This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank
UNCLASSIFIED

Chief of Naval Operations

The United States Navy 

Arctic Roadmap 

for 2014 to 2030

February 2014
UNCLASSIFIED

Section Page No.

Executive Summary 3

Introduction 6

1. Purpose 9

2. Policy Guidance and United States National Interests in the Arctic

Region 9

3. The Evolving Arctic Region Security Environment 10

4. United States Navy Strategic Objectives for the Arctic Region 15

5. United States Navy Leadership Role and Missions in the Arctic

Region 16

6. United States Navy Ways and Means for Near-Term, Mid-Term,

and Far-Term Operations 18

7. Roadmap Execution 19

8. Conclusion 19

Appendix 1: Primary References Used to Inform the Arctic Ocean 

 Sea Ice and Sea Lane Predictions 20

Appendix 2: 2009 Roadmap Completed Actions 21

Appendix 3: Arctic Roadmap Implementation Plan 22

Appendix 4: Glossary of Abbreviations 37

Endnotes 40
UNCLASSIFIED 3

Executive Summary

The United States is an Arctic nation1 through the state of Alaska and its surrounding territorial 

and Exclusive Economic Zone waters located in and around the Arctic Circle. The United States

Navy, as the maritime component of the Department of Defense, has global leadership 

responsibilities to provide ready forces for current operations and contingency response that 

include the Arctic Ocean.

2 The Arctic Region3 remains a challenging operating environment, 

with a harsh climate, vast distances, and little infrastructure. These issues, coupled with limited 

operational experience, are just a few substantial challenges the Navy will have to overcome in 

the Arctic Region. While the Region is expected to remain a low threat security environment

where nations resolve differences peacefully, the Navy will be prepared to prevent conflict and 

ensure national interests are protected.

In the coming decades, the Arctic Ocean will be increasingly accessible and more broadly used 

by Arctic and non-Arctic nations seeking the Region’s abundant resources and trade routes. Due 

to the significant retreat of sea ice, previously unreachable areas have started to open for 

maritime use several weeks each year. The predicted rise in oil and gas development, fishing, 

tourism, and mineral mining could alter the Region’s strategic importance as Arctic and nonArctic nations make investments. Despite this gradual ice opening, the Region’s frequent harsh 

weather and sea conditions are significant limiting factors for Arctic Ocean operations.

This update of the 2009 Navy Arctic Roadmap provides guidance necessary to prepare the Navy 

to respond effectively to future Arctic Region contingencies, delineates the Navy’s leadership 

role, and articulates the Navy’s support to achieve national priorities in the Region. Navy 

functions in the Arctic Region are no different from those in other maritime regions; however, 

the Arctic Region environment makes the execution of many of these functions4 much more 

challenging.

In May 2013, President Obama published the National Strategy for the Arctic Region, defining 

the desired end state as an Arctic Region stable and free of conflict, where nations act 

responsibly in a spirit of trust and cooperation, and where economic and energy resources are 

developed in a sustainable manner. In November 2013, the Secretary of Defense published the 

Department of Defense Arctic Strategy, identifying two supporting objectives to the National 

Strategy:

• Ensure security, support safety, and promote defense cooperation;

• Prepare for a wide range of challenges and contingencies.

In support of National and Department of Defense aims, the Navy will pursue the following 

strategic objectives: 

• Ensure United States Arctic sovereignty and provide homeland defense; 

• Provide ready naval forces to respond to crisis and contingencies; 

• Preserve freedom of the seas; and

• Promote partnerships within the United States Government and with international 

allies and partners. 
UNCLASSIFIED 4

This Roadmap outlines the Navy’s strategic approach for the Arctic Region and the ways and 

means to achieve the desired national end state. Resource constraints and competing near-term 

mission demands require that naval investments be informed, focused, and deliberate. Proactive 

planning today allows the Navy to prepare its forces for Arctic Region operations. This Roadmap 

emphasizes low-cost, long-lead activities that position the Navy to meet future demands. In the 

near to mid-term, the Navy will concentrate on improving operational capabilities, expertise, and 

capacity, extending reach, and will leverage interagency and international partners to achieve its 

strategic objectives. The Roadmap recognizes the need to guide investments by prudently 

balancing regional requirements with national goals.

This Roadmap provides direction to the Navy for the near-term (present-2020), mid-term (2020-

2030), and far-term (beyond 2030), placing particular emphasis on near-term actions necessary 

to enhance Navy’s ability to operate in the Arctic Region in the future. In the near-term, there 

will be low demand for additional naval involvement in the Region. Current Navy capabilities 

are sufficient to meet near-term operational needs. Navy will refine doctrine, operating 

procedures, and tactics, techniques, and procedures to guide future potential operations in the 

Arctic Region. In the mid-term, the Navy will provide support to the Combatant Commanders, 

United States Coast Guard, and other United States Government agencies. In the far-term, 

increased periods of ice-free conditions could require the Navy to expand this support on a more 

routine basis. Throughout these timeframes, the Navy will continue to develop and enhance 

cooperative relationships across the Department of Defense, United States Government agencies, 

industry, and international allies and partners. 
UNCLASSIFIED 5

The Arctic Ocean

Figure 1: Arctic Ocean (United States Navy graphic)
UNCLASSIFIED 6

Introduction

The United States’ overarching strategic national security objective for the Arctic Region is a 

stable and secure region where the national interests of the United States are safeguarded and the 

homeland is protected.5

 The Navy’s primary goal in support of National and Department of 

Defense aims is to contribute to a peaceful, stable, and conflict-free Arctic Region.

The Arctic Ocean comprises a roughly circular basin and covers an area of about 5.4 million 

square miles, almost 1.5 times the size of the United States. Today, much of the Arctic Region is 

ice covered, limiting human access to particular times of the year. The expected continued 

reduction of multi-year6Arctic sea ice over the coming decades will result in increased human 

activity in the Arctic Ocean. How much of an increase, and in what types of activities, remains to 

be seen. 

The rate of opening of the geography, the short commercial shipping season, the environmental 

complexities and limitations of operating in the Arctic Ocean, and present geopolitical trends in 

the Arctic Region lead intelligence assessments to predict it is unlikely the Region will be the 

site of state-on-state armed conflict. Disputes between Arctic Region nations can be resolved 

peacefully and without military force, as demonstrated by the Russia-Norway Barents Sea 

agreement.7 While the Arctic Region is expected to remain an area of low threat, the United 

States does have standing security interests in the Region, including threat early warning 

systems; freedom of navigation and overflight through the region; preventing terrorist attacks 

against the homeland; combined security obligations with Canada; and deployment of sea and air 

forces as required for deterrence, maritime presence, and maritime security operations. 

As the Arctic Ocean opens, the Bering Strait will have increased strategic importance. This 51-

mile wide strait between Russia and the United States, with a depth varying between 98 to 160

feet, represents an important chokepoint for surface and subsurface vessels entering or departing 

the Arctic Ocean. The Bering Strait and access to and through the Arctic Ocean will become a 

more important security planning consideration as maritime activity continues to increase. 

Partnership building opportunities exist for the United States to cooperate with maritime nations 

as economic activity increases north of the Bering Strait. The Strait has special significance for 

Russia since it allows Russia to connect her Asian and European naval forces. As the Pacific 

gateway for Russia’s Northern Sea Route, the Bering Strait will become increasingly important 

for seaborne trade between Europe and Asia. The anticipated increase in traffic through the 

Strait provides opportunity for the United States to strengthen ties with Russia, promoting 

maritime security and safety in the region.8

For decades, Canada and the United States have been partners in the defense of North America, 

cooperating within the framework of such instruments as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) and North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). Homeland defense and 

homeland security are top priorities for the governments of Canada and the United States. The 

Navy will work with the Royal Canadian Navy to ensure common Arctic Region interests are 

addressed in a complementary manner. The Navy will continue to support NORAD's missions 
UNCLASSIFIED 7

for aerospace warning and control, and maritime warning for threats against the United States 

and Canada. This unique and enduring partnership between the United States and Canada in 

defense cooperation is important to our mutual security interests in the Arctic Region.

The Navy and Coast Guard have a decades-long history of cooperation and collaboration. The 

two services have worked together in close partnership during times of war and peace to protect 

our Nation’s ports and waterways and to promote our maritime security interests overseas. The 

history of this collaboration between the two sea services acknowledges the distinctive missions,

competencies, and cultures of each service. The combined efforts of the Navy and the Coast 

Guard in the Arctic Ocean will reflect this historic relationship. The Coast Guard and Navy are 

committed to ensuring safe, secure, and environmentally responsible maritime activity in Arctic 

Ocean waters and to promoting our other national interests in the Region.

The Arctic Region’s vast mineral resources hold significant wealth potential if feasible and costeffective means can be employed for extraction and transportation to markets.9 America’s 

continental shelf holds significant energy and mineral resources. Estimates for the economic 

potential of hydrocarbon resources alone exceed $1 trillion in the U.S. Arctic.10 The Alaskan 

Arctic may hold the second largest oil and gas reserves in the Arctic Ocean (after the West 

Siberian Basin), containing an estimated 29.9 billion barrels of oil, over 221 trillion cubic feet of 

natural gas, and 5.9 billion barrels of natural gas liquids.11 In the near-term, mineral resources, 

particularly rare earth and strategic minerals, iron ore, zinc, nickel, coal, graphite, palladium, and 

many others will be more important economic drivers in the Arctic Region. 

As the Arctic Region becomes increasingly accessible, multinational corporations will likely

view exploration of these untapped resources as attractive commercial opportunities for longterm investments. However, the financial, technical, and environmental risks of operating in the 

Arctic Region create substantial challenges for future production in the region. Whether the 

resources developed are mineral or hydrocarbon, they must find their way to receptive markets 

via shipping routes or pipelines. After discovery, oil and gas production in the Arctic Region

faces high capital and operating costs. The cost of building infrastructure requires companies to 

carefully consider whether production volumes and overhead will be commercially feasible to 

make these investments worthwhile.

Given these current and projected developments, the Navy’s existing Arctic Region posture 

remains appropriate to address the near-term defense requirements of the United States in the 

Arctic region. During the timeframes assessed for this Roadmap, performance of most national 

defense missions that entail naval presence in the Arctic Ocean will likely be limited to those

summer months when the sea ice is near its minimum, and regional activity is at a peak. 

Exceptions to the seasonal variation in mission requirements are homeland defense missions. 

These missions require persistent domain awareness and episodic presence to influence potential 

adversaries and protect the United States from a range of possible threats.

