StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Meh, Whatever stands out the most is the best colour I guess.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
The US and Canada maintain several small icebreaking tugs to keep the ports open during the winter season on the Great Lakes, but its the Mackinaw which is tasked to keep Whitefish Bay open for access to the locks at Sault Saint Marie. Because of wind and current, Whitefish Bay of Lake Superior clogs up with ice every winter. Our steel mills of the rust belt requires the supply of iron ore from the ranges near Duluth, Minnesota. Otherwise they close.....
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_grgXcqwmrA&feature=related"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_grgXcqwmrA&feature=related"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
The USCG is proud of our icebreakers. Ten years ago the Healy was built. After the Point Barrow whale rescue by Russian icebreakers, we finally were able to get a new icebreaker for the north.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y_tSwnZRR0"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
And our polar icebreakers which have been around since the 1970s have done a great job breaking ice for our Antarctic operations. New Zealand have seen these in their ports.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAJjFefQBjI&feature=related"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y_tSwnZRR0"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
And our polar icebreakers which have been around since the 1970s have done a great job breaking ice for our Antarctic operations. New Zealand have seen these in their ports.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAJjFefQBjI&feature=related"]YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
The Mackinaw cuts several routes through the ice loosing the ice for the Laker built iron ore ships. Its not just one path, but several parallel paths. When the Lakers travel through the routes cut into the ice, they loosen up and widen the routes too. The idea is to keep stirring the pot....
But the Lakers are built strong with ice strengthened hulls as well.
Last edited:
No I haven't forgotten the Aurora Australis which is 'chartered' by the AAD., and it also does an excellent job at it.Don't forget Aurora Australis.
Aurora Australis (icebreaker) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wonder how long it would take to paint her Gray......
And it is most probably a more cost effective solution to meetl our requirement for maritine access to Antartica then owning your own Navy icebreakers.
But, the problem is that 'civilian' chartered ships can only be used for 'civilian' purposes.
What Aust/N.Z. need to carry out policing duties legally, and oceanic research are, (as we don't have a U.S. type Coastguard), Navy owned and manned purpose built ships capable of safely operating in those Southern ocean environments.
I use to watch the little USN Wind class ice capable ships leave Sydney Harbour on their way down to the USA Antartica bases. They were certainly brave sailors taking D.E. size ships in to those Southern ocean seas.
Australia has vast areas down South, which we are not looking after, its time we started taking our responsibilities seriouly if we want to keep them.
While N.Z. doesn't quite have the same responsibilities a decent size icebreaker/research ship would be a far more useful adjunct, then having to send down a icehardened OPV.
And one more advantage acquiring a Healy size ship, you are getting a fully capable ship with a life span of at least 30 years..
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
You mean something along the lines of HMS Endurence?
doesn't the oceanic southern ocean policing roles?
MV Oceanic Viking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
but i think the navy should have two ice breakers....
MV Oceanic Viking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
but i think the navy should have two ice breakers....
The US House authorized one Polar icebreaker this year, with the intention of authorizing another one next year to replace the Polar Star and Polar Sea. Neither have been appropriated as yet, so there is hope something may happen this year as far as funding is concerned. They are capable of breaking thicker ice than the Healy, commissioned ten years ago. The expected cost for the new icebreakers is US $750 million each, much more expensive than the Healy.
During the past year Canada has agreed to build one Polar icebreaker to replace their one. However, its has not been funded. They even have a new name decided, and are currently designer her to match or beat the Healy. Their expected cost is C $722 million.
I haven't a clue what Australia or New Zealand would require specifically since neither nation appears close to funding a new one. I am just attempting to reveal Polar high latitude icebreakers aren't as cheap as ice strengthened OPVs, and can be as expensive as frigates.
The Mackinaw recently built is for the Great Lakes environment, and she is just a icebreaker hull and modified Juniper class buoy tender. She cost almost three times as much as a Juniper.
During the past year Canada has agreed to build one Polar icebreaker to replace their one. However, its has not been funded. They even have a new name decided, and are currently designer her to match or beat the Healy. Their expected cost is C $722 million.
I haven't a clue what Australia or New Zealand would require specifically since neither nation appears close to funding a new one. I am just attempting to reveal Polar high latitude icebreakers aren't as cheap as ice strengthened OPVs, and can be as expensive as frigates.
The Mackinaw recently built is for the Great Lakes environment, and she is just a icebreaker hull and modified Juniper class buoy tender. She cost almost three times as much as a Juniper.
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Woah, US $750M - that's interesting, any idea why they cost that much Seatoby, considering I thought the major cost for ships were the fitout such as sensors etc?
