Close the Icebreaker Gap with ICE Pact

The US Coast Guard has an icebreaker acquisition problem. The Polar Security Cutter (PSC) program is six years behind schedule and $1 billion over budget. The first PSC now is not expected until at least 2030, and the medium icebreaker Arctic security cutters are a mere speck on the horizon. The recent signing of the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort (ICE) Pact between the United States, Canada, and Finland is an opportunity to plot a new course. The Coast Guard should use ICE Pact to outsource the design and production of icebreakers to a partner nation such as Finland, which could result in well-designed, cost-efficient, and quickly produced icebreakers to protect the nation’s polar interests for decades to come.

The Current Situation 

The United States is at a serious disadvantage in the maritime Arctic and Antarctic. Russia has 41 icebreakers, and China has been investing heavily in icebreakers in its bid to gain influence as a ‘near-Arctic’ nation. In contrast, the United States has three polar icebreakers: the heavy icebreaker USCGC Polar Star (WAGB-10), commissioned in 1976 and 19 years past its expected service life; the medium icebreaker Healy (WAGB-20), which experienced two serious shipboard fires in 2020 and 2024; and the recently purchased commercial icebreaker Aiviq, renamed Storis (WAGB-21), which some believe is a questionable match to Coast Guard requirements.[1]

The Coast Guard recently purchased and modified the commercial icebreaker Aiviq, renamed Storis (WAGB-21), to supplement its icebreaking fleet, but not everyone believes the ship will meet the Coast Guard’s operational requirements. Courtesy Edison Chouest Offshore.

The Polar Security Cutter program is intended to recapitalize the Coast Guard’s aging fleet of icebreakers, but it has experienced both schedule and budget overruns. Only two years after its original 2019 estimate of $2.3 billion for three PSCs, the Coast Guard’s cost estimate had increased to $3.2 billion. An August 2024 Congressional Budget Office report put the cost at more than $5 billion, which looks to be more accurate.[2]

In March 2025, the Coast Guard awarded a $951.6 million contract modification for the first PSC, bringing the lead ship’s cost to just under $1.7 billion, not including government-furnished equipment, Navy-type/Navy-owned equipment, post-delivery, and other program costs.[3] The original timeline set delivery of the first PSC for 2024. Instead, the cutter did not begin construction until 2024, and delivery now is estimated for 2030. Even if 2030 is accurate, the nation cannot wait five more years. Were a casualty to sideline the Polar Star or Healy, it would have serious consequences for Operation DEEP FREEZE in Antarctica and the United States’ ability to conduct research and project presence in the Arctic Ocean.[4] The Coast Guard’s icebreaker fleet is on thin ice, and the nation’s ability to operate in the Arctic and Antarctic is at risk of falling through.

ICE Pact: A New Opportunity

The Coast Guard could make a fresh start with the polar security cutters that are not yet under contract and the Arctic security cutters. On 13 November 2024, the United States, Canada, and Finland signed the ICE Pact trilateral memorandum of understanding to “enhance their collective capacity to design, produce, and maintain arctic and polar icebreakers.”[5] With the help of Finland in particular, the United States could construct a new icebreaker fleet and have foreign-built heavy or medium icebreakers operational in less than five years.

Is this an action the United States could take? The Jones Act restricts shipping between US ports to US-built, -owned, and -crewed ships, but according to a Congressional Research Service report, it does not apply to icebreakers because they are not engaged in “coastwise trade.”⁶ However, the report does note two laws that do prohibit the Coast Guard from owning foreign-built ships: 14 USC §1151 states, “No Coast Guard vessel, and no major component of the hull or superstructure of a Coast Guard vessel, may be constructed in a foreign shipyard,” and 10 USC §8679 states the same for any vessel constructed for the Armed Forces.[6] Nonetheless, both sections allow the President to waive these rules in the interest of national security. Lack of icebreakers is certainly a risk to national security, and the current President has appeared willing to grant a waiver.

Following a meeting on 29 March with Finnish President Alexander Stubb, President Donald Trump stated on social media, “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 US.”[7] This seems to signal the President’s willingness to sign a waiver, but the Coast Guard still needs to be brought on board. There are signs that may be happening. On 11 April, the Coast Guard released a request for information for the Arctic Security Cutter program asking for global shipyards’ capability to produce an icebreaker in 36 months from the contract date.[8] For now, this is only a call for information, but it is a step in the right direction.