The Navy’s submarine fleet has decades of experience performing missions and exercises under 

the sea ice. On the other hand, the Navy’s surface and air forces have limited operational 
UNCLASSIFIED 8

experience in the region. The Navy will need to periodically evaluate preparedness for 

operations and conduct training exercises in harsh conditions as changes occur over time in order 

to ensure the Navy can operate in a more accessible Arctic Ocean. 

Regardless of the degree of accessibility, the Arctic Region will remain a unique and harsh 

operating environment. Naval operations in the Arctic Ocean, outside the Barents, Bering, and 

Norwegian Seas, require special training, extreme cold-weather modifications for systems and 

equipment, and complex logistics support. Given the vast distances and virtually no supporting 

infrastructure, naval forces without specialized equipment and operational experience face 

substantial impediments. In areas that are seasonally free of ice, the ability of commercial and 

military vessels to maneuver will remain significantly hindered due to unpredictable locations 

and movement of ice formations as well as the inadequate and incomplete nautical charting and 

aids to navigation in many portions of the Arctic Ocean.12

Anticipating the impacts of climate change, the Navy will take deliberate steps to prepare for 

near-term (2014-2020), mid-term (2020-2030), and far-term (beyond 2030) Arctic Ocean 

operations. As security conditions change and the Arctic Region becomes more accessible, the 

Navy will re-evaluate its preparedness. The Navy must make targeted investments in Arctic 

capabilities to hedge against uncertainty and safeguard enduring national interests.

Figure 2: On April 19, 2004, the Los Angeles class attack submarine USS Hampton (SSN-767) surfaced at the geographic North Pole.

(United States Navy photo)
UNCLASSIFIED 9

1. Purpose

The intent of this Roadmap is to ensure United States Navy forces are prepared to operate in the 

Arctic Region to promote stability and protect national interests when needed. It provides the 

Navy’s revised strategic guidance for the Arctic Region, as well as an implementation plan 

tempered by fiscal and operational realities. Additionally, this Roadmap carries forward certain 

specified tasks from the 2009 Roadmap and completed tasks requiring periodic review. 

2. Policy Guidance and United States National Interests in the Arctic

Since publication of the Navy’s Arctic Roadmap in 2009, several strategic guidance documents 

have been revised and new guidance has been released. This update to the Arctic Roadmap 

builds on the findings of these documents. The Navy’s Roadmap for the Arctic Region is derived 

from the May 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region and its Implementation Plan (January 

2014) and the November 2013 Department of Defense Arctic Strategy. The Roadmap is further 

guided by the January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance: Sustaining the U.S. Global Leadership: 

Priorities for 21st Century Defense; July 2010 Executive Order 13547: Stewardship of the 

Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes (National Ocean Policy); the May 2010 National 

Security Strategy; the February 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review; January 2009 National 

Security Presidential Directive – 66/Homeland Security Presidential Directive – 25: Arctic 

Region Policy; the October 2007 Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower 2007; and 

other applicable directives and policies. 

The 2010 National Security Strategy identifies two enduring national interests in the Arctic 

Region that are relevant to the Navy: 

• The security of the United States, its citizens, allies and partners; and

• An international order advanced by United States’ leadership that promotes peace, 

security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges. 

The 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region identifies two lines of effort relevant to the 

Navy:

• Advance United States’ security interests; and

• Strengthen international cooperation.

In November 2013, the Secretary of Defense published the Department of Defense Arctic

Strategy, identifying two supporting objectives to the National Strategy:

• Ensure security, support safety, and promote defense cooperation; and

• Prepare for a wide range of challenges and contingencies.

In addition to these objectives, the Department of Defense strategy identifies the following 

actions it will pursue to accomplish these objectives:

• Exercise sovereignty and protect the homeland;

• Engage public and private sector partners to improve domain awareness in the Arctic

Region;

• Preserve freedom of the seas in the Arctic Ocean;
UNCLASSIFIED 10

• Evolve Arctic Region infrastructure and capabilities consistent with changing conditions;

• Support existing agreements with allies and partners while pursuing new ones to build

confidence with key Regional partners;

• Provide support to civil authorities, as directed;

• Partner with other departments and agencies and nations to support human and

environmental safety; and

• Support the development of the Arctic Council and other international institutions that

promote regional cooperation and the rule of law.

The overarching national security objective is a safe, stable, and secure Arctic Region where the 

national interests of the United States are advanced and the homeland is protected. The Navy 

requires Arctic Ocean access to support and protect national interests in the Arctic Region, either 

independently or in conjunction with other U.S. agencies and partner nations. 

3. The Evolving Arctic Region Security Environment

Three primary strategic drivers will determine the extent and timing of potential maritime and 

naval activity in the Arctic region: (1) Environmental Conditions, (2) Economic Interests and 

Strategic Resources, (3) Geopolitical Dynamics.

13

(1) Environmental Conditions

The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe. In the past 100 years, average Arctic 

temperatures have increased at almost twice the global average rate.14 Average Northern 

Hemisphere 

temperatures during the 

second half of the 20th 

century were very likely 

higher than during any 

other 50-year period in 

the last 500 years.15 In 

2012, Arctic sea ice 

reached its smallest 

extent in recorded 

history, 1.3 million 

square miles.

16 The 

reduction in ice extent 

has led to an increase in 

human activity, in

resource extraction, 

fishing, and tourism. 

Nevertheless, any 

endeavor in the Arctic 

Region will have to 

overcome environmental 

challenges in the coming 

Figure 3: This graphic compares the 30-year sea ice minimum average with the 2012 historical 

minimum, inside the red line. (United States Navy graphic)
UNCLASSIFIED 11

decades as the region warms and the ice continues to recede. With less sea ice cover, the ocean 

absorbs more heat from the sun during summer, increasing the temperature contrast between the 

warm ice-free ocean and cold ice surfaces in autumn. This increase in temperature contrast could 

lead to the development of more frequent and more intense Arctic cyclones. The stronger 

thermal contrast may also lead to increased likelihood of fog. The impact of reduced sea ice on 

Arctic weather patterns remains an area of great uncertainty.

To inform this Roadmap update, the Navy assembled a team of Arctic Region subject matter 

experts from the staffs of the Oceanographer of the Navy; the Chief of Naval Research; 

Commander, Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command; Commander, Office of Naval 

Intelligence; and the President of the Naval Postgraduate School. Advised by additional experts 

from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Ice Center, 

the United States Coast Guard, and civilian academia, the team conducted an exhaustive review 

of current research on Arctic Ocean sea-ice projections in support of naval planning 

requirements. (A listing of the most influential references is provided in Appendix 1.) This team 

of experts developed the following consensus assessment, broken into near-, mid-, and far-term 

time frames:

Near-term: Present to 2020. 

Reduction of Arctic Ocean sea ice is expected to continue, and major waterways will become 

increasingly open. By 2020, the Bering Strait is expected to see open water17 conditions up to

160 days per year, with 35-45 days of shoulder18 season. The Northern Sea Route (see Fig. 5) 

will experience up to 30 days of open water conditions, with up to 45 days of shoulder season 

conditions. Analysis suggests that the reliable navigability of other routes, including the 

Transpolar Route and the Northwest Passage, is limited in this timeframe. There will be shoulder 

season route variability based upon ice age, melt, and movement. 

Figure 4: Arctic transit routes availability. Vessel projections courtesy of the Office of Naval Intelligence. (United States Navy graphic)
UNCLASSIFIED 12

Mid-term: 2020 to 2030.

This period will see increasing levels of ice melt and increasingly open Arctic Ocean waters. By 

2025, the Bering Strait will see up to 175 days of open water (and 50-60 days of shoulder 

season). These figures increase to 190 days of open water (and up to 70 days of shoulder season) 

by 2030. For the Northern Sea Route, predictions are for up to 45 days of open water (with 50-

60 days of shoulder season) by 2025, increasing to 50-60 days of open water by 2030 (with up to 

35 days of shoulder season conditions). This period will begin to see greater accessibility of the 

Transpolar Route, which is forecast to be open for up to 45 days annually, with 60-70 days of 

shoulder season. Analysis suggests the reliable navigability of the Northwest Passage will 

continue to remain limited in this timeframe.

Far-term: Beyond 2030.

In the far-term, environmental conditions are expected to support even greater and more reliable 

maritime presence in the region. Major waterways are predicted to be consistently open, with a 

significant increase in traffic over the summer months. The Northern Sea Route and Transpolar 

Route should be navigable 130 days per year, with open water passage up to 75 days per year. 

The Northwest Passage will be increasingly open during the late summer and early fall.

(2) Economic Interests and Strategic Resources

The Arctic Region has regained importance since the end of the Cold War, as the retreat of sea 

ice allows for the potential extraction of resources. The United States Geological Survey 

estimates undiscovered conventional oil and gas resources at approximately 90 billion barrels of 

oil, 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids.19 These 

deposits equate to about 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas resources, 13 percent 

of the world’s undiscovered oil resources, and 20 percent of the world’s liquid natural gas

resources. In total, approximately 22 percent of the world’s undiscovered hydrocarbon reserves 

could potentially be found in the Arctic Region.

20 In time, the Northern Sea Route, Transpolar 

Route, and Northwest Passage will offer shorter transit routes between ports in the Pacific and 

Atlantic. The 2011 Navy Arctic Mission Analysis stated the following:

Near-term: Present to 2020. 

Robust transit shipping will be unlikely in the near-term due to harsh weather, high sea states, 

and economy-of-scale limitations.21 Destination shipping in the region along the Northern Sea 

Route is likely to increase, especially in the Chukchi Sea and the waters off of eastern Russia and 

Norway, where oil, gas, and mineral exploration, tourism, and fishing appear most viable. 

Fishing in the United States’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ) will remain under a moratorium 

while the effects of climate change on fish stocks are examined.22 Exploitation of energy and 

mineral resources in the Arctic will remain in the exploratory stages.

Mid-term: 2020 to 2030.

The challenges of transit shipping through the Arctic Ocean, such as schedule unpredictability 

due to weather, sub-seasonal route variability, and economy-of-scale limitations, will continue to 

limit commercial interest. Though maritime commerce is expected to grow as passage through 

the Northern Sea Route and Transpolar Route becomes more reliable, the total shipping volume 
UNCLASSIFIED 13

will remain small (less than 2 percent of global maritime traffic).23 Tourism, to include cruise 

ship traffic, will continue to increase in the region as accessibility grows. The level of activity in 

oil, gas, and mining exploration and extraction will depend on global supply and demand and 

will be tempered by the cost and risk associated with developing proven reserves. Advances 

from exploration will create demand for robust infrastructure and services along key routes to 

field development and production. Non-Arctic Region nations will become more present in the 

Region, particularly to fish, as fishing stocks expand their northern migratory reaches.

