Not really.
The post I deleted was about national science foundation grants and failed to tie those grants to icebreakers. The replies to it were just about politics.
This one is borderline but at least it’s trying hold topic and mentions specific maritime companies and specific and related examples.
So did SP’s assertion about a politicians estimation and understanding of budgets related to geosciences in polar regions, but you left that. That’s the point—-oh and the rules of engagement in moderation. You didn’t approach a poster, cite a rule from the guidelines and offer the opportunity to edit. You just deleted. Is that a respectful approach, rules based? Or arbitrary?
That said, here’s my take:
Trump, Obama, Bush and Clinton all failed us in regards to icebreakers (and most other topics related to this forum including offshore).
What’s the use of fighting over which one did more to screw us?
And we will continue to loose out until be all unite under the realization that both parties have failed the us. We can not possibly help fix this problem until stop fighting each other over political any ideology that’s not directly related to the single biggest failure in recent American history: the total abandonment of our nation’s greatest asset, the Merchant Marine.
P.S. Despite what some think I continue to have high hopes today’s administration can fix some of these problems: but only is WE stop fighting amongst ourselves and blaming the other side.
I neglected to add that in my original post … aircraft. The only thing that can’t be done with aircraft is breaking ice but we seem to have survived quite well for many years now with the buoy tenders doing the heavy lifting. The only thing the old icebreakers have done is show the flag and support a handful of research programs.
By the time the nation could afford 10 icebreakers and build them there won’t be any ice to break anyway.
Aircraft? What do you suppose they could do other than take pictures of the ice. Perhaps bomb a path to the vessels destination? We really could use a few new purpose built ice breakers, not ten but a few.
If I understood correctly, Sea Tow primarily caters to the leisure boating community rather than than the professional market and takes care of low-priority missions rather than emergencies. How I see it, they take load off the USCG by covering cases that do not require immediate response or specialized assets such as SAR helicopters. That’s probably 99(.9) % of cases where someone needs help.
I used to be part of a similar (but volunteer-based) organization and one of our “clients” initially refused our help, opting to wait until his situation deteriorated enough to warrant a taxpayer-paid rescue operation by professionals rather than being towed home by “a smug recreational boating club that sends an invoice afterwards”…
With this I agree: the McMurdo break-in is a mission that could be outsourced to a commercial operator such as ECO which, as you said, already operates two ice-capable vessels in the region.
“Afford” 
Just cancel the construction of the 82th and 83th Arleigh Burke -class destroyers and you’ll have money for that fleet of icebreakers.
Or move heavy equipment. Or anything heavy like fuel. Or move anything in quantity. Or at a reasonable costs. Or stay on station for long periods of time.
Aircraft are tiny and 100x less efficient than ships.
More importantly it’s exactly this mentally (and the Navy flyboys who dictate policy today) that got us into this mess.
The only mission where I consider an aircraft to be superior is the task that is nowadays used to sell the USCG icebreakers to the politicians and, unfortunately, the general public: shooting at enemy warships.
I think it’s ridiculous to even plan arming the future USCG icebreakers with anything but a small arms and perhaps a small-caliber deck gun for those rare occasions when you need to scare someone away. If you need anything beyond that, you’re better off firing a standoff missile from an F-22 or F-35 rather than a slow and easy target alike an icebreaker.
How would an aircraft help here:
Regarding icebreakers, aircraft is in an observatory mission… Nobody from any country is fighting over the ice breaking mission, just fighting over the money to build the vessels. As John and others have stated a bit, it is about the money. What little money available for maritime interests that could be well spent continues to go to the wrong places.
Nobody is fighting yet & hopefully we never will. But apparently the people of Chile & Argentina lay claim over some the same territories in Antarctica while the rest of the world says neither claim is legit. The US’s Palmer Station, the UK Rothera Station & the Shetland Islands all belong to Chile if you look at the territory they claim. The maps & flags in Chile show a slice of Antarctica to the South Pole as theirs. If minerals or other natural resources are ever discovered in Antarctica & if the value of them are high enough, we humans would fight over them.
Concerning aircrafts & icebreakers. Real icebreakers need helicopters on them because breaking ice isn’t enough to get to land. Not all ice is packed ice, safe enough to walk on & small boats to reach land can’t be put in the water in floes & in brash ice because they can be crushed or can’t make way. Below is a link to an article about some American scientists being rescued by an Argentinean helicopter & icebreaker.
Absolutely, the US government needs to own & operate icebreakers if we are going to conduct research & operate bases in Antarctica & the Artic. For the US to depend on the charity of other nations to perform rescues & conduct routine operations for us is pathetic.
Pushing it like this caused the cycloconverters, which transmit power to the engines, to break down about once every two hours, necessitating a full stop, 20-30 minutes of repair, and then a rapid acceleration back up to our cruising speed.
Maybe ten knots would have sufficed?
The same way the CG has done it countless times by helo in the Bering Sea and elsewhere so far from land that the victim would be dead and decomposed by the time an icebreaker got there.
How many times has an icebreaker delivered fuel or heavy equipment anywhere? How many times has an icebreaker been required to save a village, rescue ships in mid ocean or at the north pole or pursue bad guys through the pack ice?
“Meanwhile, the Coast Guard anxiously anticipates the completion of its first new heavy icebreaker to be built since the 1970s. In April, the Coast Guard awarded a $745.9-million contract to VT Halter Marine to build the first of its new Polar Security Cutter (PSC) class of heavy icebreakers.”
Flag waving in McMurdo shouldn’t cost the taxpayer $746 million for a single ship that makes one trip a year … if it even works or only costs that much.
Your statement is credible. Expresses the need for a few modern vessels with a helicopter pad as well. If my vote mattered, would go for a few of those rigs.
Who ever controls the Arctic will be able to control the missile defenses. Why else the US have a giant radar in Thule Greenland?
Why else the US have a giant radar in Thule Greenland?
Good target for bomber or missile so we need an icebreaker to defend it?
Icebreaker to bring them groceries and weapons of destruction perhaps.
New Zealand has a new ice capable tanker, HMNZS Aotearoa, capable of supplying the fuel requirements of Scott Base and McMurdo. It can also carry 23 TEU’s and two helicopters but at the beginning of the season there is still a requirement for an icebreaker escort as there is for the supply vessel.
Whether the ship or icebreaker is supplied by private enterprise or the USCG the money still comes out of your or my pocket because the research is funded by the government through NOAA or in New Zealand’s case the University’s and NIWA.
It’s a Canadian icebreaker that opens the lane into Thule. I think the WMDs are flown in.
The orangeman is always whining about NATO not pulling its weight, let them continue to provide the icebreakers like they always have. Theirs work better anyway.
No different from any other ice class tanker or cargo ship, including the ones already bringing supplies to McMurdo every year.
Henry Larson was the canadian icebreaker I saw there.
Every surface ship is a bullet sponge in war. But in peace time it can be used for “hard” Or “sharp” power. The best example is the United States using air craft carriers to to project power, or even sending 2 carriers to the South China Sea. Should some other nation have a disaster or accident, you can send your ship to humanitarian aid in “soft” power roles.