AU Joint Nuclear Icebreaker (WIP)

I've finally made headway on an idea which has been bouncing around my head periodically for a while and which I started brainstorming in earnest a few weeks ago. I'm designing a massive nuclear-powered heavy icebreaker larger than anything Russia has ever built (excluding Sevmorput, though she's less capable in icebreaking than her dedicated cousins) or proposed, including Project 22220 Arktika and probably the Project 10510 Leader-class as well. It's intended to be a joint Navy/Coast Guard vessel for my AU (which is heavily US-based and whose symbolism and agencies are virtually identical to those of the US), though I plan to make both a US and AU drawing for the final product.

[Image removed, updated drawing on next page.]

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!

As I'm currently developing my own polar exploration icebreaker, I'm looking forward to this topic.

_________________
My deviantart account
http://cascadiasb.deviantart.com/?rnrd=191663

Does the basic design so far look sound and seaworthy? The freeboard-to-draught ratio (freeboard at stern) is intended to be similar to Victory's, but the draught looks pretty plunging, even by icebreaker standards. I don't know for certain since I'm not an actual naval engineer, but I hope it's a good thing. Note that I want to go for a "squared-off" hull similar to Healy to improve handling in open ocean, with shading to signify the same.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!

It's an interesting idea, but I do wonder what the US needs a super-sized icebreaker for. Unlike Russia or even Canada to some extend it's not as if a third of your major ports are shut down by ice for the majority of the year and you don't have several offshore installations in the arctic sea to take care of.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Indeed, Russian or Canadian this large IB would made more sense.

Thiel wrote:

That's quite true. Ronald O'Rourke entertained some possible arguments for (and against) procuring a nuclear-powered USCG icebreaker.[1] The pros basically boil down to general operational advantages, high oil costs at the time of the writing (May 2009), economies of scale with regard to nuclear marine propulsion components, and a mix of expanding US polar interests and good ol' strategic posturing. Cons were basically cost, lack of any Coast Guard experience with nuclear power, and lack of need vs. conventionally-powered IBs. The primary counterpoint I've seen to talk of an "icebreaker gap" is that Russia mostly has its monster icebreakers because they need them really badly, and they would be quite literally up an icy creek without a paddle without them.

Worth noting, however, is that the US has been expanding the scope of its polar missions to include collaboration with military and civilian scientific research expeditions, increased escorting of American vessels, environmental protection, SAR, and law enforcement. This is more or less why the Healy was procured, and the US might want something more powerful if it wants to double down on those sorts of missions.

Barring that, this icebreaker is also for my AU, which is heavily US-based (with some key differences, including that it's much larger and surrounded by water). It has a major state located in arctic and subarctic regions (roughly analogous to Alaska), and like the US, it is pursuing a policy of increased missions at high northern (and to a lesser extent southern) latitudes. These include scientific research, escorting commercial and military vessels, search-and-rescue, providing emergency power for remote areas, demonstrating presence, and anti-human trafficking operations. The vessel would be operated (in the AU, but applicable to the US due to similarities between the two) as part of a joint Navy/Coast Guard/NOAA/NSF partnership. The Navy runs anything and everything to do with the reactor plant as well as any duty stations better suited to sailors or which justify their presence during a given mission, and the Coast Guard runs the vessel and its major equipment as a whole, while NOAA and NSF folks basically hitch rides with whatever equipment they need.

odysseus1980 wrote:

Indeed, Russian or Canadian this large IB would made more sense.

I originally conceived this as an answer to the big Russian IBs, but it's more for my AU than anything else. I threw US into the title since I intend to produce a version in a US livery. I suppose I could throw in a Canadian variant as well, seeing as I intend to base an S-92 (CH-148) helicopter aboard, anyway.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!

... Russia must have big IBs to keep clear the Northern route (North-east). Thus derives the design of such very large IBs for leading convoys.
On the opposite side of Artcic sea there is Canada that is ony talking about new IBs since years.
USA do not have direct access to Arctic sea. Moreover there is a long-standing friction with Canada (during the Manhattan transit the USCG icebreaker was faced by Canadian IB...)
So I think that such design cannot be extended to US (and even to Canada).

PS: the main target for US would be to supply the US bases in Antarctica (I would say McMurdo maily) but it is not necessary such large nuclear IB. Moreover are enough ice-stregth cargo and oiler to reach McMurdo...

Lazer_one wrote:

USA do not have direct access to Arctic sea.

