The Complexity of a WW II P-47 Thunderbolt’s Powerplant

December 16, 2015Aeronautical, All Posts, AviationP-47, P47, Pratt & Whitney R-2800, R-2800, R2800, Radial turbocharged aircraft engine, Republic Aviation, Thunderbolt, Wasp R-2800Drummer

Peter Lobner

The P-47 Thunderbolt, built by Republic Aviation, was a powerful WW II fighter that was capable of operating effectively at high-altitude as a long-range bomber escort or at low altitude as a fighter bomber. That tactical flexibility was enabled by its turbocharged Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp R-2800, two-row, 18-cylinder radial engine. A representative P-47D is shown in the following photo.

Source: Author photo

Basic specifications for a P-47D are listed below (Source: National Museum of the USAF):

Engine: One Pratt & Whitney R-2800 radial rated at 2,430 hp
Maximum speed: 433 mph
Cruising speed: 350 mph
Range: Approx. 1,100 miles with drop tanks
Ceiling: 42,000 ft.
Armament: Eight .50-cal machine guns and 2,500 lbs. of bombs or rockets
Span: 40 ft. 9 in.
Length: 36 ft. 2 in.
Height: 14 ft. 8 in.
Weight: 17,500 lbs. maximum

The basic engine installation can be seen in the following illustration of a P-47 without its engine cowling:

Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/wingmanphoto/7166461822/

The R-2800 engine is turbocharged, with the turbocharger, intercooler, and related subsystems all located behind the pilot. There is a lot of intake ductwork needed to get ambient air routed from the main air duct intake immediately under the engine to the turbocharger and intercooler and then back to the carburetors on the engine.

The air entering the turbocharger is compressed and, in the process, is heated. This air passes through the intercooler where it is cooled before being directed back to the engine and the carburetors for each of the 18 cylinders.
The air entering the intercooler cools the compressed air from the turbocharger’s compressor and then is discharged through exit doors on the sides of the P-47 fuselage, aft of the pilot.

Similarly, there is a lot of exhaust system ductwork needed to collect the exhaust from 18 cylinders into tailpipes and then route it back to drive the turbine section of the turbocharger and then be discharged via the main exhaust on the bottom of the P-47 fuselage.

These basic intake air and exhaust flow paths are shown in the following diagram.

Source: National Museum of the USAF

While visiting the National Museum of WW II Aviation in Colorado Springs, CO, I saw the complete P-47 powertrain shown in the following photo. The engine is at the extreme left, the turbocharger is at the extreme right, and the intercooler is at the point where the carburetor air duct (top) converges in a “V” with the main air duct (bottom). The darker exhaust tailpipes flank the main air duct along the bottom of the powerplant.

Source: Author photo

From the front, the Pratt & Whitney R-2800 dominates the view in the following photo. The main air duct intake is visible under the engine. The carburetor air duct (top), and the main air duct and darker exhaust tailpipe (bottom) are visible to the left, behind the engine.

Source: Author photo

From the back of the powerplant, the turbocharger dominates the view in the following photo. As shown by the arrows, intake air enters the compressor section of the turbocharger from the top (grey arrow) and exits via the volute (red arrow), headed for the intercooler. The darker exhaust tailpipe can be seen connecting to the turbine secion of the turbocharger (below the red arrow) and exhausting under the turbocharger (yellow arrow).

Source: Author photo

The following photo shows more clearly the connection of the exhaust tailpipes to the turbine section of the turbocharger and the exhaust point from the turbine section (beneath the P-47’s fuselage). Also shown is the intercooler, which is a heat exchanger that receives cool ambient air from the main air intake duct and warm, compressed air from the turbocharger’s compressor discharge (red arrow). After cooling the compressed air headed for the carburetors, the intercooler exhausts through rectangular ducts on the sides of the P-47 (yellow arrow).

Source: Author photo

A better view of the intercooler exhaust duct (one of two) is shown in the following photo.

Source: Author photo

So there you have it. While the P-47 looks bulky , this is largely due to the use of a big radial engine plus all of the ductwork, intercooler and turbocharger hardware packaged inside the fuselage.

