The U.S. Congressional Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, part of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, held a hearing earlier this month on U.S. Coast Guard operations in the Arctic. The chief topic of concern was icebreakers. As I reported back in February, the U.S. will be without heavy icebreakers for at least two years.
The USCG's District Seventeen covers all of Alaska. It is divided into two sectors, Juneau and Anchorage. The USCG has an air station in Kodiak and Sitka, both in southern Alaska, where operations are concentrated. The USCG helps to safeguard the numerous fishermen in the seas, perform search and rescue operations, and protect sensitive maritime areas like sea lion rookeries.
This year, they will also be carrying out an operation in anticipation of eventual drilling in the Chukchi Sea so that they can be better prepared. The USCG, however, does not have any permanent bases, communications infrastructure, or other facilities necessary to allow for extended operations in the Arctic.
The U.S. currently only has one operational icebreaker, a medium icebreaker called the USCGC Healy. Though it can cut through ice up to 4.5 feet thick at three knots, it cannot carry out unassisted polar icebreaker operations. Healy is scheduled to be in service until 2030.
Icebreakers sidelined
The two heavy icebreakers that are currently sidelined, the Polar Star and Polar Sea, can break through six feet of ice at three knots. They constitute the "world's most powerful non-nuclear-powered icebreakers." This does not mean much in a world where Russia has several nuclear-powered icebreakers that can cut through Arctic ice, often six to nine feet thick in the central part of the ocean, at three knots. China is also building a new icebreaker to launch in 2014, which will have a displacement of 8,000 tons (half the size of Healy).
This will be the country's second icebreaker, as it purchased the Xue Long from the Ukraine in 1993. The Xue Long, though massive at 21,250 tons, is not especially powerful, as it can cut through a little under four feet of ice at two knots.
The Polar Star and Polar Sea's main missions include supporting National Science Foundation research in Antarctica. However, they have not assisted in a mission to Antarctica since 2007. Since then, the NSF has paid $8 million annually to Russia and Sweden for use of their icebreakers. This situation draws a parallel to the country's lack of space shuttles, which has caused it to rely on Russian Soyuz rockets to reach the International Space Station.
This year, the U.S. was counting on Sweden's icebreaker Oden for its annual Antarctic breakout, but Stockholm decided that it needed to keep the ship at home to patrol sea lanes. Without any active icebreakers, not only does the U.S. have to rely on a tight global supply. Coast Guard members' skills at operating icebreakers grow rustier as they lose at-sea time and hands-on training, too.
Congress decommissioned the Polar Sea in October 2011, and equipment is being transferred from the ship to the Polar Star to assist in its reactivation. The Polar Sea was rehabilitated in 2006, but four years later, it experienced catastrophic engine problems. To fix the Polar Star, Congress has appropriated $60 million. Yet it is uncertain how much longer she will last even after the repairs are completed in Seattle in December 2012. The ship may have only another seven to 10 years in her, which could leave the U.S. without any operational heavy icebreaker yet again in less than a decade.
But another complicating factor is HR 2838, the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2011, which the House has passed. This bill would decommission the Polar Star within three years.
As Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Washington) noted, "I may not know the precise definition of the word, "irony", but scheduling a hearing to discuss Coast Guard capabilities in the Arctic less than three weeks after the House passed legislation that would decommission the Coast Guard's two heavy icebreakers, sure seems ironic to me."
The White House also issued a formal statement opposing HR 2838, as the bill would "effectively reduce the vessel's service life to two years and create a significant gap in the Nation's icebreaking capacity."
We must bring our Icebreakers back to full service! This is a no brainer. The longer we waste time talking about this we will add cost. First I know the ship yards want to start with new hulls and go from the ground up, this would be a waste of money and time! The steel in the hull is good yes we will need to check for damage but the cost of hull repair would be less than building new hulls, the steel is as strong as any steel in our USN Sub. fleet now in service, I have been told by those in the know! I served aboard the Polar Star (WAGB 10) she is in the shipyard being rebuilt to return to service, I read that they are pulling parts from the Polar Sea, hope they are rebuilding these parts before they are installing them in the Star, A new paint job IS NOT REBUILDING!! This would bring or fleet to Two heavy duty Breakers Finish the Polar Star then get busy rebuilding the Polar Sea! This will save money and Time then we will have the time to find the money to build two more Ice Breakers,, OH by the way this project would add JOBS! which we also need now! I know this is a simple fix, But our people in DC are very busy right now trying to keep their job
It would just be another boondoggle that doesn't get used to any actual good purpose.
Maybe we could set Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich and Don Young adrift on a raft in the Bering Sea and see if anyone wants to buy an icebreaker to rescue them?
Let's see, If the theory is correct there will be no overwinter ice in the arctic region in ten years. If we decided to build it now, a new ice breaker might be available in ten years. Why are we building this thing?
Print 
Single Page
Enlarge This Image
Comments