How to Build an Icebreaker in Three Years

It's not that hard, if you ask the right people.

Building icebreakers. It shouldn’t be that hard. European shipyards, especially those located in Finland, routinely design and build these specialized ships for a variety of purposes. In North America, however, it’s a different story. Both the U.S. and Canada have struggled over the past decade with delays in designing and building their own polar icebreakers. You can read about the saga of the U.S. Coast Guard’s Polar Security Cutter here, whose first funds were appropriated in 2013, and Canada’s program here, which goes all the way back to 2008.

Icebreaker Polaris at Helsinki Shipyard

I recently wrote about Davie- the Canadian shipbuilder- and their plan to build their own design polar icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard. According to a press report, 30% of the ship will be built in Helsinki. Before the contract was awarded, Davie was advertising that they could build this design in Helsinki in only 36 months.

How can the Finns do that? Often, U.S. Coast Guard Admirals and officials state before Congress that Finland doesn’t build the kind of icebreakers they’re talking about. This PC2 icebreaker- for the Canadian Coast Guard- seems to be exactly that kind of icebreaker. (Note: Finns design and build all kinds of icebreakers. They just haven’t had a recent customer asking for this kind of vessel).

Today, we will go through the Finnish process of how this is done. I won’t bother comparing it to the U.S. Government acquisition process, as I would just get bogged down (and frustrated) as I describe how it doesn’t work. Without further delay, let’s go.

The Ideal Process:

In discussing the ideal process, I’m going to use three design phases- Concept, Basic, and Detailed/Production Design. Sometimes companies further divide them- for example, having a concept and tender phase instead of just concept design, or by separating detailed design and production design. For our purposes, looking at these three main phases is sufficient to gain an understanding of how Finnish shipyards build icebreakers.

Of course before you start designing a ship, you need to define your requirements.

Step 1: Define your requirements

A good icebreaker design needs to balance many elements, including icebreaking capability, open water performance, and seakeeping characteristics. Size is important, as it is related to endurance. Shallow draft icebreakers can be especially challenging, requiring design choices that are not optimal for other applications.

For Aker Arctic, determining the required icebreaking capability is typically the first step. Then they look at the size of the vessel, the propulsion requirements, and then other equipment required for the ship to reach the required level of performance in its role.

Government contracts sometimes come with their own requirements. For example, the contract to design Polaris detailed that, for example, it had to match the icebreaking capability of the existing Urho class vessels and its maximum draft (with full fuel load) was 8m. It is expected to operate 95% of the time in the open water and ice conditions that prevail in the Baltic Sea.

For a complex commercial project, Aker will work directly with the customer to develop the requirements. This was the case for Le Commandant Charcot, the world’s first Polar Class 2 icebreaker. Ponant- the French cruise line- first began working with Aker in 2016. Mathieu Petiteau, Ponant’s newbuilding research and development director, described the early work:

For four months, we collected a lot of data and performed environmental analyses to come up with some design criteria for the temperature, ice thickness and the size of obstacles.

To go to the North Pole between June and September, the vessel must withstand minus-25 degrees Celsius. We needed to be able to break 2.5 meters of thick, intact ice—not because we will always encounter this type of ice, but because we cannot get trapped if we want to safely come back to port on time to pick up new passengers and maintain the schedule.

Then, the vessel needed to be able pass through obstacles— (such as) ice ridges….

Maximilian Vocke, who was Charcot’s chief designer and project manager at Aker Arctic, put it this way:

Before starting to design the vessel, Aker Arctic gathered and analysed ice data over a period of ten years to establish how harsh and demanding the circumstances for the cruise ship would be. "The cruises will go to the Arctic region in the summer, when the ice is least thick and at its softest, and to Antarctica when the southern hemisphere has its summer. Nevertheless, these are not easy regions for any vessel," Vocke adds.

Step 2: Concept Design

Once the requirements were established, Aker Arctic, Ponant, and Stirling Design International began work on the concept design.