I found this backgrounder link justifying the new ships but says nothing about costs etc
Two New Polar Icebreakers Needed To Project U.S. Presence And Protect Interests In Arctic And Antarctica
I found this backgrounder link justifying the new ships but says nothing about costs etc
Two New Polar Icebreakers Needed To Project U.S. Presence And Protect Interests In Arctic And Antarctica
Polar high latitude icebreakers have thicker hulls, thicker beaming, not to mention more powerful engines, and usually more engines. After the engineering cost increases, then the scientists want to fit out their laboratories with the latest high tech expensive gear.
A nice river or lake class icebreaker such as the Mackinaw ten years ago ran over US $90 million, while this year's House Authorization, notice I didn't say Appropriations, is for US $153 million.
The Polar class icebreakers are designed to break seven feet of ice continuously at 3 knots, whereas the less expensive Healy was designed to break four feet of ice continuously at 3 knots. Fortunately, she has broken six feet of ice at that speed. She was bought for, after checking again, for US $400 million.
I am sure a better icebreaker than the Mackinaw and a similar slightly less capable Healy would run today for less than US $400. Of course, as I said before, this price is with expensive US shipyards. I am sure China or South Korea could beat this price handily...
Still we need a senate authorization, or a mixed conference settlement, after the appropriations process, As I said before this is second base, not third base or home plate yet... Its not over until its appropriated by both houses of Congress and the President signs the bill.....
Events tend to bring results. The Mackinaw's first winter was warmer than normal, last winter was colder than normal. When ports and sea lanes ice up there is a call for more. The same happened with the Healy when the whales were trapped by early ice at Point Barrow, Alaska. Wanting or wishing for one doesn't do the trick, its having to need one....
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Thanks Seatoby, as well as the structural fitout, no doubt there will be some very expenisve and very cutting edge scientific research systems on board!
So with your experience what type of ice breaker would suit NZ's needs, bearing in mind the US will also have one in Antarctica?
So with your experience what type of ice breaker would suit NZ's needs, bearing in mind the US will also have one in Antarctica?
Something slightly less powerful and in size to the Healy if New Zealand can afford it. Otherwise, in case your southernmost ports froze over during your winter, something as powerful and in size of the Mackinaw. I think New Zealand could buy a Mackinaw for less than US $150 million. If South Korea built it, maybe as low as US $115 million.... Keep in mind the Canterbury came in around US $115 million....
Let the major powers buy the Polar icebreakers for six or seven feet ice, New Zealand should concentrate on first year ice.... its in first year ice you might see illegal fishing vessels. I do like the new Mackinaw a lot with its azipod propulstion system.... That is if New Zealand ever wanted or wished to buy one.... I'm not convinced New Zealand requires one.....
Simply put, I see a need for a modest icebreaker as more important to New Zealand than reconstituting an air combat force.... But I am a retired coastie....
Its the same with Australia. I don't think Australia needs much more than what they have already, and surely something less powerful than a Healy should do... Australia and New Zealand aren't Canada...
Let the major powers buy the Polar icebreakers for six or seven feet ice, New Zealand should concentrate on first year ice.... its in first year ice you might see illegal fishing vessels. I do like the new Mackinaw a lot with its azipod propulstion system.... That is if New Zealand ever wanted or wished to buy one.... I'm not convinced New Zealand requires one.....
Simply put, I see a need for a modest icebreaker as more important to New Zealand than reconstituting an air combat force.... But I am a retired coastie....
Its the same with Australia. I don't think Australia needs much more than what they have already, and surely something less powerful than a Healy should do... Australia and New Zealand aren't Canada...
Last edited:
Baltisky built two icebreakers (Moscow and St Petersburg) for approx 90 million USD each, they are 116m long, 10,000 tonnes, 16mw diesel electric, and can break 4ft of ice. If New Zealand really needs an icebreaker we should go to the Finns or the Russians for one, but I really don't think we have much use for one, none of our ports freeze and do our antartic activities really require one.
Yes but these were order over 4 years ago (probably over 5 years ago) and prices have gone through quite an upward spiral since then.
There is an interesting conversation going on in the Australian Defence Future thread about whether NZ needs a 7000t ANZAC II based on the F100 keel and design. The gist of it is one camp treat RNZN as a addendum to the RAN and say 'hell yes!', and another camp saying NZ has no use for a watered down AWD.
While I see the important part of the RNZN capability is the hull in the water and eyes on the horizon, I can't see any reason for the RNZN combat flotilla NOT to be top end, particularly if is very good value for money, modular and integrateable with our allies.
While I see the important part of the RNZN capability is the hull in the water and eyes on the horizon, I can't see any reason for the RNZN combat flotilla NOT to be top end, particularly if is very good value for money, modular and integrateable with our allies.
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Did ya mean to say "I can't see any reason for the RNZN combat flotilla NOT to be top end, particularly if is very good value for money, modular and integrateable with our allies" by chance, or exactly as you wrote it (meaning NZ shouldn't go with the Aussie Future Frigate design)?
Absolutely right- I'll be more careful.
The good news is that surface combatants / frigates are back on the agenda and vouched for in public before the White Paper is due out by the Minister.