Slowburn August 4, 2013 05:25 PM I wonder if her engines will be able to eat scooped up oil. that would really add to the efficiency in oil spill cleanup. Sqidge August 5, 2013 10:01 AM A quibble: Ice-breakers do not work by "smashing" through the ice, nor does "hitting the ice" work.Instead, they slide up onto the ice using a very different hull shape to the normal deep water cargo ship, and quite inefficient and uneconomic for normal sailing. Their power is used to slide up as far a possible, and their *weight is what breaks up the ice, allowing it to be pushed aside.This is a small and therefore relatively light vessel, cleverly designed to be able to break open a path for wider vessels, but is only able to deal with 'thin' ice. ‘Thanks’ to our influence in increasing temperature of the planet, and the clearly observed reductions in Arctic ice, 0.6m is presumable as thick as it gets now, in the Gulf of Finland. Anyone have data on ice thicknesses there?Still, a very cost effective solution I should think, and helpful for the usually very tight Russian budgets. Jim Peterson August 5, 2013 01:12 PM Squidge's analysis exactly dovetails with mine. This is a new generation of icebreaker designed for a world with a changing climate. Its width suggests that it will be used to keep Arctic seaways open, expanding the shipping season in the remote North. Jerry Peavy August 5, 2013 01:19 PM They need to work fast before there is no more ice to break :) Jim Sadler August 5, 2013 01:51 PM I simply don't see this design being practical at all. The Russians operate some excellent ice breakers that can handle thicker ice as well. Or there might be some consideration for booms with large air hammers that could smash ice. Even grinding tools that look like a huge chain saw might be worthwhile. cem4881 August 5, 2013 02:51 PM I am surprised there would be any attempt to break up the ice. With global warming, it would only melt the polar caps faster. Don Duncan August 5, 2013 04:59 PM Sqidge: "...our influence in increasing temperature..." I have seen no evidence for your claim, i.e., I have seen all so-called evidence refuted. Furthermore, the record of the last 650,000 years shows no correlation between warming and carbon dioxide. Slowburn August 5, 2013 05:24 PM The “Icebreaking rescue vessel NB 508,” Baltika is designed for a specific place doing specific jobs. Making able to break thicker ice would not add to her functionality but it would add greatly to her cost. Get back to me with your predictions of global warming when your scientists have models that match historical and current conditions. I have thought that a vessel slips under the ice and then breaks the ice upwards and then pushes the broken ice off to the sides like a snowplow would leave the lane open longer. the.other.will August 5, 2013 05:40 PM Slowburn: There's lots of refining that takes place in between crude oil & diesel fuel. A ship that could "refine as it goes" would be enormous & enormously expensive. tigerprincess August 5, 2013 05:55 PM Duncan - you don't have your head in the sand you have it up your tail. The so called refutation you refer to is itself as biased and phony as the doubters of Global warming. 99% of all the scientist in the world attest to the fact that the earth is getting warmer. The ice packs are getting smaller, the world is getting warmer, the extremes of weather are getting stronger and more frequent. The nay sayers first denied this until it was too obvious. Now they claim it is a natural occurrence and man had no influence. World populations have doubled, resources have been raped, greedy industrialist are reaping the benifits, and humanity will pay dearly in the long run. After we destroy the planet. Nature will recover, it may take one hundred million years, but the lesson will be learned.