Thanks for the note, and the link to that article. I worked with Jim Webster around the time it was written, but didn't know that the results of the analysis were public.
Diminished ice in this case isn't referring to ice conditions in the wake of an icebreaker. Rather, it's referring to operating in certain ice conditions without an icebreaker escort.
As the article states, DDG-51 did quite well, but we would probably want to do some engineering modifications (not a re-design, but an engineered solution) to make sure that exposed hull structures have some additional protection.
With regard to USCG icebreakers providing access, I think the type of icebreaker matters greatly. I wouldn't expect Healy, for example, to be able to handle an escort mission in heavy sea ice (you can look to her escort of a Russian tanker into Nome back in 2012). But more modern icebreakers could.
As far as the current need to bring a DDG to heavy ice:
There aren't any true icebreaker warships these days. I know Russia's project 23550 'armed icebreakers' get a lot of attention, but they basically have a deck gun and space/power for a containerized missile system (one that, to my knowledge, we haven't seen the Russian deploy yet).
There are some armed patrol vessels, like the Norwegian Coast Guard's patrol vessel Svalbard and Canada's Harry de Wolfe class Arctic offshore patrol vessels. (Note: de Wolfe is based off of Svalbard, but they made some interesting design choices like not using Azipods...) But again, we're talking deck guns. Same with the Danish vessels designed to patrol the waters of Greenland.
> If the availability of support and parts is a concern, it would seem that buying Caterpillar/MaK diesels is a less-than-optimal solution compared to a specialty manufacturer such as Wärtsilä.
Yeah, but buying engines for a class of ships from a company that's going to stop making those engines before the ships are even built is *very* US Government.
Thank you for writing this excellent article.
How confident are you that a Constellation-class frigate or a Burke could operate in diminished ice conditions in the wake of an ice breaker?
This article is a little ambiguous, but it indicates that an un-modified Burke would not be able to function in diminished ice.
https://news.usni.org/2019/09/18/arleigh-burke-destroyers-are-most-viable-option-for-near-term-navy-presence-in-arctic#:~:text=The%20amphibious%20assault%20ships%20don,addressing%20limitations%20for%20hull%20structures.
Thanks for the note, and the link to that article. I worked with Jim Webster around the time it was written, but didn't know that the results of the analysis were public.
Diminished ice in this case isn't referring to ice conditions in the wake of an icebreaker. Rather, it's referring to operating in certain ice conditions without an icebreaker escort.
As the article states, DDG-51 did quite well, but we would probably want to do some engineering modifications (not a re-design, but an engineered solution) to make sure that exposed hull structures have some additional protection.
With regard to USCG icebreakers providing access, I think the type of icebreaker matters greatly. I wouldn't expect Healy, for example, to be able to handle an escort mission in heavy sea ice (you can look to her escort of a Russian tanker into Nome back in 2012). But more modern icebreakers could.
As far as the current need to bring a DDG to heavy ice:
There aren't any true icebreaker warships these days. I know Russia's project 23550 'armed icebreakers' get a lot of attention, but they basically have a deck gun and space/power for a containerized missile system (one that, to my knowledge, we haven't seen the Russian deploy yet).
There are some armed patrol vessels, like the Norwegian Coast Guard's patrol vessel Svalbard and Canada's Harry de Wolfe class Arctic offshore patrol vessels. (Note: de Wolfe is based off of Svalbard, but they made some interesting design choices like not using Azipods...) But again, we're talking deck guns. Same with the Danish vessels designed to patrol the waters of Greenland.
Thank you for the clarification.
What do you think of the Mk 38 Mod 4 as the proposed armament for PSC? Seems like a reasonble choice to me.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/04/usgcs-cutters-to-receive-30mm-mark-44/
Extremely comprehensive and informative article. Please keep up the good work!
> If the availability of support and parts is a concern, it would seem that buying Caterpillar/MaK diesels is a less-than-optimal solution compared to a specialty manufacturer such as Wärtsilä.
Yeah, but buying engines for a class of ships from a company that's going to stop making those engines before the ships are even built is *very* US Government.
Thank you.