Restoring US maritime competitiveness starts with shipyard development and optimization

The geopolitical landscape has shifted. Heightened tensions, the war in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East, and China’s position as both the world’s leading commercial shipbuilding nation and a major naval power have underscored the need for a stronger maritime industrial base. In the United States, growing demand for commercial and government vessels is colliding with long-standing constraints in its national shipyard capacity, workforce availability, and supply-chain resilience. Decades of globalization have increased reliance on international supply chains, while domestic shipbuilding capability has gradually eroded, exposing vulnerabilities in maritime readiness and industrial resilience.

While Western nations reassess their position, shipbuilding dominance remains firmly concentrated in the East. China, South Korea, and Japan collectively account for around 90 to 95% of global newbuild volume. Whereas the United States, Canada, and EU states are working to rebuild capacity through policy, subsidies, and long-term fleet programs to reinvigorate national yards.

Arctic competition and the growing importance of icebreakers

Central to the US’ commitment to enhance global maritime competitiveness is the renewed focus on icebreaker capabilities, in response to the Arctic’s growing strategic and economic importance. As maritime activity expands and geopolitical competition intensifies, nations are investing in ice-capable fleets to support sovereignty, security, resource development, scientific research, search and rescue operations, and long-term access to the region.

In response, the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort (ICE Pact), a trilateral agreement between the United States, Canada, and Finland, was signed in 2024, signaling a new era of cooperation. This initiative goes beyond vessel construction. It represents a coordinated effort to develop industrial capacity, strengthen workforce capabilities, forge closer security and economic ties, and advance Arctic presence, security, and operational capability. The ICE Pact rests on three pillars: enhanced information exchange, collaboration on workforce development, and an open framework for allies to design and procure icebreakers built within participating nations’ shipyards.

This approach aligns closely with Canada’s “Build-Partner-Buy” framework; a broader strategy applied across defense and national capability programs. The framework prioritizes the development of domestic industrial capacity, leverages partnerships with trusted allies, and selectively accesses international capabilities to meet strategic requirements. In both the ICE Pact and Build-Partner-Buy, the objective extends beyond delivering individual assets. The focus is on strengthening the industrial ecosystems, workforce capabilities, supply chains, and collaborative networks required to support long-term national and allied capabilities.

Together, these initiatives recognize a fundamental reality: maritime capability is ultimately built on adequate infrastructure. The same challenge now confronts the United States; ambitious fleet expansion goals and renewed maritime investment must be matched by the capacity to design, build, and deliver vessels efficiently and at scale.

The US Maritime Action plan: Converting ambition into capacity

With the release of the Maritime Action Plan under Executive Order 14269, the United States has outlined one of its most ambitious industrial programs in decades. The objective is to rebuild national shipbuilding capacity and strengthen the maritime industrial base needed to support future commercial and naval fleet requirements.

The scale of the challenge is substantial. The United States has a limited number of shipyards capable of large-scale new vessel construction, alongside a broader network of repair, maintenance, and conversion facilities. While the country maintains world-class capabilities in specialized naval and government shipbuilding, its share of global commercial shipbuilding output remains small compared with regions such as Asia.

Even with substantial investment anticipated, infrastructure alone will not address the underlying constraints as structural challenges run deeper. The US Government Accountability Office has repeatedly flagged acquisition practices, requirements instability, and budget management as recurring problem areas in shipbuilding programs. Without addressing these, scaling production will remain difficult regardless of how much money is invested.

Why modernization must go beyond infrastructure

Many US shipyards continue to operate, at least partly, within facility footprints and production flows originally designed for earlier generations of shipbuilding. These configurations do not suit modern modular construction techniques or parallel production workflows. At the same time, many shipyards have only begun implementing digital capabilities across the engineering, procurement, production, and operations lifecycle, but have yet to realize their full value through end-to-end integration. This includes technologies such as PLM platforms, digital twins, planning systems, and production technologies. Without a consolidated digital thread, disconnects can emerge between design, procurement, planning, execution, and sustainment, reducing efficiency and increasing program risk.

The result is reduced efficiency, higher risk of delays, and higher costs. Modern shipbuilding is not only about physical construction. It is about coordination, integration, and execution across the entire project lifecycle.

The understated role of shipyard optimization in unlocking project efficiency

Optimization cannot substitute for capacity investment. But it determines whether that investment actually converts into throughput. Delivering vessels on time and on budget requires more than strong design. It depends on aligning shipyard processes and workflows to manage change effectively and coordinate across complex, often global supply chains.

This is where shipyard optimization has the most impact. Rather than focusing narrowly on tools, the most effective approach is a systems engineering mindset: redesigning the operating model, integrating a digital backbone that connects engineering data with planning and production, and building workflows that are repeatable and scalable. Approaches such as the Vessel Construction Manager model, which structures how design intent translates into production, have shown real promise in addressing the coordination failures that typically drive cost and schedule overruns. Shipyard optimization strategies must take a lifecycle approach, integrating concept development, engineering, procurement, and production into a coherent ecosystem. Tailored planning and execution frameworks can help address each shipyard’s specific requirements, reducing inefficiencies and improving project performance.

From theory to practice: putting it to the test

Recent projects demonstrate the potential impact of shipyard optimization initiatives. At Seaspan Vancouver Shipyard, we supported the transition from a highly manual, experience-based assembly planning process to a rule-based, automated system. Through the implementation of Cadmatic solutions, an Elomatic subsidiary, Seaspan supported its assembly planning approach by introducing more effective sequencing and advanced planning methodologies. This helped capture planning knowledge in repeatable processes and improve scalability across complex vessel programmes, including the Canadian Coast Guard’s Multi-Mission Icebreaker project.

Similar principles are being applied in the new Polarstern icebreaker programme. In partnership with TKMS, we are providing engineering and shipyard consultancy support alongside the implementation of a centralized digital platform. This system integrates engineering data, enables controlled change management, and aligns planning, procurement, and production processes. The result is a more resilient and efficient project delivery model, capable of handling the complexity of next-generation vessel construction.

Looking ahead

The United States has political momentum, a defined investment roadmap, and a clear imperative to rebuild its maritime capabilities. Achieving long-term maritime competitiveness will depend not only on what is built, but on how effectively shipyards operate. Shipyard optimization will be a critical factor in translating maritime investment into sustainable shipbuilding capacity and performance.