How icebreakers are becoming the litmus test for the U.S. Arctic strategy

The U.S. Coast Guard says the United States is an Arctic nation. Its 2019 Arctic Strategic Outlook says: “The United States is an Arctic nation, and as America’s maritime presence the Coast Guard maintains an enduring responsibility for the national security and economic prosperity of the Arctic.”

Yet observers say if the U.S. wants to be taken seriously as an Arctic nation, it needs to step up its focus and investment in the region. One large investment being scrutinized right now is in icebreakers – critical for transportation of heating oil and other commerce, for defense and military exercises, for rescue missions, etc. The Arctic is a maritime region and without icebreakers, there is no year-round existence.

The U.S. has two icebreakers that are out of date and often out of service. It ordered three new icebreakers five years ago to supplement its small fleet that can cut through Arctic ice. One of the two existing icebreakers, USCGC Healy, canceled its summer mission in August this year and was out of commission for several months following a fire. This was Healy’s second fire in recent years: it was previously taken out of commission when it caught fire in 2020.

The U.S. Coast Guard’s other icebreaker, USCGC Polar Star, was commissioned in 1976. The ship’s operational life has been extended through four phases to keep it running, though it is well beyond its expected operational life. (note: The Coast Guard, part of Homeland Security, operates the ice breakers, not the Navy, part of the Department of Defense.)

Upgrading the U.S. icebreaker fleet

Observers and Arctic experts say it is clear the U.S. needs to upgrade its icebreaker fleet to be taken seriously in the region.

Most other countries adjacent to the Arctic operate more icebreakers. It has been reported and estimated that Russia has more than 40, seven of which are powered by on-board nuclear reactors. China, which says it is a “near-Arctic state”, is said to have three icebreakers with at least one more due for delivery in 2025. Other estimates say Finland – which builds 60% of the world’s icebreakers – has 12, while Sweden has five, and Norway has two.

An Arctic nation with a small and outdated fleet that wants to play an influential role in the region would likely want a new icebreaker as soon as possible. Yet five years after commissioning the three new icebreakers, and with the estimated budget of less than $2 billion now expected to more than double, the shipyard with the mandate, Bollinger Shipyards, hasn’t yet begun to build the ships. Louisiana-based Bollinger, which acquired the Mississippi-based shipyard with the original mandate, did not respond to requests for comment.

“If the US wants to be the most powerful nation and match up to other nations, it needs an icebreaker. Russia and China have newer and more operational icebreakers, so the U.S. should want them, too,” said Mads Qvist Frederiksen, Director of the Arctic Economic Council.

Malte Humpert, Founder and Senior Fellow of The Arctic Institute, said: “The U.S. hasn’t built a ship like this in more than 40 years. That’s one of the main obstacles it’s currently facing. Another obstacle is that so few U.S. states care about this. Alaska does, Mississippi does because that’s where the shipyard is, and maybe the west coast because that’s where the Coast Guard ports are. But that’s it.”

The Biden administration announced the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort, or ICE Pact, with Canada and Finland in July this year. The announcement said the three Arctic countries would “collaborate on the production of polar icebreakers and other capabilities…” Adding: “This collaboration is intended to strengthen the shipbuilding industry and industrial capacity of each nation – and build closer security and economic ties among our countries through information exchange and mutual workforce-development focused on building polar icebreakers, as well as other Arctic and polar capabilities.” The cooperation appears to be moving forward. A Finnish news report says a memorandum of understanding is due to be signed imminently.

Russia and China

The move was said to support U.S. allies’ icebreaker manufacturing, build US icebreaker expertise, and pre-empt Russia and China’s efforts to become leaders in building icebreakers.

Humpert at The Arctic Institute said: “The Arctic contributes a small percentage to the U.S. economy, and Alaska oil revenue has been declining, which had been a large contributor. While in Russia, the Arctic contributes about 20% to its economy. Russia’s economic future lies in the Arctic.”

Xi Jinping, President of China, in 2014 said that China wants to be one of “the great polar powers”. Russia’s role and aspirations in the Arctic are clear from its geography and large icebreaker fleet.

Jake Sullivan, the U.S. National Security Advisor, said on the day the ICE Pact was announced: “…authoritarian nations that are making or offering the icebreakers to the world want to corner the icebreaker market.  We’re determined to have democracies be in the lead in producing icebreaking capabilities.”