Which is More Technologically Advanced: Star Wars or Star Trek?

December 15, 2015All Posts, Science Fictionsci-fi technology, Star Trek technology, Star Wars technologyDrummer

Peter Lobner

With the new movie, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, being released this week, I thought this would be an appropriate time to consider how Star Wars technology compares to the technology in another popular sci-fi series: Star Trek.

On the surface, the Star Wars Empire has much larger and more imposing faster-than-light starships than the Star Trek Federation. See the relative size comparison below.

Source: http://www.daltonator.net/fanfics/multi/images/scales/comphigh.jpg

Of course, there are many other factors to be considered in the technology comparison. Fortunately, there already has been a lot written on this subject. I refer you to two recent articles.

Author Todd Gardiner published a technology comparison on 29 March 2015, which you can read on GIZMODO, at the following link:

http://gizmodo.com/which-is-more-technologically-advanced-star-wars-or-sta-1707741072

Source: GIZMODO

The two sci-fi technologies were compared and ranked in the following categories:

Transportation: Tie
Energy generation: Tie
Communication: Star Trek +1/2
Manufacturing: Star Trek +1
Construction: Star Wars: +1
Military: Tie
Medical technology: Tie
Robots and computing: Star Wars +1/2
Field manipulation (artificial gravity, shields, etc.): Tie
Social technology: Not factored into score, but the Star Wars Federation espouses betterment of the all citizens, while the Star Wars Empire is essentially a feudal society on a galactic scale.
Size: Not factored into the score, but the Star Trek “universe” (Federation + Klingons + other civilizations) includes much less of our galaxy than the Empire in Star Wars.

The net result of Todd Gardiner’s comparison was a tie between Star Wars and Star Trek technologies.

On 10 April 2015, a similar comparison written by Harry Guinness appeared in MakeUseOf, at the following link:

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/star-trek-star-wars-technologically-advanced/

Source: MakeUseOf

The author noted that, “Star Trek writers at least attempted to create plausible explanations for the technology. …..it’s easy to see why some fans consider Star Wars to be an epic space fantasy rather than a science fiction tale”.

Nonetheless, Star Wars and Star Trek technologies were compared and ranked in the following categories:

Androids: Star Trek +1
Medical: Star Trek +1
Engines: Tie
Weapons: Star Trek +1
Sensors, Shields, Replicators and Transporters: Star Trek +1
The Force: Star Wars ± 1/2

In this comparison, Star Trek wins by a large margin.

So, what do you think? In a head-to-head space battle, would you rather be serving on an Imperial Star Destroyer or on one of the Federation’s Galaxy-class or Sovereign-class starships?

Using Light Instead of Radio Frequencies, Li-Fi has the Potential to Replace Wi-Fi for High-speed Local Network Communications

December 12, 2015All Posts, Computer Technology, Information TechnologyHarald Hass, Li-Fi, PureLiFi, smart LED, VelmenniDrummer

Peter Lobner

Professor Harald Haas (University of Edinburgh) invented Li-Fi wireless technology, which is functionally similar to radio-frequency Wi-Fi but uses visible light to communicate at high speed among devices in a network. Professor Hass is the founder of the company PureLiFi (http://purelifi.com), which is working to commercialize this technology. The following diagram from PureLiFi explains how Li-Fi technology works.

A special (smart) LED (light-emitting diode) light bulb capable of modulating the output light, and a photoreceptor connected to the end-user’s device are required.

