catching up with the Americans when it comes to time needed to build icebreakers:
http://en.portnews.ru/news/207465/
That ship was supposed to be delivered this year, but it’s been delayed until late 2017 after they discovered that it was 2500 tons overweight. Now they have modified the design and the draft has increased by only 0.2 m.
They named the ship after a guy whose most famous quote was “We wanted the best, but it turned out like always”.
don’t look now but someone on the internets is talking openly about ECO’s icebreakers going to the USCG and they are referencing gCaptain as a source!
[B]Two More New Medium Icebreaker–Not for the Coast Guard[/B]
Posted on March 11, 2015
gCaptain reports that Edison-Chouest is building another icebreaker (Anchor Handling Tug Supply (AHTS) ship), with an option for a second. Another gCaptain post appears to indicate that they are in fact building two.
These vessels appear to be similar to the earlier M/V Aiviq.
If I read the report correctly, each ship will have Four 5060 KW generators. If so these ships will each have more horsepower (20,240 KW/27,131 SHP) than the diesel electric engines of the Polar class (18,000 HP), more than the Glacier (16,000 KW/21,000 SHP), and almost as much as the Healy (22,400 KW/30,027 SHP). They will be more than twice as powerful as the Wind class breakers (12,000 SHP), the National Science Foundation’s leased M/V Nathaniel B. Palmer (9,485 kW/12,720 HP), or USCGC Mackinaw (6,800 KW/9,119 SHP). They will also be more powerful than all but one of Canada’s icebreakers
They will be Polar Class 3. Polar class 3 means “Year-round operation in second-year ice which may include multiyear ice inclusions.” It appears we might be seeing the emergence of a whole class of privately owned American medium icebeakers.
Researching this, I found reference to two similar, if perhaps less capable, Class 4 icebreakers, both built in 1983 in Canada, as commercial AHTS vessels, one, CCGS Terry Fox, is now used by the Canadian Coast Guard, and her sister ship, Vladimir Ignatyuk, is now owned by Russia’s Murmansk Shipping Company and was chartered by the National Science Foundation to lead the break-in to McMurdo sound two seasons, during the Antarctic summers of 2011/12 and 2012/13.
The Russian icebreaker Vladimir Ignatyuk breaking a path in the annual sea ice to McMurdo Station, Antarctica on January 26, 2012. Credit: Steve Royce
The Russian icebreaker Vladimir Ignatyuk breaking a path in the annual sea ice to McMurdo Station, Antarctica on January 26, 2012.
Credit: Steve Royce
So far I have seen no indication of official Coast Guard interest in filling the stated requirement for three medium icebreakers. These ships do not have the redundancy we would like in a our ships. But that could be fixed. Plus lower cost might allow a different kind of redundancy, assigning two ships to the task rather than only one, allowing an organic Coast Guard self rescue capability that the Commandant has pointed out is missing with our current very limited icebreaker fleet. If the cost of these is similar to that of the M/V Aiviq ($200M, 16,240 KW/21,760 HP), even after upgrades to meet Coast Guard requirements, e.g. flight deck, hangar, communications, etc., and additional overhead that are included in Coast Guard procurement cost, we should be able to build a medium Icebreaker of similar capability for a third the $1B cost of a heavy icebreaker.
Is a medium icebreaker sufficient for our needs? We already have a documented requirement for three medium icebreakers in addition to three heavy icebreakers compared with the current fleet of one each. In a Defense News interview the Commandant pointed out, “First of all, it’s heavy ice breaking capability. Last year the Polar Star had to rescue a medium ice breaker from China. Just before they arrived, the wind shifted and they were able to get out on their own. Clearly, [that] is no place for a medium ice breaker. It does require heavy ice-breaking capability.” While I would never suggest that a Heavy icebreaker is not desirable, in fact the MV Xue Long (Snow Dragon) is more ice strengthened cargo ship than icebreaker with a large hull (21,025 tons) and relatively weak engines (13,200 KW/17,694 HP) and would be considered by the Coast Guard a light polar breaker (less than 20,000 HP). Historically the Operation Deepfreeze break-in has been done most frequently by ships we would now classify as medium or light icebreakers.
If you look at this chart, prepared by the Coast Guard, in 2013, of the 78 icebreakers of over 10,000 HP, operated by 17 countries, only eight of them were Heavy icebreakers (=>45,000 SHP). 34 were medium icebreakers of 20,000 to less than 45,000 HP, and 36 were smaller icebreakers of 10,000 to less than 20,000 HP. Interestingly, in addition to five heavy icebreakers, four medium, and two smaller icebreakers have managed to make it to the North Pole.
Even if funding can be found for a new heavy icebreaker, by the time it is built, we will again have only one heavy icebreaker (unless Polar Sea is reactivated), because the Polar Star will almost certainly be out of service by the time it enters service. We really need to consider alternatives to give us the numbers we need in the not too distant future. Apparently there is agreement we need at least two more medium icebreakers in addition to USCGC Healy. Getting them into the budget looks a lot more do able than a $1B heavy icebreaker, and far, far easier than two Heavies.
Heavens above…what will be next?
Next the CG needs to get their people trained and signed off for a special 10,000itc ice breaker endorsement. Hopefully Gary will let them use his school to train the Coasties how to be proper towing masters.
I bet he’ll be the only one exclusively authorized to provide such training.
Anyone find it funny that lately our off-hand comments and musings seem to be considered bonafide source material by journalists and writers?
