Tag Archives: Icebreaker

Reading about the Arctic

Posted on by
1

I had family visiting for a few days early this week and was unable to post. While I was away a number of stories appeared concerning the Arctic. I will just reference them with short comments.

There is an article here, “On Thin Ice: U.S. Capability Lacking in the Race for the Arctic,” by a recent Annapolis graduate that provides a good primer on the state of US interest in the Arctic and why we should care. It also has some thoughtful recommendations.

Marine Log reports

AUGUST 7, 2012 — Bruce Harland, Vice President-Commercial Services of Crowley Maritime Corporation, testified this week on behalf of Crowley and the American Waterways Operators (AWO) before a Kodiak, Alaska, field hearing of the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations.  The hearing, which was held at the request of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK-R) and led by Subcommittee chairwoman Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), focused on the need for a robust U.S. Coast Guard presence in Alaska as the U.S. pursues expanding navigation opportunities in the Arctic region.

His recommendations included:

  • Accurate charting and hydrographic information;
  • Greater use of electronic charting and other aids;
  • Increased AIS coverage to help identify vessels;
  • A vessel traffic system for Unimak Pass and Bering Straits;
  • More accurate regional weather and tide information;
  • Improved Coast Guard incident response and search and rescue capabilities;
  • Greater ice breaking capabilities; and
  • Establishment of a Deepwater Arctic Port.

To confirm Mr. Harland’s concern about charts, NOAA is telling us the charts of the Arctic waters are terribly inadequate.

The Commandant advises that while leasing icebreakers may be helpful in the short term, leasing alone is not a long term solution.

Navy times reports the Commandant told a U.S. Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, regarding near term preparations in the Arctic. particularly in regard to Shell’s intention to drill exploratory wells,

“For right now, we are well prepared, because like we always do traditionally, we have multi-mission assets that we can deploy, that are very capable, and that are sufficient for the level of human activity that’s going on this summer and perhaps for the next three or four summers.”

The Coast Guard cutter Juniper (WLB-201) is participating in Exercise Nanook, with Canadian and Danish forces in the waters between Greenland and Canada. This is the third year of CG participation.

Meanwhile the Russians are building a huge new 568 foot long, 33,540 ton, 235,000 HP, nuclear icebreaker to add to their already large fleet, and the they also planning on investing Billions in Arctic infrastructure including bases for the Navy and Maritime Boarder Troops (Coast Guard). I don’t see this as a military threat, but it does seem like the Russians are paying a lot more attention than the US government. They are acting while we wrangle.

Canadian Icebreaker Design Contract Awarded

Posted on by
2

Tim Colton’s “Maritime Memos” reports STX Canada Marine has been awarded a $9.5M contract to design Canada’s new icebreaker and goes on to make a suggestion:

“Say, Dave, could you please design it so that it meets the US Coast Guard’s requirements as well?  Then maybe Vancouver Shipyards could build four of them, one for you and three for us?  Why is Canada only building one, anyway, when you obviously need at least three?”

Lots of other good stuff there as well including: new Navy AGOR, Congress on harbor maintenance, changes in the Navy’s ship building programs.

Got Icebreakers? Show Me the Money!

Posted on by
1

Apparently there has been some discussion of icebreakers in Congress. The arguments seem to be over the best way to help out, but don’t seem to be doing anything useful. Perhaps the best summary is here. There have been several reports, so to provide a bit more detail.

CNN reports,

“House Republicans, who say they want to force the administration’s hand, are pushing a Coast Guard authorization bill that would decommission the icebreaker Polar Star, which is now being repaired, in just three years, saying that keeping the 35-year-old ship afloat is ‘throwing good money after bad.’

“The Congressional Research Service said one potential concern for Congress is the absence of a plan for replacing the Polar Star upon completion of its seven- to 10-year life after it returns to service in late 2012.

“That is why Rep. Frank LoBiondo, R-New Jersey, included the provision to decommission the Polar Star, said spokesman Jason Galanes. “We absolutely support the Arctic icebreaker mission,” Galanes said. “We’re forcing this decision rather then allowing the administration to kick the can down the road.”

“Regardless of the outcome of the dispute, a gap in icebreaking capabilities is almost certain, according to the CRS report. Following any decision to design and build new icebreakers, the first replacement polar icebreaker might enter service in eight to 10 years, the report says.”

 If Rep. LoBiondo knows that it will take seven to ten years to complete a new Icebreaker, why does he want to decommission Polar Star after only three years?
In the Senate, Maria Cantwell, D-Wash, is attempting to prevent the planned decommissioning of the Polar Sea (WAGB-11) which the Coast Guard had planned to raid for spares to keep her sister ship, Polar Star (WAGB-10), in commission. She also notes that to meet Coast Guard and Navy mission requirements, the Coast Guard needs a minimum of six heavy-duty icebreakers and four medium-duty icebreakers (first time I’ve seen this stated).

DODbuz lays out the administration’s position, but finds the whole discussion disconnected from reality,

“The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2838 because it includes a provision that would require the Coast Guard to decommission the icebreaker USCGC POLAR STAR.  The Administration has requested, and Congress has appropriated, funds to reactivate the USCGC POLAR STAR by December 2012 and extend that vessel’s service life for seven to 10 years.  This effort will stabilize the United States’ existing polar fleet until long-term icebreaking capability requirements are finalized.  By directing the Commandant to decommission the USCGC POLAR STAR within three years, the bill would effectively reduce the vessel’s service life to two years and create a significant gap in the Nation’s icebreaking capacity.”

