Interesting article. It seems like the US (and other Western nations) should just purchase Finnish icebreakers. With the low volumes of production, it does not make sense for each nation to build their own design. This solution is even better now that Finland is part of NATO.
What an indictment of American manufacturing and construction abilities. Like airlines, autos, defense aircraft and so much more, America has lost is way and there seems little incentive get it back, even as we sanction and war our way to de-globalization. How long can this go on before everything just sort of grinds (literally) to a halt?
Maybe, but the time to development and production- and the costs associated with production- have both increased dramatically in recent years. The Chinese are out-producing us in ship construction of all types, for example.
And we may build, but not all of what we have is ready. The maintenance backlog- because we often act as if our Navy is twice as large as it is- is quite lengthy. 40% of our attack submarines are unavailable, awaiting repairs and required maintenance, for example.
At the same time, ship yards complain that they cannot attract workers, even with relatively high pay, union benefits, and skill training included. Part of this is cultural, as in many places a college degree in 'anything' is viewed as superior to working with your hands for a living.
We definitely do not build the world's best anti-ship missiles or sea mines.
I can go on.. We do some things well, but not at a scale that would matter in war. Worse, we have no path to get to that scale right now. Our supply chains are very dependent on even our potential adversaries. Change is needed.
Our expertise has been lost over the last 30 years in all that too, and worker & skill shortages and cost overruns are rampant. China already has a larger and newer submarine fleet than ours, though less capable.
Scott -- China just sunk a sub that was moored to a dock. Their subs are at least a generation behind us; maybe more depending on their acoustic hull technology. There's literally not a single expert who's knowledge has been lost at Electric Boat. EB might have a current worker shortage - specifically welder - but only because their two yards are operating at capacity levels not seen since the mid-80s. Their yards are booming (get it ;-).
Yet another data point proving that our ruling class are either unserious and/or incompetent. I find myself hoping that Peter Turchin's theories are correct.
An old quote from Newt Gingrich (not my favorite human, but he's right about this) after he left Congress: "From Dec 1941 to June 1945 we defeated nazi Germany, imperial Japan and fascist Italy. That's 3 1/2 years. Today it takes 17 years to add a 5th runway to the Atlanta airport. We need to decide if we're prepared to be a serious country anymore."
Many of the comments in here are "let the Finns do it!" or something similar. I think these people (and many others) are missing the point. This would obviously be a good strategy if the intent were merely to get a few ice breakers in the shortest possible time. However, it would leave us no better off, and perhaps worse off, when it comes to resurrecting a mission critical skill for the United States.
The strategy in the post World War II period of outsourcing everything to other nations (generally in search of lower costs or shorter schedule, as here) has generally been a disastrous one for the US, though has been terrific for other countries who get to build up their national skill set at US expense. Pretty much anyone can make a very long list of things that the US used to have the training, workforce, and facilities to do well, and now don't. The only thing the US manufacturers at a world class level is complicated debt instruments, which I don't think we or anyone else needs.
Projects like the moon landing, the WPA, the interstate highway system, and many, many others were not done to achieve their nominal goal; they were done to create national capabilities which would make the US stronger, richer, and better able to compete on the international scene. The current crop of MBA holders who administer the US obviously aren't capable of thinking in these terms, and as a result the US is slowly becoming the Can't-Do Nation.
I would pose the question differently: Given how many types of ships the U.S. needs to start building now, why focus on domestically producing icebreakers? Shouldn't we be focused on building ships that we need at scale- like submarines (we can only build 1.5 a year right now), surface combatants, oilers and other combat logistics ships, and basic cargo vessels? We're dependent on Chinese-built container ships for far too much of our international trade right now. We should devote our effort to where the largest payoff is- not for a handful of specialized vessels that should cost less than one aircraft carrier. Those paying attention know that Finland is spending 10 billion Euro+ to buy 64 F-35s and all the weapons that go along with it. Is it crazy to propose spending 3-4 billion there so that we can see what the Russians are doing in our own Alaskan Exclusive Economic Zone before the mid 2030s?
