The U.S. Coast Guard has a 28,000-ton Blindspot

U.S. Coast Guard leadership continues to ignore a successful 'Heavy' icebreaker program

Jan 13, 2025

Congressman Carlos Gimenez (R-FL) (YouTube Screenshot)

Background on the December 18th Congressional Hearing

On December 18th, the Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security held a hearing called “Examining the Polar Security Cutter: An Update on Coast Guard Acquisitions.”

Regular readers know that the Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program is years behind and over budget. The program began with design studies in 2017, and the U.S. Coast Guard awarded the contract for detailed design and construction of the first vessel to VT Halter in April of 2019. If all went according to plan, that ship would have been delivered in 2024 at a cost of about $1 billion1.

Instead, although construction technically2 began in December of 2024, we do not have an updated total cost or delivery schedule. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the first ship will cost almost double the original estimate ($1.9 billion) and even the most optimistic schedule says delivery of the first ship will take place in 2030. The U.S. Coast Guard promised Congress an updated schedule and cost estimate by the end of 2024 but failed to deliver.

Reinventing the Wheel

Congressional hearings by subcommittees of both the Homeland Security Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committees occur regularly. Congressman Carlos Gimenez (R-FL), the chairman of the HSC Subcommittee on Maritime Infrastructure, is clearly losing his patience. Across several hearings he has asked different witnesses if the U.S. Coast Guard is trying to ‘reinvent the wheel’ through the Polar Security Cutter program.

In a May 2024 hearing, Chairman Gimenez asked Ms. Shelby Oakley of the Government Accountability Office about the ability of friendly nations to build icebreakers. Here is the exchange:

Chairman Gimenez: This is not like gee, we are building a spaceship to go to Saturn, nobody’s ever built one before, ok? So.. We’re building an icebreaker. Which a bunch of countries, even friendly to us, build icebreakers, right? And they know the welding techniques and they know all the steel that’s necessary. Are we trying to reinvent a wheel here? That’s already been invented all around the world?
Ms. Oakley (GAO): It’s true that you know many of our allies around the world are building icebreakers and have built icebreakers and are pretty effective at it…. we did not take that approach.

It should have been no surprise, then, when he asked nearly the same question (although with more frustration) of VADM Allan in the December hearing:

Chairman Gimenez: Admiral, the one thing that I have a big problem with is our icebreakers. Is this something new, nobody’s ever invented one, nobody’s ever built one before?
VADM Allan: Last time we built one in the United States was..
Chairman Gimenez: No, I’m not saying us. I’m saying is it something new, brand new , somebody, nobody’s ever heard of an icebreaker before? We’re inventing a new wheel?
VADM Allan: So sir I’d say when you talk about that there’s a lot of differences in icebreakers from the heavy to the ones that are breaking harbor ice. You could almost think of it as an Escort to a Ford 350.
Chairman Gimenez: None of our- none of our allies operate heavy icebreakers?
VADM Allan: Canada actually is looking to build a heavy icebreaker, yes sir.
Chairman Gimenez: They don’t operate one?
VADM Allan: The operate one, yes sir
Chairman Gimenez: Okay, the Finns, they operate any icebreakers?
VADM Allan: I do not think the operate any heavy icebreakers, but they operate a lot of icebreakers in and around their fjords.

Summing up VADM Allan’s answer: No other nation operates or builds Heavy Polar Icebreakers like we do. Comparing U.S. and European programs is like comparing manufacturing a powerful pickup truck (a Ford F-350) to building a low-powered compact car (Ford Escort).

There are several problems with his answer. One is that operating and building icebreakers are two different things. For example, Finland’s fleet is designed primarily to assist ships in the Baltic Sea, yet it includes several Arctic-proven vessels and Finnish shipyards have built ‘heavy’ polar icebreakers for export.

Unbelievably, he has a blind spot for a very successful European program that ran almost in parallel with the PSC program.

