Brits seek rousing name for polar research vessel

Re: OK, I probably have diferent ideas of Arctic state of the art

I sailed on the James Clark Ross about ten years ago. British polar research vessels are not "icebreakers" like the Russian ones, but "ice-strengthened". The difference is in the shape of the hull. An icebreaker has a rounded bow profile which forces the ice below the water as the ship progresses (see the picture of the Botnica here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebreaker#Ice_resistance_and_hull_form) - but this makes the ship less stable and less efficient when operating in the open water. The British ships both have a more conventional bow shape and a flattish bottom, and break ice by riding up onto it and breaking it with their sheer weight. This is slower and more energy intensive when breaking ice, but provides much better performance in open water. They spend a very small fraction of their duties actually breaking ice. A typical tasking for JCR involves sailing from the UK in August, bringing cargo and supplies down to the Antarctic stations and doing some scientific work on the way. In November and December they start doing deliveries to the Antarctic stations with scientific operations in between. The bulk of the scientific mission is done in mid-season when the ice is starting to retreat. From February to April they will do "last call" at the various Antarctic stations before returning to the UK. Generally JCR then undertakes Arctic work during the northern summer before the cycle repeats. The choice of an ice-strengthened hull profile means better performance in the open sea and a much lower fuel bill for the UK taxpayer, at the expense of performance in heavy ice.

With regard to the Shokalsky incident - the British ships don't operate in the southern Ross Sea because that area is heavily covered by the USA, Australia and New Zealand. JCR is designed for operation in the Weddell Sea and the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, where the ice thickness is generally less of an issue.

Oh, there's one other issue with Antarctica: the Antarctic Treaty and its associated protocols declare it to be a nuclear-free zone, so nuclear-powered icebreakers are not an option. The USA actually had a nuclear power reactor on one of their bases in the 50s, and were made to take it away once the Treaty was signed!

Re: OK, I probably have diferent ideas of Arctic state of the art

The brute force method

That video shows a common problem with foreigners not quite getting it when dealing with Russians. The poor pack ice clearly failed to recognize the "Que".

When you hear _THAT_ melody anywhere around Russians the best thing is to make sure you are not on their ramming vector. If you value your life - be somewhere else. There is 104 years of genetic imprint in that tune including 2 world wars, a civil war and a countless number of smaller ones. If the Russians, or the Polish for that matter (the tune with a different text used to be Armia Krajova WW2 battle song), have put Прощание Славянки on the tannoy... Just run. If you can. Quite clearly the ice did not "get the message".

Re: Great preparation, tragic results

(to quote the Wiki). Is this the different story.

It is - Gjøa was not specifically designed for ice from the ground up as a polar adventure/research vessel.

That honor is carried by Fram (Amundsen + Archer) and Taimyr + Vaygach (Kolchak). They designed and operated the first proper arctic science expeditions using equipment which was built specifically for that purpose and designed for the environment.

"...RSS Mornington Crescent

I wonder how many readers still haven't a clue?..."

Depends which rules they're using... :)