If all of the people who have the skills to do a thing are in foreign countries, and we want to have that skill here, then... hire them to come teach us how to do the thing. Don't just throw up your hands and say "Well, we're going to have to reinvent the wheel from scratch and spend 20 times as much to achieve the same thing". Which, comparing an icebreaker to the moon landing is rather absurd. When we went to the moon, nobody had done it before. That's really, really not the case here. Most Finns speak English. Bring a bunch over and have them show the shipyard guys how to weld the weird steel, and show the naval architects what to do in order to design am icebreaker. It's (literally!) not rocket science.
Finnish companies were very much involved in the design of the two most recent icebreakers built in the U.S.- the Healy and the Mackinaw. A Finnish design team was part of one of the bids for the Polar Security Cutter- the USCG apparently chose the cheaper bid, the one that had no experience with icebreakers.
Europeans don't typically use Q&T steels, so they don't need to use the more challenging welds. It goes back to design.
What is frustrating today is going back and watching 2017 Congressional hearings in which pretty much all of the players say that icebreakers aren't that hard to build.
To be fair, the Charcot would seem to indicate that they *aren't* all that hard to build, if you don't have a retarded bureaucracy rubbing its balls all over the project. *Then* it gets *really* hard to actually accomplish anything.
If the Euros aren't using the Q&T steels, but are making ships that do the job the PSC is supposed to do (to some extent, anyway) then are they actually necessary? Yes, presumably you can use slightly less steel with them, but is that really worth the added cost and complexity?
Other countries (China and India for example) are now carrying out their own Moon missions. In the process, they aren't hiring Russians or Americans to do it for them. They are doing it themselves because the purpose is to develop an aerospace and rocketry Industry in their countries. Having an inspirational goal inspires national pride and improves recruiting.
For that matter, the American space program was launched by the U.S In a panicked effort to catch up with the Russians who were far ahead of the U.S In the late 50s. This strategy arguably worked pretty well, although seems to have lost momentum since the demise of the space shuttle program. Recent US efforts to move the space program into the private sector seem to be mostly about getting US space technology back to where it was in the past.
One could easily imagine us efforts to revive and improve our shipbuilding industry based around inspirational goals of some kind. "Asking the Finns How to Do It" is not going to inspire too many people.
Don't forget that the U.S. space program's early successes were built upon foreign engineers and scientists. Don't forget Wernher von Braun and that entire cohort of German scientists...
Amusingly, the Chinese space program was developed by Qian Xuesen a student of von Karmann's who was kicked out of the US as a security risk. It's not like China started from ground zero.
Russia is currently the undisputed leader in the world of icebreakers, they have the largest fleet in operation, they are the only country that operates nuclear powered icebreakers, they hold most of the current records, and despite having the biggest fleet in the world, they are currently building some 11 new icebreakers, including the massive first icebreaker from the Project 10510 class of nuclear icebreakers.
If Russia can do it, I refuse to believe the only way for the United States to have a decent fleet of icebreakers is to outsource their construction to Finland.
Actually, Russia isn't the leader in building icebreakers. Historically, Finland has designed and built many of the icebreakers that Russia uses. Initially, building ships for the Soviet Union was part of war reparations after WW2, but the trend continued- because Russia needed them, and Finland knows how to design and build them.
Some data then. Of the 25 PC4 or above icebreakers that Russia laid down between 2010 and the present, 20 of them are competed. 13 of the completed 20 were built outside of Russia- 8 of them in Finland, 3 in Norway, 2 in Germany. Ten of the 20 completed ships were designed by Finnish companies.
I keep thinking I’ve read the worst thing I can read about US shipbuilding.
Disappointingly, I continue to be surprised.
“When the contract was first awarded in 2019, the plan was to have the first icebreaker completed by 2024. But as of July this year, the design of the ship was still incomplete.”
