CommunityEditor
02-24-2009, 09:09 PM
The Arctic now has more water where ice once stood, and more ships are making their way through once-uncharted territory.
The new waterways not only open the debate on sovereignty issues, but also create more risks and responsibilities for a bare-bones crew of Coasties stationed in Alaska.
As America redefines its Arctic presence, the Coast Guard is looking at ways to modify existing assets to accomplish a rapidly growing mission.
One idea being considered is putting ice-strengthened hulls on six to eight of its offshore patrol cutters, the first of which are expected to enter the fleet in fiscal 2015.
The reinforced cutters would be used for missions similar to those of the service’s polar icebreakers, except the patrols would be shorter and the hulls would not be designed to push through 25 feet of ice, as the icebreakers do now, said Rear Adm. Arthur Brooks, commander of the Coast Guard’s 17th District, which covers Alaska and the North Pacific.
While the service conducts surveys on the benefits of placing ice-strengthened hulls on offshore patrol cutters, the idea of putting a similar hull on some of the new Sentinel-class fast response cutters “definitely is not off the table,” said Rear Adm. Gary Blore, the service’s chief of acquisitions.
The Coast Guard expects to send out a request for proposal for the OPC fleet this summer, and Blore said it is possible the requirements outlined in that request will include the ice-strengthened hulls.
Blore said it would cost $700 million to $1 billion to build a new icebreaker and the ship would take about 10 years to complete. An early draft of the stimulus bill included $87.5 million for icebreakers, but Congress chopped the proposal before passing the bill.
“A polar icebreaker is not as complex as an aircraft carrier, but it’s unique. We have not built one in the United States for 30 years, so we would be going back to the drawing boards,” Brooks said. “It would take a substantial investment to bring a shipyard and people up to speed to build these ships.”
The firm fixed-price contract for the FRCs includes six option periods which, if exercised, would add up to 34 new cutters at a total cost of $1.5 billion. Blore said it is possible the ice-strengthened hulls could be added during one of the six option periods.
“The ice-strengthened ships should be cheaper and shorter, but we don’t know what the timeline would be. The open question is whether the U.S. decides to build at all,” Brooks said.
Blore said the removal of icebreaker money from the stimulus package doesn’t mean there is no support for the Arctic.
“I’m sure Congress had a lot of other considerations to make as to how quickly people could be employed and how quickly the money could be spent,” he said. “I’m not surprised they are asking that the money not be spent on a new icebreaker.”
He said the real test will come once the Coast Guard submits its own funding requests.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a report the end of January that said the Coast Guard is not prepared to respond to maritime accidents in the Arctic, saying infrastructure was limited and more needs to be done “to enhance emergency response capacity as Arctic sea ice declines and ship traffic in the region increase.”
Brooks said that he agrees with the report, and that Alaska crews already pull people and assets from elsewhere in the Coast Guard during the busy summer months. And the summer season is getting longer, Brooks said, putting additional strain on the crew and fleet.
“The problem I see is that changes have already occurred, effects are already being felt, and we have to move to provide essential government services in a public domain,” Brooks said. “We just had another cruise ship run aground in Antarctica. That’s the third ship in two years in Antarctica, and unless I get up there and get in position, I’m not ready.”
Article: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/02/coastguard_arctic_022209/
The new waterways not only open the debate on sovereignty issues, but also create more risks and responsibilities for a bare-bones crew of Coasties stationed in Alaska.
As America redefines its Arctic presence, the Coast Guard is looking at ways to modify existing assets to accomplish a rapidly growing mission.
One idea being considered is putting ice-strengthened hulls on six to eight of its offshore patrol cutters, the first of which are expected to enter the fleet in fiscal 2015.
The reinforced cutters would be used for missions similar to those of the service’s polar icebreakers, except the patrols would be shorter and the hulls would not be designed to push through 25 feet of ice, as the icebreakers do now, said Rear Adm. Arthur Brooks, commander of the Coast Guard’s 17th District, which covers Alaska and the North Pacific.
While the service conducts surveys on the benefits of placing ice-strengthened hulls on offshore patrol cutters, the idea of putting a similar hull on some of the new Sentinel-class fast response cutters “definitely is not off the table,” said Rear Adm. Gary Blore, the service’s chief of acquisitions.
The Coast Guard expects to send out a request for proposal for the OPC fleet this summer, and Blore said it is possible the requirements outlined in that request will include the ice-strengthened hulls.
Blore said it would cost $700 million to $1 billion to build a new icebreaker and the ship would take about 10 years to complete. An early draft of the stimulus bill included $87.5 million for icebreakers, but Congress chopped the proposal before passing the bill.
“A polar icebreaker is not as complex as an aircraft carrier, but it’s unique. We have not built one in the United States for 30 years, so we would be going back to the drawing boards,” Brooks said. “It would take a substantial investment to bring a shipyard and people up to speed to build these ships.”
The firm fixed-price contract for the FRCs includes six option periods which, if exercised, would add up to 34 new cutters at a total cost of $1.5 billion. Blore said it is possible the ice-strengthened hulls could be added during one of the six option periods.
“The ice-strengthened ships should be cheaper and shorter, but we don’t know what the timeline would be. The open question is whether the U.S. decides to build at all,” Brooks said.
Blore said the removal of icebreaker money from the stimulus package doesn’t mean there is no support for the Arctic.
“I’m sure Congress had a lot of other considerations to make as to how quickly people could be employed and how quickly the money could be spent,” he said. “I’m not surprised they are asking that the money not be spent on a new icebreaker.”
He said the real test will come once the Coast Guard submits its own funding requests.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released a report the end of January that said the Coast Guard is not prepared to respond to maritime accidents in the Arctic, saying infrastructure was limited and more needs to be done “to enhance emergency response capacity as Arctic sea ice declines and ship traffic in the region increase.”
Brooks said that he agrees with the report, and that Alaska crews already pull people and assets from elsewhere in the Coast Guard during the busy summer months. And the summer season is getting longer, Brooks said, putting additional strain on the crew and fleet.
“The problem I see is that changes have already occurred, effects are already being felt, and we have to move to provide essential government services in a public domain,” Brooks said. “We just had another cruise ship run aground in Antarctica. That’s the third ship in two years in Antarctica, and unless I get up there and get in position, I’m not ready.”
Article: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/02/coastguard_arctic_022209/