5 ms·

Canada has the same problem with building icebreakers. The problem with icebreakers capable of dealing with multi-year ice is that they're a very expensive and

by beloch 2y ago

Canada has the same problem with building icebreakers. The problem with icebreakers capable of dealing with multi-year ice is that they're a very expensive and specialized kind of ship that's hard to construct, but also the sort of ship that has a very long lifetime. Only a few governments in the world have any need of such ships, and they typically only need a few in the span of many decades. By the time Canada got around to looking for new icebreakers, not a single shipyard in the country had made one in many decades. Ordering a ship from someplace foreign that had actually made one recently would be cheaper than trying to make one domestically. However, then shipyards that haven't made an icebreaker for twenty years would become shipyards that haven't made one for forty years. It really would make a lot of sense for close allies like Canada and the U.S. to collaborate on building icebreakers.

thfuran 2y ago
>However, then shipyards that haven't made an icebreaker for twenty years would become shipyards that haven't made one for forty years. Is there really much difference?
- Teever 2y ago
  Yes. The longer that a shipyard goes with fewer and fewer contracts the more likely it is to go out of business. And it's far harder to get a ship built at a yard that is out of business than one that isn't.
  - Sakos 2y ago
    Also, shipyards that recently built one are more likely to get contracts to build more. Because other countries will be facing the same question.
    - bruce511 2y ago
      More likely though isn't the same as likely. If I'm going to buy an icebreaker from a foreign supplier, sure the US is in the market, but they're still more expensive and take longer than Finland. To get good at something, good enough that you're competitive on the world stage, you need to be building lots, iterating, getting feedback and so on. The US coast guard doesn't have the need to kick-start that sort of scale of development. So it takes a fortune (think 10s of billions) to catch up to the Finns. But the headline number is somewhat irrelevant. 300m sent to Finland is "gone forever". 1.1 billion spent in the US boosts the economy, and ultimately works its way back to the govt in taxes. The benefits have little to do with "preserving skillset" and more to do with the economic benefit of circulating another billion in the local economy.
      - bostik 2y ago
        > But the headline number is somewhat irrelevant. 300m sent to Finland is "gone forever". Even with the quotes, as a Finn I find this statement rather tasteless. Or would you also claim that cross-border trade with more nearby nations is "money gone forever"?
        skinkestek 2y ago
        Some people seems to be willing to spend significantly more if it means no one else makes a profit from it. On a national level I understand the interest to keep investments within country borders. For a random person or company I don't get it (except for very specific cases like voting with our wallets against dictatorships like China).
        bruce511 2y ago
        I didn't mean it to be tasteless, and it wasn't personal against Finland. My point was that "internal spending" and "external spending " are not (economically the same thing. Obviously, Finland wants to export - tests a given - but the price tag of a Finnish ship and a US ship are not the same unit.
        bostik 2y ago
        No worries. From a national sovereignity perspective, I can see what you were trying to say. Especially with the growing international tensions, wanting to maintain an industrial and manufacturing base is a rational take. FTR: I think that the CHIPS act is based on good intentions. US has identified advanced semiconductors as a strategic, critical base. Trying to in-shore the manufacturing and skills is clearly a desirable goal. But in case of something as niche and "bulky", ice-breakers feel more like they'd fall under comparative advantage. You can look at China. They have had a persistent strategic goal to build up their advanced manufacturing base, and after sustaining that for >30 years, are now at the position where they can start to close off foreign suppliers. That shows roughly how long similar shift of balance could be expected to take if you wanted to counteract.
      - Ekaros 2y ago
    - saati 2y ago
      What other countries? There are maybe 10 that care even a little a bit about icebreakers.
- kjs3 2y ago
  Well...it's reasonable for the shipyard to still employ folks with hands on experience 20 years later. I occasionally get tapped to pitch in on things I did 20 years ago (even if it's just "why the hell did you do this?"), and shipbuilding changes vastly slower than my gig. That's much less likely 40 years on.
- elygre 2y ago
  Possibly this: In twenty years, the experience retires. In forty, it dies.
morkalork 2y ago
Like this? https://www.reuters.com/world/us-canada-finland-launch-effort-build-ice-breaking-ships-china-russia-cooperate-2024-07-11/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us-canada-finland-launch-effor...
ChiMan 2y ago
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.
- helsinkiandrew 2y ago
  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): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaygach_(1989_icebreaker) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaygach_(1989_icebreaker)
  - jillesvangurp 2y ago
    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.
    - helsinkiandrew 2y ago
      Sisu and Urho - they're still there - along with newer sister ships. Visible from satellite view of Google Maps. https://maps.app.goo.gl/rUq42cC1xFhUB8ij9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/rUq42cC1xFhUB8ij9
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      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.
- 2y ago

by beloch 2y ago

thfuran 2y ago

>However, then shipyards that haven't made an icebreaker for twenty years would become shipyards that haven't made one for forty years. Is there really much difference?

