US icebreaker fleet. Dark present and bright future

Icebreaker USCGC Polar Star (WAGB-10) in ice. Photo by US CG

The United States plans to expand its presence in the Arctic, and the naval forces should become one of the main instruments for solving this problem. For full-fledged work in high latitudes, the fleet needs icebreakers - but the situation around such ships leaves much to be desired. The number of heavy icebreakers capable of operating in the Arctic seas is insufficient, and the new ships so far exist only in the form of plans.

Not enough minimum

The US icebreaker fleet, which supports the Navy and commercial carriers, is part of the Coast Guard. At the moment, the US Coast Guard formally has only three heavy icebreakers. These are two ships of the Polar type and one of the Healy design. Medium icebreaker USCGC Mackinaw (WLBB-30) operates in the Great Lakes and does not go out into the oceans. Also worth mentioning are 9 Bay-class icebreaking tugs, distributed across several ports.

Of this total, only two heavy icebreakers are capable of going out to sea and operating in the northern regions of the Pacific and Atlantic Ocean and to assist the work of the US Navy in the Arctic. These ships are USCGC Polar Star (WAGB-10) and USCGC Healy (WAGB-20). The third heavy icebreaker, USCGC Polar Sea (WAGB-11), stands at the quay wall after an accident and serves as a source of spare parts for a vessel of the same type.

USCGC Polar Star tows the vessel. Photo by US CG

The USCGC Polar Star (WAGB-10) icebreaker began service in 1976, and underwent modernization at the beginning of the last decade. This is a 122 m long vessel with a total displacement of over 13,8 thousand tons. The power plant is built according to the CODLOG scheme and includes 6 diesel engines with a capacity of 3 thousand hp each. and 3 gas turbine engines of 25 thousand hp each. In clear water, the icebreaker accelerates to 18 knots and has a range of 16 thousand nautical miles. The design of the hull provides passage through ice up to 1,8-2 m thick at a speed of 3 knots. It is possible to overcome hummocks up to 4 m thick.

USCGC Healy (WAGB-20) was built in 1996-99. and is the newest of all US heavy icebreakers. It has a length of 128 m with a displacement of more than 16,2 thousand tons. A diesel-electric power plant with four internal combustion engines with a capacity of 11,6 thousand hp was used. Two running electric motors have a capacity of 15 thousand hp each. The maximum speed of USCGC Healy reaches 17 knots. In terms of basic performance indicators, the vessel is not inferior to other heavy US icebreakers. There are own laboratories on board with the possibility of placing one or another scientific equipment.

Icebreaker USCGC Polar Sea (WAGB-11) at sea. Now he stands by the coast. Photo by US CG

Both active icebreakers and one cannibalized vessel are based in the port of Seattle, Washington. Depending on the task at hand, they can work in the region of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. In addition, they are used to support the operation of American bases in Antarctica. If necessary, it is not excluded that icebreakers move to the East Coast to solve certain problems.

"Polar Safety"

In the early tenths, simultaneously with the decommissioning of the icebreaker Polar Sea, the Coast Guard command raised the issue of building new ships. Initially, the future program was called Heavy Polar Ice Breaker, and later it was renamed Polar Security Cutter.

For several years, the US Coast Guard tried unsuccessfully to find funding and agree on the construction of several new icebreakers. For one reason or another, the full launch of the future PSC program has been repeatedly postponed. In 2016, the situation changed. In connection with the change in the main strategies, the US Navy began to show interest in the icebreaking theme, and the two structures joined forces.

Icebreaker USCGC Healy (WAGB-20) is the newest of the heavy ones. Photo by NASA

In 2017, the development of requirements for future icebreakers and the preparation of construction plans began. Later, the competitive design of a heavy-class icebreaker began. The winner of the program was VT Halter Marine, based in Pascagoula, Mississippi. In April 2019, it was awarded a $ 746 million contract to complete the design and construction of the lead icebreaker PSC. An option was also issued for the next two vessels of the same type.

The German research vessel Polarstern II was taken as the basis for the VT Halter Marine project. Its design is being finalized in accordance with the requirements of the Coast Guard and the Navy, and is also equipped with new equipment. It is expected that the finished icebreaker of the new project will have a length of 140 m and a displacement of more than 23 thousand tons. A diesel-electric power plant with aft propellers and a bow thruster will be used. The vessel will be able to break through ice at least 1,4 m thick with constant movement at 3 knots; will also provide passage of thicker obstacles.

