Boatnerd Discussion Forum

The Hollyhock (black colored boat) is at Fraser for bow thruster repair. The Mackinaw is still at the Soo.

Currently the USCGC Mackinaw is tied up at the West Pier of the Soo Locks.

[quote="bob"]I see the mighty mac is in the drydock at fraser shipyard for repairs again. they must be fixing the azipods that they damaged at the soo.[/quote]

That's the Hollyhock.

I see the mighty mac is in the drydock at fraser shipyard for repairs again. they must be fixing the azipods that they damaged at the soo.

It does seem true that the U.S. has "skimped" on spending for icebreakers (and not just in icebreaking for the Great Lakes, but also in the case of heavy, polar icebreakers) for a nation that seeks to be a world leader:

"The U.S. Coast Guard’s fleet of two operating Arctic-class icebreakers will be sufficient -- if barely so -- for about another six years, the new Alaska commandant said Monday.

Rear Adm. Daniel Abel, who took over in June as the commandant for the sprawling Alaska district, told the U.S. Arctic Research Commission the Coast Guard can get by with its operating icebreakers, the Healy and the Polar Star...

"But the Healy is aging; it is about halfway through its expected 30-year service life, Abel said. The Polar Star is past its 30-year service life. The cost of a replacement icebreaker would be roughly $1 billion, according to Coast Guard estimates.

There is a third U.S. icebreaker: the Polar Sea, which is inactive and currently in Seattle. Just keeping that vessel as it is will cost money, Abel said.

“Maintaining her status quo will take $8 million to keep her in status of being noncommissioned and not in service,” he said. “If we were to reactivate her, it would take a significant investment. We would also have to re-crew her, which is about 140 people.”

The Coast Guard has launched studies of future icebreaker needs, particularly around 2020, when there might be a gap in capabilities, he said. Rather than thinking about... 1970s designs... the Coast Guard decided to plan for a fresh start. “We took a clean sheet of paper,” he said.

One study was submitted to Congress last month.

The U.S. icebreaker fleet is MEAGER COMPARED TO THOSE IN OTHER ARCTIC COUNTRIES, Abel said. Russia has 37 icebreakers, Sweden and Finland each have seven and Canada has six and is acquiring a seventh, he said.

http://www.adn.com/article/20140916/us-icebreaker-fleet-will-need-makeover-about-2020-coast-guard-says

The problem with old Mac being refitted was a combination of a lot of things. One being the $80 million for upgrades and repairs to make her semi modern. The second was the size of crew it took to run her. They did a feasibility study in the early to mid 90s and determined that the cost far outweighed the extended life they would get from her. One of the final nails was when she broke the lower crank in on of the mains and they discovered just how hard partswere to come by for those old Fairbanks not to mention how hard it was to replace it.

"Off subject, but why is the Desgrosilliers, a sister ship to the Amundsen and Raddison, in Davies Ship Yards drydock this time of year??"

Canadian heavy icebreakers also go to the Arctic every summer/fall. This is to support the annual Arctic Sealift which is the only time of the year it is possible to deliver by ship to the remote communities.

The icebreakers are also there for sovereignty purposes and for Search and Rescue.

Additionally, a great deal of scientific work is being done in Arctic waters and the CCG ships are heavily involved in this type of work.

Perhaps the need for operational icebreakers in the Arctic is great enough to take one out of service during the winter. Remember, these ships were built in the 80s so they are in need of more maintenance each year. If the power plant is replaced due to age/use this is a long process. These 1200 class ships have four main engines and two propellors plus lots of auxiliary equipment that complicate engine swap-outs.

Also, the operational needs today were not envisioned when first designed/built so there may be a need to upgrade them to be better science/hydrographic platforms.

I hope this helps.
Paul

I say with tongue in cheek. You boys have to move on.The old Mackinaw is finished its final and done no amount of speculation will change this.You have a New Mackinaw at least support it. and its final as well. But dont fret none us Canadians will always be there to assist .Also azipods.Proven technology.The Finns use them you think their ice is not as problematic as ours.Dont know why the Mackinaw is having difficultys but dont blame the azipods.Again tongue in cheek.

