The Arctic Security Cutter: Showcasing the potential of Canada in International Partnerships.
Yesterday, October 9th, the United States under President Donald Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum authorizing the construction of up to four Arctic Security Cutters (ASCs) abroad to address urgent national security needs in the Arctic region.
This agreement, made in partnership with the Finnish government, was announced after a meeting between President Trump and Finnish President Alexander Stubb, who was visiting the White House yesterday.
These four icebreakers will be joined by seven further Medium Icebreakers to be built domestically in the United States at a total cost of $6.1 billion, with the first deliveries scheduled for 2028.
This marks the end product of a nearly decade-long search by the U.S. Coast Guard to replace and bolster its Medium Icebreaker fleet. As of the time of this writing, the United States Coast Guard is limited to only three Medium or Heavy Icebreakers in its fleet: the USCGC Polar Star, USCGC Healy, and now the USCGC Storis, formerly the Aiviq.
The Coast Guard acquired Aiviq as an interim vessel until the proper introduction of the Arctic Security Cutter. The RFI for the Arctic Security Cutter program was only released a few months ago, which should help demonstrate my surprise at how quickly things have moved.
This is not the first time President Trump has spoken about the idea of acquiring icebreakers from Finland. He has been openly discussing the idea for months, and under his previous administration had actively explored it.
Peter Rybski of Sixty Degrees North was part of that earlier team who explored the idea (he also lives in Finland now!) and has spoken at length there several times about those attempts to acquire icebreakers from Finland.
This is not just about Finland, however. At the center of these contracts are Canadian companies stepping up to deliver. The eleven Medium Icebreakers have been split into two separate contracts, awarded to two separate groups:
A consortium including Bollinger Shipyards (Bollinger), Rauma Shipyards (Rauma), Seaspan Shipyards (Seaspan), and Aker Arctic (Aker).
Inocea Group (Chantier Davie, Helsinki Shipyard, and Davie Defence).
Under the current plans, Seaspan will be licensing the design of their Multi-Purpose Icebreaker (currently planned for the Canadian Coast Guard) to both Rauma and Bollinger, with three built at Rauma’s yard in Finland before production is moved fully to Bollinger. A total of six MPIs are planned.
The MPI will be the future backbone of the Canadian Coast Guard, with up to sixteen planned across three batches. Construction of Canada’s MPI is scheduled to begin in 2027, with first delivery planned for the early 2030s.
The Seaspan-Aker Multi-Purpose Icebreaker (MPI) design is based on the Aker ARC 146. With the ability to break four feet of ice, travel 12,000 nautical miles, and operate for over 60 days, the MPI will give the USCG year-round access to polar regions for national defense, maritime sovereignty, scientific research, and search and rescue operations.
These vessels will be nearly identical to Canada’s, with a few minor changes including the removal of the forward crane and the addition of a 25mm Mk38, similar to the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ship.
I wonder if people will also complain about that armament as they do with the AOPS all the time. I suppose we will see. These will essentially be the same vessel that we are operating, at least regarding Batch I.
Batch II of the MPI is likely to be slightly smaller, removing some capabilities such as the flight deck. We do not yet know all the details, but they will still maintain their PC 4 ice rating.
Inocea, on the other hand, is planning to provide five of their Polar100 Icebreakers. We do not yet have details on how this will look, or whether any will be constructed at Helsinki. It is very likely that at least one will be built there, given that the Presidential Memorandum outlines the foreign construction of up to four icebreakers, and right now we only have three on the books.
The rest would be constructed at Davie Defence’s new yard in Galveston, Texas, with the company promising to invest upwards of a billion dollars to develop the ‘American Icebreaker Factory’ at the former Gulf Copper site.
The Polar100, formerly the Multi-Purpose Polar Support Ship, is a fourth-generation icebreaker tracing its lineage back to the FESCO Sakhalin, another Aker design. She, along with six other vessels in the Sakhalin series, was built at Helsinki Shipyard, with the last, Gennadiy Nevelskoy, delivered in 2017. The MPI also traces its lineage back to FESCO Sakhalin.
The Polar100 is 99.9 meters in length and 9,000 tons. She is an IACS PC 3 class icebreaker capable of breaking ice up to five feet thick, with a range of 23,000 nautical miles at 11 knots and an endurance of 90 days.
The Polar100 is an interesting vessel, with a number of advanced capabilities. This includes a flight deck capable of handling a USCG MH-60, a moon pool, and a covered multipurpose deck with up to 650 square meters of space, enough for up to 30 TEU or a mix of containers and vehicles. The Polar100 also features Ro/Ro capability.
She carries the same armament as the MPI with the 25mm Mk38. Interestingly, Davie has also shown concepts of the Polar100 with up to four MK70 Containerized Launch Systems, providing up to 16 MK41-equivalent cells.
That is a serious amount of firepower, though given the USCG’s expectation of playing a role in any future conflict, it is always a consideration for their vessels to be up-armed.
This is a proactive approach to showcasing the Polar100’s ability to be armed with VLS in the event that a conflict requires them to be equipped for combat, unlike the Canadian Coast Guard which has no such mandate.