Far-term: Beyond 2030.

The exploitation of oil, gas, and mineral resources is expected to continue, resulting in additional 

maritime traffic to the region as production and transportation models are established and 

sustained. Fishing in the Region will continue to rise, requiring the United States and other 

Arctic Region nations to monitor and regulate this activity to ensure sustainable levels of 

harvesting. The growing economic environment and increased amount of international 

community activity will require updated international regulations.

The importance of this Region, especially in regard to strategic resources for the United States, 

could be significant. The projected strategic value of the oil, gas, and other natural resources 

likely to be found in the Alaskan Arctic indicates that the United States may be eligible to claim 

one of the largest and richest extended continental shelf sectors in the world, measuring two to 

three times the size of California.

24 The mean estimated undiscovered, technically-recoverable 

crude oil off of the Alaskan Arctic is 30 billion barrels which equates to one-third of total Arctic 

Ocean crude oil resources.25 

(3) Geopolitical Dynamics

Since the end of the Cold War, the military threat environment in the Arctic Region has 

diminished significantly and the risk of armed conflict in the Arctic Region is projected to 

remain low for the foreseeable future.26 As opposed to combat-related missions, Navy forces are 

far more likely to be employed in the Arctic Region in support of Coast Guard search and rescue, 

disaster relief, law enforcement, and other civil emergency/civil support operations.27 There is a 

willingness among Arctic Region nations to manage differences through established international 

mechanisms. The Arctic Council consists of representatives from the eight Arctic nations: 

Canada, Denmark (representing Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, 

Sweden, the Russian Federation, and the United States. It serves as a useful forum for promoting 

cooperation, coordination, and interaction. Arctic nations have a strong economic incentive to

preserve this historically stable, non-contentious environment for commercial development.

Though the United States has not acceded to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the 

Sea (UNCLOS), the United States has long considered its provisions related to traditional ocean 

uses as reflecting customary international law. It serves as the legal framework for important 

rights and obligations in the Arctic Ocean including the delineation of the outer limits of the 

continental shelf, protection of the marine environment, freedom of navigation, military survey, 

and marine scientific research for the region. 
UNCLASSIFIED 14

Figure 5: Anticipated future Arctic transit routes superimposed over Navy consensus assessment of sea ice extent minima. (United States

Navy graphic)

In May 2008, the states bordering the Arctic Ocean (the United States, Canada, Greenland, 

Norway, and the Russian Federation) signed the Ilulissat Declaration which concluded that the 

Convention was the appropriate legal framework for international cooperation and peaceful 

resolution of maritime disputes in the Arctic.28 In May 2011, the Arctic Council signed the 

Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement29 and in May 2013, the Council states signed an Agreement 

on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic,

30

demonstrating cooperative behavior to improve safety and environmental procedures in the 

Arctic Ocean. Moreover, the number of nations and other organizations requesting observer 

status on the Arctic Council is increasing, showing a growing international interest in the Region 

and the expanding importance of the Arctic Council. 

It remains unlikely that any of the five Arctic littoral states will risk a large-scale, intrastate 

military conflict. There remains a possibility that tensions could increase due to misperceptions, 

and rhetoric, as well as the unforeseen dynamics of economic interests in the region.31 Excessive 
UNCLASSIFIED 15

extended continental shelf claims made by Arctic nations to the Commission on the Limits of the 

Continental Shelf (CLCS) may cause tension and create political uncertainty. Given the resource 

wealth that could be at stake, a resulting standoff could indeed lead to disputes and military 

posturing by rival nations. Non-Arctic nations may consider staking a claim to areas outside the 

resource claims of the Arctic nations, particularly those in the central Arctic Ocean, without 

acknowledging their obligations under UNCLOS and rejecting the legal control of the areas by the 

International Seabed Authority (ISA). Another possible source of pressure could come from the 

migration of fish to previously unreachable fishing grounds where ownership is unclear from one 

nation’s exclusive economic zone to that of another. A combination of these factors contributes to 

a possibility of localized episodes of friction in the Arctic Region, despite the peaceful intentions 

of the Arctic nations.

4. United States Navy Strategic Objectives for the Arctic Region

Based on the drivers, trends, and predictions noted above, and in alignment with higher level 

guidance, the Navy strategic objectives for the Arctic Region are: 

• Ensure United States Arctic sovereignty and provide homeland defense; 

• Provide ready naval forces to respond to crisis and contingencies; 

• Preserve freedom of the seas; and

• Promote partnerships within the United States Government and with international allies.

Ensure United States Arctic sovereignty and provide homeland defense. A primary Navy 

responsibility is to protect the homeland, its citizens, and critical infrastructure. The changing 

environment may create new opportunities and security challenges in the “high north.” The 

Navy will protect American sovereign rights and jurisdiction through flexible, periodic presence, 

and contribute to homeland defense in conjunction with the Joint Force. The Navy will ensure it 

remains prepared to operate in the Arctic Region to counter any threats to the homeland that may 

arise. 

Provide ready naval forces to respond 

to crisis and contingencies. 

Environmental information, safety at 

sea and in the air, communication and 

data challenges, infrastructure, and 

regional expertise are some, but not 

all, of the current gaps and seams that 

must be overcome to operate in the 

Arctic Region. The Navy’s Arctic 

Roadmap identifies the capabilities 

required to operate in Arctic 

conditions and develops the plan to 

overcome these gaps and seams. The 

Navy will further develop doctrine, 

operating procedures, and tactics, 

techniques, and procedures to specifically guide operations in the Arctic environment. The 

Figure 6: In 2007, the guided missile cruiser USS Normandy (CG-60)

approached an ice field in waters north of Iceland. (United States Navy photo)
UNCLASSIFIED 16

Roadmap directs review and identification of requirements for improvements to platforms, 

sensors, and weapons systems that facilitate sustained, safe operations in the Region. This 

includes cold-weather training, a better communications architecture, and logistical support. The 

geography and climate of the Arctic Region will pose challenges to naval logistics. The Navy 

must examine the role and limitations of operational energy access including: how fuel will be 

distributed to the Region, to air and surface platforms, and how naval personnel deployed to the 

Region will be trained in energy conservation and environmentally sustainable practices. An 

increased knowledge of the physical environment will help the Navy better predict ice 

conditions, shifting navigable waterways, and weather patterns to aid in safe navigation and 

operations at sea. The Navy will grow Arctic expertise and experience through increased 

research and information sharing among our allies and partners. Finally, improvement in 

operational readiness through education, knowledge, training, and research will allow the Navy 

to provide a quick response to Arctic Region contingency operations.

Preserve freedom of the seas. Access to the global commons and freedom of the seas are a 

national priority. The Navy will support access for the safe, secure, and free flow of resources 

and commerce in the Region. Strategic resources and trade routes will be a primary driver for 

Arctic and non-Arctic nations alike to seek economic prosperity. The Navy will contribute to 

stability and security as economic activity increases.

Promote partnerships within the United States Government and with international allies in 

support of security and safety. The Arctic Region poses unique operational challenges beyond 

the weather to include communications and navigational hazards. These challenges provide 

opportunities to cooperate with interagency partners and international allies, sharing limited 

resources to improve situational awareness and develop a Common Maritime Picture (CMP) of 

the Arctic Ocean. In conjunction with interagency and international partners, the Navy will seek 

to improve Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA), information sharing, and communications. 

Currently, Arctic MDA is assessed as adequate. However, as traffic and Regional activity rise in 

the coming decades, the Navy will seek to improve overall MDA capability. To build the ties of 

trust and confidence that underpin strong alliances and partnerships, it is essential to operate and 

train together. Multilateral training, operations, and exercises in the Arctic Ocean such as 

NORTHERN EAGLE32 and NANOOK33 will improve knowledge of the Region and provide a 

positive foundation for future missions.

5. United States Navy Leadership Role and Missions in the Arctic Region

The Navy will continue to have a significant leadership role in the Arctic Region to enable the 

joint and interagency community to operate in this hard-to-reach, isolated, and harsh

environment. Through its global reach capability and worldwide command and control, Navy 

leadership will support joint and interagency efforts, enhance information sharing, and develop 

enterprise solutions that can be employed across United States Government and allied partner 

agencies operating in the Region.

 

To improve MDA, weather and ocean prediction, and safety of navigation, the Navy will 

continue to work closely with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), NOAA, the 
UNCLASSIFIED 17

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), other interagency partners, as well as Arctic and nonArctic nations. As the Department of Defense Executive Agent for MDA, the Navy plays a lead 

role in interagency and international efforts to share maritime information. Additionally, Navy 

has Title 10 responsibilities to “maximize the safety and effectiveness of maritime vessels, 

aircraft, and forces of the armed forces” 34 by means of marine data collection, numerical 

weather and ocean prediction, and forecasting of hazardous weather and ocean conditions. The 

Navy may extend similar support to coalition forces that are operating with United States’ forces. 

Title 10 also charges the Navy to collect, process, and provide hydrographic information to NGA 

to support preparation of maps, charts, books, and geodetic products by that agency. 

The Navy executes several key missions in concert with joint forces, interagency stakeholders, 

and allies and partners, to protect sovereignty, ensure freedom of the seas, and defend the 

homeland in order to maintain stability and prevent conflict in the Arctic Region. The Navy will 

maintain the capability to influence adversaries with a skilled force that is trained and equipped 

to operate in the Arctic environment. The key functions and missions the Navy will lead or 

support in the coming decades are:

Maritime Security. Arctic nations are aligned in their support for enhanced safety and security 

in the Arctic Region. The Navy will continue to operate in the Arctic Region and be ready to 

conduct maritime patrol and maritime interception operations, and support Coast Guard 

operations as required. 

Sea Control.

35 The Navy has a global responsibility to protect vital sea lanes and operating 

areas, including defending the Nation’s maritime borders and EEZs. The geostrategic importance

of the Bering Strait will increase as resource extraction, shipping, fishing, and tourism increases. 

The Navy will be forward deployed and prepared to protect United States’ maritime access and 

interests as the Arctic Ocean sea lanes begin to open.

Power Projection.

