by Guest » May 25, 2015, 12:59 pm
Since the mid-1960s, the U.S. Coast Guard has been officially tasked by Congress with icebreaking duties to maintain certain key commerce lanes and provide flood control while also providing icebreaker support for national science expeditions such as Operation Deep Freeze. At that point, all the U.S. Navy's icebreakers like Edisto and Burton Island as well as the Glacier were transferred to the CG. The U.S. Coast Guard is a branch of the U.S. military. By law, U.S. military vessels must be domestically constructed, so the USCG picking up a second-hand European breaker or two isn't going to be an answer. Funding for a new Lakes icebreaker has a lot of hurdles to clear in the interim in the next two years. That's expecting a lot with the turnover and politics in Congress between now and then, especially with a presidential election thrown in there. Then there are the lingering questions about the effectiveness and durability of the "modern" Great Lakes breaker design, as evidenced by the "new" Mackinaw. As has been stated here before in February in the "WLBB-31" thread, as weak as the icebreaking capabilities are here on the Great Lakes, where the real concern lies is in the Polar regions. Currently, the U.S. Coast Guard has only one real Polar Class breaker in operational status, the CGC Polar Star (WAGB-10). Her sister ship, Polar Sea (WAGB-11) is currently in limited commission but inoperable in Seattle as five of her six MDEs are toast. The government is "thinking out of the box" with Polar Sea because Congress really doesn't want to spend $850 million for a new icebreaker. They're not crazy as it is about spending $100 million to fix Polar Sea. Recent direction in some of the same House legislation that has excited everyone about the possibility of a new Lakes icebreaker has directed a study to determine whether to reactivate Polar Sea for use and ownership by the USCG or turn the ship over to the National Science Foundation to fund repairs to lease back to the Coast Guard for operation. There are various other ideas for construction of a new breaker. This would be a new breaker owned/operated by the CG, a private-constructed breaker to be leased to the CG for operation or a new breaker to be operated privately. Now this is intended to support scientific research at McMurdo Station in Antarctica in particular, so that's where the focus is at. The language is in the En Bloc Amendments to HR 1987. There's also language in there regarding Great Lakes ballast rules. A study of World icebreakers is here:
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34391.pdfSince the mid-1960s, the U.S. Coast Guard has been officially tasked by Congress with icebreaking duties to maintain certain key commerce lanes and provide flood control while also providing icebreaker support for national science expeditions such as Operation Deep Freeze. At that point, all the U.S. Navy's icebreakers like Edisto and Burton Island as well as the Glacier were transferred to the CG. The U.S. Coast Guard is a branch of the U.S. military. By law, U.S. military vessels must be domestically constructed, so the USCG picking up a second-hand European breaker or two isn't going to be an answer. Funding for a new Lakes icebreaker has a lot of hurdles to clear in the interim in the next two years. That's expecting a lot with the turnover and politics in Congress between now and then, especially with a presidential election thrown in there. Then there are the lingering questions about the effectiveness and durability of the "modern" Great Lakes breaker design, as evidenced by the "new" Mackinaw. As has been stated here before in February in the "WLBB-31" thread, as weak as the icebreaking capabilities are here on the Great Lakes, where the real concern lies is in the Polar regions. Currently, the U.S. Coast Guard has only one real Polar Class breaker in operational status, the CGC Polar Star (WAGB-10). Her sister ship, Polar Sea (WAGB-11) is currently in limited commission but inoperable in Seattle as five of her six MDEs are toast. The government is "thinking out of the box" with Polar Sea because Congress really doesn't want to spend $850 million for a new icebreaker. They're not crazy as it is about spending $100 million to fix Polar Sea. Recent direction in some of the same House legislation that has excited everyone about the possibility of a new Lakes icebreaker has directed a study to determine whether to reactivate Polar Sea for use and ownership by the USCG or turn the ship over to the National Science Foundation to fund repairs to lease back to the Coast Guard for operation. There are various other ideas for construction of a new breaker. This would be a new breaker owned/operated by the CG, a private-constructed breaker to be leased to the CG for operation or a new breaker to be operated privately. Now this is intended to support scientific research at McMurdo Station in Antarctica in particular, so that's where the focus is at. The language is in the En Bloc Amendments to HR 1987. There's also language in there regarding Great Lakes ballast rules. A study of World icebreakers is here: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34391.pdf