You can see Professor Hass’ presentation on Li-Fi technology on the TED website at the following link:

http://www.ted.com/talks/harald_haas_wireless_data_from_every_light_bulb?language=en#t-233169

Key differences between Li-Fi and Wi-Fi include:

Li-Fi is implemented via a smart LED light bulb that includes a microchip for handling the local data communications function. Many LED light bulbs can be integrated into a broader network with many devices.
- Light bulbs are everywhere, opening the possibility for large Li-Fi networks integrated with modernized lighting systems.
Li-Fi offers significantly higher data transfer rates than Wi-Fi.
- In an industrial environment, Estonian startup firm Velmenni has demonstrated 1 GBps (gigabits per second). Under laboratory conditions, rates up to 224 gigabits/sec have been achieved.
Li-Fi requires line-of-sight communications between the smart LED light bulb and the device using Li-Fi network services.
- While this imposes limitations on the application of Li-Fi technology, it greatly reduces the potential for network interference among devices.
Li-Fi may be usable in environments where Wi-Fi is not an acceptable alternative.
- Some hazardous gas and explosive handling environments
- Commercial passenger aircraft when current wireless devices must be in “airplane mode” with Wi-Fi OFF.
- Some classified / high-security facilities
Li-Fi cannot be used in some environments where Wi-Fi can be successfully employed.
- Bright sunlight areas or other areas with bright ambient lighting

You can see a video with a simple Li-Fi demonstration using a Velmenni Jugnu smart LED light bulb and a smartphone at the following link:

http://velmenni.com

The radio frequency spectrum for Wi-Fi is crowded and will only get worse in the future. A big benefit of Li-Fi technology is that it does not compete for any part of the spectrum used by Wi-Fi.

Is EPA Fudging the Numbers for its Carbon Regulation?

November 27, 2015All Posts, Power Generating Technology - Alternate, Power Generating Technology - Fossil, Power Generating Technology - NuclearAmerican Nuclear Society, Clean Power Plan, EIA, Energy Information Agency, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, IER, Institute for Energy ResearchDrummer

Peter Lobner

In my 2 July 2015 post, I commented on significant deficiencies in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Power Plan proposed rule. On 3 August 2015, the EPA announced the final rule. You can read the final rule for existing power plants, the EPA’s regulatory impact analysis, and associated fact sheets at the following link:

http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit organization that conducts research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. The IER home page is at the following link:

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org

On 24 November 2015, the IER published an insightful article entitled, Is EPA Fudging the Numbers for its Carbon Regulation?, which I believe is worth your attention. The IER’s main points are:

U.S. Energy Information Agency’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) is the data source usually used by federal government agencies in their analysis of energy issues.
EPA stands out as an exception. It frequently chooses not to use EIA data, and instead develops it’s own duplicative, different data.
In the case of the Clean Power Plan, the EPA’s own data significantly underestimates the number of coal plants that need to be retired to comply with the Plan. The result is a much lower estimate of the economic impact of the Plan than if EIA data had been used.

It appears to me that the EPA created and used data skewed to produce a more favorable, but likely unrealistic, estimate of the economic impact that will borne by the U.S. power industry and power customers as the Clean Power Plan is implemented. Form your own opinion after reading the full IER article at the following link:

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/is-epa-fudging-the-numbers-for-its-carbon-regulation/

Update 19 Feb 2016

On 8 February 2016, the American Nuclear Society (ANS) released their, “Nuclear in the States Toolkit Version 1.0 – Policy Options for States Considering the Role of Nuclear Power in Their Energy Mix.” The toolkit catalogs policies related to new and existing nuclear reactors for state policymakers to consider as they draft their Clean Power Plan compliance strategies. The Toolkit identifies a range of policy options that individually or in aggregate can make nuclear generation a more attractive generation alternative for states and utilities.

You can download this document at the following link:

http://nuclearconnect.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/ANS-NIS-Toolkit-download.pdf

On 9 February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issues a stay on implementation of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) pending the resolution of legal challenges to the program in court.

The ANS noted that, “….the stay provides them (the states) an opportunity to take a new look at the carbon offsets that existing nuclear plants provide, which they weren’t encouraged to do under the CPP rules.”

Underestimated: Our Not So Peaceful Nuclear Future

October 25, 2015All Posts, Nuclear Arms & Arms ControlACDA, Albert Wohlstetter, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Henry Sokolsky, Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, NPECDrummer

Peter Lobner

Proliferation of nuclear technology has been the subject of many studies for more than a half century. The latest assessment is provided in the subject document, “Underestimated: Our Not So Peaceful Nuclear Future,” by Henry D. Sokolsky, published in 2015 by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC).