Re: losing manufacturing capacity. There's Machiavelli on mercenaries wherein he more or less says: Don't use mercenaries. If they are bad, they will lose your country for you; if they are good, they will take it away from you.
If you lose manufacturing capacity, you must employ what are in effect mercenaries...best you rebuild your capacities.
If you want to read about what a successful icebreaker program looks like, take a look at the French Icebreaker Le Commandant Charcot- which just completed the first solo Trans-Polar Route crossing by a non-nuclear icebreaker. Although outfitted as a luxury cruise ship, she is currently NATO's most capable icebreaker. Brian linked it in the article, but I'll put it here too:
Yes, according to the GAO the vessel is using a special grade of high-strength steel called EQ-47 which requires special welding techniques- something that Bollinger was still working on last time it was discussed in public. This specialty grade of steel is likely being used to reduce the overall weight of the vessel, as the vessel size/displacement has grown by more than 40% since the initial contract was awarded.
Are we sure it's not just because of the need to deal with continuous ice contact? That's been a driver on other icebreakers (hence things like explosively-welded belts). High-strength steel can help some with displacement, but I would expect that trade space to be exceedingly well-explored today. I would have to see how much they got back on the Nelson, when weight was really critical and there was good recent data, but I don't think that was double digits. Particularly because the naval architects on this have probably read the same books I have, and know that putting on expensive materials to save weight is generally a bad idea.
It might also be a rules difference between the ABS and other classification societies. Since the late 80s/early 90s many European icebreakers have been designed/built with high-strength TMCP steels with yield strength up to 500 MPa. The ABS rules seem to call for Q&T steels at this yield strength. One Naval Architect at a major icebreaking firm I know said that they haven't used Q&T steels in their designs since the 1980s. I believe Canada plans on using EH50 in their Heavy Icebreaker design.
Even then, that doesn't seem to be enough to make a 40% difference in displacement, or even anything remotely close to that. And I'm not even sure the growth is happening in the way you seem to think. From the CRS report on the program: "The design chosen for the PSC is about 35% larger in terms of light-ship displacement than the indicative design (i.e., the government’s in-house notional design) that informed earlier Navy and Coast Guard cost estimating for the program. Adjusting for this larger design might incur an approximate 35% increase in estimated PSC procurement costs over the costs estimated at the time of the April 2019 PSC contract award."
The first half is just that the winning design was bigger than expected, which is actually pretty common these days. (FFG(X) and Type 31 both spring to mind.) Relative to everything else that goes into a ship, steel is cheap and air is free. And I would expect Ronald O'Rourke to know that, which makes the second half quite annoying, particularly when it's directed at legislators, who keep making that mistake. (I think it was a postwar British frigate where they capped displacement to hold down cost, and started to get fun stuff like aluminum ladders installed.) I can't find anything about 40% growth after contract award, which would be pretty close to unprecedented across my knowledge of shipbuilding, even including some really notable disasters.
Yep, you're right. I should have checked my reference before posting.
As the CBO notes, "when the Coast Guard awarded the contract for the first PSC to VT Halter Marine, the shipbuilder based its bid on the design of the new Polarstern. Basing the ship on the German vessel and accounting for changes required by the Coast Guard resulted in Halter Marine proposing a ship with a light ship displacement of 18,000 tons—nearly 40 percent
more than the 13,000 tons specified in the Coast Guard’s indicative design. That larger size was incorporated into the 2020 and 2022 life-cycle cost estimates, which were produced after the fixed-price contract for the lead ship was awarded. Despite an almost 40 percent increase in the ship’s
displacement, the Coast Guard’s cost estimate for the revised design grew by only about 16 percent."
I wasn't arguing that the steel was causing the growth- but suggesting perhaps the USCG was using a higher-strength steel to try and save some weight. Since cost seems to not be an issue in this program, I've heard that- along with some other anecdotes that don't paint the USCG/industry team in the best light from those associated with the project in the past.
