Thanks, Captain. That makes sense. Yet another thing I learned today.
I know the USCG plans on upgrading the Seattle facilities, but from what I remember it's rather tight. I can't see the USCG expanding the footprint, as that base is right downtown. I used to park there for Mariners/Seahawks games.
It strikes me that ice breakers are the perfect US construction requirement to be contracted out to trusted allies. Given our limited shipbuilding capacity, and the proven design and construction quality and capability of such stalwart allies as Finland and Sweden, building ice breakers for US requirements would be an ideal trial program, even if final fitting out had to be done in US shipyards. It could lead to more unified naval assets and operations, more efficient procurement and expanded maritime capability and resources. Trump has intimated such was under consideration, in general - not focussed on ice breakers specifically. Makes sense...
Polarstern II is 20m longer than the PSC as LOA was restricted in design to suit existing facilities in Seattle.
Thanks, Captain. That makes sense. Yet another thing I learned today.
I know the USCG plans on upgrading the Seattle facilities, but from what I remember it's rather tight. I can't see the USCG expanding the footprint, as that base is right downtown. I used to park there for Mariners/Seahawks games.
It strikes me that ice breakers are the perfect US construction requirement to be contracted out to trusted allies. Given our limited shipbuilding capacity, and the proven design and construction quality and capability of such stalwart allies as Finland and Sweden, building ice breakers for US requirements would be an ideal trial program, even if final fitting out had to be done in US shipyards. It could lead to more unified naval assets and operations, more efficient procurement and expanded maritime capability and resources. Trump has intimated such was under consideration, in general - not focussed on ice breakers specifically. Makes sense...