Source: NPEC

The author describes the scope of this document as follows:

“First, it reviews the key popular views on nuclear proliferation. Second, it considers how much worse matters might get if states continue with relatively loose nuclear constraints on civilian and military nuclear activities. Finally, it offers several policy recommendations.”

In this report, Henry Sokolsky shows how simple life was in 1962:

Source: NPEC

By 2001, the relationships had become more complex, as shown by the author in the following figure:

Source: NPEC

The author also shows how relationships are becoming more complex as nuclear weapons technology has proliferated to North Korea (DPRK) and potentially will proliferate to other nations aspiring to become nuclear powers.

You can download this document for free from the NPEC website at the following link:

http://www.npolicy.org/thebook.php?bid=34

With 181 footnotes interspersed with the text, it is not easy reading, but I think you will find that it is worth your time.

Forty years ago, in 1975 (and updated in 1976), a similar assessment was presented in a report entitled, “Moving Toward Life in a Nuclear Armed Crowd?,” by Albert Wohlstetter and a team from Pan Heuristics, a division of Science Applications, Inc. [SAI, later Science Applications Internal Corporation (SAIC)]. This report was prepared for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) and was intended to define the then current trends in the spread of nuclear technology and analyze the political, economic and military problems that these trends posed for U.S. and international policy makers.

You can download this report from the NPEC website at following link:

http://www.npolicy.org/article.php?aid=505&rid=1

The “Nuclear Armed Crowd” report has extensive data tables and charts that are particularly interesting in hindsight. This report was written before the first nuclear tests by India and Pakistan, but these nations were assessed as proliferation risks in this report. Notably absent in this report is North Korea (DPRK), which used a clandestine nuclear program to develop it’s indigenous (but likely with the help of other nations) nuclear weapons capability.

These two reports are not bedtime reading. You will not sleep better after having read them. However, I think the 40 years between these two reports will provide you with valuable insights to the great difficulties of controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology.

The Bright Spots on Ceres Come into Focus

September 13, 2015All Posts, Planetary science, Spacecraft and MissionsCeres bright spots, Dawn spacecraft, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, JPL, NASADrummer

Peter Lobner

In my 20 March 2015 post, I discussed the Dawn spacecraft mission to the large asteroid Vesta and the dwarf planet Ceres, both of which are in the main asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. Dawn arrived in orbit around Ceres on 6 March 2015, at an initial altitude of 8,400 miles (13,518 kilometers). On approach and from this high altitude orbit, Dawn photographed two very bright spots on the surface of Ceres.

Source: NASA

After spending six months mapping the surface of Ceres and gradually descending to lower altitude orbits, Dawn currently is in a much lower “high-altitude mapping orbit” (HAMO) at 915 miles (1,470 kilometers) above the surface. Ceres’ diameter is about 587 miles (946 kilometers). Due to the low mass of this dwarf planet, Dawn’s orbital speed in the HAMO is only 400 mph (645 kph). The spacecraft completes one orbit in about 19 hours.

From its current vantage point in HAMO, Dawn has provided a much better view of the bright spots on Ceres. The following composite photo shows the bright spots at a resolution of 450 feet (140 meters) per pixel.

Source: NASA

The source of the bright spots has not yet been determined. We’ll get a more detailed view later in 2015, when the spacecraft descends to the “low altitude mapping orbit” (LAMO) at an altitude of 230 miles (370 kilometers).

You can keep up with the work of the Dawn project team at the following NASA / Jet Propulsion Lab website:

http://dawnblog.jpl.nasa.gov

9 December 2015 Update:

NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) released closeup photos of the bright spots, which appear to be globally distributed on Ceres. JPL scientists reported that Ceres has more than 130 bright areas, and most of them appear to be associated with impact craters. There is evidence that the bright spots may be salt deposits left behind after a subterranean briny water-ice deposit was exposed by an impact and the ice-water sublimated into space. Here is a closeup, false-color photo of the Occator Crater, emphasizing the deposits of bright material on the crater floor.