36 Naval forces provide a flexible and versatile option to ensure national 

interests are protected. The Navy’s unique capabilities allow it to rapidly and effectively deploy 

and sustain forces in and from multiple dispersed locations to respond to crises, contribute to 

deterrence, and to enhance regional stability.

Freedom of Navigation. United States’ policy since 1983 provides that the United States will 

exercise and assert its navigation and overflight rights and freedoms on a worldwide basis in a 

manner that is consistent with customary international law. The Navy will guarantee freedom of 

navigation in Arctic Ocean waters and help ensure the free flow of commerce on the global 

commons.

Search and Rescue (SAR). The extreme distances, limited infrastructure, and assets make SAR 

challenging in the Arctic Region. The Navy will provide support as required to search and rescue 

missions conducted and led by the Coast Guard and as directed in support of international 

partners. 
UNCLASSIFIED 18

Disaster Response/Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA). The movement of resources 

through the air or on the sea across great distances by naval forces trained and equipped to 

support other United States Government agencies in the Arctic Region may be required. The 

Arctic environment, combined with increasing maritime traffic and energy exploration, may 

increase the probability of a maritime or environmental disaster occurring in the mid-to-long 

term. The Navy will remain ready to support critical and likely missions such as pollution 

response and SAR; integrated planning efforts with local, state, federal, and native communities; 

strengthen interoperability with the Coast Guard and international partners; and develop 

processes, procedures, joint training, and exercises to gain operational proficiency.

6. United States Navy Ways and Means for Near-Term, Mid-Term, and Far-Term 

Operations

Near-term: Present to 2020. 

The Navy will continue to provide capability and presence primarily through undersea and air 

assets. Surface ship operations will be limited to open water operations in the near-term. Even in 

open water conditions, weather factors, including sea ice, must be considered in operational risk 

assessments. During shoulder seasons, the Navy may employ ice strengthened Military Sealift 

Command (MSC) ships to conduct Navy missions.

By 2020, the Navy will increase the number of personnel trained in Arctic operations. The Navy 

will grow expertise in all domains by continuing to participate in exercises, scientific missions, 

and personnel exchanges in Arctic-like conditions. Personnel exchanges will provide Sailors 

with opportunities to learn best practices from other United States’ military services, interagency 

partners, and international allies and partners.

The Navy will refine or develop the necessary strategy, policy, plans, and requirements for the 

Arctic Region. Additionally, the Navy will continue to study and make informed decisions on 

pursuing investments to better facilitate Arctic operations. The Navy will emphasize low cost,

long-lead time activities to match capability and capacity to future demands. The Navy will 

update operating requirements and procedures for personnel, ships, and aircraft to operate in the 

Region with interagency partners and allies. Through ongoing exercises, such as Ice Exercise 

(ICEX) and Scientific Ice Expeditions (SCICEX)37 research, and transits through the region by 

Navy submarines, aircraft and surface vessels, the Navy will continue to learn more about the 

evolving operating environment. The Navy will focus on areas where it provides unique 

capabilities and will leverage joint and coalition partners to fill identified gaps and seams. 

Mid-term: 2020 to 2030.

By 2030, the Navy will have the necessary training and personnel to respond to contingencies 

and emergencies affecting national security. As the Arctic Ocean becomes increasingly ice-free, 

surface vessels will operate in the expanding open water areas. The Navy will improve its 

capabilities by participating in increasingly complex exercises and training with regional 

partners. While primary risks in the mid-term will likely be meeting search and rescue or disaster 

response mission demands, the Navy may also be called upon to ensure freedom of navigation in 

Arctic Ocean waters.38 The Navy will work to mitigate the gaps and seams and transition its 
UNCLASSIFIED 19

Arctic Ocean operations from a capability to provide periodic presence to a capability to operate 

deliberately for sustained periods when needed.

Far-term: Beyond 2030.

In the far-term, Navy will be capable of supporting sustained operations in the Arctic Region as 

needed to meet national policy guidance. The Navy will provide trained and equipped personnel, 

along with surface, subsurface, and air capabilities, to achieve Combatant Commander’s 

objectives. The high confidence of diminished ice coverage and navigable waterways for much 

of the year will enable naval forces to operate forward, ready to respond to any potential threat to 

national security, or to provide contingency response. Far-term risks include increased potential 

for search and rescue and DSCA, but may also require naval forces to have a greater focus on 

maritime security and freedom of navigation in the Region.

7. Roadmap Execution

Appendix 2 identifies completed actions of the 2009 Roadmap. Appendix 3 provides updated

actions for the implementation of the 2014-2030 Roadmap. The action items are assigned to 

responsible Navy offices according to the doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership 

and education, and personnel and facilities (DOTMLPF-P) process with suspense dates for 

completion. Supporting organizations are identified but are not limited to those listed. Lastly, 

metrics will be developed for tracking and periodic reports will be provided to the Chief of Naval 

Operations (CNO).

8. Conclusion 

The Arctic Region, with its vast expanse, severe climate, and rich natural resources, is a 

challenge and an opportunity for the Navy. Naval security and international naval cooperation 

have always been critical components of United States’ Arctic policy. As the Arctic Ocean 

opens, these components will increase as activity rises. This Navy Arctic Roadmap update 

underscores the need to develop strong cooperative partnerships with interagency and 

international Arctic Region stakeholders. It acknowledges the role climate change plays in 

energy security, research and science, the economy, fisheries, tourism, the assertion of 

sovereignty, and other related issues. To be prepared to address the emerging challenges caused 

by the opening of the Arctic Ocean waters, this Roadmap recognizes that changes in the 

environment must be continuously examined and taken into account. The Navy will take 

deliberate steps to anticipate and prepare for Arctic Region operations in the near-term (2014-

2020), mid-term (2020-2030), and far-term (beyond 2030). The key will be to balance potential 

investments with other Service priorities. 
UNCLASSIFIED 20

Appendix 1

Primary References Used to Inform the Arctic Sea Ice and Sea Lane Predictions

Humpert, M., and A. Raspotnik. “The Future of Arctic Shipping Along the Transpolar Sea 

Route.” Arctic Yearbook (2012): 281-307.

Maslowski, W., J. Clement Kinney, M. Higgins, and A. Roberts. “The Future of Arctic Sea Ice.” 

Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 40 (2012): 625¬654.

Massonnet, F., T. Fichefet, H. Goosse, C. Bitz, G. Philippon-Berthier, M. Holland, and P.Y. 

Barriat. “Constraining Projections of Summer Arctic Sea Ice.” The Cryosphere Discuss 6 (2012): 

2931¬2959. 

Overland, J. E., and M. Wang. “When Will the Summer Arctic be Nearly Sea Ice Free?” 

Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 40, Issue 10 (20 May 2013): 2097–2101.

Smith, L.C. and S.R. Stephenson. “New Trans-Arctic Shipping Routes Navigable by 

Midcentury.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol 110 No 13 (2013).

Sou, T. and G. Flato. “Sea Ice in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago: Modeling the Past (1950–

2004) and the Future (2041–60).” Journal of Climate 22 (2009): 2181–2198.

U.S. Navy. “U.S. Navy Arctic Mission Analysis.” Washington, DC (2011).

Markus, T., J. C. Stroeve and J. Miller. “Recent Changes in Arctic Sea Ice melt onset, freeze up, 

and melt season length.” Journal of Geophysical Research 114, C12024 (2009).

Wang, M., and J. Overland. “Projected Future Duration of the Sea-ice-free Season in the Alaskan 

Arctic.” Progress in Oceanography. [Forthcoming]
UNCLASSIFIED 21

Appendix 2

2009 Roadmap Completed Actions

• Analysis of the Strategic Environment

• Arctic Mission Analysis

• Increased participation in discussions with the U.S. Coast Guard and Arctic Nation 

Navies

• Formalized strategic objectives for the Arctic

• Articulated Unified Command Plan (UCP) position for the Arctic, and the Arctic features 

prominently in the Navy Strategic Plan

• Assessed Fleet Arctic Readiness 

• Increased operations in the Arctic: 

o In 2009, the Navy deployed the aircraft carrier JOHN C. STENNIS north of the 

Arctic Circle. 

o In 2010, the Navy deployed USS PORTER north of the Arctic Circle in support 

of exercise NANOOK 2010.

o In 2011, the Navy brought USS NEW HAMPSHIRE and USS CONNECTICUT 

to an organized science exercise (SCICEX) beneath an ice station.

o In 2012, the cruiser USS LAKE ERIE and destroyer USS DECATUR operated 

north of the Arctic Circle. 

o In 2012, the destroyer USS FARRAGUT operated in the Barents Sea in support 

of NORTHERN EAGLE, a combined Russian-U.S.-Norwegian exercise. 

o In 2012, Naval Undersea Warfare Center and NASA operated Unmanned 

Undersea Vehicles (UUVs) to image icebergs along east coast of Greenland.

o During odd-numbered years, Navy participates in the joint Northern Edge 

exercise in the Gulf of Alaska.

• GLOBAL SHIPPING GAME at NWC in 2010

• FLEET ARCTIC OPERATIONS GAME at NWC in 2011

• Arctic Capability Based Assessment (CBA)

• Included Arctic requirements in Navy Sponsor Program Proposals for POM-14

• Development and implementation of Strategic Outreach and Strategic Communications 

plans

• Arctic Environmental Observation and Prediction CBA

• Continuation of the SCICEX program

• Contributed to development of the National Ocean Policy for the Arctic 

• ONR established a new “Arctic and Global Prediction” Program to address Arctic S&T 

needs identified by the Navy, addressing basic research in Arctic physical sciences, 

technology development, and prediction capability development at multiple lead times.
UNCLASSIFIED 22

Appendix 3

Arctic Roadmap Implementation Plan

1.1 Strategy, Policy, Missions and Plans

Actions Lead Support DOTMLPF Suspense

1.1.1: Establish a working group to codify nearterm and potential mid-term requirements to 

inform POM-16 guidance and annually 

thereafter.

OPNAV N9 OPNAV N1

OPNAV N2/N6

OPNAV N3/N5

OPNAV N4

OPNAV N9

EUCOM

NORTHCOM

USFFC/CPF

D Q1, FY14

1.1.2: Identify metrics suitable for CNO 

progress reports on Section 1.1 (Strategy, Policy,

Missions, and Plans) of Arctic Roadmap.

OPNAV N3/N5 Director TFCC

TFCC

D Q3, FY14

1.1.3: Advocate that OSD designate SECNAV 

as the Department of Defense (DOD) Executive 

Agent for the Arctic.

