According to the proposal, Seaspan's Multi-Purpose Icebreaker design would be built in Finland by Rauma Marine Constructions (RMC), with Aker Arctic (who did the concept design) providing support.
One of these new Finish Arctic Security Cutters would make a great GLAKES HEAVY Icebreaker. I think they will fit through the locks. Should that be the case . . . and the U.S. Navy decide to stand up a MISSILE RANGE in Lake Superior for FFG-62 CSSQT'a one of these would make a great command ship to monitor the exercise and provide range safety. Regardless, the USCG should designate a 3D radar for all cutters doing service in the poles regardless of mission. The AN/SPS-75 radar on the National Security Cutter is good, and so is the AN/SPS-77 which is a multi-role medium-range 3D surveillance radar system that will be on the OPC.
The Seaspan design is not the only game in town. Vard 9-201 features everything in the Seaspan design and Vard 9-203 is limited in aids to navigation capability but excels in the rest and can be build with different propulsion options.
There are definitely other designs that could work. I looked at some of them in my previous article. Didn't include the 9-201, mainly because I wasn't aware of it. At a quick look it looks like Canada's AOPV, which I did consider- but heard that its not really what the USCG is looking for in the ASC (maybe in the domestic?). I didn't include the 9-203 because it's draft is too deep for the USCG specs.
Now we have Davie/Helsinki with the MPPS-100, RMC/Seaspan/Aker with the MPI, and the USA (Bollinger/Chouest) with ?? At least that's what I'm tracking as publicly announced (or that I inferred- Davie never comments).
AOPV is the Vard 7-100 ICE. The 9-201 meets/exceeds all the same CCG requirements built into the Seaspan MPI and bears strong resemblance. Is the MPPS-100 a fully developed design or just a concept based around Fesco Sakhalin development? Not sure what Gary Rook at Chouest has up his sleeve, an updated Aiviq design or something new?
Perhaps I've been looking at Seaspan's promotional material too long. They upped some of the MPI specs (when they renamed it the MPI, I think) based on the latest design iteration. That, along with the stated possibility of building it to PC3, got me thinking it was more capable than the PC5 9-201, at least at a quick look.
As far as MPPS-100, I can only go by what I've been told- which is that Davie/Helsinki started on it last year and that they can deliver it in 36 months from order- something backed up by their track record. I expect we'll see Helsinki starting production work of their Polar Icebreaker later this year, even though the contract was only signed in March.
No idea what Chouest has up its sleeve. I thought Bollinger/ECO might be eyeing a domestic build of the MPI or AOPV. I recognize that's like looking for your keys under the streetlight, but I don't know what I don't know. :D. Their press release did use Aiviq as their reference build, and there was that follow-on to Aiviq that the announced, but never built...
One of these new Finish Arctic Security Cutters would make a great GLAKES HEAVY Icebreaker. I think they will fit through the locks. Should that be the case . . . and the U.S. Navy decide to stand up a MISSILE RANGE in Lake Superior for FFG-62 CSSQT'a one of these would make a great command ship to monitor the exercise and provide range safety. Regardless, the USCG should designate a 3D radar for all cutters doing service in the poles regardless of mission. The AN/SPS-75 radar on the National Security Cutter is good, and so is the AN/SPS-77 which is a multi-role medium-range 3D surveillance radar system that will be on the OPC.
Aker Arctic was involved in Mackinaw's design, so there may be other even more fitting designs out there for the Great Lakes.
The Seaspan design is not the only game in town. Vard 9-201 features everything in the Seaspan design and Vard 9-203 is limited in aids to navigation capability but excels in the rest and can be build with different propulsion options.
There are definitely other designs that could work. I looked at some of them in my previous article. Didn't include the 9-201, mainly because I wasn't aware of it. At a quick look it looks like Canada's AOPV, which I did consider- but heard that its not really what the USCG is looking for in the ASC (maybe in the domestic?). I didn't include the 9-203 because it's draft is too deep for the USCG specs.
Now we have Davie/Helsinki with the MPPS-100, RMC/Seaspan/Aker with the MPI, and the USA (Bollinger/Chouest) with ?? At least that's what I'm tracking as publicly announced (or that I inferred- Davie never comments).
AOPV is the Vard 7-100 ICE. The 9-201 meets/exceeds all the same CCG requirements built into the Seaspan MPI and bears strong resemblance. Is the MPPS-100 a fully developed design or just a concept based around Fesco Sakhalin development? Not sure what Gary Rook at Chouest has up his sleeve, an updated Aiviq design or something new?
Perhaps I've been looking at Seaspan's promotional material too long. They upped some of the MPI specs (when they renamed it the MPI, I think) based on the latest design iteration. That, along with the stated possibility of building it to PC3, got me thinking it was more capable than the PC5 9-201, at least at a quick look.
As far as MPPS-100, I can only go by what I've been told- which is that Davie/Helsinki started on it last year and that they can deliver it in 36 months from order- something backed up by their track record. I expect we'll see Helsinki starting production work of their Polar Icebreaker later this year, even though the contract was only signed in March.
No idea what Chouest has up its sleeve. I thought Bollinger/ECO might be eyeing a domestic build of the MPI or AOPV. I recognize that's like looking for your keys under the streetlight, but I don't know what I don't know. :D. Their press release did use Aiviq as their reference build, and there was that follow-on to Aiviq that the announced, but never built...