Speaking of the Canadian Coast Guard, unlike the MPI, the Polar100 is not what Canada will be acquiring to fulfill the requirements of the Program Icebreaker program.
The six Program Icebreakers will also be PC 3 vessels, built by Chantier Davie in Lévis, but will use a separate design more reminiscent of the MPI.
This means that, sadly, there will be limited commonality among the continental icebreaker fleets, with only the MPI shared between the USCG and CCG.
Building off the ICE Pact
This new agreement builds on the work set out in the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort (ICE) Pact formed in July of last year, and further the MOU signed in November.
To quote the Government of Canada:
“The ICE Pact will enhance industry collaboration among the three countries. It will coordinate expertise and strengthen the three countries’ abilities to design, build and market best-in-class Arctic and polar vessels, including icebreakers.”
The ICE Pact lays out a framework for the design, production, and maintenance of icebreakers and related polar-capable vessels, with a view toward maximizing interoperability, technological innovation, and cost efficiency.
It commits the three governments to share technical expertise and information, establish coordinated workforce programs, and collaborate on research and development to advance sustainable and cutting-edge ship design.
While the MOU itself does not create binding legal or financial obligations, it provides the political and industrial foundation for a long-term partnership that may guide procurement decisions and influence future defense and infrastructure planning across the North Atlantic alliance.
The MOU also establishes protocols for information sharing, security, and the inclusion of future participants, ensuring flexibility and expansion as needed. Additional partners may be invited to join the ICE Pact, while the agreement itself can be modified by mutual consent.
Yesterday marks the culmination of the work originally set out last year. We first saw signs of this with the agreement to begin construction of the future CCGS Arpatuuq at Helsinki Shipyard.
Under this plan, construction will begin on Arpatuuq at Helsinki, giving Davie’s yard in Lévis time to prepare and finish its $840 million expansion. This arrangement still guarantees Lévis the majority of the work related to the icebreaker, while ensuring that Canada will receive its first Polar Icebreaker in 2030.
Leveraging existing Finnish expertise and capacity to get construction started now ensures that we can have a Polar Icebreaker in the water before 2032. This hybrid model of construction shows where the ICE Pact shines, being able to take advantage of each country’s existing strengths and capabilities to ensure we can all get the fleets we need when we need them.
For the United States, this goes further. They can leverage our existing designs, the work we have already put into them, and Finnish capacity at both Rauma and Helsinki to quickly acquire new Medium Icebreakers within 36 months.
We benefit from having a new partner on the MPI fleet. This means U.S. investment in future technologies, a new partner to work with on joint procurement and stockpiling of spare parts. It strengthens continental security by ensuring the backbone of our icebreaking fleets uses the same common vessel. That means a platform that can be serviced and supported by both countries without issue, and new opportunities for cooperation and training initiatives.
That is especially important when operating in the Arctic, where Canada and the United States can benefit far more from shared infrastructure and workforce capacity to support the MPI, rather than using separate designs.
It means building up allied capacity to build icebreakers, including a new yard in Galveston. That also means money outside the National Shipbuilding Strategy being invested in Canadian yards and suppliers who will benefit from a major increase in the MPI fleet, and in the Polar100, which will no doubt leverage Canada’s growing icebreaker supply chain.
Yes, there will be Canadian investment in the United States, but it comes tied to massive contracts and future growth opportunities that will supplement the contracts they receive as part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
This is good for Canada
Moving away from the analyst’s view to a more personal one, this is very good for us. This is the kind of development we want to see coming out of the NSS.
Since last night I have received many messages about this news. Many are happy, but a sizable group are upset by the development. I always like to acknowledge those with grievances. Your opinions are valid, and part of my job is to explain my reasoning, and why I believe these concerns are misplaced.
To start, I understand that some are upset that the United States will receive their first MPI before us. Under the current plans, the United States expects delivery within 36 months, while we expect ours around 2031.
This is understandable. It is our design, and someone else is getting it before us. However, this is entirely due to our own choices.
The United States is choosing, as we did with the Polar, to leverage existing Finnish infrastructure to get these in the water as soon as possible. We, on the other hand, are taking the hit on time to build up our domestic shipbuilding capabilities.
They have an urgent need to get ice-strengthened vessels in the water. We have six, soon to be eight, Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships in service. We have the R-class. We have Louis S. St-Laurent and Terry Fox.
We have the vessels available to operate in the Arctic during the busy summer and fall months, when they are in high demand. We have enough capacity to avoid panic.
Compared to the United States, we do not face as pressing a concern for additional hulls. The gap between their delivery and ours is also not that wide in the grand scheme of things. An extra three years is worth it to build shipbuilding capacity and expertise at home.
Some are also concerned with the threat the United States might pose, but I am not overly concerned about the Americans suddenly challenging our sovereignty.
Even if you are deeply concerned, these vessels would be built either way, likely still in cooperation with Finnish yards, and these plans do not match the scale of Canada’s plans, which include a class of corvettes able to operate in the Arctic during the summer.
