A Quick Note about Icebreakers
We're going to spend a significant amount of time discussing icebreakers. I thought I'd start by sharing how I become involved with the subject.
President Trump’s push for icebreakers
Some of my readers, especially those who follow maritime issues, may remember the push during the Trump Administration to close the polar icebreaker gap1. President Trump saw that the U.S. Coast Guard had been far short of the number of icebreaking vessels needed to fulfill its stated missions for quite some time. Worse, there was no feasible plan to close this gap. The Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program was just starting out, and at best would keep pace with retiring vessels, with no net addition for at least a decade. Thinking that there must be a better way, he directed his administration to come up with solutions outside of the normal procurement process.
If you don’t remember, here is a quick reminder of this push from a July 10, 2020 speech at U.S. Southern Command. While the President’s rhetoric was ahead of the process, there was already a large effort underway to make something happen:
And we're going to be trying to get, if we can, an extra 10 icebreakers. We only have one. Russia has 40; we have one. So we will have 2, but we think we'll have 10 because we're trying to do a deal with a certain place that has a lot of icebreakers, and we're seeing if we can make a really good deal where you can have them very fast. You know about that. We're working on it, and I think we can surprise you - at a very good price, which will be nice. Much cheaper than the one we're building, and that's also nice. You could do about five of them.
About a month earlier, the President issued a Memorandum on Safeguarding U.S. National Interests in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions that publicly directed the Secretaries of multiple departments to analyze and report on the option to purchase, lease from, or new build icebreakers for U.S. Coast Guard use in an allied or partner nation. Finland was the nation of focus.
Our Maritime Guy in Helsinki
I reported to the U.S. Embassy in Helsinki, Finland as the Naval Attaché (or ALUSNA, for you purists) in June of 2017 and served in that role until my retirement in 2021. Although I was aware that icebreakers were a high interest item before arriving, I knew very little about them. Fortunately, I had spent the previous twenty years as a Nuclear Trained Surface Warfare Officer, with service on six different vessels in both topside and engineering roles. That gave me the maritime experience and technical background to learn all that I could in order to answer the deluge of questions and requests that would eventually come from Washington.
As Finnish companies design about 80% of the world’s icebreakers and build about 60% of them, learning about icebreakers in Finland meant learning about the world’s icebreakers.
After the 2020 memorandum, the work became more specific, as the White House2 wanted detailed information about existing icebreakers that might be available for lease or direct purchase. Additionally, they wanted to know about foreign icebreaker design and construction possibilities including vessels recently designed and/or built in Finland, the timeline for design and construction of these ships, their cost, and when/if these companies had openings for new design and/or construction work.
As in many efforts that go outside of normal channels, this one met with a somewhat intense pushback. I believe this came partly from those who feared that a cheaper, faster icebreaker procurement plan would jeopardize the PSC program. Others simply did not understand the technology, viewing even modern foreign icebreakers as inferior and not suited to the needs of the U.S. Coast Guard.
I never saw the report that was directed by the memorandum. Based on earlier reports that I had seen and the pushback I observed from the U.S. Coast Guard, I am not confident that it contained the best, most up-to-date information about foreign icebreaker options.
Change of Administration
When President Trump left office, this push to find solutions to the icebreaker gap lost its champion, moved down the priority list, and seemed to just fade away. I retired from the Navy in March 2021, and no longer hear much about a possible deal from either the Finns or my colleagues still in U.S. government service. However, the U.S. Coast Guard and just about every Arctic strategy call for more maritime presence in polar waters.
Polar Security Cutter Delays
Unfortunately, the PSC program continues to fall behind schedule. The first ship was originally scheduled for delivery in 2024, but now even the most optimistic estimates project 2028 or 2029- meaning no net gain in icebreaker numbers until probably 2035. These estimates are far from certain. In April 2023 Congressional testimony, the Commandant of the Coast Guard was unwilling to even state in which decade Congress should expect delivery of the lead PSC. Without a clear timeline, the U.S. Coast Guard has reconsidered some ideas previously discounted, such as purchasing the commercial vessel Aiviq, to cover the gap until the new vessels are built. The Aiviq is a supply vessel designed and built to support Arctic oil exploration and drilling and thus has icebreaking capability. Perhaps they will be truly open to foreign solutions at some point if the delay and uncertainly associated with the PSC program continues.
Reconsidering Assistance from Allies and Partners
There has been much discussion this year concerning the lack of capacity and capability in U.S. shipyards and the impact this has on the construction of warships, submarines, and commercial vessels. Rep. Gallagher’s recent letter to the Commander of Transportation Command and the Maritime Administrator asks specifically about the acquisition of foreign ships to augment our sealift fleet. What was once considered politically impossible may become reality out of necessity- it may even be directed by Congress. The USA cannot grow its maritime industry overnight after decades of neglect. If we are willing to work with international shipbuilding nations such as Japan and South Korea, as increasingly seems possible, working with Finland (or another foreign partner) on icebreakers is certainly a future possibility.
The Way Forward
With this in mind, I intend to share what I learned about icebreakers, icebreaking technology, and icebreaker construction over the next few months while commenting on related news or events as they happen. As Arctic Sea Routes open up and small militias threaten shipping, it is good for mariners to understand polar operations. It won’t be long before the Northern Sea Route is again featured in news programs. Additionally, with the U.S. Coast Guard’s small and aging icebreaking fleet and the potential return to office of President Trump, a wider knowledge of icebreaking may be useful for those inside the Beltway.
More later this week.
PGR
Polar, as opposed to Great Lakes icebreakers. In analyses going back more than 15 years the U.S. Coast Guard reported that it needed between four and ten icebreakers to meet all of its Title 14 missions. The current number is eight, according to 2023 Congressional Testimony by the Commandant of the Coast Guard. The U.S. Coast Guard currently has two, one of which is beyond its service life. More on this to come.
Throughout this post I use White House to refer to the President and his National Security Staff, as opposed to Executive Branch departments such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State.