USCGC Polar Sea
The Request for Proposal for detailed design and construction of new Heavy Polar Icebreaker(s) (HPIB) has been issued. You can see it here. I have only taken a quick look at the first few pages of the 197 page document, but it does include, not just a request for costs to construct one icebreaker, but also prices for numbers two and three as well.
This paragraph is worth noting.
To enable ongoing program planning and responses to Congressional inquiries, the Coast Guard and Navy HPIB IPO desire input from prime offerors related to the benefits of Congressional authorization of Block Buy and/or Economic Order Quantity. Submission of this information is voluntary and will not be used to evaluate any proposal submitted by the offeror in response to this RFP. Email submissions providing dollarized estimated savings per ship for authorization provided for 1) all three cutters and 2) only the second and third cutters should be emailed to the Bidders Question contacts identified below with the email title “HPIB Block Buy/EOQ Input – Contractor Name.” Submissions within 60 days of RFP release are preferred.
Thanks to Tups for bringing this to my attention.
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
Curtis, I found that interesting, as well as the extensive section on Noise and Vibration (C.3.073 ) particularly for an Icebreaker.
There is also a section on the sonar mission system. Not clear if that is just a fathometer, a side scan, or something more.
US Hse.of Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA.), want’s to convince the US Congress to either Lease at ~$33-Million USD/Year or buy outright at ~$150-Million USD. The MV “Aiviq” Ice capable Anchor Handling Tug Supply Vessel, as a Interim Icebreaker. Until or “IF” the US Congress decides to actually provide the Funds to actually build an Icebreaker Replacement…
That would be a waste of 33/150 million. And that is not even taking into account the money it would take to militarize the ship, or other words make it suitable for coast guard missions. It would be like buying a yaht and told to turn it into a WPC. You would be better off putting the 150+ million towards F.R.A.Ming both PIB’s.
Maybe having no PIB’s would be a good thing. It would be a serious wake up call to the DoD, and Congress on how underfunded the USCG really is. Don’t worry about it unless congress wants to supply money for it. Prioritize your mission’s. If it’s not important to congress no matter how much you tell them, it shouldn’t be important to you. Actions speak louder then words, and the USCG has been doing too good of a job with just the left over crumbs. But it can’t go on forever.
The first heavy Polar Icebreaker is in the administration’s FY2019 budget, but it is going to take quite a while before we get three heavy and three medium, so perhaps getting the use of a medium that is already built would not be a bad thing, if it is a reasonably effective. There was supposed to an ice test of this ship to see if it was an effective icebreaker. Have not heard anything about it.
As for how much it takes to make it a workable Coast Guard vessel, the Polar Star really doesn’t have a lot of military grade equipment separating it from a commercial vessel.
@ Chuck Hill.
It was in a copy of the “Defense News” dated 30 September 2016, titled: “US Lawmaker Wants Pre-Owned Ice Ship Over Coast Guard Objections”. Can’t find any follow ups on the subject, so trying various Merchant Marine publications dated around the same period…
I know there was a push to get the CG to lease or buy the ship. It came up several times and ultimately the answer was they were going to do the ice trials, but still have heard nothing on that. Did they ever do them? Who knows. Coast Guard had doubts about the reliability due to the fact that the ship used geared diesels instead of diesel electric.
The FY2019 Omnibus bill includes $150M in the Navy budget for the Coast Guard’s heavy icebreaker program. It also includes funding for three rather than just one Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) http://www.marinelog.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=28697:massive-spending-bill-includes-$33-billion-more-for-navy-shipbuilding&Itemid=231
This article includes some minor technical details I don’t recall seeing anywhere:
http://www.knom.org/wp/blog/2018/05/11/uscg-wants-feedback-on-potential-icebreakers-in-arctic/
This was in regard to the environmental impact statement. It is the first time I have seen an explicit requirement for podded propulsion, although that did seem the obvious solution.
Looks like the HPIB RFP was amended again yesterday with even more bidder’s questions. Nothing major as far as I can see – no changes to the schedule.