RCN Polar Class 2 Amphibious Icebreaker

By David Prior

There is growing awareness that the RCN requires Arctic-capable ships that can provide true logistical capability throughout the Arctic at any time of year. The USCG also recognizes this need for Arctic multifunctional security vessels. It was discussed at the 7 December 2022 House Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation hearing on the "U.S. Coast Guard’s Leadership on Arctic Safety, Security, and Environmental Responsibility."¹ Requirements included multifunctionality (minutes 1:18:53 to 1:19:41) and oil spill mitigation (minutes 1:20:40 to 1:25:55).  

Recently CBC presented information on the issue,² which included a live interview³ with Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee, Commander of the RCN. In the CBC video, we hear of the need to protect Canada’s Arctic with Canadian naval ships equipped with amphibious capability.  Assisting an Arctic community in distress in Canada’s far north was presented as one example of the non-military aid that such a vessel could provide. Sustained capability is essential; it requires an amphibious ship that can remain on station as an Arctic base for as long as the emergency requires, which could be many months. A naval amphibious assault ship is presented as a possible solution.  Looking at a typical amphibious assault ship, the USS Iwo Jima, we see that they are big, boxy ‘cargo’ ships (minutes 1:00 to 1:32). That exceptional cargo-carrying capacity is ideal, indeed essential, for rendering assistance and sustaining remote communities.

Seaspan is offering to add amphibious capability to a standard Polar Max icebreaker, which is Polar Class 2 and thus fully capable of reaching anywhere in Canadian Arctic waters at any time of year (minutes 1:38 to 1:42). However, all conventional icebreakers, including the Polar Max, are not big, boxy cargo ships; they are powerful, sculpted, massive structures of steel crammed full of internal machinery and equipment. To use a land-based comparison, conventional icebreakers are massively powerful, very expensive and very complex bulldozers. However, the job of being a floating Arctic base requires a fleet of heavily armed, moderately priced, 18-wheelers, not a single very high cost, very attractive target which is all that Canada can afford.  We can expect a single RCN Arctic amphibious armed icebreaker to cost $5 billion CAD. A non-militarized Polar Max is approximately $3.25 billion CAD.⁴ An American amphibious assault ship⁵ without polar capability costs approximately $3.28 billion CAD.

For the same $5 billion CAD, the RCN can have 12 (twelve) PMSVs⁶ (Polar Multifunctional Security Vessels) stationed at several DND bases across the Arctic. The current war in Ukraine has taught us that deploying a fleet of smaller, heavily armed vessels is a better strategy than deploying a single floating fortress, especially when the smaller vessels are heavily compartmentalized (like PMSVs) so that they are highly resistant to downflooding and more amenable to fire control⁷ in the event of a large missile or torpedo strike. A typical amphibious assault ship, built like a massive, thin-walled, floating warehouse with huge openings, has much in common with ocean ferries.⁸  With a fleet of economical PMSVs available, one of Canada’s conventional Polar Max and/or smaller conventional icebreakers escorts one or more PMSVs (which are truly amphibious, heavily armed floating bases) to the scene of the emergency, after which the icebreaker(s) can leave to perform other duties for which they were built. Meanwhile, the far less expensive and far more capable floating base(s), the PMSV(s), remain at the site of the emergency for as long as it takes.

A fleet of 8 PMSVs plays a role in this Canadian Arctic scenario.⁹