The UK and Norway have officially begun negotiations for a new defence agreement aimed at strengthening European security and deterring Russian aggression.
Defence Secretary John Healey announced the initiative during a visit 400km inside the Arctic Circle, where he met Norwegian Defence Minister Tore Sandvik near the Russian border.
Healey outlined that the proposed strategic partnership will build on the UK’s longstanding defence relationship with Norway, reinforcing armed forces cooperation, enhancing industrial ties, and improving capabilities in key areas such as critical undersea infrastructure protection. This agreement follows the signing of the landmark Trinity House Agreement with Germany last year, which aimed to deepen defence collaboration between the two nations.
“Kickstarting work on a deep, ambitious new defence agreement with Norway shows the UK promise to step up on European security in action,” said Healey. “Norway remains one of the UK’s most important allies. We will create a new era of defence partnership to bring us closer than ever before as we tackle increasing threats, strengthen NATO, and boost our security in the High North.”
The new agreement is expected to bolster security for both the UK and Norway as Russia continues to militarise the Arctic and High North region. The move comes as the UK takes on a leading role in European security and within NATO, reinforcing the alliance’s northern flank.
During their visit to Bodø, Healey and Sandvik toured the UK’s Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA) ship Proteus, which is docked in Norway ahead of Baltic Sea exercises. The ship functions as a mothership for drones and remotely operated vehicles that monitor and protect critical undersea infrastructure. The UK and Norway have significantly increased maritime security cooperation in the Baltic Sea under NATO’s Operation Baltic Sentry, with both nations contributing surveillance aircraft such as the UK’s P-8 Poseidon and Rivet Joint.
Norway’s Defence Minister Tore Sandvik spoke on the importance of the agreement, stating: “The United Kingdom is Norway’s closest and most important ally in Europe, and our two countries have maintained a close and strong security and defence cooperation for many years. We now face many of the same security challenges in a time of great uncertainty.” He added that strengthening bilateral ties will enhance both nations’ security while contributing to NATO’s collective defence.
Beyond maritime cooperation, the UK and Norway are also at the forefront of supporting Ukraine. Both nations are leading the Maritime Capability Coalition, which is helping Ukraine develop its Black Sea maritime force, including building cutting-edge underwater drones. Additionally, they are key contributors to the training of Ukrainian recruits, with over 51,000 personnel trained to counter Russia’s ongoing invasion.
Norway is set to play a crucial role in the UK’s upcoming Carrier Strike Group deployment to the Indo-Pacific, with a Norwegian frigate joining the Royal Navy’s HMS Prince of Wales for the mission. In preparation, both nations will participate in Exercise Tamber Shield in the coming weeks to enhance interoperability and readiness.
This new UK-Norway defence partnership underscores the evolving security landscape in Europe, with both nations reinforcing their commitment to deterrence, resilience, and collective security. More details on the agreement can be found in the Joint Statement on Enhanced Defence Cooperation between Norway and the United Kingdom.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
I thought HNoMS Maud was also going to join the CSG?
Yup.
Hopefully will help sell some type 26
Yes but don’t take ours! – we need hulls in the water ASAP!
Yes I agree, suddenly exports of frigates and Eurofighters don’t feel like a good idea. We should probably follow the lead that Denmark came out with after increasing its budget by $7 billion this week, “tell the defence ministry to just start buying anything useful as quick as they can”.
There is likely to be such a global scramble for non US weapons soon that it will be hard to buy anything.
Fortunately we have two hot production lines for surface combatants, three for armoured vehicles and one for fast jets. That’s a better position than many find themselves in. We also have a hot production line for nuclear war heads which might be the most important addition we can make.
Also have to hope that recent decisions like selling the Albion’s and retiring the tranche 1 airframes are to be reversed. Adding in two more E7 that we have the radars for should also be an easy quick win if more funds become available as is adding the 8 extra A400M’s the RAF wanted.
Jim, completely agree. Really valid points. Our industrial base – whilst far from perfect – is far more robust than many of our peers and allies in Europe.
Jim There is a reason we don’t export warships when compared with France and Italy it’s because it’s an afterthought.
Just think about this ! We need to grow and secure our home industrial base, it’s vital and this ticks the box big style.
