Twitter Facebook Google RSS
 
The Arctic 

Pressure Builds for New Polar Icebreaker 

2,014 

By Yasmin Tadjdeh 



As the Arctic Ocean’s ice melts, the Navy and the rest of the United States must rely on the cash-strapped Coast Guard to maintain the nation’s icebreaker fleet.

Of the Coast Guard’s three icebreakers, only two are operational. More pressure is being put on the service to build a new heavy-duty vessel. During a December hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s subcommittee on Coast Guard and maritime transportation, the vice commandant of the Coast Guard said the service had made some headway in procuring a new ice-breaking ship.

“We continue to evaluate the requirements for a new polar icebreaker,” Vice Adm. John P. Currier testified. “The Coast Guard has … initiated activities to support the acquisition of a new polar icebreaker to maintain long-term Coast Guard mission capabilities in the high latitude regions.”

The service so far has completed a mission needs statement as well as a concept of operations and environmental conditions analysis report, Currier said.

The Coast Guard has a statutory responsibility to maintain icebreakers for the United States.

It would cost $1 billion to procure a new polar icebreaker, Currier said, and that is too steep a price for the Coast Guard to take on alone. There needs to be a “whole-of-government solution” with entities such as the National Science Foundation and the Defense Department participating. Any organization that has a “stake in the Arctic” should contribute to ship requirements and help foot the bill, he said.

“A billion dollars is clearly not something we [alone] can absorb,” Currier said.

The ship will be used for more than just Coast Guard needs, he said.

“What I don’t want people to think is that the Coast Guard is advocating or looking to procure a new-start icebreaker for a billion dollars that is strictly to address Coast Guard requirements,” Currier said.

Brian Slattery, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, said it is unlikely that the Coast Guard will procure a new heavy polar icebreaker in the near future.

The Coast Guard’s budget has steadily declined year after year, Slattery said. It isn’t possible for the service to bear the full cost. The Coast Guard is also attempting to procure a number of new vessels — such as national security cutters and offshore patrol cutters — which is further straining its budget, he said.

“There is a lot of demand for resources in procurement, so they will be stretched pretty thin. I don’t think it’s feasible that they will be able to afford one of these heavy-duty icebreakers,” Slattery said.

It is also improbable that any other agency will assist the Coast Guard in funding the ship, he said.

Heritage has proposed leasing commercial icebreakers from foreign nations. The measure has been met with some criticism over potential security concerns. But if the Coast Guard cannot procure a new vessel, it is a cost-effective option, Slattery said.

“In the Arctic, operationally, it would make sense … because there are some vessels that are pre-existing, [so] it would cost less to lease them and just use them for services needed, not having them in the fleet necessarily,” he said.

The United States could lease ships from Finland or Russia, he said.

In Antarctica, the United States already leases the services of a Russian icebreaker to gain access to McMurdo Station, a research facility on Ross Island, Slattery said.

“It would be much more cost-effective for the U.S. to do this than to attempt to build a billion dollar vessel with very limited resources,” he said.

It is possible the Coast Guard will embrace the leasing option as more interest in the Arctic is drummed up in the coming years, Slattery said.

“Right now, there is a lot of interest being generated in the Arctic, but the actual activity that’s following that interest hasn’t ramped up so much yet. I think in the next couple [of] decades there’s going to be a massive movement up there in terms of interest in natural resources, fisheries and things like that,” he said. “It will only become more urgent that we need icebreaking capabilities in the region in the years to come.”

The Coast Guard owns three icebreakers. The Polar Sea is mothballed. The Polar Star recently emerged from a multi-million dollar overhaul. Both are heavy-duty ships. The third, the Healy, was commissioned primarily for scientific purposes and is a medium-duty vessel.

As for potentially refurbishing the Polar Sea to fill the ice-breaking gap, Currier said the service currently has no plans to do so. A recent study found that it would cost about $100 million to add five to seven years of service life to the Polar Sea. The Polar Star, which recently embarked to Antarctica, was upgraded at a cost of $62 million, he said.

Slattery said it was unlikely the Coast Guard would decide to repair the Polar Sea.

“I’m not an engineer, but I’ve heard repeatedly from the Coast Guard that at best it’s a poor investment, and at worst it wouldn’t even be possible,” he said. “The Polar Star was in much better condition [when it broke down] than the Polar Sea.”                     

Photo Credit: Coast Guard, Thinkstock; Chart Credit: Coast Guard

Reader Comments

Re: Pressure Builds for New Polar Icebreaker

This has been a requirement that has stretched back years, if not decades. The topic has controversy, criticism, and debates involved.

For instance, ever since the original 60-year old USCG USS Mackinaw was retired in the Great Lakes, its icebreaking replacement (also called USS Mackinaw) has been criticized as a bouy-tender (which it is) and not really a heavy icebreaker with the hull of a heavy icebreaker. There's a gap in the forward section for bouy maintenance.

http://www.uscg.mil/d9/cgcMackinaw/

There was even a TV show where cargo ships were trapped by the ice in the Great Lakes and the little icebreaking tug was not wide enough to plow a lane and had to go back and forth many times around the cargo ships just to break a path wide enough to free the ships. There wasn't a heavy icebreaker in sight or in the lakes for that matter. That alone should have given the DoD and USCG some forshawdowing as to the need for heavy icebreaking ships...the little icebreaking tugs just don't cut it. If the USCG ever needs knowledge of how icebreaking requirements would be in the Arctic, just look at the Great Lakes as a prime example. The lack of icebreaking ships in the Great Lakes means cargo ships have to wait for hours just to be freed by little icebreaking tugs or Canadian icebreakers.

Peter on 01/20/2014 at 13:21

Submit Your Reader's Comment Below
*Name
 
*eMail
 
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
*Comments
 
 
Refresh
Please enter the text displayed in the image.
The picture contains 6 characters.
*Characters
  
*Legal Notice

NDIA is not responsible for screening, policing, editing, or monitoring your or another user's postings and encourages all of its users to use reasonable discretion and caution in evaluating or reviewing any posting. Moreover, and except as provided below with respect to NDIA's right and ability to delete or remove a posting (or any part thereof), NDIA does not endorse, oppose, or edit any opinion or information provided by you or another user and does not make any representation with respect to, nor does it endorse the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other material displayed, uploaded, or distributed by you or any other user. Nevertheless, NDIA reserves the right to delete or take other action with respect to postings (or parts thereof) that NDIA believes in good faith violate this Legal Notice and/or are potentially harmful or unlawful. If you violate this Legal Notice, NDIA may, in its sole discretion, delete the unacceptable content from your posting, remove or delete the posting in its entirety, issue you a warning, and/or terminate your use of the NDIA site. Moreover, it is a policy of NDIA to take appropriate actions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and other applicable intellectual property laws. If you become aware of postings that violate these rules regarding acceptable behavior or content, you may contact NDIA at 703.522.1820.

 
 
  Bookmark and Share