5 ms·

Trump Orders Coast Guard to Look into Building Nuclear-Powered Icebreakers

12 points by ourmandave 6y ago

hindsightbias 6y ago
There is a new Cold War and there has to be a victor. I think the next Ford carrier should have an armored bow.
- kryogen1c 6y ago
  the ford class would have to be functional first : )
  - thephyber 6y ago
    The same president who thinks the Ford Class should drop EMALS and convert back to a steam catapult wants us to build a very complicated icebreaker? Is there an urgent need to double the capability of our icebreaking fleet for indefinite range?
    - kryogen1c 6y ago
      its not a question of complication, its a question of cost effectiveness. smaller nuclear surface ships used to exist - they weren't worth the money.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > I think the next Ford carrier should have an armored bow. For those who don't know the reference, some Chinese leaders have suggested sending 2 ships for each American ship in the 9 dash-line area, and using one to ram and sink the American ship. Americans insist on freedom of navigation, and the CCP doesn't take no for an answer. You can see where this is leading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line
  - hindsightbias 6y ago
    IDK that, I meant having carriers patrol the arctic. Go big or go home!
UI_at_80x24 6y ago
This can only be useful if the famed 'Northern Passage' becomes viable with Global warming. There is already Canada's woeful maintenance of it's icebreakers and hopes that a 'stern look' will keep Russia at bay. Alaska sits at a key location and it suits the American interests to be present in this area. I do however think the region might get a little crowded. TFA mentions China as being a party with a vested interest, but aren't they a little too far away to be significant?
- dirtyid 6y ago
  >TFA mentions China as being a party with a vested interest, but aren't they a little too far away to be significant? They have plans for Artic Silkroad if shipping becomes viable. Manufactured "near arctic-state" label in their white papers to try to wrestle their way into the proceedings.
  - tlb 6y ago
    Would an easily navigable Arctic make China-Europe shipping cheaper enough to make a big difference? A friend who's an expert in Russian oil exports said a navigable Arctic would hardly make any economic difference. Yet, so much of Russia's military history was driven by access to ice-free ports that they had an irrational attachment to it. China has its own set of irrational territorial attachments, but is the Artic one of them?
    - dirtyid 6y ago
      There's a scenario where sailing along Russian coast could insulate Chinese shipping against USNavy. Especially if China/Russia setup shipping logistics at Okhost Sea which would bypass first island chain filled with US containment assets. It would replace Malacca straight chokepoint with Bering Straight choke point, on one hand more vulnerable since closer to US soil, but also more geopolitcally challenging for US since China would be sailing along (friendlier) Russian waters versus the nightmare of dealing with ASEAN and Indian Ocean waters - incidentally why obscene 9dash South China Sea claims are absolutely not irrational. Nor the need to take over Taiwan whose eastern coast plunges straight into deep ocean - excellent for obfuscating sub deployment. Chinese coastal waters are shallow, makes hiding subs hard. Basically dominance of Chinese claims in SCC is vital to Chinese maritime interests. The other backup route is CPEC via land through XinJiang -> big fucking mountainous through disputed Indian territory (source of current Sino-Indian border drama) -> through Pakistan to Gwadar Port -> Arabian Sea... that's ridiculous but an actual Chinese project to circumvent ASEAN / India waters. It's more backup for ME energy than shipping though. Basically cost is not a factor if it opens up Chinese options since her maritime position is very unfavourable. And Russia would be well rewarded in this arrangement.

12 points by ourmandave 6y ago

hindsightbias 6y ago

There is a new Cold War and there has to be a victor. I think the next Ford carrier should have an armored bow.

kryogen1c 6y ago
the ford class would have to be functional first : )
- thephyber 6y ago
  The same president who thinks the Ford Class should drop EMALS and convert back to a steam catapult wants us to build a very complicated icebreaker? Is there an urgent need to double the capability of our icebreaking fleet for indefinite range?
  - kryogen1c 6y ago
    its not a question of complication, its a question of cost effectiveness. smaller nuclear surface ships used to exist - they weren't worth the money.
redis_mlc 6y ago
> I think the next Ford carrier should have an armored bow. For those who don't know the reference, some Chinese leaders have suggested sending 2 ships for each American ship in the 9 dash-line area, and using one to ram and sink the American ship. Americans insist on freedom of navigation, and the CCP doesn't take no for an answer. You can see where this is leading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine-dash_line
- hindsightbias 6y ago
  IDK that, I meant having carriers patrol the arctic. Go big or go home!

UI_at_80x24 6y ago

This can only be useful if the famed 'Northern Passage' becomes viable with Global warming. There is already Canada's woeful maintenance of it's icebreakers and hopes that a 'stern look' will keep Russia at bay. Alaska sits at a key location and it suits the American interests to be present in this area. I do however think the region might get a little crowded. TFA mentions China as being a party with a vested interest, but aren't they a little too far away to be significant?

dirtyid 6y ago
>TFA mentions China as being a party with a vested interest, but aren't they a little too far away to be significant? They have plans for Artic Silkroad if shipping becomes viable. Manufactured "near arctic-state" label in their white papers to try to wrestle their way into the proceedings.
- tlb 6y ago
  Would an easily navigable Arctic make China-Europe shipping cheaper enough to make a big difference? A friend who's an expert in Russian oil exports said a navigable Arctic would hardly make any economic difference. Yet, so much of Russia's military history was driven by access to ice-free ports that they had an irrational attachment to it. China has its own set of irrational territorial attachments, but is the Artic one of them?
  - dirtyid 6y ago
    There's a scenario where sailing along Russian coast could insulate Chinese shipping against USNavy. Especially if China/Russia setup shipping logistics at Okhost Sea which would bypass first island chain filled with US containment assets. It would replace Malacca straight chokepoint with Bering Straight choke point, on one hand more vulnerable since closer to US soil, but also more geopolitcally challenging for US since China would be sailing along (friendlier) Russian waters versus the nightmare of dealing with ASEAN and Indian Ocean waters - incidentally why obscene 9dash South China Sea claims are absolutely not irrational. Nor the need to take over Taiwan whose eastern coast plunges straight into deep ocean - excellent for obfuscating sub deployment. Chinese coastal waters are shallow, makes hiding subs hard. Basically dominance of Chinese claims in SCC is vital to Chinese maritime interests. The other backup route is CPEC via land through XinJiang -> big fucking mountainous through disputed Indian territory (source of current Sino-Indian border drama) -> through Pakistan to Gwadar Port -> Arabian Sea... that's ridiculous but an actual Chinese project to circumvent ASEAN / India waters. It's more backup for ME energy than shipping though. Basically cost is not a factor if it opens up Chinese options since her maritime position is very unfavourable. And Russia would be well rewarded in this arrangement.