You can read more on this subject on the JPL website at the following link:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4785

1 November 2018 Update:

On 1 November 2018, NASA reported the end of the Dawn mission:

“Dawn missed scheduled communications sessions with NASA’s Deep Space Network on Wednesday, Oct. 31, and Thursday, Nov. 1. After the flight team eliminated other possible causes for the missed communications, mission managers concluded that the spacecraft finally ran out of hydrazine, the fuel that enables the spacecraft to control its pointing. Dawn can no longer keep its antennae trained on Earth to communicate with mission control or turn its solar panels to the Sun to recharge.”

You’ll find more information about the Dawn mission and its many accomplishments on the NASA / JPL website at the following link:

https://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news-detail.html?id=7275

Remarkable Video and Synchronized Audio Record of the Apollo 11 Landing in the Sea of Tranquility

September 11, 2015All Posts, Spacecraft and MissionsApollo 11, moon landing video, ThamtechDrummer

Peter Lobner

Thamtech, LLC produced a remarkable 18-minute video of the first landing on the Moon, which occurred on 20 July 1969 when Apollo 11 landed in the Sea of Tranquility. Here is a screenshot from that video.

In the center, the video shows the view from the Lunar Landing Module (LEM) during descent and landing. To the left and right are the two synchronized audio tracks:

The Air-to-Ground Loop on the left has all the communications between the Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM Charlie Duke) in Houston and the Apollo astronaut crew on the LEM (Buzz Aldrin & Neil Armstrong) and in the Moon-orbiting Apollo capsule (Michael Collins).

The Flight Director’s Loop on the right has all the communications among the Flight Director (Gene Kranz, who is responsible for the go/no-go and stay/no-stay decisions) and his team of flight controllers in Houston.

The icon at the bottom center of the screen shows the orientation of the LEM relative to local horizontal (the Moon’s surface).

You can see this video at the following link:

http://www.firstmenonthemoon.com

Ensure that “Sync On” is ON (both left and right sides) so the transmissions will scroll automatically in unison.

The success of this first landing on the Moon is a great credit to the professionalism of the Apollo astronauts and the flight control team, and of course, to the whole NASA-led team that created the Saturn V launch vehicle, the Apollo and LEM spacecraft, and the infrastructure needed to support the Apollo program.

The first landing on the Moon occurred more than 46 years ago. The last Apollo Moon landing occurred almost 3-1/2 years later when Apollo 17 landed in the hilly Taurus-Littrow valley on 10 December 1972.

How much longer do you think we will have to wait for the next Moon landing, and what nation do you think will make that landing?

Just How Flat is Hakskeen Pan?

September 8, 2015All Posts, Automotive, Engineering, Land Speed RecordBloodhound Project, Bloodhound SSC, Hakskeen Pan, land speed record, Lloyd & HillDrummer

Peter Lobner

If you will be driving the UK’s Bloodhound supersonic car (SSC) in 2019, you really care about the answer to that question.

Hakskeen Pan is a very flat region in the Northwestern corner of South Africa, and it is the site selected by the Bloodhound Project team for a 16 km (9.94 mile) track that will be used for their world land speed record attempt.

Source: adapted from http://southafricamap.facts.co/

My 2 March 2015 post introduced you to the Bloodhound Project and gave you the link to their website where you can get a complete update on the project and sign up for their blog. Here again is the link to the Bloodhound Project home page:

http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/project

So, how flat is Hakskeen Pan and how much does it matter to a land speed record car traveling at 1,000 mph (1,609 kph)? The Cape Town, South Africa, survey company Lloyd & Hill surveyed the entire 16 km by 500 meter wide track surface (an area of about 8 million square meters) measuring the elevation in each square meter to an accuracy of 10 mm (0.39 in) or less. Using laser-scanning technology to collect data, and some considerable computing resources, Lloyd & Hill reduced four billion laser measurements into a 3-dimensional surface map of Hakskeen Pan. Key findings were:

Hakskeen Pan has a very gentle slope from north to south: dropping 300 mm in 16 km (about one foot in 10 miles)
Across the whole surface, the biggest ‘bumps’ and ‘dips’ are less than 50 mm (2 inches) from the average elevation
There’s an 80 mm (3.12 in) ‘step’ that occurs in a distance of 180 m (590 ft) running across the Pan, just over 9 km from the northern end of the track, and just where the car will be travelling at 1,000 mph.

