Finland is part of NATO. The US and Canada should collaborate with it too. Sharing knowledge is a perfect way for European NATO allies to carry more of the collective defense burden.
Does it really make sense for Finnish shipyards to share knowledge of icebreaking when there the released text above discusses things such as the US and Canada selling icebreakers to third parties?
It seems more like a way taking over the industry from the Finns.
Obviously there may be specifics of the deal that makes it acceptable, but the vague text I see seems just terrible for the Finns.
I suppose it might be accepted because of the Canadian ownership of the shipyard in question.
It is in US/Canada's interest to have a shipyard in North America building ice breakers. Even though Finland is a NATO member, if something happens to Finland NATO may need some ship yards elsewhere to build more ice breakers (running 24x7 shifts!) while liberating Finland. Remember NATO (and military in general) needs to plan for all worst cases not likely cases.
The above does not mean the shipyards need to be US/Canada. If they are Finland owned and operated that is fine. So long as the workers and a couple (minor) engineers are local that is enough - in the worst case (Finland's shipyard is taken and all the experts there killed) that shipyard is expanded and has some expertise to build on.
Yes, but the yard is Canadian owned. I suppose it was Russian-owned before.
But the combination of foreign ownership together with exporting know-how, this combination is kind of how one loses an industry to some other country; and then upon that there's that you can't even sell to the country that owns the company because of protectionism on their part.
It is a case of economic security. US National Security Advisor Daleep Singh spoke about this on the Odd Lots podcast a month ago. The goal is an integrated supply chain across all three countries, and an end result of marketing the ice breaker capacity to other allies.
Yes, he says 'What do they get. Well, in exchange, we agree to integrate our ice breaking supply chains so that they are interoperable at every stage of production', but that doesn't actually benefit Finland
Furthermore, suppose that it actually was something substantial, some kind of deal that NATO icebreakers are to be made by the US, Canada or Finland, then you screw the Aker group in Norway, who also make icebreakers.
The way I see it they expect that since the Canadians have been able to nab the shipyard after the disorder caused by the sanctions they can transfer all the knowledge from the Finns and make the icebreakers themselves, seizing appealing high-tech shipbuilding niche from the Finns, and they offer nothing in return but bullshit.
An integrated supply chain, sure, maybe that can save money, but once you've transferred your knowledge you no longer have your niche.
I think this is very obvious in the talk because of the vagueness in what is offered to the Finns; and my interpretation is that nothing meaningful is offered to the Finns and the the US is just expecting to seize this niche.
I don't think the 'there'll be enough for all of us' talk is plausible either. Surely, there might be an expansion demand, but there's really only the Baltic and the polar area that matters, and maybe US and Canada together do need 40 or so icebreakers to keep the North-West Passage safe and open in case it is to become a major trade route, but they'll last basically for ever, and my understanding is that the US is talking about only nine or so.
"US: cost $800-$900 million per ship ($1.1-$1.3 billion in 2024 dollars)
FIN: Finnish shipyard can build a heavy icebreaker for just a few hundred million dollars"
Bill North Americans for $500-600 million per ship? Can give some discount if significant amount of these projections indeed gets built
ODD LOTS: "And our best estimate is that the global total global demand for ice breakers over the next decade from allies and partners is between seventy and ninety vessels."
It's an interesting side note that in the 80's the Soviet Union, despite having a large icebreaking ship building capabilities, also bought icebreakers from Finland (then not a member of NATO)
Including a couple of Nuclear ones (they fitted the nuclear engine themselves):
When I was living in Helsinki, there were two huge icebreakers there whose main job it was to keep the baltic see open for the Russians. I think that probably changed a bit since they joined NATO.
I guess that aside from Alaska, the US doesn't have to deal with a lot of sea ice and isn't that dependent on arctic shipping routes. For Russia that's very different. The sea near St Petersburg can freeze over and Murmansk is also hard to reach in winter. And with Svebastopol and the black see fleet out of action, those would be strategically important for Russia. And they rely on the northern arctic route for trade with China as well.
The US Navy will send ships in the Arctic Ocean past Alaska. It tends to be more common for submarines to be there, but surface ships do go there on occasion.