OPNAV N3/N5 D Q3, FY14

1.1.4: Reflect the Arctic objectives in Guidance 

for Employment of the Force (GEF).

OPNAV N3/N5 OPNAV N2/N6

OPNAV N4

OPNAV N8

OPNAV N9

USFFC/CPF 

ONR

D Q3, FY14

1.1.5: Incorporate specific required Navy Arctic 

capabilities in the Classified Annex to CS-21R. 

OPNAV N3/N5 D Q3, FY14

1.1.6: Incorporate the Classified Annex to CS21R guidance relating to Arctic capabilities in 

Sponsor Program Proposals for POM-16 and 

annually thereafter.

Resource 

Sponsors

OPNAV N2/N6

OPNAV N4

OPNAV N8

OPNAV N9

USFFC 

ONR

D Q3, FY14

(FY14-

20)

1.1.7: Conduct Arctic intelligence and front-end 

security assessment and provide report to CNO 

to inform POM-16 and annually thereafter.

• Characterize current and predicted 

threats to the Arctic region in 2020, 

2030, and 2040. Focus on threats to 

U.S. national security, although threats 

to maritime safety and security, as well 

as energy security and resilience will be 

considered.

• Assess range of potential 

environmental conditions

• For range of conditions that might 

occur, assess how access and activities 

in the Arctic might evolve

• How this impacts national/maritime 

safety and security and implications for 

USN/USCG (and joint & coalition) 

capability/capacity

• Compare the projected time for Arctic 

environmental and activity changes 

with the time needed to develop 

required capabilities

• Consider interdependencies between 

actors and actions in the Arctic and 

how incentives and decisions are 

influenced by other actors’ decisions.

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N3/N5

OPNAV N4

OPNAV N9

CNE

USFFC

CPF

NWC

NPS

OJAG

ONI

ONR

USCG

USNA

D Q3, FY14

1.1.8: Develop Arctic engagement plan focusing 

on partnerships with international, interagency 

and private sector stakeholders that enhance 

Arctic security.

OPNAV N3/N5 DUSN PPOI D, O Q3, FY14
UNCLASSIFIED 23

1.1.9: Incorporate Arctic engagements in Navy 

Campaign Support Plan.

OPNAV N3/N5 OPNAV N2/N6

OPNAV N4

OPNAV N8

OPNAV N9

USFFC/CPF 

NWDC

OJAG

ONR

D Q4, FY14

1.1.10: Ensure adequate environmental 

compliance (Marine Mammal Protection Act, 

Endangered Species Act, National 

Environmental Policy Act and Executive Order 

12114) for at-sea training and testing activities 

in the Arctic regions. 

• Prepare Arctic compliance strategy and 

include in POM 16 submittal.

• Gather training and testing activities 

requirements to determine 

environmental coverage needs

• Initiate and execute planning and 

compliance documentation pending 

OPNAV resource sponsor funding.

USFFC OPNAV N3/N5

OPNAV N4

ONR

NAVAIR

NAVSEA

D

Q1, FY14

Q1, FY15

Q2, FY16

1.1.11: Continue to advocate for U.S. accession 

to the United Nations Convention on the Law of 

the Sea (UNCLOS) as determined by 

Department of State (taking into account Senate 

reception). As required, provide strategy, policy 

and operational support for U.S. accession to 

UNCLOS as applicable to Navy’s interests in 

the Arctic.

• Talking points, information papers, or 

briefings for senior Navy leadership as 

requested. 

• Continue to participate in any/all 

interagency working groups in support 

of U.S. accession efforts.

OJAG OPNAV N3/N5

CHINFO

OLA

D Ongoing
UNCLASSIFIED 24

2.0 Operate Safely and Proficiently in the Arctic

2.1 Operations and Training

Actions Lead Support DOTMLPF Suspense

2.1.1: Identify metrics suitable for CNO 

progress reports on Section 2.1 (Operations and 

Training) of Arctic Roadmap.

USFFC Director TFCC

TFCC

D Q3, FY14

2.1.2: Continue submarine inter-fleet transfers 

through Arctic.

USFFC/CPF OPNAV N3/N5

ASL

C6F

COMSUBFOR

MSC

T FY14-20

2.1.3: Direct TYCOMs to update Fleet guidance 

on Arctic operations to include:

• Planned operations in the Arctic to 

begin defining requirements and 

refining capability gaps 

• Operational risk management model 

that properly identifies the risks 

associated with operating in the Arctic 

based on current capabilities and 

observed weather conditions 

• Assessment of Fleet doctrine for 

adequacy

USFFC/CPF OPNAV N3/N5

MSC

D, O, T, 

M, L

Q1, FY15

2.1.4: Develop personnel exchange program 

with regional partners.

OPNAV N1 OPNAV N3/N5

C6F

MSC

USFFC/CPF

USCG

T, L, P Q1, FY15

2.1.5: Determine adequacy of Navy supply 

system to support unit deployments to the Arctic 

region.

• Upon requirements determination by 

USFFC, ensure a baseline inventory of 

material is available and address 

significant deficiencies that could 

compromise energy and material 

resiliency, placing units at risk for 

near-term Arctic operations. 

OPNAV N4

NAVSUP

MSC

TYCOMS

USFFC 

NAVAIR

NAVSEA

DLA

USCG

USMC

M Q1, FY15

2.1.6: Update U.S. Navy Cold Weather 

Handbook for Surface Ships (1988).

OPNAV N9 USFFC/CPF

NWDC

D, O, T Q1, FY15

2.1.7: Direct TYCOMs to generate guidance 

and training requirements. Guidance shall:

• Evaluate Arctic training capabilities 

• Address significant deficiencies that 

increase risk for near-term Arctic 

operations

• Include Arctic material in training 

curriculums to improve the Fleet’s 

understanding of the Arctic 

USFFC/CPF OPNAV N1

OPNAV N3/N5

OPNAV N8

OPNAV N9

CPF

TYCOMS

NETC

NPS

NWC

NWDC

USNA

D, T, L

Q1, FY15

Q2, FY15

Q2, FY15

2.1.8: Identify requirements to establish Arctic 

Center of Excellence.

OPNAV N2/N6 NPS

NWC

ONI

ONR

USNA

T Q4, FY15
UNCLASSIFIED 25

2.1.9: Develop a long range exercise and 

training plan that prioritizes and increases 

participation/visibility in scheduled Arctic 

exercises, such as:

• Arctic Edge (Bi-Annual)

• Arctic Shield (Annual)

• BALTOPS (Annual)

• Cold Response (Annual)

• FRUKUS (Annual)

• ICEX (Tri-Annual)

• Northern Challenge (Annual)

• Northern Eagle (Bi-Annual)

• Northern Edge (Bi-Annual)

• Operation NANOOK (Annual)

• SAREX (Annual)

• Arctic Zephyr (Annual)

• For each exercise, provide lessons 

learned to NWDC for retention and 

action. 

• For those exercises identified as 

priorities, resource participating 

platforms and personnel.

• Annually assess new opportunities for 

Arctic training.

USFFC OPNAV N2/N6

OPNAV N3/N5

OPNAV N4

OPNAV N8

OPNAV N9

TFCC

C6F

COMSUBFOR

CPF

ASL

MSC

TYCOMS

NAVSEA

NWC

NWDC

USCG

L, T, M Q1, FY16

(FY16-

20)

2.1.10: Develop Arctic CONOPs for Naval 

platforms and update as new capabilities are 

developed.

USFFC OPNAV N3/N5

OPNAV N4

NAVSEA

NWDC

D, O, T, 

M, L, P, F

Q1, FY18

2.1.11: Integrate the testing of sensors and 

systems into Arctic exercises and ops.

USFFC OPNAV N3/N5

OPNAV N4

NAVSEA

NWDC

ONR

D, O, T, 

M, L, P, F

Q1, FY18
UNCLASSIFIED 26

2.2 Science and Technology

Actions Lead Support DOTMLPF Suspense

2.2.1: Identify metrics suitable for CNO progress 

reports on Section 2.2 (Science and Technology) 

of Arctic Roadmap.

ONR Director TFCC

TFCC

D Q3, FY14

2.2.2: Incorporate Arctic related science and 

technology (S&T) requirements and emphasize 

within the Classified Annex to CS-21R. Include 

cyber and non-kinetic weapon systems.

ONR OPNAV N2/N6

OPNAV N3/N5

OPNAV N8

TFCC 

USFFC 

NAVSEA

NWDC

M Q3, FY14

2.2.3: Establish SCICEX as a priority. When 

operational requirements permit, SCICEX 

accommodation missions (SAMs) will be 

conducted according to the Science Plans agreed 

to by the SCICEX Science Advisory and 

Interagency Committees.

OPNAV N9 USFFC 

CPF

COMSUBFOR

ASL

CNMOC

ONR

T, M FY14-20

2.2.4: Support and improve access to previously 

classified information to be used by climate 

research community. Continue, and seek 

opportunities, to improve U.S. Navy collaboration 

and cooperative involvement with non-U.S. Navy 

entities in the Measurements of Earth Data for 

Environmental Analysis (MEDEA) Program.

OPNAV N2/N6 USFFC 

CNMOC

ASL 

NIPO

ONR

M Q3, FY15

2.2.5: Provide S&T plans for Arctic Assessment 

and Prediction to include:

• UUV/unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)

performance in the Arctic

• Waves and swell in the Arctic

• Arctic Ocean circulation and 

stratification

• Acoustic propagation in the Arctic 

environment

• Sea level rise and mass balance of 

glaciers and ice sheets

• Impact of Arctic environment on Naval 

systems

• Development of new technologies and 

adoption of existing technologies (e.g., 

sensors, platforms and communications) 

for sustained operation and observation 

in the Arctic

• Socio-economic and geopolitical issues 

that might drive future Naval activity in 

the Arctic

ONR

OPNAV N2/N6

OPNAV N8

TFCC

USFFC/CPF

CNMOC

ONI

NAVSEA

SPAWAR

M Q4, FY15

2.2.6: Increase ONR’s Arctic Research Efforts 

and brief milestones annually to Chief of Naval 

Research. Improving the Navy’s ability to 

understand and predict the Arctic physical 

environment at a variety of time and space scales.

• Sea ice extent forecasting and prediction

• Ice and snow thickness prediction

• Iceberg analysis, lifecycle and dynamics

• Seasonal Ice Zone Reconnaissance 

Surveys

• Ice, sea, air interaction physics

• Seasonal and sub-seasonal climate 

prediction forecasts

• Improve understanding of the physical 

environment and processes in the Arctic 

Ocean.