By way of comparison, we have already done a lot of planning for the Offshore Patrol Cutter including getting industry comment on the draft specifications. Money for the design is in the FY2012 budget, but we are still not expecting to see the first one until at least 2019, and I suspect it will be later than that. So designing, contracting for, and building an new design icebreaker for the Coast Guard in less than eight years is probably impossible assuming normal procedures.

Even if we started the procurement process for WAGB-21 in FY2013, the refurbished Polar Star will probably need to last a full ten years before it can be replaced by a second new construction icebreaker (WAGB-22) that would finally give the Coast Guard the three large icebreakers they say we need, and that includes the less capable Healy (WAGB-20). (Incidentally, where are WAGB-12 through 19?)
There are other ways we might get a capability quicker if the Coast Guard and Congress are really interested. When the National Science Foundation needed an icebreaker they chartered one. Presumably the Coast Guard could do the same.  It provides the capability without the big up front cost and 30+ year commitment to a particular design. Actually there has been some support for this,

“The lone Alaska congressmen, Republican Don Young, opposes decommissioning icebreakers and wants to increase the number of vessels in any way possible, spokesman Luke Miller said. Young has introduced a bill that would authorize the Coast Guard to enter into long-term lease agreements for two new icebreakers.”

The Brits, in need of quick fix when their Arctic patrol ship was damaged by fire, did something even more radical, they took a three year lease on an existing Norwegian vessel that has been used to support the oil industry and added boats and weapons.

Thinking in more conventional terms, there are plenty of existing designs that can be modified and relatively quickly converted to provide icebreaking or ice-strengthened patrol vessels that could be built in the US. We have talked about Arctic Patrol Cutters before, but here is another ship only a little smaller than Glacier (WAGB-4), being built by Finland and Russia that looks adaptable.

NB506507-Supply-vessel

Reportedly they are 99.2 m (325′) in length and 21.7 m (71′) in breadth. Their four engines have the total power of 18,000 kW and the propulsion power of 13,000 kW (17,426 HP). They reportedly are designed to operate independently in ice 1.7 m (5.6′) thick. With parts built in both Finland and Russia the price is about $100M each.

“As multipurpose vessels, these vessels are capable of carrying various type of cargo and they are equipped for oil spill response, fire fighting, and rescue operations. The rescue capacity is for 195 persons.”

Looks like it would not be too hard to add a hanger and flight deck.

Canadian Icebreaker, Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship, Shipyard “Rationalization”

Posted on by
11

As we noted earlier the Canadians are embarking on a major ship building program. A lot is riding on the choice of two shipyards that will be responsible for virtually all the work.

Most interesting for Coast Guard readers is that they will be building a large icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard and six to eight “Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships” which can operate in the North West Passage in the Summer months in addition to serving as conventional offshore patrol vessels based on the Norwegian Coast Guard ship Svalbard (These ships are going to the Navy).  Background here, here, and here.

The selection has been made and the Irving Shipyard in Halifax, NS, will get the contract for 15 combat vessels and the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, worth a total of about C$25B. Seaspan Shipyard, in Vancouver, BC, will build non-combat vessels, valued at approximately C$8B, including those for the Coast Guard as well as oceanographic and fisheries research vessels.

(A note of thanks to Ken White for keeping me up to date on this and providing the illustrations below.)

http://mail.aol.com/34290-111/aol-6/en-us/mail/get-attachment.aspx?uid=31908140&folder=OldMail&partId=3

Russia and Canada in the Arctic

Posted on by
2

https://i0.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/KV_Svalbard.jpg

Interesting Article here from Christian Science Monitor updating the Russian (and Canadian) positions on claims in the Arctic, including an expected 380,000 square mile continental shelf claim by the Russians and a statement that they are planning on building six new icebreakers.

This is a bit older, but talks about Canada’s ship building plans including a new icebreaker, CCGS_John_G._Diefenbaker, and up to eight ice strengthened Arctic Patrol Ships.

Photo left: Norwegian Svalbard, basis of the design for Canada’s Arctic Patrol Ships.

Related: Arctic Patrol Cutter State of the Art

Icebreakers–Photos

Posted on by
9

This tread has some interesting photos of modern icebreakers. Hopefully someone is thinking about this topic in the context of what our new construction icebreakers will look like.

The US does have a couple of ice capable research vessels that are referred to in the tread that I had not been aware of, the 94 meter (310 foot) icebreaker R/V Nathaniel B. Palmer, built in 1992,

Nathaniel B. Palmer in sea ice

and the 76 meter (251 foot) ice-strengthened (Ice class ABS A1) RV Laurence M. Goul,  built in 1997. Both were built by Edison Chouest Offshore Inc., Galliano, Louisiana,

L.M. Gould in Arthur Harbor

(Thanks, Steve, for the link)

“We need icebreakers”–Adm Papp

Posted on by
11

The Commandant has come out and said what we already knew. Navy Times is reporting Admiral Papp stated “We need icebreakers up [in the Arctic], and right now our icebreakers are in a sorry state…They need replacement or very thorough renovation to allow the United States to sustain an active presence and support our sovereignty up there.”

Let’s be clear, a “very thorough renovation” may be needed, but it is not enough. The two Polar Class breakers are already 34 and 36 years old. Hopefully we will get them running again, but they will need to replaced within any prudent planning horizon. It seems to take us ten years to get a new ship built, so if we start on their replacements now, they will be about 46 years old when they are replaced. We need to start with the assumption that we will build new icebreakers, then we can make intelligent decisions about how much to invest in the Polar Class.  The replacement ships may not need to be as large or as powerful, but even a ship of comparable capabilities should be possible that is cheaper to man, run, and maintain. The question is not do we need new icebreakers, it is how quickly? Expecting these ships to soldier on without a planned replacement is unrealistic.