Icebreakers

GarryB wrote:

Why was a Ukrainian company contracted in 2020? was that not a bad risk since 2014?

If they did I would say it was because there was no alternative at the time and the time it would take to develop a Russian alternative would have delayed the project?

Its quite common. all ships have heat exchangers. Quite common for some ships designed for the atlantic to have to slow down in certain warm conditions.

I am not a ship expert but apart from these faulty British Destroyers I have not heard of that happening before.

The engines actually failed after operating in the Med because the water was not cool enough to keep the engine operating normally... a serious design flaw.

For most ships I would say a refrigeration unit could be used for cooling water as needed and of course food storage would need freezers to be carried on board too, so it should not be a problem on a well designed ship.

They might be shocked to find there is a US ship called the Alamo... wonder what the Mexicans would think about that name for that ship?

In Soviet history, a significant number of ships have carried Stalin’s name. Including in the Arctic. In 1938, the Soviet Union commissioned the icebreaker Stalin, which was in operation until 1973. It was renamed Sibir in 1954. https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2023/11/shadow-strife-and-aggression-descends-arctic-putin-names-new-icebreaker-stalingrad

Hole wrote:Maybe Russia should name some of her ships after huge battles in WWII.
Like Berlin.
Some politicians and "journalists" in Germany would get a stroke.