Source: The Bloodhound Project

The Bloodhound SSC has independent double-wishbone suspension on all four wheels. Preliminary dynamic analysis of the Bloodhound SSC’s suspension response to the measured surface irregularities shows that the vehicle should not be subject to loads of more than 1.0 – 1.5 g during it’s world land speed record attempt. The suspension is designed to cope with up to 4 g.

Check out the details of the Hakskeen Pan site survey and the vehicle dynamic analysis at the following link:

http://www.bloodhoundssc.com/blog/andy-green’s-diary-–-august-2015

Also check out the Education tab on the Bloodhound Project website. I think you will be pleased to see how this exciting engineering project is working to engage with and inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers.

23 January 2017 Update – Hakskeen Pan floods

Source: The Bloodhound Project

The Bloodhound team reported:

“This particular flood was caused mainly by the rain in Namibia and flooding from the rivers, rather than actual rainfall on the Pan and surrounding catchment area, as there are many rivers that flow into the Pan.

Having the desert flood like this is very good news for us, as flooding helps to repair the surface from any damage that may have been caused in the final preparation and clearance of the desert, and it helps to create the best possible surface for land speed record racing.”

The Sad State of Affairs of the U.S. Icebreaking Fleet and Implications for Future U.S. Arctic Operations

September 3, 2015All Posts, Arctic, Marine Technology, National SecurityAdm. Bob Papp, Adm. Paul Zukunft, icebreaker, LK-60 icebreaker, national security, Polar Icebreaker Replacement Program, Polar Sea, Polar Star, Russia Arctic Joint Strategic Command, Russian icebreakers, US Arctic Executive Steering Committee, US Coast Guard, US Navy Arctic Roadmap, USCGDrummer

Peter Lobner

On 1 Sep 2015, while visiting Alaska, President Obama announced that he would speed up the acquisition of icebreakers to help the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) operate in the Arctic. A Congressional Research Service report entitled, Coast Guard Polar Icebreaker Modernization: Background and Issues for Congress, was issued on 2 Sep 2015. You can download this report at the following link:

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34391.pdf

This report asserts that a new heavy polar icebreaker will cost in the range from $900 million to $1.1 billion. The report also provides an interesting history of prior USCG assessments of their icebreaker needs and budget actions taken over the past few years that significantly reduced the budget available to pursue new icebreaker acquisition.

Role of the National Science Foundation

In 2006, the G.W. Bush administration moved budget and management authority for the U.S. polar icebreaker fleet from the USCG to the National Science Foundation (NSF). The USCG retained custody of the polar icebreakers, which continue to be operated by USCG crews. This arrangement is recorded in the following 2006 document: Memorandum of Agreement Between United States Coast Guard and National Science Foundation Regarding Polar Icebreaking Support and Reimbursement. You can read the details of this convoluted agreement at the following link:

https://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/opp_advisory/briefings/oct2005/2005_uscgnsf_moa.pdf

The current U.S. polar icebreaker fleet

Currently the entire U.S. national capability for Arctic and Antarctic icebreaking operations is found in a very small icebreaking fleet consisting of:

One heavy polar icebreaker, Coast Guard Cutter Polar Star
- Commissioned in 1976
- Displacement: 13,194 tons
- Horsepower: 75,000 hp (gas turbines) + 18,000 hp (diesels)
One medium polar icebreaker, Coast Guard Cutter Healy
- Commissioned in 1999
- Displacement: 16,000 tons
- Horsepower: 30,000 (diesels)
Some ice-capable tugs and tenders

In addition to this active “fleet”, the U.S. also has an inactive heavy polar icebreaker; the Polar Sea (sister ship of Polar Star), which was commissioned in 1978 and placed in inactive commission in Seattle, WA in 2010 after a major propulsion plant equipment casualty. A 2013 USCG analysis, required by Congress to forestall the planned scrapping of the Polar Sea, showed that Polar Sea could be rehabilitated and reactivated for a fraction of the cost of building a new icebreaker. Polar Sea remains in inactive commission.