ONR OPNAV N2/N6

CNMOC

TFCC 

NPS

NWC

NWDC

USFFC

USNA

M FY16-20
UNCLASSIFIED 27

2.3 Environmental Observation and Prediction

Actions Lead Support DOTMLPF Suspense

2.3.1: Identify metrics suitable for CNO progress 

reports on Section 2.3 (Environmental 

Observation and Prediction) of Arctic Roadmap.

OPNAV N2/N6 Director TFCC

TFCC

D Q3, FY14

2.3.2: Develop Arctic environmental observing 

and prediction engagement plan focusing on 

cooperative partnerships with international, 

interagency and private sector stakeholders that 

enhance Arctic environmental observation and 

mapping.

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N3/N5

Director TFCC 

USFFC

CNMOC

NIPO

ONR

USCG

D, L, T Q3, FY14

2.3.3: Produce a holistic Arctic environmental 

sensing plan (ocean, surface, sub-surface and 

space based) to close validated gaps. Plan will 

include:

• Focus on acoustic data to support antisubmarine warfare (ASW) operations 

• Sensing strategy 

• Implementation and fielding 

• Use of unmanned systems for Arctic 

data collection, monitoring, and 

research 

OPNAV N2/N6 Director TFCC 

USFFC

CNMOC

ONR

USCG

D, O, T, 

M, P

Q3, FY14

Q3, FY15

FY15-18

FY18

2.3.4: Improve traditional meteorological 

forecast capability in the polar regions through 

the following:

• Evaluate current capability

• Determine improvement areas

• Define required investment

USFFC OPNAV N2/N6

Director TFCC 

CNMOC

ONR

T, M

Q3, FY14

Q4, FY14

Q1, FY15

2.3.5: Encourage research into and development 

of comprehensive Arctic System Models (oceanice-wave-atmosphere) for forecasts at multiple 

time scales, including activities to quantify and 

characterize uncertainty in long range climate 

and ice forecasting capabilities.

ONR OPNAV N2/N6

TFCC 

USFFC 

CNMOC

USA CRREL

USCG

T, M Q4, FY14

2.3.6: Ensure Arctic requirements 

(environmental observation and prediction 

capabilities) are reflected in Sponsor Program 

Proposals (SPPs) in alignment with Classified 

Annex to CS-21R. If required, SPPs will include 

recommendations relating to the Navy’s 

capability gaps regarding Arctic operations 

identified in previous CBAs and will include, but 

not be limited to:

• S&T needs

• Research and development (R&D) 

requirements

• Leveraging Joint, interagency and 

international partnerships to find 

efficiencies and/or economies of scale

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N8

TFCC

USFFC 

NAVSEA

ONR

T, M FY14-15, 

annually

2.3.7: Establish a cadre of Arctic environmental 

Observers / Forecasters (Ice, Ocean and 

Atmospheric) and training pipeline.

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N1

USFFC 

CNMOC

D, T, P FY14-20

2.3.8: Sustain development and participation in 

Earth System Prediction Capability (ESPC):

• Develop the capability for coupled 

ocean-atmosphere-land-cryosphere

modeling in the Navy and focused on 

seasonal-to-decadal timescale 

prediction to support strategic decisions 

related to operations, platforms and 

facilities.

OPNAV N2/N6 Director TFCC

USFFC 

CNMOC

ONR

O, M FY14-20

2.3.9: Develop and execute a CONOPS for 

Arctic environmental Observer / Forecaster (Ice, 

USFFC OPNAV N2/N6

OPNAV N3/N5

D, O, T Q3, FY15
UNCLASSIFIED 28

Ocean and Atmospheric) support to Navy 

platforms operating in the Arctic that includes 

organizational structure and location.

CNMOC

NWDC

USA CRREL

USCG

2.3.10: Update Forecaster’s Handbook for the 

Arctic, 1989.

USFFC OPNAV N2/N6

CNMOC

NRL

ONR

USCG

O, T Q1, FY16

2.3.11: Support efforts to research, develop, 

resource and sustain an Arctic environmental 

observation system to support U.S. operations 

(Surface, Subsurface, HA/DR, SAR, and Air) in 

the Arctic (interagency effort).

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N8

USFFC 

CNMOC

ONR

PEO C4I

SPAWAR

M FY16-20
UNCLASSIFIED 29

2.4 Safe Navigation

Actions Lead Support DOTMLPF Suspense

2.4.1: Identify metrics suitable for CNO progress 

reports on Section 2.4 (Safe Navigation) of 

Arctic Roadmap.

OPNAV N2/N6 Director TFCC

TFCC

D Q3, FY14

2.4.2: Initiate an Arctic Nation Navy 

hydrographic survey data sharing and planning 

effort.

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N3/N5

TFCC

USFFC

CNMOC

NIPO

NOAA

USCG

D, L Q3, FY14

2.4.3: Sustain Arctic Nation Navy hydrographic 

survey data sharing and planning effort (2.4.2)

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N3/N5

TFCC

USFFC

CNMOC

NIPO

NOAA

USCG

D, L FY15-20

2.4.4: Develop multi-year 

hydrographic/bathymetric survey plan to address 

prioritized Navy Arctic Basin survey 

requirements through USFFC Oceanographic, 

Hydrographic and Bathymetric (OHB) and Fleet 

Oceanographic Support Workshop (FOSW) 

process.

USFFC OPNAV N2/N6

NCCs

CNMOC

MSC

D, M Q4, FY14

2.4.5: Ensure Arctic requirements 

(oceanographic, hydrographic and bathymetric 

data collection capabilities) are reflected in 

Sponsor Program Proposals in alignment with 

Classified Annex to CS-21R.

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N8

USFFC 

CNMOC

T, M FY14-20, 

annually

2.4.6: Continue to foster current and new 

partnerships (interagency and allied) regarding 

data exchanges.

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N3/N5

OPNAV N8

TFCC 

USFFC 

CNMOC

NIPO

NOAA

D, L FY14-20

2.4.7: Leverage USCG, commercial, and partner 

nation icebreakers for real-world operations and 

emergencies as required.

USFFC OPNAV N3/N5

NIPO

USCG

D, O FY14-20

2.4.8: Coordinate with NGA, NOAA and USCG 

to develop a national hydrographic plan in 

support of the National Strategy for the Arctic 

region.

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N3/N5

OPNAV N8

Director TFCC 

USFFC 

CNMOC

NSF

USCG

USA CRREL

D, T, M, P Q1, FY15

2.4.9: Coordinate with USCG to identify safe 

navigational corridors and NAVAID 

requirements.

USFFC OPNAV N2/N6

TFCC 

CNMOC

USCG

O, M Q4, FY15

2.4.10: Support initiatives of the Commandant of 

the Coast Guard to define future USCG 

icebreaker requirements.

Director TFCC OPNAV N3/N5

OPNAV N2/N6

OPNAV N8

OPNAV N9

NAVSEA

USCG

D FY15-20
UNCLASSIFIED 30

2.5 Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance

Actions Lead Support DOTMLPF Suspense

2.5.1: Identify metrics suitable for CNO progress 

reports on Section 2.5 (C4ISR) of Arctic 

Roadmap.

OPNAV N2/N6 Director TFCC

TFCC

D Q3, FY14

2.5.2: Ensure current and programmed Navy 

Arctic SATCOM requirements are used in DoD 

space program development.

OPNAV N2/N6 D, O, T, 

M, L, P, F

Q2, FY14

2.5.3: Advocate for U.S./Canadian agreement 

regarding communications and weather Arctic 

Satellite capability.

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N3/N5

USFFC 

OJAG

D, O Q4, FY14

2.5.4: Assess the Classified Annex to CS-21R’s 

guidance, if any, relating to required C4ISR 

capability in the Arctic, and address these 

requirements in Sponsor Program Proposals.

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N8

TFCC

USFFC 

T, M FY14-20, 

annually

2.5.5: Establish Arctic ISR requirements for 

space, manned and unmanned options.

• Determine C4ISR interoperability with 

USCG and USAF

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N8

OPNAV N9

USFFC

USCG

D, O, T, 

M, L, P, F

Q2, FY15

2.5.6: Ensure the ongoing Protected SATCOM 

Assessment of Alternatives analyze existing and 

future high data rate communications in the 

Arctic.

• Determine high data rate requirements

• Investigate ways to optimize satellite 

communications in light of ionic 

disturbances which degrade signals

• Optimize orbits of most 

communications satellite constellations 

to support military communications in 

the Arctic

• Determine if operational payloads 

currently in orbit providing continuous 

satellite coverage above 65o

N are 

sufficient for Navy operations in the 

Arctic

• Extend the data rate to speed the 

transmission of imagery

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N8

USFFC 

CNMOC

D, O, T, 

M, L, P, F

Q3, FY14
UNCLASSIFIED 31

2.6 Installations and Facilities

Actions Lead Support DOTMLPF Suspense

2.6.1: Identify metrics suitable for CNO progress 

reports on Section 2.6 (Installations and 

Facilities) of Arctic Roadmap.

OPNAV N4 Director TFCC

TFCC

Q3, FY14

2.6.2: Identify requirements to establish Aerial 

Ports of Debarkation (APODs) and Sea Ports of 

Debarkation (SPODs) in the Arctic.

OPNAV N4 OPNAV N3/N5

CNIC

MSC

NAVFAC

O, M, F Q4, FY14

2.6.3: Confirm existing and planned U.S. and 

international government or industry 

infrastructure. 

• Evaluate capability of existing ports and 

airfields to support Navy operational 

requirements

OPNAV N4 OPNAV N3/N5

USFFC N3/N5

CNIC

NIPO

O, M, F Q4, FY14

Q4, FY16

2.6.4: Ensure defined Arctic infrastructure 

requirements are reflected in Sponsor Program 

Proposals in alignment with Navy Strategic Plan 

and Classified Annex to CS-21R. (Review 

annually in context of changing climate.)

• Identify/develop Arctic installations, 

airfields and hanger requirements

• Conduct environmental impact 

assessments to assure environmental 

compliance

OPNAV N4 OPNAV N2/N6

OPNAV N3/N5

OPNAV N9

NAVFAC

NAVSUP

TFCC

CNIC

USA CRREL

M, F FY14-20

2.6.5: Partner with USCG to investigate the 

feasibility of establishing a deep water port in the 

Arctic.