A 28,000-ton blind spot

This European program began in early 2016 (about a year before the first U.S. Coast Guard design studies began) and ended when the ship was delivered in 2021. Here is a comparison of this ship (for now I’m calling her Icebreaker 2021) with the planned Polar Security Cutter:

These two ships look very similar in size, power, endurance, and icebreaking capability (Polar Class 2). Operationally, Icebreaker 2021 can break up to 2.5m of multi-year ice in a continuous motion (without backing and ramming), and her hull is strong enough to withstand ramming through over 3m thick ice floes. The ship can handle heavy ice ridges better than the U.S. Coast Guard’s only heavy icebreaker (Polar Star) by going astern and using Azipods to steadily mill through the ice3. In short, she greatly exceeds the current U.S. Coast Guard requirement to be considered a ‘Heavy’ Polar Icebreaker (6 feet of ice, or 1.8m, at 3 knots).

I’ve toured “Icebreaker 2021” and spoken to one of her Captains. She normally runs 10-12 knots through the Arctic ice and has set records in both the Arctic and Antarctic. One ship designer even called her “the most capable icebreaking vessel under a NATO flag.4”

By now, regular readers probably recognize that I’m referring to Le Commandant Charcot. If you are unfamiliar with this remarkable vessel, stop now and read this:

A Successful Commercial Icebreaker Program: Le Commandant Charcot

Peter Rybski

May 21, 2024

Read full story

Seriously, go back and read it. I’ll wait. Did I mention that it cost less than $350 million in 2017 dollars? If it were built today, some estimates put the cost at close to $500-600 million.

This heavy icebreaker exists! Photo: Ponant

Despite having been operating in the Poles since 2021, I have not heard anything at all about this ship from U.S. Coast Guard leadership in Congressional hearings or otherwise. If anyone from the U.S. Government- especially the U.S. Coast Guard- has any questions about this ship or any other icebreaker program, I would be more than happy to assist.

And last, but not least: Finland has no Fjords. That’s Norway.

The Polar Security Cutter- Quickest and Most Cost Effective?

During another part of the hearing, VADM Allan said:

The Polar Security Cutter is the best and quickest way to provide the multi-mission heavy polar icebreaking capability the nation needs to deliver assured, year-round access and to meet national and homeland Security mission demands in the high latitudes.

I first thought that I misheard him, or that perhaps he simply misspoke. But I then found this statement in his written testimony:

Despite setbacks, the Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program has worked hard to overcome obstacles, and I am confident that it remains the quickest and most cost-effective way to deliver the first three new heavy polar icebreakers America needs to assure our interests in the Arctic and Antarctic.

I’m sorry, sir. I just can’t take you seriously when you say things like that. Especially if you consider that we’re five years into the program, and that current (although still unofficial) estimates are that it will take about five more years and cost close to $2 billion dollars.

I’m confident we could get at least three vessels equal in capability to Charcot within five years for less than $2 billion.

Thoughts and Comments

I’ve been watching Congressional hearings about the U.S. Coast Guard’s PSC program for years. Very little seems to change. In this hearing- as has been the case in hearings for at least the past several years- the U.S. Coast Guard acknowledges the troubled history, provides some excuses, and then says that everything is on track now- until the next schedule slip or cost increase.

To avoid repeating mistakes, and to implement reforms which improve outcomes across the U.S. Government (I’m looking at you, U.S. Navy: We can talk about the Constellation Class Frigate, and the LCS, or DDG-1000 to start with), uniformed leadership must first understand the problem and be direct in discussing it.

Ignoring the 28,000-ton Charcot may protect the brand (the comparison is, to say the least, very unfavorable to the U.S. Coast Guard) but it gets us no closer to acquiring enough icebreakers to meet U.S. National Security requirements. We must understand and learn from the capabilities of our Allies and Partners.

As I mentioned earlier this week, I have more topics to write about than time. I’m planning articles on Russian, Canadian, and Chinese icebreakers and ice-capable vessels, a discussion on the problem of classifying icebreakers (particular the Heavy/Medium/Light categories), and a look (again) at why the U.S. Coast Guard needs more icebreakers- especially modern icebreakers- and needed them yesterday. I also have a few non-icebreaker related articles in the work.

Now is a great time to subscribe so that you never miss an update!

Thanks for reading. If you’ve enjoyed this article, please subscribe and consider sharing with a friend or two. Sixty Degrees North has been growing quite a bit as of late- so thanks to you who are helping to spread the word.

All the Best,

PGR