Source: Wikipedia

Polar Star & Polar Sea together in happier days.

In 2006, NSF put Polar Star in caretaker status due to equipment aging / wear-out issues. The ship originally was designed for a 30 year operating life. After a modest refurbishment, the ship returned to Antarctic service in late 2013. Polar Star is expected to continue operating until about 2020.

After Polar Sea suffered its major propulsion system casualty in 2010, and until the Polar Star returned to service in late 2013, the medium icebreaker Healy was the only active U.S. polar icebreaker.

In February 2015, the USCG reported that it needed three heavy and three medium icebreakers to cover the U.S. “anticipated needs” in the Arctic and Antarctic. Six different U.S. agencies have missions in Polar regions.

U.S. Coast Guard’s 2013 Review of Major Icebreakers of the World is a chart that provides a good visual representation of the world’s icebreaker fleets. This chart is reproduced below, but you may need to go to the following link to see a more readable and downloadable pdf version of this chart:

https://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg552/docs/20130718%20Major%20Icebreaker%20Chart.pdf

The icons in this chart for the U.S. icebreaker fleet include the Polar Star, Polar Sea (inactive) and Healy, as expected. The other two vessels are:

Nathaniel B. Palmer, a privately owned, ice capable research ship leased by NSF to support Antarctic science missions.
Aiviq, a privately owned icebreaking, anchor-handling tug supply vessel chartered by Royal Dutch Shell to support their oil exploration activities in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska.

So, really, the U.S. currently only has two polar icebreakers. One typically serves the Antarctic and one serves the Arctic. In 2013, the USCG got approval too explore developing a new heavy-duty icebreaker. In mid-2015, the USCG website reports:

“The Coast Guard is in the preliminary phase of a new, heavy polar icebreaker acquisition program. This stage in the process includes developing a formal mission need statement, a concept of operations, and an operational requirements document – all necessary before developing and implementing a detailed acquisition plan.”

Russia’s polar icebreaker fleet

In comparison, the USCG’s 2013 chart shows that Russia fields almost 40 icebreakers with up to a dozen more planned or under construction. Russia has national plans to exploit its Arctic resources along the Northern Sea Route, which passes through the Arctic Ocean along the north coast of Russia. Nuclear-powered icebreakers play important roles in those plans.

The first of the new LK-60 nuclear-powered heavy polar icebreakers, Arktika, is under construction in St. Petersburg’s Baltic Shipyard and is expected to enter service in 2017. Its icebreaking bow was installed in August 2015.

Source: http://bellona.org/

Contracts for two additional LK-60-class icebreakers were placed in May 2014. They are scheduled for delivery in 2019 and 2020.

U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap 2014 – 2030

The recently published U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap 2014 – 2030 includes the following observations:

U.S. Navy expects the Arctic “to remain a low threat security environment where nations resolve differences peacefully.”
It sees its role as mostly a supporter of U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) operations and responder to search-and-rescue and disaster situations.
However, the presence of vast resource endowments and territorial disagreements “contributes to a possibility of localized episodes of friction in the Arctic Region, despite the peaceful intentions of the Arctic nations.”
“Navy functions in the Arctic Region are not different from those in other maritime regions; however, the Arctic Region environment makes the execution of many of these functions much more challenging.”

Regarding the first and third points, above, Russian activities in the Arctic during the past year suggest that the U.S. Navy has underestimated, at least publically, the likelihood of non-peaceful actions in the Arctic and the potential need for a military response in the region. Recent Russian activities in the Arctic highlight this risk.