OPNAV N4 OPNAV N3/N5

MSC

USCG

O, M, F Q1, FY16
UNCLASSIFIED 32

2.7 Platforms, Weapons, Support Equipment, and Sensors

Actions Lead Support DOTMLPF Suspense

2.7.1: Identify metrics suitable for CNO progress 

reports on Section 2.7 (Platforms, Weapons, 

Support Equipment, and Sensors) of Arctic 

Roadmap.

OPNAV N9 Director TFCC

TFCC

Q3, FY14

2.7.2: Identify current capability of existing 

platforms to operate in open water (<10% sea 

ice) and shoulder seasons (<40% sea ice). 

OPNAV N9 OPNAV N8

NAVSEA

SYSCOMs

M Q3, FY14

2.7.3: Identify future platforms and their 

engineering requirements that will operate in 

open water (<10% sea ice) and shoulder seasons 

(<40% sea ice) by mid 2020s.

• Surface combatants 

• Submarines

• Aviation platforms

• Auxiliaries 

• Maritime Prepositioning Squadron 

Lighterage

• Assault Craft Unit connectors

• Coastal Riverine Craft

• UUV/UAVs

OPNAV N9 OPNAV N2/N6

OPNAV N4

USFFC 

MSC

NWDC

NAVSEA

SYSCOMs

M Q3, FY14

2.7.4: Identify what platform(s) (and how many) 

will act as Navy’s Arctic capable afloat forward 

staging base (AFSB) in 2020s.

OPNAV N9 OPNAV N4

OPNAV N8

CPF

USFFC

NAVSEA

SYSCOMs

M Q3, FY14

2.7.5: Determine if the current required 

operational capabilities/projected operating 

environment (ROC/POE) and Table of 

Allowance (TOA) equipage of expeditionary 

forces and shore based elements of other forces 

(e.g., shore detachments from aviation 

squadrons) provides the capability to support 

unit deployments to, and operations in, the 

Arctic region.

OPNAV N9 OPNAV N8

NECC

SYSCOMs

USFFC

M Q3, FY14

2.7.6: Develop a plan to be prepared to 

execute Arctic expeditionary operations in 

the near term.

• Based on the assessment of the existing 

ROC/POE and TOA of Navy units to 

determine which can operate in this 

environment already and are available 

on an ad hoc basis to augment units 

whose deficiencies place them at risk 

for near-term Arctic operations.

• Assign one or more portions of the 

Navy expeditionary forces the mission 

of providing Combat Service Support, 

including camp support and the 

provision of expeditionary 

infrastructure appropriate for the Arctic 

environment to deploying forces.

OPNAV N9 OPNAV N8

NECC

SYSCOMs

USFFC

M Q3, FY14

2.7.7: Determine a strategy for providing Naval 

Forces the extra TOA required for Arctic 

operations. Either:

• Modify the TOA of eligible units to 

include extreme cold weather gear.

• Provide a centrally managed inventory

of cold weather operational support 

material for issue to deploying units.

OPNAV N9 OPNAV N8

NECC

SYSCOMs

USFFC

M Q3, FY14
UNCLASSIFIED 33

2.7.8: Evaluate requirements for sustainment of 

forces operating in the Arctic

OPNAV N9 OPNAV N4

OPNAV N8

CPF

USFFC 

MSC

SYSCOMs

D, O, M, T FY14-15

2.7.9: Assess the Classified Annex to CS-21R’s 

guidance relating to required platform, weapons, 

support equipment, and sensor capabilities in the 

Arctic, and address these requirements in 

Sponsor Program Proposals 

OPNAV N9 OPNAV N2/N6

OPNAV N3/N5

OPNAV N4

OPNAV N8

USFFC 

ONR

T, M, P FY14-20, 

annually

2.7.10: Evaluate requirements for expeditionary 

units to conduct operations in the Arctic. 

Environments include on ice, ashore, on 

permafrost, under ice diving, littoral operations 

and construction including underwater 

construction in freezing/subzero conditions.

• Underwater Construction Teams

• Explosive Ordnance Disposal Teams

• Naval Mobile Construction Battalions

• Coastal Riverine Forces

• Mobile Diving and Salvage

• Navy Cargo Handling Battalions

OPNAV N9 OPNAV N4

OPNAV N8

USFFC

SYSCOMs

M Q2, FY15

2.7.11: Determine weapon and sensor 

capabilities and requirements in an Arctic 

environment (surface, subsurface and aviation).

• Consider ship-borne ice detecting radar 

requirement

• Address GPS-Targeting alternatives 

OPNAV N9 SYSCOMs M Q4, FY15
UNCLASSIFIED 34

2.8 Maritime Domain Awareness

Actions Lead Support DOTMLPF Suspense

2.8.1: Identify metrics suitable for CNO progress 

reports on Section 2.8 (Maritime Domain 

Awareness) of Arctic Roadmap.

OPNAV N2/N6 Director TFCC

TFCC

D Q3, FY14

2.8.2: Ensure efforts to address JROC-validated 

MDA gaps account for MDA in Arctic.

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N3/N5 D, O, T, 

M, L, P, F

Q3, FY14

2.8.3: Improve MDA through collaboration:

• Influence “ad hoc” Canada/U.S. 

(CANUS) MDA Roundtable with 

USCG

• Execute Information Sharing Services 

(developed in conjunction with the 

DoD Executive Agent for MDA) for 

use by Arctic Nations 

• Encourage Russia to join as a 

participant in the Maritime Safety &

Security Information System (MSSIS) 

or similar system

• Pursue standards-based data exchanges 

to share MDA data among Arctic 

Nations in keeping with the National 

MDA Architecture 

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N3/N5

CNE

CPF

USFFC 

ONI

USCG

D, O, T, 

M, L, P, F Q4, FY14

FY14-17

FY14-20

FY15-20

2.8.4: Review Classified Annex to CS-21R for 

guidance relating to required capabilities for 

MDA in the Arctic; include in Sponsor Program 

Proposals.

OPNAV N2/N6 OPNAV N3/N5

C6F

USFFC 

NWDC

USCG

D FY14-15

2.8.5: Ensure data from Arctic sensors are made 

available to existing enterprise 

services/solutions.

OPNAV N2/N6 USFFC M FY15-18

2.8.6: Introduce common lexicon for MDA in 

the Arctic leveraging existing Vessel of Interest 

(VOI) lexicon.

OPNAV N2/N6 Director TFCC

USCG

D Q2, FY15
UNCLASSIFIED 35

3.0 Build Trust and Confidence with Partners

Actions Lead Support DOTMLPF Suspense

3.1.1: Identify metrics suitable for CNO progress 

reports on Section 3.1 (Build Trust and 

Confidence with Partners) of Arctic Roadmap.

CHINFO Director TFCC

TFCC

D Q3, FY14

3.1.2: Public Communications and Outreach. 

• Update Navy Arctic Public 

Communications Plan and review 

annually

• Update Navy Arctic Outreach & 

Engagement Plan and decide on 

frequency of submission

• Provide DOD assets with Arctic 

Environmental Assessment Reports, 

other TFCC products, and information 

and reports concerning the Arctic DOD, 

scientific, media, interagency, and 

international sources

• Establish and maintain consistent 

outreach with, and providing 

information related to the Navy Arctic 

Roadmap

• Attend relevant conferences, such as the 

Arctic Security Forces Roundtable 

(ASFR)

• Coordinate with the Joint Staff (JSJ5) to 

ensure Navy representation at key 

Arctic meetings, conferences, etc. (e.g., 

Northern CHOD, ASFR)

CHINFO

OPNAV N3/N5

OPNAV N8

TFCC

L Q3, FY14

FY14-20

3.1.3: Expand cooperative partnerships with 

Arctic nations and Arctic states, and 

international, interagency and private sector 

stakeholders that enhance Arctic security. Focus 

on:

• Memoranda of Agreement/Memoranda 

of Understanding - Pursue additional 

bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements 

with Arctic nations to leverage 

capabilities and expand cooperative 

opportunities within the region

• Cross-Decks - Expand and formalize 

professional exchange programs 

focused on Arctic nations. (Also 

addressed in Operations and Training.)

• Multinational Exercise Participation –

Take advantage of opportunities to 

participate in Arctic region exercises

• Facilities Access – Leverage partner 

nation and commercial facilities to 

maximum extent possible

• Information Sharing (See 2.8.5)

OPNAV N3/N5

Director TFCC

USFFC

OPNAV N4

CHINFO

DUSN PPOI

MSC

NAVSEA

NIPO

NOAA

NWC

OJAG Code 10

ONR

USCG

D, O, T, L, 

F

FY14-20

3.1.4: Confirm and codify agreements with key 

Arctic States.

OPNAV N3/N5 DUSN 

PPOI

FY14-20
UNCLASSIFIED 36

4.0 Execution

Actions Lead Support DOTMLPF Suspense

4.1: Provide semi-annual reports regarding 

roadmap execution to CNO.

Director TFCC TFCC D FY14-20

4.2: Review and revise the Navy Arctic 

Roadmap after promulgation of the Quadrennial 

Defense Review (QDR) and incorporate QDR 

guidance as appropriate.

Director TFCC TFCC D FY14-20
UNCLASSIFIED 37

Appendix 4

Glossary of Abbreviations

AFSB Afloat Forward Staging Base

ASFR Arcitc Security Forces Roundtable

APOD Aerial Port of Debarkation

Arctic Council A high-level intergovernmental forum that addresses primarily 

environmental protection and sustainable development issues in the Arctic 

region. The eight founding nations are Canada, Denmark, Finland, 

Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States.

Arctic Region The region of the globe that consists of all U.S. and foreign territory north 

of the Arctic Circle and all U.S. territory north and west of the boundary 

formed by the Porcupine, Yukon, and Kuskokwim Rivers; all contiguous 

seas, including the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort, Bering, Chukchi Seas, 

and the Aleutian Island chain. 

ASL Arctic Submarine Lab

ASW Antisubmarine Warfare

C4ISR Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, 

Surveillance and Reconnaissance

C6F Commander 6th Fleet

CANUS Canada/United States

CBA Capabilities Based Assessment

CHINFO U. S. Chief of Information

CHOD Chiefs of Defense

CIA Central Intelligence Agency

CLCS Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf

CMP Common Maritime Picture

CNE Commander Naval Forces Europe

CNIC Commander Navy Installations Command

CNMOC Commander Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command

CNO Chief of Naval Operations

CNR Chief of Naval Research

COMSUBFOR Commander, Submarine Force

CONOPS Concept of Operations

CPF Commander Pacific Fleet

Cross-Deck Cross-deck (or cross-decking) is naval jargon referring to the informal, adhoc sharing of resources or personnel between naval vessels.

