U.S. admits decades of neglect with unprecedented foreign shipyard deal as Arctic rivalry intensifies.
By Paul Morgan (gCaptain) – The United States just signed contracts for Finland to build American warships, a stark admission that the world’s most powerful navy can no longer construct the specialized vessels it desperately needs.
On December 27, the Coast Guard awarded contracts to Finland’s Rauma Marine Constructions and Louisiana’s Bollinger Shipyards for six new Arctic Security Cutter icebreakers. Finland gets the first two, with delivery in 2028. The U.S. will build four more domestically by 2029, using a Finnish-Canadian design, Finnish expertise, and Finnish hand-holding.
It’s an unprecedented arrangement that exposes how far American shipbuilding has fallen behind. President Trump personally waived the legal requirement that Coast Guard vessels must be U.S.-built, citing national security grounds. The reason? America simply lacks the experience to design and build modern icebreakers quickly enough.
“Nothing like the PSC has been built in the United States in 50 years,” a Government Accountability Office report concluded about the troubled Polar Security Cutter program. American yards have no recent experience with large icebreakers, and it shows.
A Shipyard Gap That Can’t Be Hidden
The U.S. currently operates three Arctic-capable icebreakers. Russia fields 40-50, including eight nuclear-powered behemoths. China now has four to five polar research vessels actively operating in Arctic waters, with more under construction.
The 49-year-old Polar Star, America’s only heavy icebreaker, is 18 years past its designed service life and held together by constant emergency repairs. The 25-year-old Healy caught fire last year and had to abort its Arctic patrol. The newly commissioned Storis is a converted commercial oil rig support ship rushed into service as a stopgap.
This is America’s polar fleet at a moment when the Arctic has become a front-line security theatre.
The contrast with the domestic heavy icebreaker program is brutal. The first Polar Security Cutter was supposed to be operational in 2024. It’s now unlikely to enter service before 2030, six years late. The original 2019 contract was for $746 million. Current estimates put the first ship alone at $1.9 billion, with total program costs exceeding $5 billion for three vessels.
Design completion sits at 67% after five years of work. Full construction hasn’t actually begun. Congressional committees have held multiple hearings demanding answers. “It’s been six years since this program was authorized, and we still don’t have a final design,” Representative Carlos Giménez complained. “It only took us nine years to get to the moon.”
Why Finland Wins?
Finnish yards have built much of the world’s modern icebreaker fleet. Rauma Marine Constructions sits at the center of a mature Arctic technology cluster with decades of specialized experience. They can deliver a medium icebreaker in 36 months from contract signing, roughly half the time U.S. estimates suggest for domestic construction.
Finland’s expertise runs deep. Even Russia’s shallow-draft nuclear icebreakers Taymyr and Vaygach were built at Finnish yards (though their reactors were installed in Russia). China’s most capable icebreaker, Xue Long 2, was designed by Finnish firm Aker Arctic.
The Arctic Security Cutter design itself comes from a consortium led by Finland’s Aker Arctic Technology and Canada’s Seaspan Shipyards, a production-ready design that already exists rather than something American yards need to figure out from scratch.
By turning to Finland, Washington is essentially buying time. The first two Finnish-built cutters arrive in 2028, giving U.S. crews operational platforms while domestic yards learn how to build them. The partnership includes explicit technology transfer: Finnish engineers will work alongside American builders to train them in icebreaker construction.
Strategic Implications
The deal reveals competing pressures in U.S. defense policy. On one hand, relying on foreign construction for national security vessels would have been unthinkable a generation ago. On the other, the Arctic gap with Russia and China has become too dangerous to ignore while waiting for domestic shipyards to figure it out.
The arrangement fits within the broader “friend-shoring” strategy—partnering with trusted allies for strategic manufacturing when domestic capacity falls short. Finland joined NATO in 2023 and brings deep Arctic expertise without the geopolitical concerns of Chinese yards.
For Finland, the contracts represent a major industrial victory. RMC gains a prestigious reference customer in the U.S. government and long-term design support revenue. Finnish officials called it a “historic milestone” that cements Finland’s role in NATO’s Arctic strategy.
For U.S. shipbuilding, the message is uncomfortable but unavoidable: decades of underinvestment have consequences. The U.S. commercial shipbuilding share sits at 0.1-0.13% of global output. Costs run three to four times higher than East Asian yards. When specialized capabilities are needed quickly, America now has to look abroad.
The $6.1 billion Arctic Security Cutter program won’t reverse that decline overnight. But it represents a pragmatic acknowledgment that in the new era of great power competition, national security sometimes requires admitting what you can’t do and finding partners who can.
The question is whether this serves as a wake-up call for broader shipbuilding reform, or it’s simply another temporary fix while underlying capacity continues to erode. With nearly $9 billion now allocated for Coast Guard icebreakers and cutters, the industry has its chance. Whether it can deliver remains to be seen.
Subscribe for Daily Maritime Insights
Sign up for gCaptain’s newsletter and never miss an update
— trusted by our 107,648 members