Outstanding work. The procurement process and outcomes are puzzling, as is continued adherence to protectionist legislation that increases costs without preserving or expanding domestic capacity or know-how.
It seems that the only successful thing this project has accomplished is throwing away billions of dollars of our money (the USA taxpayers) and seriously enriching a few billionaires and their corporations. But in today’s world this is our rulers definition of success.
The US "can't" build icebreaking ships because, all things considered, it just isn't that important. Having a new icebreaker is apparently not important enough to spend the political capital to get buying it from Finland through Congress. Yards that can fabricate submarine hulls can certainly build icebreaker hulls. But in allocating scarce resources I think we would all prefer having a sub over an icebreaker.
Our government is great about writing reports that identify problems and then calling for action. And then getting nothing done about it. Congress acts as if passing laws is all that it takes to solve a problem, when real people have to actually do things- like build ships- for things to change. We need to become a nation that can do things again. There are many important things that we aren't getting done. Getting a handful of icebreakers should be easy, but instead illustrates the problems with the government procurement process, our shipbuilders, and our skilled labor force. Action is needed.
Form a joint venture with the Finns and leverage their expertise to facilitate technology and know-how transfer to USA. Just like they do every day everywhere in the world when your friends can do something you can not.
Interesting article. It seems like the US (and other Western nations) should just purchase Finnish icebreakers. With the low volumes of production, it does not make sense for each nation to build their own design. This solution is even better now that Finland is part of NATO.
As a Finn I approve of this message.
What an indictment of American manufacturing and construction abilities. Like airlines, autos, defense aircraft and so much more, America has lost is way and there seems little incentive get it back, even as we sanction and war our way to de-globalization. How long can this go on before everything just sort of grinds (literally) to a halt?
We manufacture the world’s most advanced … everything: nuclear subs, nuclear carriers, rockets, satellites, missles, the F35. But go on.
Maybe, but the time to development and production- and the costs associated with production- have both increased dramatically in recent years. The Chinese are out-producing us in ship construction of all types, for example.
And we may build, but not all of what we have is ready. The maintenance backlog- because we often act as if our Navy is twice as large as it is- is quite lengthy. 40% of our attack submarines are unavailable, awaiting repairs and required maintenance, for example.
At the same time, ship yards complain that they cannot attract workers, even with relatively high pay, union benefits, and skill training included. Part of this is cultural, as in many places a college degree in 'anything' is viewed as superior to working with your hands for a living.
We definitely do not build the world's best anti-ship missiles or sea mines.
I can go on.. We do some things well, but not at a scale that would matter in war. Worse, we have no path to get to that scale right now. Our supply chains are very dependent on even our potential adversaries. Change is needed.
Not so well anymore: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/10/opinion/nuclear-weapons-us-price.html
Our expertise has been lost over the last 30 years in all that too, and worker & skill shortages and cost overruns are rampant. China already has a larger and newer submarine fleet than ours, though less capable.
Scott -- China just sunk a sub that was moored to a dock. Their subs are at least a generation behind us; maybe more depending on their acoustic hull technology. There's literally not a single expert who's knowledge has been lost at Electric Boat. EB might have a current worker shortage - specifically welder - but only because their two yards are operating at capacity levels not seen since the mid-80s. Their yards are booming (get it ;-).
https://www.wsj.com/world/china/chinas-newest-nuclear-submarine-sank-setting-back-its-military-modernization-785b4d37
Non-paywall: https://archive.is/XPU6C
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2024/07/22/electric-boats-hiring-blitz-boosts-submarine-production/
Yet another data point proving that our ruling class are either unserious and/or incompetent. I find myself hoping that Peter Turchin's theories are correct.
An old quote from Newt Gingrich (not my favorite human, but he's right about this) after he left Congress: "From Dec 1941 to June 1945 we defeated nazi Germany, imperial Japan and fascist Italy. That's 3 1/2 years. Today it takes 17 years to add a 5th runway to the Atlanta airport. We need to decide if we're prepared to be a serious country anymore."
