“China and Russia and the US Icebreaker Race” –Responsible Statecraft

Posted on by

The Russian icebreaker Vladimir Ignatyuk breaking a path in the annual sea ice to McMurdo Station, Antarctica on January 26, 2012.
Credit: Steve Royce

Responsible Statecraft talks about why we really need icebreakers, and it is not because the Russians have 40.

11 thoughts on ““China and Russia and the US Icebreaker Race” –Responsible Statecraft”

  1. Icebreaker Race? Who is kidding who?

    Even after we get ours combined with Europe’s on patrol we will still be outnumbered, and theirs are armed…

    Reply ↓

    • Russian Navy has one armed icebreaking patrol ship homeported in Murmansk and the Russian Coast Guard has two smaller icebreaking vessels stationed in the Russian Far East.

      Reply ↓

      • Russia operates the world’s largest icebreaker fleet, with a total of about 41 to 57 icebreaking vessels, depending on the classification of smaller harbor and patrol ships. If all are operational is another question.

        Crucially, Russia is the only country in the world that builds and operates nuclear-powered icebreakers. It maintains a fleet of 8 active nuclear icebreakers used to clear heavy commercial shipping lanes through the Arctic.

    • The Soviets always had armed icebreakers. During WWII they had some American built Wind class icebreakers. They did not have the 5″/38s like American Wind class, but they were armed.

      The armed icebreakers they have now are relatively small. The preconstruction models of the ships had containerized missile launchers but as yet we have not seen any of these ships carrying missile launchers.

      Reply ↓

      • Many Soviet icebreakers were indeed armed during the war. For example, pictured below is I. Stalin being repaired in Seattle(!) in 1942. The 1938-built icebreaker was the lead ship for a four-strong class that represented the last polar icebreakers in the world built with reciprocating steam engines. They remained in service until the late 1960s and early 1970s, and some were even retrofitted with helidecks, representing an interesting clash of obsolete and emerging technology.

        https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-79000/NH-79154.html

        However, only a handful of post-war Soviet icebreakers were actually built with provisions for armament. These include the naval variants of Dobrynya Nikitich-class port and coastal icebreakers, many of which were later disarmed, and the early Arktika-class nuclear-powered icebreakers, some of which carried the fire control radars through their service life even though the armament was removed after sea trials and stored ashore.

        Today the only Russian icebreaking vessels with armament are the ones I mentioned before: Project 23550 “combat icebreaker” Ivan Papanin and two older and smaller Ivan Susanin -class patrol ships, Volga and Neva. There are of course three more Project 23550 patrol ships under construction, one for the Russian Navy and two for FSB Border Service (although one was sunk at quayside by Ukraine). While there are certainly other ice-strengthened naval vessels, they are not capable of operating independently in ice.

        Of course, unarmed civilian icebreakers can always be pressed into naval service and at least some kinds of armament may be technically more self-contained than before with limited requirements from the vessel itself.

      • We have far too many people that just speak out of their a$$ and have NO IDEA, but represent their opinion anyway as uninformed as it is.

  2. Hopefully we build smarter not harder. Our icebreakers should be another candidate for ‘Aegis in a Box’, and infrastructure programmed in from the start.

    Reply ↓

    • I have been collecting material for a post on containerized weapons and sensors. It looks like the US is getting serious about containerized/modular systems.

      Two of the three classes of icebreakers we are building have specific spaces for containers and containers can also be placed on the flight deck.

      A good AAW system must include an excellent radar. That is not easily containerized, but Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) means that a missile on one ship can be directed to the target by a radar on a different ship or even an aircraft. Right now no CG cutters are equipped for CEC. Could that be containerized? Not yet.

      https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/2166802/cec-cooperative-engagement-capability/

      Reply ↓

      • DED and NIFC-CA on datalinks solves a lot of problems. The USN and USCG need to just upgrade all 2D to 3D detection and tracking requirement IMHO. If we develop a non-rotating AESA radar with three (3) array faces and build hundreds of them then the cost will be lower.

Leave a comment