Teever 2y ago
Yes. The longer that a shipyard goes with fewer and fewer contracts the more likely it is to go out of business. And it's far harder to get a ship built at a yard that is out of business than one that isn't.
- Sakos 2y ago
  Also, shipyards that recently built one are more likely to get contracts to build more. Because other countries will be facing the same question.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    More likely though isn't the same as likely. If I'm going to buy an icebreaker from a foreign supplier, sure the US is in the market, but they're still more expensive and take longer than Finland. To get good at something, good enough that you're competitive on the world stage, you need to be building lots, iterating, getting feedback and so on. The US coast guard doesn't have the need to kick-start that sort of scale of development. So it takes a fortune (think 10s of billions) to catch up to the Finns. But the headline number is somewhat irrelevant. 300m sent to Finland is "gone forever". 1.1 billion spent in the US boosts the economy, and ultimately works its way back to the govt in taxes. The benefits have little to do with "preserving skillset" and more to do with the economic benefit of circulating another billion in the local economy.
    - bostik 2y ago
      > But the headline number is somewhat irrelevant. 300m sent to Finland is "gone forever". Even with the quotes, as a Finn I find this statement rather tasteless. Or would you also claim that cross-border trade with more nearby nations is "money gone forever"?
      - skinkestek 2y ago
        Some people seems to be willing to spend significantly more if it means no one else makes a profit from it. On a national level I understand the interest to keep investments within country borders. For a random person or company I don't get it (except for very specific cases like voting with our wallets against dictatorships like China).
      - bruce511 2y ago
        I didn't mean it to be tasteless, and it wasn't personal against Finland. My point was that "internal spending" and "external spending " are not (economically the same thing. Obviously, Finland wants to export - tests a given - but the price tag of a Finnish ship and a US ship are not the same unit.
        bostik 2y ago
        No worries. From a national sovereignity perspective, I can see what you were trying to say. Especially with the growing international tensions, wanting to maintain an industrial and manufacturing base is a rational take. FTR: I think that the CHIPS act is based on good intentions. US has identified advanced semiconductors as a strategic, critical base. Trying to in-shore the manufacturing and skills is clearly a desirable goal. But in case of something as niche and "bulky", ice-breakers feel more like they'd fall under comparative advantage. You can look at China. They have had a persistent strategic goal to build up their advanced manufacturing base, and after sustaining that for >30 years, are now at the position where they can start to close off foreign suppliers. That shows roughly how long similar shift of balance could be expected to take if you wanted to counteract.
    - Ekaros 2y ago
  - saati 2y ago
    What other countries? There are maybe 10 that care even a little a bit about icebreakers.
kjs3 2y ago
Well...it's reasonable for the shipyard to still employ folks with hands on experience 20 years later. I occasionally get tapped to pitch in on things I did 20 years ago (even if it's just "why the hell did you do this?"), and shipbuilding changes vastly slower than my gig. That's much less likely 40 years on.
elygre 2y ago
Possibly this: In twenty years, the experience retires. In forty, it dies.

morkalork 2y ago

Like this? https://www.reuters.com/world/us-canada-finland-launch-effort-build-ice-breaking-ships-china-russia-cooperate-2024-07-11/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us-canada-finland-launch-effor...

ChiMan 2y ago

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.

helsinkiandrew 2y ago
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): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaygach_(1989_icebreaker) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaygach_(1989_icebreaker)
- jillesvangurp 2y ago
  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.
  - helsinkiandrew 2y ago
    Sisu and Urho - they're still there - along with newer sister ships. Visible from satellite view of Google Maps. https://maps.app.goo.gl/rUq42cC1xFhUB8ij9 https://maps.app.goo.gl/rUq42cC1xFhUB8ij9
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    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.
2y ago