The laying of the head PSC with tail number WSMP-1 will take place in 2021. In 2022-23. the ship will be built and handover to the customer is expected by June 2024. Then USCG wants to build two more new heavy icebreakers - with delivery in 2026 and 2027. The total cost of the three vessels could reach $ 2 billion.

USCGC Healy escorts the Renda tanker to the port of Nome, Alaska, 2012. Photo by US Navy

It is curious that the PSC program provides for the construction of not only three heavy icebreakers, but also three middle class vessels. Requirements for this project are now being developed, and development has not yet begun. The timing of the construction is still unknown. It was mentioned that the entire PSC program should be completed by 2030 or a little later.

Dual-use atom

Despite the availability of the necessary technology, the United States has not yet built nuclear-powered icebreakers. In addition, they do not have warships capable of independently operating in the Arctic seas without icebreakers. At the same time, the potential enemy in the person of Russia has both. Perhaps the US will take action and start closing the gap in these areas.

In June of this year, US President Donald Trump signed the Memorandum on Safeguarding US National Interests in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions. Among other things, it defines the main paths for the development of the icebreaker fleet... It is proposed to study and evaluate a wide range of modern and promising shipbuilding technologies suitable for use in new icebreakers.

Proposed appearance of the PSC heavy icebreaker. VT Halter Marine Graphics

In particular, the Memorandum calls for studying the issue of building icebreakers with a nuclear power plant, as well as working out the topic of equipping such ships with defensive weapons. The results of such studies can be used in the further development of the PSC program or other similar projects.

The memorandum is calculated until 2029, which makes its proposals look very interesting. Within the specified time frame, it is planned to build three heavy icebreakers PSC and, possibly, carry out work on medium-sized vessels. The idea of ​​equipping icebreakers with defensive weapons is generally realistic and can be implemented on time - albeit with some limitations. As for nuclear power plants for icebreakers, by the end of the decade, one can expect the appearance of similar projects, but not ready-made ships.

In light of these circumstances, the proposal of the Memorandum on the lease of foreign ships looks curious. It is proposed to consider such measures in case of failures with the construction of own icebreakers and with the development of promising projects.

PSC in service - so far in the picture. VT Halter Marine Graphics

Dark present and bright future

Currently, the state of the US Coast Guard icebreaker fleet leaves much to be desired. It is capable of providing scientific and economic activities, but its potential is insufficient for full-fledged assistance to the naval forces in the Arctic. First of all, there are quantitative problems. Fortunately for the Navy, the country's leadership and security forces understand this problem and are even taking steps to remedy the situation.

So far, there are only two heavy icebreakers in service, built in the seventies and nineties. The third is expected to appear in 2024, and two more will be operational by the end of the decade. Apparently, by this time it will be necessary to write off the completely obsolete ship USCGC Polar Star (WAGB-10). As a result, in 2023. in the ranks there will be no more than 4-5 heavy icebreakers and, possibly, up to 3-4 medium ones, all of which are diesel-powered.

Due to this size and technical features, the overall potential of the American icebreaker fleet will be limited. However, against the background of the current situation, even 8-10 diesel vessels look very advantageous. Time will tell whether it will be possible to fulfill the current plans and implement the requirements of the Memorandum.

Comments

[Kote Pan Kokhanka]

A wave of political information from childhood - "to catch up and overtake Ameri ..., ugh Russia" !!!

[Deck]

Currently, the state of the US Coast Guard icebreaker fleet leaves much to be desired. It is capable of providing scientific and economic activities, but its potential is insufficient for full-fledged assistance to the naval forces in the Arctic. First of all, there are quantitative problems. Fortunately for the Navy, the country's leadership and security forces understand this problem and are even taking measures to remedy the situation.

What a tender concern for America's prosperity. It's time for the author to be elected to Congress. The United States knows how to build other ships and vessels. They do not need to ensure the operation of freezing ports for the export of hydrocarbons. Which is critical for our country.

[Hunter 2]

Quote: Kote Pan Kokhanka

A wave of political information from childhood - "to catch up and overtake Ameri ..., ugh Russia" !!!

Greetings Vlad ! Considering the latest data from Arctic researchers, this region is a huge storehouse of both minerals and valuable biological resources. Well, absolutely everyone has heard about the Northern Sea Route, which runs along our borders almost along its entire length.
The condition and qualitatively - quantitative composition of our icebreaker fleet allows Russia to be a leader in the development of this region ... and this Leadership should not be missed in any case!
Even China became interested in Icebreakers (pancake polar explorers) and ships. Ice class, and began their construction.