During the concept development phase Aker Arctic was responsible for everything from the main deck downwards, as well as the machinery and design of the steel hull. Stirling Design International was responsible for the upper decks and interior design, while PONANT provided the guidelines for the development and ensured that the overall concept met their company's requirements.

As Charcot was one of the first vessels built under the new Polar Code- and the first Polar Class 2 vessel ever- it was one of the more complicated and lengthy design processes. Based on press releases, about two years elapsed from the beginning of design until Vard signed the contract to build the ship. Here were the specifications:

Source: Aker Arctic

As this is a private business matter, the exact length of the conceptual design process is not public, but undoubtedly the time between the concept design and the construction contract being awarded included more than just design work. One of the important outcomes of concept design is an estimated cost to build the vessel. Ponant very likely spent some time conducting market studies and considering whether the vessel would be profitable at the estimated cost. I’ve heard that the design process was quite a bit shorter than two years- perhaps only about one year- but cannot confirm that with publicly available information.

Indeed, the conceptual design process can be quite a bit shorter, even with new designs. Consider Polaris, delivered in 2016. Designed by Aker Arctic and ILS, the build contract was awarded to Arctech Helsinki Shipyard (today Helsinki Shipyard) only seven months after design contract. This design contract included comparing two conceptual alternatives (a more conventional design with two azimuth thrusters and the newer three-unit design) and was the first dual-fuel icebreaker, capable of running on both liquefied natural gas (LNG) and low-sulfur marine diesel oil (LSMDO).

Step 3: Build Contract Signed

This is where a shipyard signs a contract to build the vessel. This may be the result of a competitive bid process.

For icebreakers, the customer will often limit the shipyards that can compete for the contract. Here are a couple of examples:

For Polaris:

Only shipyards that had built at least one ship capable of operating independently in ice within the past three years could qualify for the bidding process.

For Sweden’s New Icebreaker:

The shipyard must have experience in the construction and delivery of a vessel in Polar Class 1 to 6 or equivalent. The requirements are that the vessel has been delivered in year 2012 or later and has a length overall (LOA) ≥ 80 meters.

Requiring proven competence in the type of ship being built? Sounds like a pretty good idea.

Step 4: Basic Design

Basic design is primarily the responsibility of the shipyard, but design firms may also be involved. Aker Arctic is often involved in the Basic Design phase, as it has extensive experience with classification rules (including their development) and can use that experience to assist in developing a full classification package. Here is what this phase is mainly about:

By the end of the basic design stage, the overall design of the vessel attains a state of permanency and everyone involved in the cycle has a basic idea about the critical design characteristics of the vessel.

These areas include the hull form design, basic parameters and proportions, weights-volumes, and tonnages (with very minimal room for variation due to minor design alterations till advanced stages), stability characteristics, tankage, principal structural design, disposition of spaces, hydrodynamics, propulsion systems, engine type, fuels, electrical distribution, steering gear, ventilation and piping, major outfit items, safety, and fire-fighting capabilities, and so on. (Maritime Insight)

This is also the stage where the classification society gets involved, as class approval must be obtained before construction can begin.

Step 5: Detail/Production Design

This is phase in which the shipyard plans the construction of the vessel. It produces detailed drawings and clear instructions for building the ship including the cutting and welding sequences and the construction and assembly of blocks.

Step 6: Construction

Following the detail/production design, build the ship!

The ‘Actual’ Process in Finland

This is how the Finns can build an icebreaker in three years or less- by quickly getting the design to a sufficient level of maturity so that construction and design can happen in parallel.

It all starts with a solid conceptual design. As one executive put it, every naval architecture student can create a concept design. But can the design actually be built? Being able to understand the challenges that typically arise later in the project- and dealing with them early- are what makes the process works. Designing for production from the beginning- i.e. thinking and understanding at the earliest phases the challenges associated with building the vessel- ensures that production goes smoothly.

