Photo By Chief Petty Officer Cynthia Oldham | The Coast Guard Cutter Polar Star (WAGB 10) transits south in the Bering Strait early...... read more read more
As the U.S. advances priorities outlined in the Executive Order on Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance, defense professionals are taking a closer look at the industrial and technical foundations that enable maritime operations in the Arctic. That policy context framed a Jan. 6 Shipbuilding for the Arctic Alumni event hosted by the Ted Stevens Center for Arctic Security Studies, where experts examined how engineering requirements, shipyard capacity and international collaboration shape the nation’s ability to operate in one of the world’s most demanding regions. The conversation drew strong interest across the alumni network, reflecting the growing recognition that Arctic shipbuilding represents both an operational necessity and a strategic investment.
Operating under Chatham House Rules, panelists opened the discussion by describing the unique design logic of vessels built for ice-covered waters. Arctic ships are not modifications of existing platforms, but purpose-built tools engineered for extreme conditions. One presenter summarized the distinction succinctly: “An icebreaker’s primary mission is to carry a whole bunch of steel as far into the ice as it possibly can. Everything else after that point really becomes secondary.” That design philosophy acknowledges the physical realities of multi-year ice, pressure ridges, vibration loads and the cold-weather stresses that define polar operations. Another presenter expanded on this idea by noting, “A U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker is a multi-mission cutter. It does way more things than most ships are designed to do,” underscoring how these vessels must integrate navigation, aviation support, cargo capacity and emergency response functions, often simultaneously.
The engineering decisions that follow are equally complex. Arctic-capable vessels must perform reliably in both harsh ice conditions and in open water, often within the same deployment. “For the Polar Security Cutter, you need to define its ice-breaking characteristics and its open-water characteristics,” one panelist explained. “You need to define where it’s going to operate and what it’s expected to handle.” Those parameters determine hull geometry, propulsion systems, structural reinforcement and onboard survivability requirements. In regions where ports, repair facilities and logistical nodes are limited, endurance becomes a defining factor. As one presenter put it, planners must determine “how long it’s going to be able to operate away from civilization,” a consideration that directly shapes fuel capacity, storage, redundancy and crew support systems.
Beyond design, panelists emphasized that shipbuilding capability is inseparable from the strength of the national industrial base. The discussion highlighted how the U.S. maritime workforce is supported by a network of suppliers, welders, naval architects, digital modelers, fabrication specialists, testing labs, training centers and manufacturing partners distributed across the country. The panel described how this ecosystem underpins every stage of vessel development, from competitive design phases to plate bending, propulsion integration and final outfitting. One presenter noted that developing a viable design “takes a lot of time and effort,” a reminder that complex military platforms require sustained coordination, clear standards and cross-sector involvement long before construction begins.
Participants also explored how digital engineering is reshaping the shipbuilding landscape. A panelist described how allied shipbuilders have embraced advanced 3D modeling and simulation tools that streamline design cycles and reduce errors early in the process. “They take a much more digital engineering approach to the design,” the presenter said. “They go as heavily into the 3D design as they possibly can.” Panelists explained that such practices not only increase precision but also allow distributed teams to evaluate structural loads, system integration and ice interaction before steel is cut. Alumni noted that these kinds of technical exchanges with allies support U.S. maritime objectives by enhancing interoperability, strengthening domestic manufacturing capacity and reinforcing shared standards and burden sharing across the region.
The discussion returned often to why these shipbuilding considerations matter for national security. Arctic-capable vessels provide the backbone for maritime domain awareness, crisis response, freedom of navigation and logistical support in areas defined by distance, unpredictable weather and limited infrastructure. Their ability to remain on station for extended periods supports the warfighter and ensures the U.S. can maintain presence where policy, strategy and operational planning increasingly converge. These factors align with the Executive Order’s emphasis on strengthening the maritime workforce, modernizing shipbuilding practices and ensuring that the nation’s maritime infrastructure is prepared to support future security needs.
Alumni reflected on the broader strategic implications of the region itself. One participant wrote, “The Arctic is no longer solely the domain of Arctic nations; it has global strategic implications. We need a broader strategic vision that transcends geography, particularly regarding the industrial challenge of icebreaker construction. It is time to treat this as a collective Allied mission, not just a regional responsibility.” The sentiment captured a central theme of the session: Arctic shipbuilding is not simply engineering; it is statecraft, deterrence and allied collaboration expressed in steel.
Another attendee remarked, “Thanks so much for this important and timely topic,” noting the value of having direct access to experts shaping the nation’s maritime posture. For many alumni, the session reinforced the understanding that shipbuilding is a long-term strategic effort tied to readiness, deterrence and the operational demands of the Arctic.
By bringing together practitioners, engineers and industry experts, the TSC continues to build strong, informed networks that advance homeland defense and regional security across the Arctic and help deter and dissuade adversaries that threaten peace and security across the Allied Arctic. As the United States implements its strategic direction under the Executive Order on Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance, the center’s alumni engagements provide an essential venue for examining how industrial capacity, engineering expertise and international cooperation shape the nation’s ability to operate and defend in the region.
For more information about the TSC Alumni Program and to learn about future upcoming events, visit: https://tedstevensarcticcenter.org/alumni/
| Date Taken: | 01.23.2026 |
| Date Posted: | 01.23.2026 13:30 |
| Story ID: | 556654 |
| Location: | JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON, ALASKA, US |
| Web Views: | 40 |
| Downloads: | 0 |
This work, TSC Alumni explore how shipbuilding supports U.S. maritime dominance in the Arctic, by Amber Kurka, identified by DVIDS, must comply with the restrictions shown on https://www.dvidshub.net/about/copyright.
No keywords found.