The Icebreaking Capital of the World

While the United States has built one icebreaker in the past 50 years, Finland is widely considered to be the nation most experienced in designing and building icebreakers. Business Finland states that the nation has designed 80% of the world’s icebreakers, and 60% have been constructed in Finnish shipyards.[9] It has designed and built these ships for countries including Canada, Sweden, Russia, France, and Argentina. The website of Aker Arctic, one of Finland’s leading icebreaker design companies, shows more than 30 vessel designs, ranging from state-of-the-art icebreakers such as the Polaris, which can break ice ridges 10 feet thicker than the Polar Star can with half the horsepower, to the luxury cruise ship Le Commandant Charcot, which has an impressive IACS Polar Class 2 rating and is capable of breaking multiyear ice up to 8-feet-thick.[10] Canada recently announced one of its Polar Class 2 icebreakers will be designed and partially constructed in Finland.

In September 2024, the Finnish-designed icebreaking expedition cruise ship Le Commandant Charcot crossed the geographic and magnetic North Poles and became the first surface vessel to reach the North Pole of Inaccessibility – the point in the Arctic Ocean farthest from any landmass. US Coast Guard (Krystyn Pecora).

Finland’s shipyards also are known for building icebreakers quickly and cost-effectively. According to the Wilson Center, “It is estimated that, compared to US icebreaker production underway, the average Finnish icebreaker would cost about a fifth of the price and be completed in about 24 months after a contract is signed.”[11]

A Path Forward

Just as an ice pilot must carefully pick a channel through the ice, the Coast Guard must carefully weigh its options if it decides to use a foreign shipbuilder. There are two potential paths forward, and at least one must be taken if the nation wants new icebreakers in this decade. The first is to end domestic heavy icebreaker acquisition at two ships and build the final two or three PSCs abroad. Heavy icebreakers are desperately needed, as the Polar Star is approaching a half-century in age. A two-pronged approach – international and domestic construction – would double the chances a heavy icebreaker would be operational by 2030, and the potential savings from the Finnish-built icebreakers could be funneled to other important acquisitions.

As many of Finland’s icebreakers are built to commercial standards, some might question its expertise building vessels to military specifications. Rauma Marine Constructions in Rauma, Finland, currently is building the Finnish Navy’s new multipurpose, ice-capable Pohjanmaa-class corvettes. Rauma Shipyard.

The second route is to take advantage of the opportunity ICE Pact offers to immediately begin acquisition of Arctic security cutters. With so much of the focus on the PSC program, replacements for the Healy have been largely ignored. An Arctic Security Cutter program building medium icebreakers in a foreign port could run parallel with domestic production of heavy PSCs. Turning out both icebreaker classes simultaneously would be a significant boost to the nation’s ability to protect its polar resources and project presence in the Arctic and Antarctic.

Addressing Critics

There are concerns in choosing foreign procurement of an icebreaker, but many can be addressed. One of the foremost concerns is the lost opportunity for domestic shipyards to gain icebreaking experience. The simple answer is that the United States does not have time for its shipyards to catch up. It needed new icebreakers years ago, and waiting until the 2030s for one PSC puts the nation’s polar security in jeopardy. The two PSCs already under contract will give US shipyards significant experience. In addition, in June, the Canadian shipbuilder Davie stated its intent to acquire Gulf Copper’s shipyards in Texas. Davie already owns Helsinki Shipyard, which opens an opportunity for the Coast Guard to have the company quickly begin building icebreakers in Finland, where infrastructure and specialists are located, with a plan to eventually transition to US production in Texas.[12]

The Finnish-designed and -built polar icebreaker Polaris can break ice ridges up to 34 feet, 10 feet thicker than the USCGC Polar Star (WAGB-10) can manage, but with half the horsepower. Aker Arctic.