[Civil]

Polarstern 2 project
Apparently they don't need it, but they would spank a bunch. They have money, shipyards, technology too.

[Thrifty]

Kirill, we don't need icebreakers in the USA so far. When it is very necessary, their shipyards will "give birth" in a short time an icebreaker fleet no less than ours. They have retained their shipbuilding capacities, everything there rests purely on finances, there are funds, there will be herds of icebreakers. ...

[KCA]

Competence in the construction of icebreakers, especially with nuclear power plants, cannot be bought quickly even for very big money, the experience of using in an ice environment, too, can a powerful US icebreaker be able to go from Alaska to Murmansk without the support of Russian meteorological services and other services?

[Cosm22]

What other competence is there? Is this a hint that a country that knows how to build unique aircraft carriers will not be able, if necessary, to spank a bunch of icebreakers in record time? Stop making people laugh.
There is no urgent need for the United States to build an icebreaker fleet at an accelerated pace. For what? Even the coast of Alaska does not need it, especially the coast of Florida.
In general, this "battle for the Arctic" in the Russian press is already pretty tired. Well, Russia will win this "battle".
What's next?
Are there technologies to develop the Arctic? They are not here. And it won't.
For - sanctions.

[KCA]

Do not confuse warm with soft, aircraft carrier, yes, strength, but:

The American carrier strike group, led by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Harry Truman, was forced to leave the area of ​​the large-scale NATO exercise Trident Juncture 2018, which is taking place in Norway and off its coast.
The reason is a strong storm in the North Atlantic, said the commander of the strike group, Rear Admiral Gene Black.
“You have to know when it’s time to go for cover or get out of the way of an impending storm,” he said in an interview with the US Naval Institute.
“We had to leave the exercise a little earlier than we would like, as a storm with 30-foot (10-meter) waves hit us,” the admiral explained according to Interfax.
Black noted that during the exercise, he had to closely monitor the weather. According to him, while the aircraft carrier "Harry Truman" could safely operate in the harsh conditions of the North Atlantic and the Norwegian Sea, the accompanying cruiser and destroyers were limited in their ability to perform missions in extreme conditions.
In addition, the capabilities of support vessels, which were supposed to supply fuel and cargo to the warships of the aircraft carrier group, were even more limited.

Well, a year ago:
The US Coast Guard could abandon the exercises in the Arctic due to fears that the only American heavy icebreaker could break, and Russia will have to ask for help, writes Business Insider.
According to the publication, the United States has two icebreakers, but only one of them is of the heavy type, which can be sent to the Arctic and Antarctic. This is the Polar Star vessel, which is more than 40 years old and has practically ended its service life. Therefore, according to the publication, the former commander of the US Coast Guard Paul Tsukunft opposed when the National Security Council planned to send an icebreaker across the Northern Sea Route to participate in the exercises.
"I cannot guarantee you that he will not have catastrophic technical failures during the exercise ... then I would have to turn to Russia to be towed to a safe place," Tsukunft said.

[Cosm22]

There is no need to confuse completely different things - the economic opportunities of countries, the technological culture of production, the presence of stocks, the qualifications of engineering and technical and working personnel.
What, the United States does not have all this?
Well, why bother to fence?
The United States does not need to pump up the loot into the development and construction of the icebreaker fleet. They just don't need him. For the reason that in the warm ocean waters washing the coast of America, there was no ice. Except for a deserted patch of land in Alaska.
And on this basis we are proud? Like, America was surpassed? Well, if there is nothing else ...

[Kot_Kuzya]

Why does the US need icebreakers? They have only the western and northern coast of Alaska freezing, where practically no one lives. The southern coast of Alaska, where the largest city of Alaska Anchorage is located, is heated by the warm Alaskan current, an analogue of the European Gulf Stream, and therefore does not freeze either. Therefore, it is natural that they do not have normal icebreakers, like Russian ones, they simply do not need such icebreakers.

[arkadiyssk]

Well, yes - they have an ally Canada to swim on the ice - they are now actively standing Harry DeWolves.

