So for context there really aren't a lot of warships designed for Artic Icebreaking. It's really just Norway and Canada who have similar ships so I wonder if the US will finally start making Icebreaker warships.
>>64220159This is also a call out post against everyone who says winter/artic camo is gay
>>64220166
>>64220159If you're curious for a comparison between all 3 types of icebreaker Patrol boats.I made this quickly in ms paint
>>64220222While weight wise these are closer to destroyers just remember the icebreaker aspest is what most of their weight comes from
Icebreaking lies within the purview of US Coast Guard.
>>64220487I know. Would be cool if we built some patrol boats as wellWe don't even have nuclear ones
I read in a novel recently that big enough boat is a de facto icebreaker so all those US supercarriers could just waltz through the ice if they really wanted to. Dunno if true but sounded plausible
>>64220973sounds like bullshit, icebreakers have specific hullforms for a reason
>>64220973I don't know if the keel can sustain constant attrition from the ice caps, but 300k tons and a nuclear reactor sure do help
>>64220222Why did Canada even bother with a 25mm main gun.
>>64220973That's an excellent way to put your supercarrier to a drydock for repairs for the next 6-18 months.
>>64220985there's no need for a full magazine with the bushmaster so they can use the extra space for other stuff in their OPVs
>>64221000Is that what happened to the Russians? LolDon't Boomer subs pop out through the ice routinely? Maybe ice ain't so tough
>>64221085Submarines can but they go from below upwards Scratching through would damage any ship
>>64220985It needs something
>>64220973Doesn't seem likelyIcebreakers have a specific hull in order to keep the ships from falling apart
Kim Stanley Robinson came up with the idea in his book "The Ministry for the Future"> "Apparently aircraft carriers made excellent polar stations, being nuclear powered, and outweighing ordinary icebreakers by a thousand times or more. Sea ice stood no chance against such behemoths, they were icebreakers from God and could leave any time they wanted to"Claude doesn't think it's plausible.
>>64221249I'm not gonna lie this feels like its missing a few steps
>>64220973>>64221249You need a specific hullform, icebreakers run up on the ice and drop through it to break it. Carriers have too much draft and a big bulge on the nose of the keel below the waterline for better hydrodynamics. They'd slam into the ice face-first and beat the absolute shit out of the ship. Icebreaker pic in a second
>>64220159>so I wonder if the US will finally start making Icebreaker warships.Yes. Trump wants the Finns to help us build them. Part of his big friendship with Finnish President Stubb.
>>64221401Thing is ice is hard and it's got massive strength if you hit it head-on. Note how narrow and light the Ford-class's hull is at the waterline. That's not taking slamming horizontally into ice with any kind of grace. Pushing into sixty miles of ice sheet is, shockingly, a lot harder than dropping through ten feet of it.In this pic you can see the Polar Star's hull - the big, heavily-reinforced blunt ramp in front, and the heavily-rebated "knife" far behind it. This is a TERRIBLE hull for speed or seakeeping, which is why most ships don't use it. Makes the bastards skid all over the water in full Initial D Eurobeat mode if they take a wave across the foc's'le. You can also see how high the boat rides in the water compared to a carrier: the black line on the Ford-class is where the waterline comes to at combat load (it can go deeper) while the red area is always underwater. With the Polar Star here the black area is the waterline at cruising ballast. During icebreaking operations they pump ballast to the stern of the ship to lift the nose even more, and then pump some forward to add weight if there's particularly stubborn ice.
>>64220973I could see it being done as an emergency maneuver or part of an especially spicy strategic maneuver, but even if it can bull through it by sheer weight I'd imagine you'd be sentencing that carrier to at least a year of refurbishing in dry dock in a best case scenario if you tried it.In theory I can take my minivan through a brick wall if I need to, but I wouldn't call that an optimal maneuver unless it was an extreme emergency.
>>64221249>>64221249So the largest icebreakers are 33k tonnes and while carriers do weigh moreThey aren't built for that
>>64220159Yeah yeah, "icebreaker warship".We’ve all seen russhit naval capabilities - flagship turned submarine, fleets hiding in port. Congrats on building another future reef lmao
>>64221467Okay nigger /pol/ is there if you want it Adding absolutely nothing to the conversation
>>64220159>I wonder if the US will finally start making Icebreaker warshipsi doubt it. it's a dumb idea. who are you fighting and with what weapons? more importantly, what would it do that a virginia-class couldn't?the coast guard having some icebreaking patrol vessels to do coastie things is a good idea though.