Many of the comments in here are "let the Finns do it!" or something similar. I think these people (and many others) are missing the point. This would obviously be a good strategy if the intent were merely to get a few ice breakers in the shortest possible time. However, it would leave us no better off, and perhaps worse off, when it comes to resurrecting a mission critical skill for the United States.
The strategy in the post World War II period of outsourcing everything to other nations (generally in search of lower costs or shorter schedule, as here) has generally been a disastrous one for the US, though has been terrific for other countries who get to build up their national skill set at US expense. Pretty much anyone can make a very long list of things that the US used to have the training, workforce, and facilities to do well, and now don't. The only thing the US manufacturers at a world class level is complicated debt instruments, which I don't think we or anyone else needs.
Projects like the moon landing, the WPA, the interstate highway system, and many, many others were not done to achieve their nominal goal; they were done to create national capabilities which would make the US stronger, richer, and better able to compete on the international scene. The current crop of MBA holders who administer the US obviously aren't capable of thinking in these terms, and as a result the US is slowly becoming the Can't-Do Nation.
I would pose the question differently: Given how many types of ships the U.S. needs to start building now, why focus on domestically producing icebreakers? Shouldn't we be focused on building ships that we need at scale- like submarines (we can only build 1.5 a year right now), surface combatants, oilers and other combat logistics ships, and basic cargo vessels? We're dependent on Chinese-built container ships for far too much of our international trade right now. We should devote our effort to where the largest payoff is- not for a handful of specialized vessels that should cost less than one aircraft carrier. Those paying attention know that Finland is spending 10 billion Euro+ to buy 64 F-35s and all the weapons that go along with it. Is it crazy to propose spending 3-4 billion there so that we can see what the Russians are doing in our own Alaskan Exclusive Economic Zone before the mid 2030s?
If all of the people who have the skills to do a thing are in foreign countries, and we want to have that skill here, then... hire them to come teach us how to do the thing. Don't just throw up your hands and say "Well, we're going to have to reinvent the wheel from scratch and spend 20 times as much to achieve the same thing". Which, comparing an icebreaker to the moon landing is rather absurd. When we went to the moon, nobody had done it before. That's really, really not the case here. Most Finns speak English. Bring a bunch over and have them show the shipyard guys how to weld the weird steel, and show the naval architects what to do in order to design am icebreaker. It's (literally!) not rocket science.
Finnish companies were very much involved in the design of the two most recent icebreakers built in the U.S.- the Healy and the Mackinaw. A Finnish design team was part of one of the bids for the Polar Security Cutter- the USCG apparently chose the cheaper bid, the one that had no experience with icebreakers.
Europeans don't typically use Q&T steels, so they don't need to use the more challenging welds. It goes back to design.
What is frustrating today is going back and watching 2017 Congressional hearings in which pretty much all of the players say that icebreakers aren't that hard to build.
To be fair, the Charcot would seem to indicate that they *aren't* all that hard to build, if you don't have a retarded bureaucracy rubbing its balls all over the project. *Then* it gets *really* hard to actually accomplish anything.
If the Euros aren't using the Q&T steels, but are making ships that do the job the PSC is supposed to do (to some extent, anyway) then are they actually necessary? Yes, presumably you can use slightly less steel with them, but is that really worth the added cost and complexity?
This is a systemic thing.
When you have a system where the wrong people get the wrong amount of money to build the wrong thing and it results in lackluster outcomes;
Meanwhile another system has the right people with the right amount of money building the right thing;
It pays to just pay for the second system to build the thing for you.
Heck, Finland bought a bunch of expensive F-35s instead of going with Swedish Grippens for similar reasons: systems integration.
Other countries (China and India for example) are now carrying out their own Moon missions. In the process, they aren't hiring Russians or Americans to do it for them. They are doing it themselves because the purpose is to develop an aerospace and rocketry Industry in their countries. Having an inspirational goal inspires national pride and improves recruiting.
