The heavy icebreaker received a distress call from the cruise ship Scenic Eclipse II at approximately 11 p.m. local time Friday after the vessel became beset in pack ice roughly eight nautical miles from McMurdo Sound.Polar Star’s crew conducted two close passes to break the vessel free, then escorted it approximately four nautical miles to open water.
The cutter recently completed a comprehensive five-year Service Life Extension Program, with the final phase wrapping up in September 2025 after 175 days at Mare Island Dry Dock in Vallejo, California.The $12.7 million investment recapitalized integral systems including propulsion, communication, and machinery control systems.
“This is a tremendous ship, and it is in better shape today than it was ten years ago,” Rasnake said following the refurbishment. “
So if Polar Star has lasted 50 years, even with major spend and complex band-aids, why don’t we just replicate that class exactly instead of reinventing new hull designs?
We’re so much more dumber today to rebuild the Polar Star. But we could probably get some middle schoolers to 3D, carbon fiber copy her on a 200:1 scale & it would be an exact replica?
From the article below:
“Even with cranes, helicopters, tractors and trucks at our disposal, it would be tough to construct the Great Pyramid of Giza today. Its construction 4,500 years ago is so astounding in some people’s eyes that they invoke mystical or even alien involvement.”
I get that yard doesn’t exist anymore, but still there should be some decent plans around just from the sheer amount of refits over the years.
I sort of get why warships have to change over the years…as new systems and capabilities requirements change you can’t always just stuff into the same tried and true hull.
But the ice hasn’t changed. And building something less capable just doesn’t make sense to me.
Yes, the pyramids are astounding and would probably cost a billion dollars today and safety regulations and code requirements would make construction untenable. But with Polar Star we’re talking 50 years ago, this ain’t ancient Egypt!
Should I take that comment to mean you don’t think the Polar Star class/hull is worthwhile to have in the fleet moving forward even if new, and we’d be better served by these light/medium one’s they’ve been trying to design/outsource?
If memory serves there were a bunch of issues on the Star and the Sea when they were first delivered. Mostly due to the variable pitch props. During DF 80 the Polar Sea was down quite often. I was on Glacier and we joked with them if we could use them as a light ship for positions in the Ross Sea.
Obviously they worked out the issues and they have had and continue to have a great run.
Australia’s newest icebreaker, the Nuyina, that was supposed to be delivered in 2021 had years of problems & apparently still working them out. From an engineering standpoint, I’ve always considered simpler & proven being better compared to what salesmen push on buyers.
Modern hull forms can do the same icebreaking with half the horsepower
“Polaris shows the advantages that this new technology brings, especially when compared to older technology vessels such as the U.S. Coast Guard’s Polar Star, delivering comparable icebreaking ability at less than half of the horsepower:”
I don’t think you can really compare Polaris and Polar Star even though they are both icebreakers and even share the same name. They are very different ships designed for very different icebreaking missions.
Instead, I’d compare Polar Star to Le Commandant Charcot.
While the USCG icebreaker would still beat the French luxury cruise ship by a few ship lengths over a flying mile in six-feet ice, the latter has 16 ft more beam, over twice the displacement, and most importantly a quarter less propulsion power. Now that’s the advantage that modern icebreaking technology gives you.