After all we are on the same side and fighting a common enemy in exactly the same area, using the same weapons, comms and ships why wouldn’t you sell them some of our new frigates rather than pay and man them ourselves. We have precisely the same overall number of hulls in the water in the short term, 5 more overall in the long term and the profit / lower unit costs may let us buy more for ourselves in the long term.
You are a Scot you have seen the effect of short term, short sighted industrial planning the Boom and Bust of Clydeside !
From an industrial point of view it enables a faster and longer production run and that means lower costs per ship, we aren’t exactly flush with money. Norway on the other hand is very wealthy, they like us, have an common military history with us, So TBH I’d can the “Littke Britain attitude” and snap their hand off, if it means the same result in the short term and more RN ships in the long.
At present BAe have orders for just 8 ships, so regardless of how much you want them to speed up they need to avoid the the boom and bust of the past. T83 is ………… in the distant future, right now it’s T26 ships in the water, ready to fight and if there are more if manned by Norway I’m happy.
Your way they have to wait so off they go to France, Italy or even Spain. I know where I want the work to go !
To be honest now we are almost definitely not going to be competing with china in the pacific it gives us breathing space..so I agree increasing our industrial capacity in the long run may just be worth the risk of really dropping the frigate numbers….
It’s china that’s kicking on a navel based conflict in 3-5 years not Russia, Russia needs a good decade or more to build up its navel forces…so we may just be better now fucusing a bit longer term….i have so changes my tune from a week ago, almost feel like a troll.
I agree under previous circumstances, however I believe we may be on the verge of a paradigm shift in both ours and European defence spending. Weapons purchases might be about to go the way of airbus planes orders, everyone looking to buy, no one wants American but a European production capacity that can’t be ramped up. Five frigates from the Clyde would be a decade of production. I take your point on Norway though. It is like virtually adding five more frigates to our own fleet. BAE could sub contract out to all the other UK yards and use Glasgow as a final assembly yard as they did for T45.
@Jim,
They might also be build another frigate factory at Scotstoun as that was going to be site for it in the first place. Hopefully, the space list exists.
Also, they are already subcontracting out the rest of the ship building base. CL on Mersey Side are building the casing for the Dreadnaught class, for example, and we know about Ferguson building sections for the T26. There are also the smaller yards in the H&W group that might have capacity.
So my hope is 6x T26 for Norway. First two ships to the RN, then odd number ships to Norway and even numbered ships to the RN. Hopefully with the export order and supply chain income from the Canadian and Australian builds we could order another 4 for the RN. I would also hope that we could order 3 more T31 in the short term to compensate the RN for delays to the delivery timescales for T26. Having the Norwegian order will also let us scrap way HM Treasury imposed slow down on production rate which would justify BAES investing to productivity enhancements.
Hopefully we can get through they immediate crisis, which case we might well need that extra industrial capacity and a much much bigger navy.
Cheers CR
Jim I’d happily requisition the export Typhoons straight off the line, just like we did in 2 World Wars.
afaik there are only 2 airframes at Warton yet to be delivered …
When I first saw the licence agreement between a Danish company & Lithgow Arms (Thales Australia) to manufacture their new ACAR rifles in Denmark, my first thought was why? Denmark have recently bought new rifles from Canada. Exports? The first question often will be why should we buy it if your government won’t? Perhaps someone had a heads up.
How many Kongsberg Vanguards = a T26 ?
Our thoughts inevitably go to the possible Type 26 sale. It’s hugely important for us as it helps exemplify to the Treasury why building stuff in the UK can lead to more than an immediate cost-benefit analysis. As long as the PM insists we get Treasury approval for major Defence initiatives, we need to show that value for money isn’t just about balancing annual cash flows. It’s also how you get growth.
Healey’s visit is labour’s ‘mission lead government’ in action. Foreign and defence policy is Nato based + UK primary NATO responsibility is Atlantic and high North + Defence is one of the strategic industry sectors targeted for economic growth + ASW is a UK key technology core competence. Everything lines up for job creation and the economy. We are seeing the same alignment taking place with nuclear industry, defence, AUKUS and Mod management structure.