[KCA]

Canada is never an ally of the United States to swim in the ice, mattresses are not only on the NSR and the Arctic coast of Russia, they are still trying very hard to squeeze the North-West Passage from Canada, while they offer to buy it, but what will happen next? Canadians, somehow, have a negative attitude to this proposal, to put it mildly

[Kot_Kuzya]

Don't write nonsense. Canada is part of Britain, and therefore the United States will not do anything against Canada.

[KCA]

The territorial disputes between the United States and Canada over the Northwest Passage (N3P), as well as with Russia over the Northern Sea Route, are the same. The legal status of the straits has not yet been finally and irrevocably determined.
With the global warming, the shipping season for the NWP is becoming longer and safer, which is a sea route across the Arctic Ocean along the northern coast of North America through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. In the summer season, ships on it can pass from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.
The essence of Washington's claims is that it, based on the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, considers the NWP to be a transport artery that meets the legal criteria of an international strait, since it connects two parts of the high seas (the Arctic and Atlantic oceans) and is used for international shipping ... From this point of view, the waterway is considered Canadian territory, but foreign ships have the right to transit through it. Canada, however, insists that the LWP is inland waters, as a result of which all foreign vessels are required to request permission to enter these waters. The United States, on the other hand, with increasing regularity navigates its ships and ships through the NWP, while not asking its neighbor for permission.

[Kot_Kuzya]

It is easier and cheaper for the United States to connect New York to California via the Panama Canal than via the Northwest Passage. The distance is about the same, but you don't need to wade through the ice and this path is open all year round, not only in summer.

[KCA]

Is it easier and cheaper with Europe too? Don't you like the graters about FFP? Read about NATO allies Britain and Iceland, "Cod Wars"

[Kuroneko]

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

Why does the US need icebreakers?

They want to snatch their piece of the pie in the Arctic. Or, more precisely, to interfere with us by arranging provocations on the Northern Sea Route. There were already specific plans, but they were afraid - precisely because of the critical condition of Polar Star (the old man has something in every trip, but it breaks). After all, if something happened, only Russia could save the ship, which would be extremely humiliating for America. So the plan was postponed until better times, and the PSC program was just launched.

[Oleg83]

Quote: Kot_Kuzya

Why does the US need icebreakers? They have only the western and northern coast of Alaska freezing, where practically no one lives. The southern coast of Alaska, where the largest city of Alaska Anchorage is located, is heated by the warm Alaskan current, an analogue of the European Gulf Stream, and therefore does not freeze either. Therefore, it is natural that they do not have normal icebreakers, like Russian ones, they simply do not need such icebreakers.

I agree. Icebreakers are primarily needed by Canada. In general, the United States needs 3-5 icebreakers. And most importantly, the extraction of energy resources in the Arctic in Canada is prohibited by law, in the United States under Bidon a similar bill will be adopted

[timokhin-aa]

Ryabov has taken a new height - plagiarism of the authors of VO itself!

Amazing. If someone does not understand, then here is the original: https://topwar.ru/172751-amerikanskie-tjazhelye-ledokoly-xxi-veka-odin-v-postrojke-dva-na-ocheredi-chto-dalshe.html

[Kuroneko]

Quote: timokhin-aa

If anyone does not understand, then here is the original:

I remember your article well. And yes, it is much more detailed and detailed. But perhaps this is not plagiarism - it just happened. Cyril most likely works according to a pre-built long-term plan of topics. He is not a specialist in the fleet, he has his own niche - every now and then give out all sorts of things on various techniques (although, as a rule, in the tradition of Wikipedia - a dry statement of known facts, without any attempts at analytics, well, without an emphasis on nuances).

[timokhin-aa]

Well, maybe so

[evgen1221]

Why should they build their own? - one color revolution and you can use ours, one law and all Russian aluminum belongs to America. It works much faster and more efficiently.

[Alien From]

We must lead in this direction! You can't give them a single chance !!!

[Bersaglieri]

Heh, here's #profit - to lease the decommissioned nuclear icebreakers of the previous generation to the USA.

[Bersaglieri]

Minus - very mournful mind and do not understand strategists. Firstly, this is #profit, and secondly, it is "binding" to the technological "tail" and complete dependence on the customer for components (like in the USSR, when IBM-370 was taken to the "mainstream")

[Bersaglieri]

Oligophrenics continue to decline. Well, OK :)

[skullcap]

I will not even read this cidulka, because already in its name psychotronic weapons are off-scale in the form of a "bright future" of a dying country. A country that must disappear for humanity to exist.