I checked the 2025 NDAA, and the "100%" language discussed in this article did not make it in the final version. There is "95%" language for the Constellation-class FFG in section 129 of the FY25 NDAA, and there is still a "complete design" requirement on the books.
Both the "complete design" and the parallel design/construction approach are different ways of getting to the same ends - locking down requirements before construction begins. They just do it in very different ways, and it is going to be difficult for a shipyard - especially a foreign shipyard - to sell this approach. Hopefully the Canadian build will go well, and we can glean some best-practices from that project.
Well, what we're doing now certainly is working. There is a 'take it or leave it' angle to Davie's approach, and frankly it might be just what we need.
Separately, there have been many statements in Congress about a willingness to "pursue other options" when it comes to acquiring icebreakers, including from members who are known for the 'Buy and Build American" stands.
Not to mention that should the President invoke a title XIV waiver, all of the normal procurement processes go out the window (at least this is what I remember from the deliberations in 2019-2020 on similar deals).
In a way, we have a natural experiement with many of the key acquisition techniques that you are advocating for with the USCGC STORIS.
If I am understanding your posts correctly, the key to making your proposal work is not just where we are buying the ships (Finland) it is how we are buying the ships. Two key features of "how we buy the ships" are commercial construction and limited requirements ("take it or leave it"). The STORIS is an example of both. The ship is as commercial as it gets - built by a commercial firm to commercial standards to do commercial work. It is also a case of constrained requirements because any changes to the ship will have to be pretty limited.
If STORIS goes badly (and I hope it does not of course), then it is going to be very difficult to sell the USCG on a commercial design - Finnish or otherwise. I am looking forward to your Substack's coverage of that program. I think you will have a lot of interesting insights into how it is going because of your familiarity with the commercial icebreaking market.
No, Storis is not a good example. Storis is a compromise Anchor Handling Tug that was built to ABS icebreaker standards so it could operate off of Alaska, but also in the Gulf of Mexico. It was built by a yard that couldn't bend plates into a 3D form. Not a good example at all. Aiviq/Storis will be fine for patrolling the area around Alaska, but won't meet the further requirements.
Davie/Helsinki is building a PC2 vessel for the Canadian Coast Guard that will meet all of the Canadian Coast Guard requirements- but using commercial processes. What they (apparently) will not accept are constant change orders.
Is the Canadian Coast Guard ship going to be built to commercial standards (DNV, ABS, GL, etc) or some unique Canadian CG standard? Maybe a mix of both?
Canada builds all of their Coast Guard vessels to commercial standards. Seaspan's vessel is going to be PC2 Icebreaker (+) as classified by Lloyds. I'm not sure yet which agency will classify the Davie/Helsinki build, but it is going to be PC2 Icebreaker as well. All of the classification societies use the same rules for Polar Class, so it doesn't really matter. There are some differences for the icebreaker notation (only Lloyds uses the +), but they are in process more than outcome.
Even the U.S. Coast Guard's Polar Security Cutter is being built to mostly commercial standards, from what I've read. It's just following a government process- as is Seaspan's icebreaker.
Davie will produce the same basic ship (but a bit smaller and likely a bit less powerful) but following a commercial process. It will meet all key performance indicators- the icebreaking requirements, crew requirements, endurance requirements, helicopter carrying requirements, etc as set out by the Canadian Coast Guard.
There was one more thing that confused me about your article. You stated that governments separate separate design and construction into separate contracts. I thought that American shipbuilding generally uses combined detail design and construction contracts.
Is there any effort to share common systems and equipment between the two icebreakers? If not, it seems like the Canadian Coast Guard is setting itself up to have ships with similar capabilities, but totally different supply chains.
Designs are completely separate, but will probably have some common components as both trace their designs back to Finland and both rely on commercial products (such as ABB's Azipods). It will be interesting to see these two programs side-by-side. Seaspan's is essentially a traditional program (with unlimited time and money thrown at it) compared to the Davie/Helsinki "let's do something different" approach.
NAVSEA... paying attention here?
Also, parallel design and construction could be a tough sell in a US shipbuilding program.
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/05/house-poised-to-require-100-percent-ship-design-from-navy-prior-to-construction/
I checked the 2025 NDAA, and the "100%" language discussed in this article did not make it in the final version. There is "95%" language for the Constellation-class FFG in section 129 of the FY25 NDAA, and there is still a "complete design" requirement on the books.