Erm...Alaska? Point Barrow, Prudhoe Bay/Deadhorse, and Barter Island are also important strategic locations.

Quote:

Moreover there is a long-standing friction with Canada (during the Manhattan transit the USCG icebreaker was faced by Canadian IB...)
So I think that such design cannot be extended to US (and even to Canada).

Political squabbles between otherwise friendly states aren't what I would call insurmountable. I mean, seeing as this is a hypothetical, one could suppose there might be some sort of future treaty over the Passage, especially considering what a hot topic it is these days.

I should add that there's a rather impassioned push for the US to develop more icebreakers and greatly expand polar ops, with specific references to "competing" with Russia.

Coast Guard moves forward to design new icebreakers

Quote:

Since taking the helm of the Coast Guard a year and a half ago, Commandant Adm. Paul Zukunft has traveled the country — and the world — stumping for another heavy icebreaker to back up the 40-year-old Polar Star.

The first step in that process began Wednesday, he announced, with a Federal Business Opportunities solicitation for the Polar Class Icebreaker Replacement Program, which went live just before noon.

"We have President Obama, in Alaska, saying we need to accelerate the build-out of icebreakers," he said at the annual Surface Navy Association Symposium outside Washington, D.C. "I’m pretty sure I heard an 's' at the end of that."

...

"We have no shore infrastructure, so that is a floating command platform," he said. It should also be able to do environmental response, safety at sea and unmanned vehicle operations in the air and underwater.

Specifically, the new ships need to be able to continuously push through up to six feet of ice — but preferably eight — going at least 3 knots.

In ice-free waters, it will need a sustained speed of 15 knots, or the speed at max horsepower.

The new icebreakers must also be able to:

Sail a range of 21,500 nautical miles at 12 knots.
Go 80 days underway without replenishment.
Run at least 3,300 operational hours a year.
Visually evaluate ice conditions for 12 nautical miles in each direction.
Land a range of military and federal helicopters.
Hangar two Coast Guard helicopters or future unmanned systems.

A full list of requirements is available on the FBO web site.

America Must Build More Icebreakers or We’ll Lose the Battle for the Arctic

Quote:

The Coast Guard’s sole remaining vessel, the Polar Star, is slated for retirement as early as 2019. Every other nation touching the Arctic Circle maintains a robust fleet. Russia, for example, is adding a dozen icebreakers to what already is the world’s biggest fleet. This sorry state of affairs led Alaska Republican Senator Dan Sullivan to say, “The highways of the Arctic are paved by icebreakers. Right now, the Russians have superhighways, and we have dirt roads with potholes.”

These vessels will be of increasing importance as vanishing sea ice opens shipping lanes between Asia and Europe that are 40 percent faster than conventional routes. The region also is home to vast fisheries, mineral deposits, and energy reserves estimated at $30 trillion. President Obama called the changes of the far north “the birth of a new ocean.”

...

“The growth of human activity in the Arctic region will require highly engaged stewardship to maintain the open seas necessary for global commerce and scientific research, allow for search and rescue activities, and provide for regional peace and stability,” the White House said in a statement. “Heavy icebreakers will ensure that the United States can meet our national interests, protect and manage our natural resources, and strengthen our international … relationships.”

Now, I realize that what I drew may be overkill for what they want. This is mostly for my US-patterned AU, anyway. I just thought I might do a version in USCG livery, hence why "US" is in the title.

Moreover, this is Shipbucket, not Capitol Hill, and I'm not a shipyard sticking anyone with a bill. I don't mean that in a harsh way, it's just that I'm currently trying to get past the "Does this hull shape look okay/technically feasible?" stage.

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!

For the sort of operations that the USCG must conduct, I'd wonder if more of a double-acting hull might be appropriate. Higher transit speed, better operation in open water, somewhat lower overall ice capacity (as best I can tell) but more than enough for what we generally need to handle. However, I am not aware of a double-acting configuration that uses multiple azipods, which I'd say is probably mandatory for a naval vessel (and definitely for a nuclear one).

erik_t wrote:

I was wondering about that as well. I was watching an old documentary about icebreakers, and they said they improved handling in open water on the Healy by "squaring off" the sides of the hull, with one USCG officer remarking that "she rides very well in an open seaway." Transit speed is definitely one area where double-acting ships win out either way, though.

Why azipods specifically?

_________________
Fasismi? Ei! Natsismin? Ei! Kommunismi? Ei! Elostelu!

Shipbucket

AU Joint Nuclear Icebreaker (WIP)

Who is online