My only minor point would be UKUS, it’s a US dependent program and may run into trump related issues…
Yes, AUKUS looks like a bit of an anomaly all of a sudden, doesn’t it? Do we really want to be forward-basing our scarce SSNs if our Asian pivot gets binned, as I imagine it will? One hopes the SSN-AUKUS collaboration will still take place, but I could see the US leaning on Australia to buy American instead, if the latter’s capacity permits. I suppose it may depend on which way the Australians jump: I certainly wouldn’t want to be in their position, with a US alliance the only game in town for their part of the world.
Mmm As it stands it’s only really US dependant for the 3 Virginias that RAN wants and the provision of US equipment for the RAN SSN(A). But those are in effect US high value exports, which he likes and encourages and to be perfectly if he is serious about cutting costs the RAN are paying for 3 boats to serve right next to the US ones. From our point of view we aren’t dependant on the US, it’s complicated but the industrial relationship involves a lot more 2 way interaction than most folks realise. The US UK Mutual Defence Treaty really is exactly what it says, we each have our strengths that we add to the mix and then we bake our own differing but comparable cakes.
Thanks for that, ABCRodney. I do very much enjoy reading your well-informed posts.
Trump will be long dead by the time the first AUKUS boats are anywhere near the water. However the UK should probably look to revert to its own combat management system. I think it’s more likely Australia pulls the plug.
Jim, I don’t think Australia can pull the plug. Options are limited (France is no longer an option). Japan is no better than RAN current submarines. If Netherlands had gone SAAB, that could have been a fallback position. Billions have already been spent on the AUKUS plan. Too late to back out.
And maybe get some extra NSM and Kongsberg Vanguards if he’s doing any shopping?
DJ – Japanese SSK’s are pretty much cutting edge in terms of technology and capabilities, the RAN Collins Class are very dated in comparison.
Norway will at least be a reliable partner
It increasingly looks like CSG25 will be cancelled, the UK needs all of its major military assets – particularly the F-35B’s – close at hand, not flying the flag and doing photo shoots in the Indo-Pacific.
No doubt the possible T26 order was discussed, but the hot favourite is the French FDI. Modern, well armed, versatile and cheap’ish – Norway can get 6 of those delivered more quickly and for less money than 5 T26s. The MOD and RN’s silence on making at least Belfast available for sale to Norway has also been deafening, and recent events will not have encouraged the PM or Defence Secretary to order the sale.
I think we’ve all heard rumblings, I wonder if they will pivot it up into the artic or even into the Baltic (bit scarier, not a lot of sea room for manoeuvre) as a presence op. Especially when the Dutch and Norwegians are such key enablers and have less than a passing interest in the Pacific (may be a dismissive statement considering Dutch colonial links) but broadly focussed on euro security now.
FDI isn’t as focussed on North Atlantic ASW, though.
And the Norwegians aren’t really the type for cheap and cheerful, just look at their procurement record. Cost no object is the ethos, because their government is backed by huge oil revenue.
I don’t see them making announcements like this with phrases like “closest ally in Europe”, either.
France is a North Atlantic Nation, are you suggesting that the FDI Frigates won’t be able to conduct ASW operations there.?.
To be honest there is also a lot of need for Europe to maintain viable core interest in the India ocean..a lot of our trade is via the Indian Ocean with a lot of choke points…Europe needs to show that it can put very significant power into the Indian Ocean…and that is via carrier battle groups..so a visit to the Strait of Malacca and down for a quick trip to Ozz will be important..also we are developing a 6th gen fighter with Japan and we did say we would visit..the Japanese take that sort of thing very seriously.
What I don’t think you will see is an serious desire to do freedom of navigation in bit of the china seas that china gets funny about…I suspect there will be purposeful backing off from trailing our coats in from of china…why would we now ?
We were promised 24 UK F-35s on the carrier this year. If we can’t manage that, I hope we don’t decide to just cancel CSG 25 to hide the fact. Nothing that Trump or Putin has done justifies cancelling the carrier strike group.
Australia has all 72 of their A’s.
Being a Tier 1 partner is really paying off for us isn’t it? Not.
Australia bought theirs off the shelf. We get income for every single aircraft sold. Plus we are in no rush while TR3 and Blk4 are so delayed. Australia will have to pay off shelf again if they want Blk4 capability.