Given the poor state of the U.S. polar icebreaker fleet, I would say that the last point, above, is a gross understatement. The USCG and the Navy are not well-positioned for surface operations in the Arctic Ocean. Surface naval operations in ice-covered Arctic regions will be almost impossible to execute without a capable U.S. icebreaker fleet.

You can download a copy of the Navy’s Arctic Roadmap at the following link:

http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf

Examples of worrisome recent Russian activities in the Arctic are:

Since early 2014, Russia has been conducting bomber and fighter missions close to the airspace of its Arctic neighbors. This kind of military behavior has not been seen since the Cold War ended in the early 1990s.
1 December 2014: Russia’s new Arctic Joint Strategic Command became operational. This provides central management of all Russian military resources in the Arctic, and there are a lot of them. The new command, based on the Northern Fleet and headquartered at Severomorsk, will acquire military, naval surface and strategic nuclear subsurface, air force and aerospace defense units, assets, and bases transferred from other Russian Military Districts
15 – 20 March 2015: Russia conducted a massive, five-day military exercise in the Arctic involving about 80,000 troops, 220 aircraft, 41 ships, and 15 submarines. This exercise was conducted on the one-year anniversary of the Russian annexation of Crimea.
4 August 2015: Russia’s Foreign Ministry confirmed that Russia had re-submitted to the United Nations it’s Arctic extended continental shelf claim. Russia is seeking recognition for its formal economic control of 1.2 million square kilometers (463,320 square miles) of Artic sea shelf extending more than 350 nautical miles from the shore.

The new U.S. Arctic Executive Steering Committee

In contrast to Russia’s new Arctic Joint Strategic Command, President Obama issued an Executive Order in 15 January 2015 setting up the Arctic Executive Steering Committee, which will be responsible for enhancing coordination of national efforts in the Arctic. How this new Steering Committee will affect progress on revitalizing the U.S. polar icebreaker fleet remains to be seen. You can read the full text of this Executive Order at the following link:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/01/21/executive-order-enhancing-coordination-national-efforts-arctic

The bottom line

The U.S. is well behind the power curve for conducting operations in the Arctic that require icebreaker support. Even with a well-funded new U.S. icebreaker construction program, it will take a decade before the first new ship is ready for service, and by that time, the new ship will be entering the fleet just as the Polar Star is retiring or entering a comprehensive life-extension refurbishment program.

If you find yourself icebound in the Arctic anytime in the next decade, I think your best bet is to call the Canadians or the Russians for help.

5 February 2016 update:

In mid-January 2016, former Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Bob Papp made the following points at the annual Surface Navy Association meeting near Washington D.C.:

The U.S. will need eight icebreakers if it decides to have one patrolling in each polar region at all times. The Coast Guard has never been able to support that high an operational tempo.
U.S. Arctic policy is a matter of national security; not just a matter of defense. The State Department’s vision focuses as well on sovereign rights and responsibilities of Arctic nations, maritime safety, energy, economic interests, environmental stewardship, scientific research and support to indigenous peoples.
More icebreakers are essential, because the U.S. can’t support its policies without being physically able to move about in the polar regions.

Read more details at the following link:

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2016/01/15/coast-guard-needs-8-icebreakers-cover-polar-regions-retired-4-star/78749864/

The current Coast Guard Commandant, Adm. Paul Zukunft, has stated that the schedule for the new icebreaker procurement program calls for a contract award for one icebreaker by fall 2019, with production beginning in 2020. Initial operational capability for this first new icebreaker would not be until the mid-2020s. A Federal Business Opportunity (FBO) notice for the USCG Polar Icebreaker Replacement Program was posted online on 13 January 2016. You can read the FBO notice and download the industry data package at the following link:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=68bf40747603b6acecc73e5ccc2974b6&tab=core&_cview=1

Well, this is a start. When the new icebreaker enters the Coast Guard fleet and Polar Star retires after about 50 years of operation, the U.S. still will have only two polar icebreakers.