What icebreaker is this with the Azipods?
Le Commandant Charcot, the French cruise ship.
1 Like
But it wouldnât hurt to have more than two heavy breakers. Back in my day, we had a âfleetâ of icebreakers. Four âWindsâ, two âIslandsâ, the Mighty MacâŚWe went âUp Northâ returned to Seattle, then two months later âwent Southâ, that takes a toll on a ship constantly slamming into ice.
Tupsis, many thanks for taking the time to post all that. It is very informative.
and those photos!!
that 2nd from the last showing the 4 big holes in the hull ⌠hydrofoil iâm guessing? (unjoke)
yes, the economic wars and other bs is raising hell with russia and no doubt many other places as well. The ship I followed North in about 2024 ( NO, 2004 !!! APX !!) was new to their fleet but itâs been a while, I thought it was red but it may of been blue. it may be pictured in your post.
THX,
Maybe they should have left the designing to professionals?
Hereâs a pretty interesting blog post with some analysis on the PSC:
2 Likes
OK, tupsis, I read that and all i see are excuses, thatâs all i see!
plans for a buildable ice breaker have probably been on the shelf awaiting the word to build and they would of been built with the tech at that time despite the promises and hopes of what another year or three might bring! when the govt. says build it, they started laying the keel.
hereâs another comparison: in ww2 they needed a expendable, cheap, minimum manning freighter: the liberty ship. i think from conception to floating was something like 6 months.
I fully believe what weâre seeing here is politics, who gets to supply this or that, what subcontractor does this or that, who is supplying this ''mystery steel" ⌠which probably lasts 80 years ( if you can weld the krap)) ⌠and similar stuff.
there is no reason to think otherwise; i repeat, buildable designs for various ships are on the shelf ready to implement in a emergency, itâs a matter of course for forward thinking national defense and other planners.
itâs a dog and pony show, nothing money canât fix i suppose?
itâs disgusting and pathetic.
1 Like
The fastest design and build cycle I know of is probably that of Canmar Kigoriak which was built in the late 1970s in Canada: eight weeks for concept development, eight and a half months for construction. Although not built to last, the ship remained in service for 43 years until having been sold for scrap in 2022.
Would a ship like this meet USCGâs requirements? Unlikely. Could we learn from the process and cut a few years off the decade-long development process? Most likely.
Perhaps a more recent example would be the construction of two Polar Class 3 Arctic module carriers in China. They were designed from scratch and the first ship was delivered within 28 months from start of concept development. The shipyard had also never built icebreaking ships before.
I have spent a lot of time researching how such fast-track projects were realized in the past. My rule of thumb is that while the technical solutions may already be obsolete or otherwise not applicable, there may be something to learn from the processes.
Anyway, when it comes to US icebreaker procurement, people keep talking about using an âoff-the-shelf designâ, but no-one has ever identified any such designs or even implied where that infamous shelf might be locatedâŚ
edit: @jimrr, what would you recommend as an alternative for this âmystery steelâ? I thought we were supposed to learn from past mistakes involving low-grade steel susceptible to brittle fracture in cold temperaturesâŚ
1 Like
whatever the Healy is made of seems to be good enough? the whole subject is demoralizing now after reading all of this input.
Healy is made of EH36. You just need more of it unless youâre clever, in which case you may need only a little bit more.
1 Like
funny way to put it hahahahah
Polaris at work:
What are the biggest and best most recently built icebreakers (not built in Russia)?
Why not use the best available steel? The cost difference over the entire lifecycle cannot be all that significant.
1 Like
Ombugge, thx for putting that up here. it is wonderful.
we can tell by the way the deckys are dressed itâs a average day and only a âvisitorâ to the main deck dresses in flashy "cold weatherâ stuff ! I recognize that low sun on the horizon ⌠iâve been out there with ball bats busting ice (over time pay) hahaha BUT:
I sure miss it ⌠thx !!
Off the top of my head, the biggest are Le Commandant Charcot and the Australian research vessel Nuyina. Both were delivered in 2021.
Itâs much more difficult to say what would be the best as that depends on the criteria. Le Commandant Charcot is probably the best all-around polar icebreaker while the 2016-built Polaris is unquestionably the best icebreaker built for the Baltic Sea at least until the new Swedish icebreakers are built. Polar research vessel? Probably the Chinese Xue Long 2 delivered in 2019. Oil and gas industry? The seven-strong FESCO Sakhalin family built in Finland for Russia in 2005â2018. Most innovative? The detachable icebreaking add-on you can couple with a tugboat to turn it into a small icebreaker.
However, thereâs no universal metric for deciding which is the âbestâ as icebreaking ships are built for so diverse missions and tailored for each operatorâs specific needs. Being the best in one field does not guarantee the same ranking if the criteria are changed. Thatâs also the problem if you intend to shop around for a second-hand vessel because no-one quite has the same mission set as the USCG.
1 Like
The USCGâs primary purpose seems to be military career advancement for its officers.
A good question is: âWhat is the USCGâs bona fide mission for Arctic & Antarctic icebreakersâ?
âProject and protect sovereignty in the Arcticâ?
How real is that mission. and why should US taxpayers buy the USCG these very expensive new toys for it?
Research? Ok. Anything that can get there, stay awhile, and get back again is a research platform.
Break ice for supply ships going to Palmer Station? Ok anything that will do the job is good enough.
Search and rescue, rescue towing and salvage in the Arctic? Whatâs needed for that?
The USCG does not need super expensive new icebreakers that can do every imaginable mission. They need to be practical and grateful for what US Taxpayers are willing to buy. Or there will be no new icebreakers anytime soon.
Debating which USCG missions are relevant is above my paygrade. However, whichever make it to the shortlist should form the design basis for their future vessels. Meeting the icebreaking capability requirements (âa shipâ + âthat can break X feet of ice at a speed of Y knots for Z days/nautical milesâ) probably accounts for most of the vessel cost at the shipyard* anyway. Towing and SAR gear is cheap compared to that.
(* that is, excluding the girlfriend exp⌠I mean, government-furnished equipment such as weapons and C4ISR)
1 Like
Iâm doubtful about the financial viability of an icebreaker / cruiseship.
I predict an upcoming buying opportunity.
If not, build one just like it at the same shipyard and tell the USCG to make do with it.
Well, obviously a USCG icebreaker based on the Charcot would be similar only from main deck down. Not entirely unlike buying a truck chassis and building whatever you want on top of that.
I doubt theyâd want LNG fuel either.
The Kelsey Grammer movie âPentagon Warsâ is informative here. Little doubt in my mind thereâs at least one drawing of the âplannedâ vessel with at least two CIWS installations.
1 Like