And powered by Diesels ! So not the ASW Frigate they have specced 🤔
I’m not so sure the FDI is what the Norwegians are after. Looking at the ship’s spec’s it is quite small, especially compared to their current Fridtjof Nansen-class. The standard French FDI is quite light on air defences, though the Greek version mitigates this with double the number (32) of Sylver VLS and includes a 21 cell RAM. I think the main issue with the ship is its overall compact size, which makes upgrades for the future a problem, especially if you want to include more VLS cells.
Interesting the latest Vance comments on alliances with European nations:
“important alliances”, but the strength of the relationship depends on whether they take their “societies in the right direction”. Essentially we have to live how the US admin wants us to live as a part of any alliance.
It may be time for the UK to look for a very strong Northern European alliance as it’s prime tool for its local security..Norway, Finland, Denmark, Sweden as a core..then a wider alliance based around the EU and independent European partners, that also provides the expeditionary and Nuclear capabilities as well as wider European security…NATO if it survives as a nice to have in third place.
@Jonathan, DJT and US wants to grab Greenland and Canada for their security. UK also has serious security concerns. UK should take Greenland before they do. The Royal Duchy of Greenland sure sounds good. Then on to Ukraine, UK leading the British Empire must take Ukraine for our security. Just imagine that Australia, Canada, & India that team up with UK, will be awesome. And then the wonderful Canucks just beat team USA!!! The magnificent McDavid ( a fine Scottish) scored the winner. So!!! It is time for the British Empire to lead again!!
To be fair, the US doesn’t want to grab these countries, POTUS claims he does. You can’t treat Canada like Purto Rico; it’s just too big. So Canada would bring loads of Democrat votes, probably killing off the Republicans for a decade or two. I can’t see Congressional Republicans supporting that.
Jonathan – wasn’t this the whole point of JEF which the British lead?
The polls suggest CDU’s Merz will get the Chancellor job after the German elections. The CDU is pro Ukraine. Merz’s wiki entry describes him as ‘economically liberal and socially conservative’. He will get along well with Vance and Meloni. France is also moving to the right. Starmer is pragmatic. If it means better security and higher growth and keeping an eye on Reform he will fall into line. The Corbyinistas will have to suck it up.
I’m really not sure European right comes anywhere close to US right and in reality I don’t think it matters the present US administration is so hyper nationalist I don’t think it really matters anyway.
Would a Tempest export order be feasible?
Seems a good an opportunity as any in Europe, and would work well with their existing F35 purchase.
Unless Tempest is too big for the whole bunker hangar thing?
There may be a whole new mart for tempest coming up…after all the US has very tight sovereign control of F35 maintenance..and I suspect everyone is now worried they will lever that to control…
Market not mart…
Damned Americanisms! 😂
Yes, that is where The Tangerine Tinted King’s utterances cause so much damage.
Who wants to be tied to a system with so much inherent risk.
IRL we do control various spares manufacturing anyway for the Bravo as the lift fan etc is all UK.
But we are better off as we have sovereign Typhoon capability. I’ll bet LM are not having a great time with closing sales right now – OK I know it is formally F35 office that sells them.
But this could swing things in a Typhoon direction which would be a CSG nightmare in the long term. But a big boost for Tempest as it underlines why sovereign is the way to go.
I just hope when we end up in the EuroFudge defence fund [because Rachel from Customer Complaints can’t organise anything] we don’t end up merging Tempest into the EuroFudge which means the usual Franco/German arguments that we can all write the script for right now.
To be honest I would join with the French on a 6th gen project..even if they attempt to steel all the workshare, they are happy to build and flog stuff to anyone..Germany will try to stop any sales on moral grounds and we just don’t live in that world any more.
Jonathan the only reason Germany got away with that is because we were daft enough to allow them to, other than money they brought very little to the table for either Tornado or Typhoon. They are now in a partnership with France who don’t take prisoners when it comes to contractual obligations and will just Non them.
IMHO all of them need to sit down (including Sweden) and agree to develop 2 different aircraft rather than 2 similar ones. A Top of the line twin engine and a smaller single engine one for mass, but leveraging as much commonality as possible. Logically it would be us and Japan for the former and France, Germany and Sweden for the latter, simple reason is we are islands and need longer range for distant over sea CAP and Strike.
