U.S. is not doing enough in the Arctic

According to news sources, the US has still not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and has not filed an official claim for an extended continental shelf. The other countries did this back in the early to mid 2000s.

[I][B]“PREPARE FOR THE FUTURE: [/B]The FY 2013 Budget request recognizes the criticality of the Arctic as a strategic National priority, given increasing presence and interest by other Nations, the preponderance of natural resources available in this region, and increasing maritime commercial and recreational activity. ␣ [B]$14.1M [/B]to initiate a new Polar Icebreaker acquisition project and enhance infrastructure in Alaska.”

[/I]The above passage came from a fact sheet on the FY2013 USCG budget. $14mil?! Mkaaay. Granted our proposed Arctic Management Area is smaller than other countries, I still think we are seriously lagging in our efforts to support an arctic expansion. Should there be a Kodiak sized AIRSTA in Barrow with HH60s and Hercules aircraft? The Polar Star is due back in service next year, so all we have is the Healy, which is basically a research vessel. Then the University of Alaska Fairbanks icebreaker funded by the NSF (for some reason I can’t find any info on this thing).

Here is a good article from Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/infrastructure/why-the-us-must-build-more-icebreakers-now-6693195?src=rss

[QUOTE=nwitherly77;70759]Then the University of Alaska Fairbanks icebreaker funded by the NSF (for some reason I can’t find any info on this thing). [/QUOTE]

Info on the r/v SIKULIAQ can be found here

The SIKULIAQ was just launched:

Built across Lake Michigan from me…


Funded with Obamabucks …

[QUOTE=rjbpilot;86165]Funded with Obamabucks …[/QUOTE]

I have to admit it is another boondoggle make work project…but it’s a cool boondoggle make work project!

What’s disturbing it that the USCGC HEALY was supposedly built to be an arctic science platform first and icebreaker second but the scientists hate it and it is a shitty icebreaker. NICE!

[QUOTE=rjbpilot;86164]Built across Lake Michigan from me…


I sailed with the Master they’ve hired on. He asked me if I wanted to work on it. I’ve had my fill of research ships. Shit pay and shit schedules. Apparently, it’s not even an icebreaker. It can push through meter thick “masses” of ice at 2 knots. They put in an antiroll tank instead of strengthening the hull and beefing up the machinery plant. They may have unleashed the scientists on this project. Just like they did with the NOAA FSV’s, which are ugly as f&^% and poorly built ships. There’s no camber on the decks so you get huge lakes with no where for the water to go and even with 20’ drafts they will roll uncontrollably in 3’ swells. Aye caramba.

This looks very similar to the same class R/V I have been on. Anti-roll tanks were sometimes useful, and I don’t think they roll that much at all. But the ones I been on pitched like a mother, but really didn’t pound. Id rather pitch hard any day than roll. Too bad they are too scared or cheap to innovate a new design on a research vessel.

But an icebreaker this ain’t