Poor decisions have been made all around. This winter and last winter have made tough ice conditions and shown that the new Mackinaw isn't capable of breaking ice like the old one. Yet before voicing that an additional breaker is "needed", the boat companies ought to run full capacity during the good months of navigation. Doesn't make sense to demand ice navigation when there are boats that remain tied up through the good months of weather.

DocF, your mind is free of dog fuzz. I clearly recall the Coast Guard in the early to mid-'80s trying to rationalize disposal of the Mackinaw by saying two Bay-class boats operating side by side could break the same size path as the Mackinaw, so ... problem solved! I don't think too many people took that claim seriously because the Mackinaw was retained for a number of years after that until the new Mackinaw was built.

The Chief Wawatam has been completely scrapped.

Unless my feeble old mind is completely full of dog fuzz, I seem to recall that the 140 foot tugs were intended to be used in tandem. I guess because the Coast Guard has only a handful of these tugs, they can't manage to use these assets in that manner. Or maybe there are so few experienced ice fighters left in the force that they do not know about this.

The Coast Guard has only one operational polar icebreaker now. This service is being bled to death by the demands of "Homeland Security". Yah, you betcha eh! the Coasties need a heavy ice breaker on the Great Lakes. To me it would have made more sense to take the old Mackinaw and repower her with some modern prime movers and modern electrical plant. I doubt the cost would have been as much as building the new ship, which has so far not exactly covered herself with glory.

My approach to building a basic icebreaker would be to buy back the hull of the Chief Wawatam and, presuming it could be made safe and functional at reasonable cost, install a simple direct drive diesel plant, nothing high tech or expensive. I suspect this would work and could be done for comparative chump change.

Got a canned letter

Dear Constituent,

Thank you for contacting me regarding ____.
______ is important to me...


I think the replies here are more entertaining including the group that gets themselves so worked up over hobbyist BS'ing about ice.

While there are some in the industry most are just here for fun.

Over the past two winters I've read many, many submissions to this Board stating that the current Mackinaw is inadequate and the US Coast Guard needs to acquire a new, larger, more powerful ice breaker. I'm sure most of you will agree that writing repeated anonymous postings to Boatnerd is probably not an effective way to communicate your concerns to the actual decision makers since very few if any politicians, Coast Guard leaders, or shipping industry executives will read it. Knowing this, I'm sure many of you have written actual letters to these entities with your name and return address detailing all of the current problems and stating the case for a new and better cutter. I'm curious to know what response you're received from the recipients of your letters?

[quote="Diver Dan"]The winds shifted around just as the Radisson arrived, loosening up the ice pack. Perfect timing. It must have also moved the ice off the Keweenaw too, as the boats stopped there were also able to move on at the same time.[/quote]
Vessel Life Extension. Scheduled to take from from Nov to May.

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=898939

Steve

[quote="bob"]they need to recommision the old mac [/quote]

I don't know how many times it needs to be said that recommissioning the old Mac is NOT going to happen.

it seems like the new mackinaw spends more time in repair than ice breaking. they need to recommision the old mac until they can build a new ice breaker that can handle the ice conditions of the great lakes instead of relying on our canadien neighbors to always save the day!

Off subject, but why is the Desgrosilliers, a sister ship to the Amundsen and Raddison, in Davies Ship Yards drydock this time of year???

The winds shifted around just as the Radisson arrived, loosening up the ice pack. Perfect timing. It must have also moved the ice off the Keweenaw too, as the boats stopped there were also able to move on at the same time.

[quote="Jon Paul"]Im not sure I would include the Risley and Black as serious heavy icebreakers. The Risley spent several days last week trying to open Whitefish Bay and didn't get anywhere till the Radisson showed up.[/quote]

I agree that Risley and Black are not heavy icebreakers. However, I find it interesting that Radisson showed up and all the ships started moving seemingly immediately. There wasn't (IMO) enough time for Radisson to have done much. I think that there were too many ships and not enough ice breakers. Risley and the US breakers had been working getting things organized, preparing tracks, and things were ready when Radisson arrived.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that Radisson is probably the most powerful breaker on the Lakes right now, but she would have struggled to get all of those ships moving without the preparation of the others.

Just my opinion.

Steve