No one is claiming the Archipelago. No one is challenging our claims in the North. There is, of course, open debate about the status of the Northwest Passage, but that does not equate to anyone, especially the United States, challenging our sovereignty.
There is an argument to be made that repeatedly raising sovereignty concerns actually works against our claims by reopening an issue already considered settled.
We do have maritime boundary disputes, such as the current one in the Beaufort Sea, but that is actively being worked on through a Joint Task Force set up in September of last year.
That is a discussion for another time, but the point is that there is no active sovereignty dispute with the United States, and it is unlikely there will be one.
In that scenario, there would be many other issues to worry about. This development does not shift that equation in any negative way. What it does do is win us goodwill.
This extends both to the United States and to the wider market. Canada can leverage the support and investment it is providing to the United States as a gesture of goodwill in ongoing trade negotiations.
We can highlight the investment in Galveston. We can highlight the support we are providing in helping the United States rebuild its icebreaking capabilities. We can highlight the benefits this will bring to continental security.
All of these may seem small on their own, but together they add up. This helps. President Trump has been focused on icebreakers since his first administration. He sees immense value in them.
It goes beyond goodwill, though. This is American money, foreign money finally funneling into Canadian shipyards. A long-standing goal of the National Shipbuilding Strategy has been to develop our shipyards not just for domestic capacity but as exporters.
This is a major step in that direction. No ships will be built here, but Canadian yards being involved, and hopefully delivering on time and on budget, will go a long way toward proving they are capable of being successful partners and delivering on foreign contracts.
That might not always involve shipbuilding, and that is fine, because we are building more than that. We are building the supply chains. We are building the intellectual property. We are showing that we are capable of supporting our allies in major shipbuilding initiatives.
That extends to the government as well. At a time when we want to build the defense industrial base, there must be an acceptance that it cannot come from domestic orders alone. We need to build industry as a credible partner and exporter.
As mentioned before, this order will mean more vessels being built. That means Canadian suppliers, already set up and ready to go, will be the first to support the construction of American icebreakers.
It is proof that Canada can be part of multinational partnerships and deliver. In a world where people grumble about our exclusion from AUKUS and sixth-generation fighter programs, where we are trying to leverage SAFE to open new opportunities for Canadian industry, having major partnerships like this shows that we are capable of participating and delivering in such agreements, building trust with allies.
The benefits are enormous: for the defense industrial base, for building rapport with allies, for supporting our ongoing trade negotiations with the United States, and for developing the icebreaker supply chain and support infrastructure in North America.
All of these are more than enough to justify why this is not only acceptable but a win for Canada, as it is for Finland and the United States. We all benefit when we leverage each other's strengths. We all benefit when we build each other up.
There are no losses here for us. There are no major concerns in my mind. We should be celebrating this for the win that it is. So let's give some love to all the people at Davies, Seaspan, and the Federla government who have worked to make this happen!
And let's hope this is just the first of many such partnership announcements to come!
On Davies, and I'm sorry for pointform:
• The Polar100 is a Davie owned design, same as the Polar Max and Corvettes. They inherited a lot of designs from Helsinki.
• There is Investment into the United States, but this is also more money overall going back into the company. It also offers future contract opportunities with the United States by establishing a domestic yard. That was always gonna be a need.
• Canadian Industry benefits because we've already been building the supply chains for our own Icebreakers. This mature Industry is already set up and ready to support in the supply-side of things in Galveston.
• Can never Ignore the political wins lol. Nor can we Ignore the added confidence this will give others in the future if Davies decides to chase other contracts. The yard in Lévis is booked up for the next decade+. This gives them some extra capacity to go after more export orders. No matter what, Lévis remains the companies main yard.
• That build on the desire to transition from a pure Canadian company to an exporter. No matter what, countries will demand some Industrial and economic benefits. We can't stop that. This is no exception. What it does is gets Davie inside the United States, established, and sets them up for future major contracts that can help support the companies efforts here.
You are valid in your concerns though! I am notoriously hopeful, and obviously we all want more work here. This is good though. There are benefits. It wont effect their work or Investments in Lévis. I see this as a great step in the right direction.
Its really good to see our Shipbuilding industry maturing again after so many years and money built put into it. I think its testament that the NSS is actually working (if only slowly)!
But I still can't help but feel some reservations, but I think that's mostly chalked up to that I don't fully understand how our companies are going to benefit from this? For SeaSpan its more clear to me, at a minimum they'll make money off of licensing their design. Cool, that's good stuff. I struggle more to understand how CANADA benefits from Davie's involvement in this project? None of the ships are being built here (so no jobs for us), Davies is investing billions in a foreign country to build and entirely new dock (investment that could have gone here instead imho), and I don't believe they're using a Davies design, so no revenue from there. So what's the benefit to us?
I'm not saying it's not a good thing to be involve, its definitely a win for our maturing industry, but my only hope is that somewhere down the line it results in more work here in Canada, and not abroad somewhere else. Our shipyards shouldn't be propped up here by government contracts forever, they need to eventually start getting foreign orders and building them here. I don't know if this advances that objective.