CRREL U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

CS-21R A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower (Revised)

Destination Shipping Intra-Arctic coastal shipping routes

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DLA Defense Logistics Agency

DoD Department of Defense

DOTMLPF-P Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, 

Personnel and Facilities-Policy

DSCA Defense Support of Civil Authorities

DUSN PPOI Deputy Undersecretary of the Navy for Plans, Policy, Oversight & 

Integration

ECS Extended Continental Shelf

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
UNCLASSIFIED 38

ESPC Earth System Prediction Capability

EUCOM U.S. European Command

GEF Guidance for Employment of the Force

GPS Global Positioning Satellite

HA/DR Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Response

ICEX Ice Exercise

ILSA International Law Students Association

IMO International Maritime Organization

IPCC International Panel on Climate Change

ISA International Seabed Authority 

ISR Information, Surveillance, Reconnaissance

JROC Joint Requirements Oversight Council

JSJ5 Joint Staff J5

LNG Liquid Natural Gas

MDA Maritime Domain Awareness

MEDEA Measurements of the Earth Data for Environmental Analysis

MILSATCOM Military Satellite Communications System

MSC Military Sealift Command

MSSIS Maritime Safety and Security Information System

NAVAID Navigational Aids

Navigable Water Defined as less than 40% ice coverage, and requiring icebreaker support

NAVSEA Naval Sea Systems Command

NCCs Navy Component Commands

NECC Navy Expeditionary Combat Command

NETC Naval Education and Training Command

NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

NIC National Ice Center

NIPO Navy International Programs Office

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NORAD North American Aerospace Defense Command

NORTHCOM U.S. Northern Command

NPS Naval Post-Graduate School

NSF National Science Foundation

NSR Northern Sea Route

NWC Naval War College

NWDC Naval Warfare Development Command

NWP Northwest Passage

OJAG Office of the Judge Advocate General

OLA Office of Legislative Affairs

ONI Office of Naval Intelligence

ONR Office of Naval Research

OPCON Operational Control

Open Water Defined as up to 10% of sea ice concentration with no ice of land origin 

(e.g., icebergs) and navigable by open oceans vessel without icebreaker 

escort

OPNAV Office of the Chief of Naval Operations

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PACOM U.S. Pacific Command

PEO C4I Program Executive Office for Command, Control, Communications, 

Computers & Intelligence
UNCLASSIFIED 39

POM Program Objective Memorandum

QDR Quadrennial Defense Review 

R&D Research and Development

S&T Science and Technology

SAM SCICEX Accommodation Mission

SAR Search and Rescue

SAREX Search and Rescue Exercise

SCICEX Scientific Ice Exercise

Sea ice A sheet of floating ice, chiefly on the surface of the sea, smaller than an 

ice field

SPAWAR Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command

SPOD Sea Port of Debarkation

SPP Sponsor Program Proposal

SYSCOMs System Commands

TFCC Task Force Climate Change

Transit Shipping Cross-Arctic transit routes from Europe to Asia

TRP Transpolar Route

TYCOM Type Commander

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

UCP Unified Command Plan

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

USAF United States Air Force

USA United States Army

USCG United States Coast Guard

USFFC Unites States Fleet Forces Command

USN United States Navy

USNA United States Naval Academy

UUV Unmanned Undersea Vehicle

VOI Vessel of Interest
UNCLASSIFIED 40

 1 The Arctic nations are the standing members of the Arctic Council: Canada, Denmark 

(representing Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Russian 

Federation, and the United States.

2 The Arctic Ocean is generally taken to include Baffin Bay, Barents Sea, Beaufort Sea, Chukchi 

Sea, East Siberian Sea, Greenland Sea, Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait, Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, White 

Sea and other tributary bodies of water. It is connected to the Pacific Ocean by the Bering Strait

and to the Atlantic Ocean through the Greenland Sea and Labrador Sea. 

<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/33188/Arctic-Ocean> and derived from CIA 

World Factbook

3 The “Arctic Region” is defined as the area that encompasses all U.S. and foreign territory north 

of the Arctic Circle and all U.S. territory north and west of the boundary formed by the 

Porcupine, Yukon, and Kuskokwim Rivers, and all contiguous seas and straits north of and 

adjacent to the Arctic Circle. This definition is consistent with the Arctic Research and Policy 

Act of 1984 (15 U.S.C. 4111) and Arctic Council usage.

4 The Department of Defense defines the term “function” as: “The appropriate or assigned duties, 

responsibilities, missions, or tasks of an individual, office, or organization. As defined in the 

National Security Act of 1947, as amended, the term ‘function’ includes functions, powers, and 

duties (5 United States Code 171n (a)).” Source: Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense 

Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, as amended through 15 January 2012.

5 The United States National Strategy for the Arctic Region, May 2013.

6 Multi-year ice is sea ice that has survived at least one melting season (i.e., one summer). 

Source: Sechrist, F.S.; Fett, R.W.; Perryman, D.C., “Forecasters Handbook for the Arctic,”

Naval Environmental Prediction Research Facility Technical Report TR 89-1. 2 October 1989. 

Web. 17 Oct 2013. 

<http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/forecaster_handbooks/Arctic/Forecasters%20Handbook%20for%2

0the%20Arctic.htm>

7 Gibbs, W. “Russia and Norway Reach Accords on Barents Sea.” New York Times. 27 April, 

2010. Web. 26 Sept 2013. 

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/world/europe/28norway.html?_r=0>

8 Kraska, J. “From Pariah to Partner: Russian-American Security Cooperation in the Arctic 

Ocean,” ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 16, no. 2 (2009), Web 3 Oct. 2013.

<http://ssrn.com /abstract=1648907.>

9 Conley, H. “Arctic Economics in the 21st Century: The Benefits and Costs of Cold.” Center for 

Strategic and International Studies, July 2013.

10 Budzik, P. “Arctic Oil and Natural Gas Potential.” U.S. Energy Information Administration. 

Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting Oil and Gas Division. October 2009.Web. 20 Aug. 

2013. <http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/arctic/pdf/arctic_oil.pdf>

11 Ibid.
UNCLASSIFIED 41

 12 Intelligence Community Assessment. “Military Implications of the Diminished Sea Ice in the 

Arctic Through 2030.” ICA 2012-50. 11 July 2012.

13 U.S. Navy. “Navy Arctic Mission Analysis.” June 2011.

14 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. 

pg. 30 Web. 19 April, 2013.

<http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthe

sis_report.htm>

15 Ibid.

16 National Snow and Ice Data Center. “Arctic Sea Ice Extent Settles at Record Seasonal 

Minimum.” NSIDC press release. 19 Sept. 2012. Web. 20 Aug. 2013. 

<http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-extent-settles-at-record-seasonalminimum/>

17 Open water is defined as up to 10% of sea ice concentration with no ice of land origin (e.g. 

icebergs), navigable by open ocean vessels without icebreaker escort. World Meteorological

Organization Pub No. 259 Sea Ice Nomenclature.

18 “

Shoulder season” is defined as less than 40 percent sea ice coverage. Task Force Climate 

Change (TFCC) convention.

19 U.S. Geological Survey. “Circum-Arctic Resource Appraisal: Estimates of Undiscovered Oil 

and Gas North of the Arctic Circle.” USGS Fact Sheet 2008 and USGS Web. 15 Aug. 2013. 

<http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1980&from=rss_home> 

20 Budzik, “Arctic Oil and Natural Gas Potential.”

21 Carmel, S. M. “The Cold Hard Realities of Arctic Shipping.” Proceedings of the Naval 

Institute, Vol. 139/7/1,325. July 2013. Web. 20 Aug. 2013. 

<http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-07/cold-hard-realities-arctic-shipping>

22 Winter, A. “U.S. Bans Commercial Fishing in Warming Arctic.” Scientific American, 21 Aug. 

2009. Web. 9 Sept 2009. <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ban-commercialfishing-arctic-global-warming>

23 Office of Naval Intelligence. “Geostrategic Assessments for the Arctic: Civil Maritime 

Activity, National Interests, and Future Trends.” Briefing, July 2013.

24 Perry, C. M. and B. Andersen. “New Strategic Dynamics in the Arctic Region.” Institute for 

Foreign Policy Analysis. Feb. 2012. Web. 8 Oct. 2013. 

<http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/StrategicDynamicsArcticRegion.pdf>

25 Budzik, “Arctic Oil and Natural Gas Potential.”

26 Office of Naval Intelligence. “Geostrategic Assessments.”
UNCLASSIFIED 42

 27 Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis. “New Strategic Dynamics in the Arctic Region.” Feb 

2012. Web. 20 Sept. 2013 <http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/StrategicDynamicsArcticRegion.pdf>

28 “Illulissat Declaration.” Arctic Report. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.

<http://www.arctic-report.net/?post_type=products&p=859&lang=en>

29 U.S. Department of State. Fact Sheet. “Secretary Clinton Signs the Arctic Search and Rescue 

Agreement with Other Arctic Nations.” 12 May, 2011. Web. 9 Sept. 2013. 

<http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/05/163285.htm>

30 U.S. Department of State. Fact Sheet. “Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution 

Preparedness and Response in the Arctic” 15 May, 2013. Web. 9 Sept. 2013. <

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2013/05/209406.htm>

31 Office of Naval Intelligence. “Geostrategic Assessments.”

32 Exercise NORTHERN EAGLE is a biennial, combined Russian-U.S.-Norwegian naval 

exercise series that began in 2004. It was last held in August 2012 in the Barents Sea. 

33 Operation NANOOK is the largest Canadian Armed Forces annual exercise in Canada’s 

North. Typically held in August, it includes multi-national participation.

34 10 USC § 7921.

35 Sea Control is the employment of naval forces, supported by land and air forces as 

appropriate, in order to achieve military objectives in vital sea areas.

36 Power projection is the ability of a nation to apply all or some of its elements of national 

power - political, economic, informational, or military – to affect outcomes.

37 ICEX is an international exercise held every two to three years by the Navy’s Arctic

Submarine Lab (ASL), a Fleet Support Detachment of Commander, Submarine Forces U.S. 

Pacific Fleet. ASL is responsible for developing and maintaining expertise in Arctic specific 

skills.

Officially launched in 1994, SCICEX is a federal interagency collaboration among the 

operational Navy, research agencies, and the marine research community to episodically use 

nuclear-powered submarines for scientific studies of the Arctic Ocean.

38 Office of Naval Intelligence. “Geostrategic Assessments.”