>>64221477Cry harder. Pointing out russhit navy = floating scrap is just reality. Sorry your icebreaker cope boat won’t change that
>>64221485K /pol/tard
>>64221480Its cool as fuckThats why
>>64221504K zigger
>>64221433Yeah, Claude sez>While Robinson's description sounds compelling, it overlooks critical engineering constraints:> Hull Design Limitations>Supercarriers have flat, wide hulls optimized for open water>Icebreakers use specialized rounded, sloping bows to ride up and crush ice>A carrier's hull would likely sustain severe damage attempting to break thick polar ice>Weight Dynamics>Robinson's "thousand times" heavier claim is technically misleading>Weight alone doesn't guarantee ice-breaking capability>Ice-breaking requires specific hull shape and concentrated downward force>Nuclear Power Potential>One accurate aspect of the fictional scenario>Nuclear-powered vessels can operate indefinitely without refueling>Provides significant energy independence in extreme environments
>>64220222>>64220985>>64221001the Bushmaster is self contained with it's magazine integrated into the mount, a bigger gun like a 57mm would need a shell hoist penetrating the deck and reaching down to a larger magazine. The Harry D has an enclosed cable deck unlike the other two designs (which is a significant benefit for arctic ops), and that's kind of in the way of putting in a shell hoist, they just have an ammunition locker for the 25mm and other weapons adjacent to the cable deck. There's not really any worthwhile benefit from a bigger gun for the role these ships fulfill, the 25mm is more than good enough for shooting at pirates or Narcos when they're down south in the off season. Also they could easily just carry a couple of normal manpads if they thought there was going to be a need for such a thing, it would be just as effective as the what's on the Svalbard, since the SIMBAD is literally just two manpads on a stick.For anyone curious here's a very detailed hour long tour of the Harry DeWolf Class: https://youtu.be/-juisJYu3-4
>>64220159The US can't even make one virginia class sub a year so no.
>>64220159what's the point when they are naturally slow, and ridiculously easy to see and target via satellite and do nothing that is better than air logistics?Its not my area but as weapons or logistics they seem retarded
The Canadian coast guard is also getting two Harry DeWolfs (minus the pea shooter).>>64220159>>64220487It's actually kind of embarrassing how small the USCG ice breaker fleet is, especially when you look at the rest of the coast guard fleet, never mind the US Navy.>>64220680Only Russia has nuclear ice Breakers. >>64222783>what's the point of infantry when they are naturally slow, and ridiculously easy to see and target via drone and do nothing that is more destructive than air power?Having a big grey boat with 50-100 people on board means you have an actual persistent presence and can do stuff on the ground/ice/water. You don't get that with aircraft/satellites.
I mean if you have control of the air and satellite you can run an air convoy train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_GalaxyMeanwhile the icebreaker which is pottering along while it braks ice can literally be seen from space easily and wiped out with a slavo of cheap intermediare range missiles using satellite targeting. In a military sense, what is the point? Running conventional heavy weapons in the artic is a fools errend and even if you want them you can get them there faster or other equipment by air which given the size and area gives you a vast strategic advantagePallets go on, pallets airdrop, men airdrop, air train continues.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-5_GalaxyMeanwhile the icebreaker and everything on it is dead and with ease and easy meat for subs as well in open water.
>>64220159>That shitty module alignment LMAO
>>64222817I'm not seeing it outside of a very narrow usecase. It's teh 21st century. I can see whay if you are Russia you need icebreakers for your shitty frozen ports as a civlian tool to struggle to keep them somewhat open to get banan becase there is no decent land based transport infrastructure to some northern areas but as a weapon of war its redundant. What do I know though.
>>64220159China and the Ruskies have been using the Arctic as a "shipping lane" a lot more now that the pack ice is breaking up and the overall tech allows for it. They can toss tows over the North Pole at us just as easily as over the Atlantic too. The Arctic can be surprisingly navigable for a couple months before it freezes over again and ice breakers can help extend that season a bit, as well as being a "presence" to deter Baddies.
>>64220222Whats thw name of the third one?
>>64224062NoCGV Svalbard
>>64222817>It's actually kind of embarrassing how small the USCG ice breaker fleet is, especially when you look at the rest of the coast guard fleet, never mind the US NavyAre they building new ones? With how much screaming they have done over Greenland and protection of northern areas/approaches, one would think they had an interest in ships such as ice breakers
>>64224499The USCG recently purchased a second hand commercial ice breaker (pic related), and they have the polar security cutter program, which is an even bigger farce than your average Canadian procurement shitshow, but supposedly there will be 3 new polar class 2 ships coming out of it.
>>64221467This may shock you, but this is a weapons board. Whether they are Slavshit, Chinkshit or Westoid trash. Another board has two entire threads dedicated to your slav bum fight, I suggest you go there.
>>64221433I was there when PS was at MIDD, in the shit hole of Vallejo, CA. :)forgot details but hull thickness not that impressive even at most T H I C C. It more about internal scantings, and really can't break much except fairly thin ice, and any Ice Breaker that is ramming, backing and re-ramming is fighting for its life to not get trapped before limited fuel runs out, and mission is pretty much over and its just fighting to find open water.You'd think a Super Carrier would be T H I C C enough and re-enforced enough, with 5x displacement, 2x speed and hence about 30x horsepower to be a BETTER faster (just much more expensive) ice breaker.Why should a super carrier have massively strong bow? Because they very expensive and hard to find big dry dock, and USN is always crashing ships into other ships, so you'd want to be able to crash the super carrier into just about anything and no worries. Remember when that battleship crashed into a destroyer and it turned out the whole front was soft light gauge sheet metal?
>>64222834I think that is intentional. They put offset notches so it semi-self locks into correct position for welding. Easier than trying to perfectly align two massive perfectly flat planes with just dangling cranes and shit.
