Here’s a novel idea. The military industrial complex would never go for it but it’s worth thinking about.
an interesting idea to equip merchant ships with lots of missiles in a swarm. But China stole the technology to miniaturize nuclear warheads in 1998. This allows them use their carrier killer missile with multiple of war heads.
While you can argue away the future of physical ships, they are still important tools today. An ice breaker could be reasonably protected with a CIWS, RAM, future lasers, and even be equipped with AEGIS to provide a shield over the assets in the area.
Speaking to the exercises and abuse of power projection in recent times, Russia or China could go north to annex another landmass. If they make a move with their icebreakers, what do we have to counter with? If we did not have warships, how could we counter expanding territorial claims in the SCS? It does seem like a catch-22 that you have costly warships so that you don’t go to war, but that’s what you call deterrence.
Russia is not stupid and doesn’t have the money to sustain such a thing. NY, Texas and California each separately have a larger GDP than Russia. Russia is highly overrated. China is too busy trying to annex areas where they have commercial interests in Asia. The Chinese are merchants and traders. Have been for thousands of years. Their decisions are based on trade, they aren’t big on colonization. There is no economic reason for them to access frozen water.
Precisely what is an icebreaker supposed to do? Do you foresee a Battle of Jutland between fleets of icebreakers?
1 Like
Why do you have to counter them with icebreakers?
By the way, Russian icebreakers are not armed.
Surprise, surprise they are used to break ice so ships can carry cargo to remote settlements and allow trade along the Northern Sea Route.
IOW; Development of domestic facilities and resources in the Arctic is more important than to “play silly games with expensive toys”.
To maintain the perception of control maybe? We keep warships positioned around the world for this reason. We move carrier fleets through the Strait of Hormuz and around China’s new South China Sea islands as a projection and reminder that they are not alone in their ambitions for control. Is it worth it? Does it work? That’s a different discussion. But should one country (Russia) be the sole keeper of open ice shipping lanes in the future, they (or any other nation so doing) will likely take their perceived control to a level of actual un-countered control and claimed ownership. It seems unlikely that any US flag ship will be utilizing a future northern trade route, but if one hypothetically were to, that ship would be at the mercy of any other nation’s choice to keep the route clear, or to aid the vessel should she be stranded in ice. With no icebreakers of our own, either owned or leased, it presents a certain weakness (perceived or actual). Many points could be made on whether we should be ok with that or not.
The USA uses polar shipping routes for Operation Pacer Goose, every summer. They used to do it every year with the T5s, now they don’t always use American tankers but have used mostly American cargo ships like the Ocean Giant.
It is 7 minutes from Scott Base to McMurdo via Willy Field Road. The US and NZ bases have had many years of working together.
Magothy, built in China. Maybe they will build a fleet of heavily armed icebreakers for us. Then we can rule the Northern Trade Routes, the Northwest Passage, and kick ice butt all around Antarctica when the Chesapeake or the Great Lakes aren’t iced up.
I thought it was something familiar with this one. The ex Beluga Singapore., ex HHL Lisbon:
A USAF C17 will leave for the ice tonight from Christchurch, NZ with a cargo of fresh fruit and vegetables, weather permitting.
It will be really appreciated by the people who have over wintered at Scott and McMurdo after so many months without.
Still an American crew making wages, members of AMO/SIU, and being chartered to an American company.
That was not the point.
Right yeah, China is not big on colonization. Just ask Tibet, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and now the disputed border with Bhutan.
1 Like
While I disagree with China moving onto these territories China claims these areas were historically part of China. Much as Russia claims with Crimea and is currently doing with Ukraine. When China starts taking over African countries as European countries did I’ll say they are colonizing.
Currently China prefers to control other countries economically much like the USA.
1 Like
…But it’s mostly peaceful!!!