Why the U.S. Must Build More Icebreakers Now

When politicians argue over President Obama?s new 2013 budget proposal, one thing that should escape criticism is the $8 million to be spent on designing a new polar-class icebreaker for the Coast Guard. The hard part will follow: It will cost nearly $1 billion to actually build the ship, and it?s $1 billion that Congress needs to find.

The United States is the world?s colossus when it comes to every other kind of military hardware, yet it has just one functioning icebreaker: the medium-strength USCGC Healy, which is primarily used for research. The ship made headlines recently for breaking open a route to the Alaskan town of Nome to aid in the delivery of much-needed fuel. It was a great mission, but it may have left an overly upbeat impression of American capabilities. The country also owns two heavy-duty icebreakers: One of the aging vessels is being decommissioned, and the other is being refurbished after years of disuse. That?s not good enough. While it?s encouraging to finally see some progress being made in the current budget proposal, the problem is far from solved?and the United States has national interests in icy waters.

Here are three things to know about America?s icebreaking capabilities.

1. America?s huge northern coast is barely patrolled.

Coast Guard cutters are stationed in the Bering Sea, and C-130s take infrequent flights over American waters beyond the North Slope. However, the United States does not have what you?d call a persistent maritime presence in the Arctic, a region with increasing geopolitical importance. Most of the time, there are no patrol ships or planes up there at all.

It?s ironic, but the warming Arctic has actually increased demand for icebreakers. The Coast Guard needs more of the ships to prepare for search-and-rescue missions, oil-spill response (offshore drilling by Shell could commence in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas this summer), law enforcement, and plain old flag-waving in northern waters.

These ships are also needed for science. The United States is a leader in oceanography, climate investigations, and all kinds of polar studies, thanks partly to the National Science Foundation?s first-rate support of research. (In fact, the NSF has overseen the budget for maintaining icebreakers since 2006; the proposed budget properly puts that responsibility back with the military.)

But with just one or two working icebreakers, there?s no way the NSF and Coast Guard can accomplish all they need to. When the Healy churned its way to Alaska to help deliver fuel, its maintenance schedule was thrown off. As a result, scientific projects may have to be delayed this summer. To deliver supplies to America?s McMurdo Station in Antarctica each year, the NSF has been relying on foreign-flagged vessels. As PM reported last July, Sweden?s move to pull its icebreaker Oden off the McMurdo job put the entire 2011?2012 research season in jeopardy. NSF scrambled and eventually was able to commission a Russian vessel.

This feels a lot like the situation in space: With the retirement of the space shuttle, the United States can?t fly astronauts to the International Space Station without a lift from Russian rockets. Now, it appears, the country can?t supply its main Antarctic base without Russian help, either. Building up America?s fleet of icebreakers will resolve such situations while allowing the Coast Guard to react to a changing world.

2. The U.S. is falling behind.

China, a country with no Arctic coast, is building icebreakers?and that should get America?s attention. It?s one thing for Russia, with the world?s longest Arctic coastline, to operate a couple dozen of the ships. (Fortunately, they?re available for leasing, at a price.) It?s understandable, maybe, for Finland, Sweden, and Canada to surpass the United States in this area. But why is China constructing an 8000-ton vessel capable of breaking through 4.5 ft of ice at a steady clip, to join the XueLong, its existing ice-class vessel?

In fact, China?s interest is unsurprising given its role as a world economic power. Commercial ships are already traversing the Northern Sea Route above Russia, carrying goods between Europe and East Asia. Often, icebreakers go along as insurance against bad conditions. And soon, ships will start carrying liquefied natural gas from Norway along the route.

Traffic through the Northwest Passage above Canada is building more slowly, and talk of the Arctic sea routes competing with the Suez Canal is overblown. Nevertheless, the Bering Strait between Alaska and Russia is already getting crowded. According to Rear Adm. Thomas P. Ostebo, who commands the U.S. Coast Guard in Alaska, about 1000 vessel transits take place in the Strait each summer. That?s America?s backyard.

3. Icebreakers are expensive, but we don?t need a lot of them.

The defense budget is shrinking, and previous studies have pegged the price of a high-powered icebreaker at $800 million to $1 billion. However, the Coast Guard?s wish list for icebreakers is a small one, including up to four heavy-duty and two or three medium-duty ships. Even just one additional heavy-duty icebreaker would make a big difference, which is why it?s important for the project envisioned in the White House?s budget proposal to get rolling.

The Pentagon saved several billion dollars last year by canceling the Marine?s Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, an amphibious assault technology. Investing a fraction of the savings in an icebreaker program could double or triple U.S. capabilities. Similarly, the Navy plans to build dozens of littoral combat ships for operations relatively close to shore: That?s an important program. But as Lawson Brigham, a University of Alaska professor and former icebreaker captain, has pointed out, sacrificing just one or two of those ships could provide the money to roughly double the Coast Guard?s icebreaking muscle.

The Arctic will become steadily more important politically and economically as the 21st century progresses, and the United States is fortunate to be an Arctic nation. It?s time for the country to rebuild its northern seafaring capabilities.

Source: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/infrastructure/why-the-us-must-build-more-icebreakers-now-6693195?src=rss

robert e lee dez bryant aaliyah golden globe winners the express zappos hacked jane fonda