For that matter, the American space program was launched by the U.S In a panicked effort to catch up with the Russians who were far ahead of the U.S In the late 50s. This strategy arguably worked pretty well, although seems to have lost momentum since the demise of the space shuttle program. Recent US efforts to move the space program into the private sector seem to be mostly about getting US space technology back to where it was in the past.
One could easily imagine us efforts to revive and improve our shipbuilding industry based around inspirational goals of some kind. "Asking the Finns How to Do It" is not going to inspire too many people.
Don't forget that the U.S. space program's early successes were built upon foreign engineers and scientists. Don't forget Wernher von Braun and that entire cohort of German scientists...
I guess I'm just more interested in "actually getting the job done" than "inspiration".
Amusingly, the Chinese space program was developed by Qian Xuesen a student of von Karmann's who was kicked out of the US as a security risk. It's not like China started from ground zero.
Russia is currently the undisputed leader in the world of icebreakers, they have the largest fleet in operation, they are the only country that operates nuclear powered icebreakers, they hold most of the current records, and despite having the biggest fleet in the world, they are currently building some 11 new icebreakers, including the massive first icebreaker from the Project 10510 class of nuclear icebreakers.
If Russia can do it, I refuse to believe the only way for the United States to have a decent fleet of icebreakers is to outsource their construction to Finland.
Actually, Russia isn't the leader in building icebreakers. Historically, Finland has designed and built many of the icebreakers that Russia uses. Initially, building ships for the Soviet Union was part of war reparations after WW2, but the trend continued- because Russia needed them, and Finland knows how to design and build them.
I am afraid you're living in the past.
Some data then. Of the 25 PC4 or above icebreakers that Russia laid down between 2010 and the present, 20 of them are competed. 13 of the completed 20 were built outside of Russia- 8 of them in Finland, 3 in Norway, 2 in Germany. Ten of the 20 completed ships were designed by Finnish companies.
I keep thinking I’ve read the worst thing I can read about US shipbuilding.
Disappointingly, I continue to be surprised.
“When the contract was first awarded in 2019, the plan was to have the first icebreaker completed by 2024. But as of July this year, the design of the ship was still incomplete.”
Re: losing manufacturing capacity. There's Machiavelli on mercenaries wherein he more or less says: Don't use mercenaries. If they are bad, they will lose your country for you; if they are good, they will take it away from you.
If you lose manufacturing capacity, you must employ what are in effect mercenaries...best you rebuild your capacities.
icebreakers are useful . on and off shore wind mills are a waste of money.
Let the Finns do it, hello!
If you want to read about what a successful icebreaker program looks like, take a look at the French Icebreaker Le Commandant Charcot- which just completed the first solo Trans-Polar Route crossing by a non-nuclear icebreaker. Although outfitted as a luxury cruise ship, she is currently NATO's most capable icebreaker. Brian linked it in the article, but I'll put it here too:
https://open.substack.com/pub/sixtydegreesnorth/p/a-successful-commercial-icebreaker?r=22534v&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I've heard there's a metallurgy problem as well? Can US manufacturers even bend the steel of required thickness/strength?
Yes, according to the GAO the vessel is using a special grade of high-strength steel called EQ-47 which requires special welding techniques- something that Bollinger was still working on last time it was discussed in public. This specialty grade of steel is likely being used to reduce the overall weight of the vessel, as the vessel size/displacement has grown by more than 40% since the initial contract was awarded.
Are we sure it's not just because of the need to deal with continuous ice contact? That's been a driver on other icebreakers (hence things like explosively-welded belts). High-strength steel can help some with displacement, but I would expect that trade space to be exceedingly well-explored today. I would have to see how much they got back on the Nelson, when weight was really critical and there was good recent data, but I don't think that was double digits. Particularly because the naval architects on this have probably read the same books I have, and know that putting on expensive materials to save weight is generally a bad idea.