Another concern is whether Finland has the expertise to build military-specification vessels. Although many of Finland’s icebreakers are built to commercial standards, companies such as Rauma Marine Constructions have experience with military vessels, and Rauma currently is building the Finnish Navy’s new ice-capable Pohjanmaa–class corvettes.[13] Aker Arctic, which specializes in design, engineering, and testing for ice-going vessels and icebreakers, was involved in the design process for the USCGC Mackinaw (WAGB-83) and Healy, demonstrating past work with the United States and with the specifications that will be required for the next icebreakers.[14]

Another issue is Finland’s historical ties to Russia, including Russian firms’ part ownership of some shipyards. Although Finland previously made icebreakers for Russia, the 2022 war with Ukraine and Finland’s subsequent acceptance into NATO marked a fundamental break in an already deteriorating relationship. No further icebreakers are being built for Russia, and Finland replaced Russian ownership of its shipbuilding companies to avoid sanctions and remain attractive to its Western allies. The United States could and should still take steps to protect its intellectual property and classified technology by installing those systems in the United States after the icebreaker has been built. This would limit potential leaks and still allow the Coast Guard to take advantage of Finland’s icebreaking expertise.

Act Now to Close the Gap

The Coast Guard’s icebreaking fleet is far behind those of US competitors. Senior Coast Guard leaders must take action, championing the power of ICE Pact and seeking an executive waiver to procure foreign-built icebreakers. As adversaries seek to capitalize on polar shipping routes and resources, the Coast Guard urgently needs top-of-the-line icebreakers that can protect the nation and the crews that serve on board, regardless of where those ships are built.

This article originally appeared in the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings. Copyright U.S. Naval Institute. Reprinted with permission. For more great content from the U.S. Naval Institute, visit www.usni.org.

References

[1] Richard Read, ‘Meet the Neglected 43-Year-Old Stepchild of the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex,’ Los Angeles Times, 2 August 2019; and McKenzie Funk, ‘How a Troubled Icebreaker Became America’s Newest Military Vessel,’ ProPublica, 23 January 2025.

[2] Congressional Budget Office, The Cost of the Coast Guard’s Polar Security Cutter (Washington, DC: 21 August 2024).

[3] Ronald O’Rourke, Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program: Background and Issues for Congress (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 18 June 2025).

[4] The National Science Foundation had to contract the services of the Russian icebreaker Krasin to support Operation Deep Freeze in 2004–6, the Swedish icebreaker Oden from 2008 to 2011, and the Russian icebreaker Vladimir Ignatyukin 2012–13.

[5] ‘MOU among the Government of Canada, the Government of the Republic of Finland, and the Government of the United States of America Regarding a Trilateral Framework for the Production of Arctic and Polar Icebreakers and Other Capabilities: Homeland Security,’ US Department of Homeland Security, 13 November 2024.

[6] O’Rourke, Coast Guard Polar Security Cutter (Polar Icebreaker) Program.

[7] Andrea Shalal and Anne Kauranen, ‘Finnish President Boosts Ties with Trump in Surprise Florida Visit,’ Reuters, 30 March 2025.

[8] US Coast Guard Contract Operations Office, ‘Request for Information—Arctic Security Cutter (ASC): Icebreaking Capable Vessels or Vessel Designs that Are Ready for Construction,’ Sam.Gov, 11 April 2025.

[9] ‘Finnish Solutions for the Entire Icebreaking Value Chain,’ news release, Business Finland, 3 August 2024.

[10] Peter Rybski, ‘Finland’s Icebreakers,’ Sixty Degrees North, 3 April 2024. The International Association of Classification Societies (IACS) established polar classes 1–7. Polar Class 1 is the highest and is capable of year-round operation in all polar waters. The U.S. definition of a ‘heavy’ icebreaker generally aligns with a Polar Class 2 vessel and a ‘medium’ icebreaker generally aligns with a Polar Class 3 vessel.

[11] Jason Moyer and Rickard Lindholm, ‘Icebreaking Explained—Finland: Europe’s Icebreaker Superpower,’ Wilson Center, 12 November 2024.

[12] Sam LaGrone, ‘Canadian Shipbuilder Davie Set to Buy Texas Shipyard for Potential U.S. Icebreaker Work,’ USNI News, 12 June 2025 < https://news.usni.org/2025/06/12/canadian-shipbuilder-davie-set-to-buy-texas-shipyard-for-potential-u-s-icebreaker-work >

[13] Ice-capable ships are able to operate in ice-covered waters but are not designed primarily for icebreaking and normally are not capable of breaking thicker ice.

[14] Aker Arctic, ‘A Finnish Solution in North American Waters,’ AkerArctic.fi, 30 May 2025; and ‘An Extraordinary Icebreaker for the United States Coast Guard,’ AkerArctic.fi, September 2016.