<http://schema.org/articleBody>
" When the heavy-duty icebreaker Polar Star pulls away from the Coast Guard pier in Seattle this month, it will mark the first time the 36-year-old ship has left port in more than six years. With rebuilt engines, a revamped propeller system, and three new cranes, the Polar Star is emerging from a $60 million renovation intended to extend its operational life by seven to 10 years.  Several months will be devoted to sea trials. Then, next fall, the ship will embark for the annual resupply of Antarctica&amp;#039;s McMurdo science station, a job that has been outsourced to leased Russian and Swedish ships for the past six years. Until a few years ago, the U.S. had two icebreakers capable of tackling such thick ice: the Polar Star and its sister ship, the Polar Sea. Both were commissioned in the 1970s, with an expected life span of 30 years. In 2006 budget cuts forced the Polar Star into a soft retirement. Then, in 2010, the Polar Sea suffered a catastrophic engine failure. The crippled ship was laid up in Seattle, its parts soon cannibalized as Polar Star replacements and spares. Today the Polar Sea is in &amp;quot;inactive&amp;quot; status, most likely destined for the scrap yard. The U.S. is now in a crisis of icebreaking capability. Though the outsourced McMurdo mission has been a blow to American pride, the much more dangerous shortcoming is in the Arctic, which this year saw the smallest expanse of summer sea ice since satellite records have been kept. Retired Coast Guard Rear Adm. Jeffrey Garrett, former captain of three icebreakers, worries about the depletion of the U.S. fleet just as northern waters are opening up. &amp;quot;There is less ice, which is permitting a lot more human activity in a whole bunch of different arenas\u2014oil and gas exploration, tourist ships, commercial ships,&amp;quot; he says. In the 1980s one or two ships attempted to maneuver through the Northwest Passage each summer season. In 2011 more than 30 ships navigated the world&amp;#039;s northernmost waters, some of them tankers carrying multimillion-gallon loads of oil and natural gas. This fall Shell Oil began drilling exploratory shallow-water wells off the Alaskan coast.  There&amp;#039;s no question that climate change is ushering in a busier, more politically contentious, and environmentally vulnerable Arctic. And it&amp;#039;s just as clear that the U.S. is not ready for that future. For the past two years the U.S. has had just one operational oceangoing icebreaker, the medium-duty Healy. &amp;quot;The polar icebreakers were designed as heavy icebreakers that can do a little bit of science. The Healy was designed as a scientific research ship that can break a little bit of ice,&amp;quot; says Polar Star Capt. George Pellissier. Last year the Healy was diverted from a scientific mission to break a passage into Nome, Alaska. The remote Inuit community had missed its prewinter shipment of heating and vehicle fuel due to a massive storm\u2014known locally as a blizzicane. Cutting an ice passage to and from the village took the Healy well over a month. It was a job better suited to a more powerful ship. &amp;quot;This country led the world in the development of modern icebreakers,&amp;quot; Garrett says. &amp;quot;Back in the &amp;#039;60s we had eight of them.&amp;quot; Even with the Polar Star once again in operation, a two-ship fleet of one medium and one heavy icebreaker is not enough to maintain an effective presence near both poles. If the U.S. is a reluctant Arctic power, other countries are ready to step into the role. Russia, which in 2007 sent two manned submersibles to drop a titanium capsule containing a flag on the seabed at the North Pole, is anticipating that the northern sea route will become as important to global shipping as the Suez Canal and has already announced a fleet of four new nuclear-powered icebreakers. China&amp;#039;s first icebreaker began its maiden voyage this July. A second Chinese ship, a polar research vessel, is due to enter service in 2014. Beefed-up search-and-rescue capabilities in the far north have been on the Coast Guard&amp;#039;s agenda for years, and for the past several summers Coasties have been experimenting with a temporary outpost near Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost U.S. settlement. They&amp;#039;ve discovered that building a permanent base would be a massively expensive engineering project. There are no roads connecting Arctic Alaska to the more populated part of the state, and no natural harbors north of Nome. Permafrost underlies everything, and that permafrost is melting.  There may be a better option. &amp;quot;If you&amp;#039;ve got an icebreaker that can carry two helicopters, has a heavy-lift crane, has cargo space\u2014spots on deck for carrying standard containers\u2014has a command-and-control communications facility, it can be your floating base,&amp;quot; Garrett says. With a heavy-lift davit system, such a ship could carry the Coast Guard&amp;#039;s standard 47-foot surfboats, which can handle heavy weather and be used to conduct missions of up to 24 hours. The ship could act as a platform to respond to an oil spill, rescue passengers from a foundering tourist or research vessel, and conduct law-enforcement missions. Such a role could be played by the Polar Star, which can hangar two helicopters.  Given that designing, building, and commissioning such ships takes nearly a decade, the commitment to build more is already overdue. There are only four or five shipyards in the U.S. capable of building heavy icebreakers, whose thick steel and tight framing make them inherently more expensive than other ships of the same size. More efficient engines could allow new vessels to operate with lower horsepower, even while maintaining equivalent icebreaking capability, and they could run on cleaner liquefied natural gas. A new ship may also be built with rotating thrusters instead of traditional propellers, improving maneuverability. Last February, Washington took a step in the right direction, allocating $8 million to survey and design a new polar icebreaker. A fully equipped ship will cost about $850 million. That cost is high. But the cost of inaction? Of risking impotence in the face of the first major catastrophe in the evolving Arctic? That cost is sure to be much higher.  World&amp;#039;s Key Oceangoing Icebreaking Fleets  Most of the world&amp;#039;s icebreaker fleets are expanding and modernizing to extend Arctic navigation into the spring and fall, provide access to offshore resources, and keep subarctic icy waters navigable. Russia has the largest fleet and plans to add at least four more vessels, including one that can smash ice more than 13 feet thick. The U.S. has two ships (the more powerful one can break ice up to 6 feet thick), and none in the pipeline. Russia Fleet: 32 Status: A new nuclear-powered breaker due in 2017 will be the world&amp;#039;s most powerful with over 80,000 hp. Finland Fleet: 8 Status: The smallest of its aging fleet, the Voima, is the oldest active icebreaker in the world, entering service in 1954. Sweden Fleet: 7 Status: The Oden and the Vidar Viking were the first nonnuclear surface vessels to reach the North Pole. Canada Fleet: 6 Status: Slated for service in 2017, the John G. Diefenbaker will be Canada&amp;#039;s largest flagged icebreaker at 459 feet. Denmark Fleet: 4 Status: Since 2011 the Danes have flagged four new icebreakers for duty on the Baltic Sea. USA Fleet: 2 Status: The Polar Star can handle thick ice; the Healy isn&amp;#039;t designed for constant Arctic use. China, Germany, Norway Fleet: 1 Status: All three nations are developing polar research vessels, with China&amp;#039;s second ship set to enter service as early as 2014. "^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a8513/where-are-americas-badly-needed-icebreakers-14829862/?src=rss>