It might also be a rules difference between the ABS and other classification societies. Since the late 80s/early 90s many European icebreakers have been designed/built with high-strength TMCP steels with yield strength up to 500 MPa. The ABS rules seem to call for Q&T steels at this yield strength. One Naval Architect at a major icebreaking firm I know said that they haven't used Q&T steels in their designs since the 1980s. I believe Canada plans on using EH50 in their Heavy Icebreaker design.
Even then, that doesn't seem to be enough to make a 40% difference in displacement, or even anything remotely close to that. And I'm not even sure the growth is happening in the way you seem to think. From the CRS report on the program: "The design chosen for the PSC is about 35% larger in terms of light-ship displacement than the indicative design (i.e., the government’s in-house notional design) that informed earlier Navy and Coast Guard cost estimating for the program. Adjusting for this larger design might incur an approximate 35% increase in estimated PSC procurement costs over the costs estimated at the time of the April 2019 PSC contract award."
The first half is just that the winning design was bigger than expected, which is actually pretty common these days. (FFG(X) and Type 31 both spring to mind.) Relative to everything else that goes into a ship, steel is cheap and air is free. And I would expect Ronald O'Rourke to know that, which makes the second half quite annoying, particularly when it's directed at legislators, who keep making that mistake. (I think it was a postwar British frigate where they capped displacement to hold down cost, and started to get fun stuff like aluminum ladders installed.) I can't find anything about 40% growth after contract award, which would be pretty close to unprecedented across my knowledge of shipbuilding, even including some really notable disasters.
Yep, you're right. I should have checked my reference before posting.
As the CBO notes, "when the Coast Guard awarded the contract for the first PSC to VT Halter Marine, the shipbuilder based its bid on the design of the new Polarstern. Basing the ship on the German vessel and accounting for changes required by the Coast Guard resulted in Halter Marine proposing a ship with a light ship displacement of 18,000 tons—nearly 40 percent
more than the 13,000 tons specified in the Coast Guard’s indicative design. That larger size was incorporated into the 2020 and 2022 life-cycle cost estimates, which were produced after the fixed-price contract for the lead ship was awarded. Despite an almost 40 percent increase in the ship’s
displacement, the Coast Guard’s cost estimate for the revised design grew by only about 16 percent."
I wasn't arguing that the steel was causing the growth- but suggesting perhaps the USCG was using a higher-strength steel to try and save some weight. Since cost seems to not be an issue in this program, I've heard that- along with some other anecdotes that don't paint the USCG/industry team in the best light from those associated with the project in the past.
Outstanding work. The procurement process and outcomes are puzzling, as is continued adherence to protectionist legislation that increases costs without preserving or expanding domestic capacity or know-how.
Maybe Elon Musk can create IceX...
And maybe he will go to Mars. Or was it Venus? 😊
Uranus >.>
Shameless plug to enforce this great article
https://themonentaryskeptic703.substack.com/p/the-great-arctic-gold-rush-whos-winning?r=12uefk
It seems that the only successful thing this project has accomplished is throwing away billions of dollars of our money (the USA taxpayers) and seriously enriching a few billionaires and their corporations. But in today’s world this is our rulers definition of success.
The US "can't" build icebreaking ships because, all things considered, it just isn't that important. Having a new icebreaker is apparently not important enough to spend the political capital to get buying it from Finland through Congress. Yards that can fabricate submarine hulls can certainly build icebreaker hulls. But in allocating scarce resources I think we would all prefer having a sub over an icebreaker.
Our government is great about writing reports that identify problems and then calling for action. And then getting nothing done about it. Congress acts as if passing laws is all that it takes to solve a problem, when real people have to actually do things- like build ships- for things to change. We need to become a nation that can do things again. There are many important things that we aren't getting done. Getting a handful of icebreakers should be easy, but instead illustrates the problems with the government procurement process, our shipbuilders, and our skilled labor force. Action is needed.
Form a joint venture with the Finns and leverage their expertise to facilitate technology and know-how transfer to USA. Just like they do every day everywhere in the world when your friends can do something you can not.