Are icebreaker hulls fit to be used for military purpose? Or have missiles become so powerful that it doesn't matter anymore?
Are icebreaker hulls fit to be used for military purpose?
Are icebreaker hulls fit to be used for military purpose? Or have missiles become so powerful that it doesn't matter anymore?
icebreakers are already part of the navy
unless your Canadian
Just look up the USS Buchanan to see how effective missiles are on a real naval ship
>USS Buchanan
>She remained afloat after being hit by three AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles, three Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and a 2,400-pound (1,100 kg) laser-guided bomb
Sweet Jesus, what a tough old girl.
Rendered combat ineffective almost immediately, resulting in the ship equivalent of walking wounded?
>The crew doesn't matter
Brainlet take
Of course the crew matters. It's still combat ineffective. In the long run, crew survivability is great.
In terms of the outcome of an immediate battle, a shell is of no meaningful greater lethality than a missile at all, because once your radar and electronic fire control is gone, you are no longer a combatant.
The current meta for naval and aerial combat is always he who sees and shoots first, wins. It's stealth x sensors over armor.
you really should take SINKEX stuff with a grain of salt. sinking an empty ship isn't the same as sinking one full of ammo and fuel
it isn't the same as a ship full of a crew that will fight to save it either.
That's nothing, Prinz Eugen survived being nuked. Twice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cruiser_Prinz_Eugen#Service_with_the_United_States_Navy
It's sad so many neat old ships are at the bottom of the ocean instead of I'm a museum somewhere
You can theoretically still visit the prinz eugen
They're absurdly expensive to maintain.
Just look at railcar preservation to get an idea on a small scale. Ships are 10-50x larger.
Agree with this re: american vessels but nazi ships belong on the bottom of the ocean
You belong in a gulag. Get educated. You've been lied to your whole life. Today's the twenty-second anniversary of 9/11, arguably the biggest false flag attack inside job Reichstagg fire since ever, stealing from us a glorious post-soviet era of prosperity, and replacing it with a two-decade war on terror, et al. :/ The bad guys won WWII.
>da nazis were ACTUALLY the good guys
lol
lmao even
go back to 4chan
Oh yeah. Happy 9/11 to everybody 🙂
>Agree with this re: american vessels but nazi ships belong on the bottom of the ocean
Your gay empire is dead and we're stomping on the ashes, ivan.
Fuck all the tanks and shit that got scrapped but ships are so big unless you put them on land it's hundreds of thousands annually just to keep them afloat.
At least they still exist instead of being scrapped
Ice melting is opening a new frontier in the spectrum of warfare, icebreaker hulled warships are in.
well since arctic cruise ships are strong enough to sink navy vessels i imagine that they are pretty good at good old ramming warfare
Not outside of niche purposes. The hull is stronger and thicker but not anywhere near enough to matter, and also nowhere near enough as thick as WWII era surface combatants. And there's another problem: the shape of the hull. Icebreakers aren't like normal ships just heavier-duty. Instead the have a special hull shape that lets the hull ride up on top of the ice and crush it under using the weigh of the ship. That shape is a huge compromise. It works in ice but it has terrible sea-keeping compared to traditional ships. Icebreakers are slow and they pitch and roll like mad in rough seas. They perform poorly in the open ocean and also are not very fuel-efficient. All of this prevents problems for effective naval operations.
Give the project to the Germans. They will find a solution.
>not very fuel-efficient
But isn't Yamal a nuclear powered Ice-Breaker?
Doesn't that make it relatively fuel efficient compared to say, a deisel electric?
The Yamal is nuclear, yes. I was answering the general question, not limiting my answer to OP's pic.
>Doesn't that make it relatively fuel efficient compared to say, a deisel electric?
The hydrodynamic efficiency is still a problem. The Yamal is very slow compared to a traditional ship with the same basic specifications. But being nuclear does mean that refueling happens very infrequently so it would have a lot greater endurance than a diesel ship.
Nothing matters anymore.
Ice breakers are not suitable for blue water naval activities their bow is nearly flat to allow them to ride up on the ice and the weight of the ship breaks the ice flat bows and keels are utter shit in waters with waves.
USCG is getting 3 new ice breakers in the next few years.
They will also be Polar Class 2 (as of 2023 only 2 ships in the world meet PC2 requirements, and no ships have yet been made to meet Polar Class 1 requirements) rated which makes them one of the most advanced ice breakers in the world.
>USCG is getting 3 new ice breakers
Current plan is for 2, with an option for a third
>as of 2023 only 2 ships in the world meet PC2 requirements
I on;y know about the French one, what is the other?
Also, Canadians are building one as well.
isnt yamal basicly built above the pc requirements anyway since it can cut 5 meters of ice?
dude its a russian ship you think they gonna have it on any list?
Russian ships follow a different standard, also the polar class ratings take into account more than JUST raw ice breaking capability, the ship must also have ice-hardened systems and safety features for the ship itself and the crew on-board. So key features need to be heated to resist freezing, backup heaters, etc, etc.
So a ship missing redundant over-designed systems even if PHYSICALLY capable of breaking ice at 9m+ year round, still wouldn't achieve a PC2 rating because it's missing the other features.
thats not the point anon
pc do not consider the russian ships capable of pc class because the maritime register of russia has given very specific specs about ice breaking capacity and speed relation something pc class hasnt done well they havent being specific about it technically
its cool to see them together tho
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Gq20TFta85Y
wrong video
Looks fun
>Are icebreaker hulls fit to be used for military purpose?
Always have been.
You can take a cruise on that ice breaker, though I'd recommend the new Ponant one (Le Commandant Charcot, pic related) as it's MUCH nicer just all across the board. Though obviously it costs quite a bit more, if you're considering a polar cruise though you should expect to pay a fairly hefty price no matter what.
>Polar cruise
I did not know this was a thing
I did not know I wanted this thing
Honestly one of the BEST cruising experiences, just know there won't be a ton of "normal" cruise activities (like diving, swimming, etc), though the Ponant ship has great facilities, excellent restaurants and plenty of activities and things to keep you occupied.
By activities do you mean lonely housewives and divorcees?
PYKRETE
Y
K
R
E
T
E
So how retarded is the Finnish Navy's planned 4300t Pohjanmaa-class "Corvette" - minelayer - icebreaker hybrid that has no other similar existing craft to compare to?
>that has no other similar existing craft to compare to?
Japs doing weird shit too and some parallels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogami-class_frigate
seem like a damn good idea when you consider the layout of their coast and the weather they get
Install teleportation device on it.
Missiles would just hit the superstructure.