Arctic Today asked the U.S. Coast Guard what it expected from this trilateral arrangement.  A spokesman said in a statement: “The Coast Guard will continue to monitor ICE Pact as it develops; however, it does not anticipate any immediate impact to ongoing Coast Guard acquisitions. The PSC [Polar Security Cutter] remains a top acquisition priority for the Coast Guard, and is vital to project U.S. sovereignty and protect economic, environmental, and national security interests in the high latitudes.”

Rockford Weitz, Director of Maritime Studies at Fletcher School at Tufts University, said the arrangement means the U.S. should benefit from Canada’s and Finland’s icebreaker expertise.

Weitz added: “The good news for the ICE Pact is that the Canadians and the Finns have been building icebreakers successfully for the commercial market. [The U.S.] can leverage that for huge gain.”

That assumes the US takes the Arctic as seriously as Jake Sullivan and the U.S. Coast Guard’s website says it does. Not everyone is convinced.

“In the past, the U.S. probably believed that it didn’t really need icebreakers to support its economy,” Frederiksen at the Arctic Economic Council says. “If the U.S. wants to take the Arctic seriously, then they need to invest in icebreakers not just for science purposes but also for their security and growing their economy in the north.”

NATO allies and icebreakers

The ICE Pact offers the U.S. an opportunity to be a leader in the region, should it wish to do so.

“The Coast Guard should seize the opportunity that the ICE Pact presents and build a common ice breaker platform across NATO countries and Pacific allies,” Weitz at Tufts said. “If they looked at buying 60 icebreakers in coordination with our NATO and Pacific allies it would be more cost effective than ordering six from a shipbuilder in Mississippi or Louisiana that doesn’t have deep expertise in building icebreakers. Everyone is thinking too small. We need to think about 60 icebreakers, not six.”

The increasing cost of the U.S.’s new icebreakers is considered too high by some experienced observers.

Mika Hovilainen, CEO of Aker Arctic, a Finnish icebreaker designer, says icebreakers can be built quickly and for less than $1 billion each. For example, the Finnish icebreaker Polaris was built in 31 months from order to delivery for EUR125 million in 2016, Hovilainen said. Polaris was designed by Aker Arctic and was built by Arctech Helsinki Shipyard.

Others see the U.S. icebreaker order as a sign it is ready to focus on the Arctic.

“I think we are closer than ever to the U.S. getting serious about icebreakers,” said Tero Vauraste, Senior Advisor and a Global Fellow of Woodrow Wilson Center Polar Institute, and former CEO of Finnish Icebreaker operator Arctia. “Because of Russia and China’s increased multi-faceted interest in the Arctic region, the urgency of having icebreakers for security is imminent. International collaboration in design, building and operation would give the U.S an operational shortcut and a cost-saving fairway to quickly break the ice.”

If the U.S. does take its position as an Arctic Nation seriously, and when construction of the icebreakers currently under development is complete, there will be clear winners and losers, Frederiksen at the Arctic Economic Council said.

“The winners are the U.S. politicians that have fought for this for years, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the local communities in Alaska, but they still have to wait several years until the new icebreaker will be operational. Finland is also benefiting because they are the leading nation for the construction of icebreakers, which is even more clear after the ICE Pact Agreement.”

The potential losers are U.S. taxpayers, who will have paid more than any other nation to build new icebreakers, local communities in Alaska who have waited longer than expected for more icebreakers to support their economies, and the security industry. The defense sector can’t afford to wait any longer for these icebreakers to be built and operational, Frederiksen said.

The U.S.’s interest in the Arctic region spans varied domains: security, in response to Russian military aggression in the region; trade, since the Arctic is an alternative to the sometimes-clogged shipping routes via the Suez Canal; and biodiversity, i.e. climate change.

Overall, the U.S. government is significantly increasing its talk about the Arctic. It named a first-ever ambassador to the Arctic this year, Michael Sfraga. The Department of Defense presented a new Arctic strategy this year “ to preserve the Arctic as a secure and stable region in which the U.S. Homeland is defended and our vital national interests are safeguarded,” according to a statement by the DoD about its first update to the strategy since 2019. The current administration in the White House updated its national strategy for the Arctic region in 2022 that emphasizes deterring “aggression in the Arctic, especially from Russia.”

The statements are there. Delivering on the plan requires ice breakers.

This article was written by Juliana Wheeler, a U.S.-based communications consultant and freelance journalist who regularly contributes to Arctic Today.