One important aspect in designing icebreakers is the control of harmful vibration which requires good continuity of main structures in all three principal directions and understanding where structural supports — pillars or bulkheads — are required. Those who have been on an icebreaker in ice understand this. My own description is that it feels- and sounds- as if you are in an old pick-up truck speeding down a gravel road. Planing for this vibration early early is key to avoiding mistakes that are difficult to later correct.

In other words, an experienced icebreaker designer knows what the pitfalls are, and ensures that they are dealt with early and not left to be solved in later phases.

Parallel Operations

Armed with a good conceptual design, the shipyard- often in conjunction with a design firm- moves into the basic design as discussed above. Basic design often begins with the the engine rooms. As the power requirements must be stable by this point, it is probably the most straightforward aspect of the design to bring to full maturity.

Once a portion of basic design is complete and approved, that section moves directly to detailed/production design. It takes about 1.5 years from contract award to the completion of detailed/production design. However, construction typically begins at the 6-7 months point- as soon as the first portion of the vessel is through detailed/production design.

When the customer considers a design change, the shipyard will often asses the effect of the change on cost and timeliness, enabling a sense of whether the change is truly worth it. Sometimes changes must be made because of errors in the design process. These changes are often caught and corrected early, as the shipyards and designers in Finland generally know one another and can easily ask questions across organizations. Other changes can be driven by a lack of available parts. Again, because of their significant experience building icebreakers, the designers and shipyards can handle these relatively easily.

Managing Expectations

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) would have a few things to say if the U.S. Navy or U.S. Coast Guard tried to start building a vessel while basic and detailed design were still in process. This is the notional process as described by the GAO:

The reason for this, though, is that the U.S. Coast Guard (or Navy) can’t seem to stabilize the design. The concept design equivalent just isn’t good enough- yet it wins the bids anyway. A July 2023 GAO report is even titled Polar Security Cutter Needs to Stabilize Design Before Starting Construction and Improve Schedule Oversight. This report details the problems with the initial design chosen by the U.S. Coast Guard. Not only did the design require significant change, but the selected shipyard is finding it challenging to build the selected design.

There is a certain synergy with Finnish designers and shipbuilders- they are used to working together. With their collective experience, they can achieve a stable design that meet’s the customer’s needs and can be built quickly.

Thoughts and Comments

Just yesterday, President Trump played golf with Finland’s President Stubb. After the outing, President Trump wrote:

President Stubb and I look forward to strengthening the partnership between the United States and Finland, and that includes the purchase and development of a large number of badly needed Icebreakers for the U.S., delivering Peace and International Security for our Countries, and the World.

If this does happen, those in Washington, DC should not be surprised that the Finns will use their standard approach to reduce the build time of these vessels. This is similar to what Davie is doing as it builds its PC2 Polar Max icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard.

Some will notice that I did’t use the phrase ‘parent design’ once in discussing efficient ship design and construction. I intended to cover this, but that topic is worthy of its own article.

The purchasing and delivery of key components/equipment for icebreakers is also an important area in which the Finns have an advantage as the companies involved are experienced in working together. I will come back to that area as well.

At this point, my friends in American Shipyards are probably ready to emphatically tell me that they could build good quality icebreakers in a short time frame too, if the U.S. Coast Guard/U.S. Government just left them alone. Although this may be true, in the short term the U.S. Coast Guard needs more icebreakers quickly. Although acquisition reform is sorely needed, I believe that overseas design and construction-using their own processes- is the only way to deal with today’s lack of ships in a relevant timeframe.

I’m touring the Rauma shipyard this week (Rauma Marine Constructions) and will be writing about their capability in the near future. I hope to see the Finnish Navy’s Corvettes during my visit as well.

And of course there will be much more to say about Saturday’s statement from President Trump.

So subscribe now and stay tuned!

All the Best,

PGR