Just my thoughts 🤔
@ ABCRodney that would make sense, but for the fact the French actually need their 6th generation aircraft to be carrier based, which essentially precludes a light cheap single engine. They need the same sort of large long range duel engine as the UK. If we were being logical ( which we would not be) the better partnership would be a French, Italian, UK, Japanese one building a large twin engine, long range jet with a CATOBAR option and the Germans, joining up with Spain, Sweden and the other smaller European nations to build a cheap high mass light 6th gen.
Yes F35 close operating group starting to seem like a mistake. I wonder if LM a would consider European user group run by BAE to maintain sales. Israel already has this.
Trump currently offering F35 to India and Saudi so it’s not likely to be effective for long.
Norwegian tunnelling costs fraction of ours in a high wage country! And it isn’t like they are cutting corners either.
If they want to make larger caves to store them in they will just get on with it.
Why wouldn’t a Tempest export order be feasible? It’s part of the way Tempest was set up differently from the Typhoon alliance, so that one country can’t easily stop the others from exporting the plane.
From what I’ve seen on the news today Norway’s defence spending going up from 2.5% to 3%. And the UK ?
2.5% is now a given, I believe a pledge on 3% is in the works but it’s 50.50 right now. They are waiting for German elections and next week meeting with Trump. Starmer may use white house meeting to pitch 3% make the Donald think he got something.
The whole point of an aircraft carrier is to project power. There’s not much point of having a carrier in home waters TBH, that’s what the RAF is for. It’s much for useful for a carrier to be away from the UK, so either in the Atlantic, Arctic or Pacific, depending on where the issues are. If there a new Cold War, it’s not going to be Russia directly attacking the UK – it’s going to be all about more regional conflicts again (unless something more sininster were to break out). Of course, we need get on with it and order an additional 50-100 Typhoons ASAP so that there are suitable number available.
Hopefully when PoW does sail, it must be accompanied by a minimum of 2 Type 45, 2-3 Frigates and an Astute of course.
What we really do need however is more AEW aircraft, and pronto. Another 2 or even 3 Wedgetails.
We also need more transport aircraft. Those 5 Voyager’s from Air Tanker Services should be made RAF permanent now and the extra 6 A400Ms planned for 2030 need to be ordered now.
Reducing Chinook numbers and scrapping Puma need to be reversed
Extra Wedgetails would indeed be nice. However, getting the first three operational would be nicer. I’m sick of gapping.
Yeah, gapping is dumb. however much money you save, it’s so easy to lose the skills.
If US and Norway makes a new partnership, then logically UK, Australia, Canada could partner to be the guarantors of Ukraine. The combined military is sufficient for peacekeeping. Our 3 nations needs to improve our military anyways. I am confident UK can improve the Ukraine economy and the costs will be paid from better Ukrainian future.
The combined military of UK, Aus & Canada is nowhere near enough for peacekeeping in Ukraine. Not even close. Nor can I see why we should. The peace isn’t one we agree with. We believe that Russia should be pushed out of Ukraine, so why should we be stopping Ukraine from trying to take its territory back?
With a sovereign wealth fund of $1.8 tr, Norway could, if it thought it in its strategic interest, bank role Ukraine’s entire war for a couple of years. I expect that loaning Ukraine $250bn could be done under more sensible terms than President Trump’s. Britain, France and Italy can’t afford that, but we do have some of the largest military primes in Europe, capable of producing arms if the money has been sorted out. I doubt this would happen as Norway is pretty keen on ethical investment, and prolonging a war, no matter how justly, is unlikely to meet that standard.
I feel selling a T26 would be a bitter pill in the short term. But a great move in the long term as Norway would assist the RN in the North Sea etc. plus the security added by extra ships on a current production line will be a great boost. I love America but I feel with the current war of words from DC doesn’t pay a good picture. If they opt for Russia over Ukraine then they will loose all credibility and more in the future from loyal allies in Europe. World hegemony comes at a cost. If credibility is lost in the US then maybe the only option is to rely on European power and only buy from European military manufacturers
Maybe the resurrection of Argyll is part of the plan to sell Belfast to Norway?
Na, 3 more T31… The T23’s are knackered. If we see the first T31 in the water in the next 6 or 7 months then I think we can say that the light at the end of the tunnel really is the end of the tunnel and not a blinking train 🙂
Cheers CR