Both the "complete design" and the parallel design/construction approach are different ways of getting to the same ends - locking down requirements before construction begins. They just do it in very different ways, and it is going to be difficult for a shipyard - especially a foreign shipyard - to sell this approach. Hopefully the Canadian build will go well, and we can glean some best-practices from that project.
Well, what we're doing now certainly is working. There is a 'take it or leave it' angle to Davie's approach, and frankly it might be just what we need.
Separately, there have been many statements in Congress about a willingness to "pursue other options" when it comes to acquiring icebreakers, including from members who are known for the 'Buy and Build American" stands.
Not to mention that should the President invoke a title XIV waiver, all of the normal procurement processes go out the window (at least this is what I remember from the deliberations in 2019-2020 on similar deals).
Stay tuned. More to come, I'm sure.
In a way, we have a natural experiement with many of the key acquisition techniques that you are advocating for with the USCGC STORIS.
If I am understanding your posts correctly, the key to making your proposal work is not just where we are buying the ships (Finland) it is how we are buying the ships. Two key features of "how we buy the ships" are commercial construction and limited requirements ("take it or leave it"). The STORIS is an example of both. The ship is as commercial as it gets - built by a commercial firm to commercial standards to do commercial work. It is also a case of constrained requirements because any changes to the ship will have to be pretty limited.
If STORIS goes badly (and I hope it does not of course), then it is going to be very difficult to sell the USCG on a commercial design - Finnish or otherwise. I am looking forward to your Substack's coverage of that program. I think you will have a lot of interesting insights into how it is going because of your familiarity with the commercial icebreaking market.
No, Storis is not a good example. Storis is a compromise Anchor Handling Tug that was built to ABS icebreaker standards so it could operate off of Alaska, but also in the Gulf of Mexico. It was built by a yard that couldn't bend plates into a 3D form. Not a good example at all. Aiviq/Storis will be fine for patrolling the area around Alaska, but won't meet the further requirements.
Davie/Helsinki is building a PC2 vessel for the Canadian Coast Guard that will meet all of the Canadian Coast Guard requirements- but using commercial processes. What they (apparently) will not accept are constant change orders.
Is the Canadian Coast Guard ship going to be built to commercial standards (DNV, ABS, GL, etc) or some unique Canadian CG standard? Maybe a mix of both?
Canada builds all of their Coast Guard vessels to commercial standards. Seaspan's vessel is going to be PC2 Icebreaker (+) as classified by Lloyds. I'm not sure yet which agency will classify the Davie/Helsinki build, but it is going to be PC2 Icebreaker as well. All of the classification societies use the same rules for Polar Class, so it doesn't really matter. There are some differences for the icebreaker notation (only Lloyds uses the +), but they are in process more than outcome.
Even the U.S. Coast Guard's Polar Security Cutter is being built to mostly commercial standards, from what I've read. It's just following a government process- as is Seaspan's icebreaker.
Davie will produce the same basic ship (but a bit smaller and likely a bit less powerful) but following a commercial process. It will meet all key performance indicators- the icebreaking requirements, crew requirements, endurance requirements, helicopter carrying requirements, etc as set out by the Canadian Coast Guard.
Thanks for the clarification.
There was one more thing that confused me about your article. You stated that governments separate separate design and construction into separate contracts. I thought that American shipbuilding generally uses combined detail design and construction contracts.
PSC is detail design and construction. https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/1822016/
FFG(x) is also a detail design and construction contract.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Contracts/Contract/Article/2171906/
Both OPC acquisitions were also detailed design with construction. https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Portals/10/CG-9/Acquisition%20PDFs/Factsheets/OPC_0523.pdf
Is there something I am missing about these contracts, or are American ship acquisition contracts atypical of other government ship acquisitions?
Thank you for writing this article.
Is there any effort to share common systems and equipment between the two icebreakers? If not, it seems like the Canadian Coast Guard is setting itself up to have ships with similar capabilities, but totally different supply chains.
Designs are completely separate, but will probably have some common components as both trace their designs back to Finland and both rely on commercial products (such as ABB's Azipods). It will be interesting to see these two programs side-by-side. Seaspan's is essentially a traditional program (with unlimited time and money thrown at it) compared to the Davie/Helsinki "let's do something different" approach.
I know which side I'd put money on...
This piece includes deeper info than anything I've read from conventional media covering this subject. Great write-up!
Thanks!