I agree that we should use a proven Finnish design — to minimize reinventing the wheel, and to reduce the risk of building an unexceptional vessel.
However, I think we should build three of the worlds largest and best nuclear powered icebreakers that can operate for at least two years without refueling. With three, two could always be available for use while one was down for repairs.
I don’t want to hear any excuses about why they cannot do this or that because they lack fuel, or it has become too expensive. I do not want to buy a dockside attraction for USCG Rear Admirals to hold parties on. I want ships that are in regular operation in the Arctic, and rarely venture south of Dutch Harbor. Nor do I want to hear about the Russians having to rescue our icebreakers when they run out of fuel. The US Navy has proven nuclear reactor units and they know how to run them. I’d rather pay more up front and know we have the very best vessels on duty in the Arctic with plenty of fuel aboard.