Norway’s search for its next generation of frigates has reached a crucial stage. With the Fridtjof Nansen-class nearing the end of its service life, the Norwegian Ministry of Defence is assessing four contenders for its Future Frigate Programme—the French FDI, German F127, British Type 26, and American Constellation-class.

This decision is about more than just replacing old ships; it’s about ensuring Norway’s long-term maritime security, strengthening its position within NATO, and supporting its domestic defence industry.

Before making comparisons, I want to acknowledge any potential bias. As someone who has followed naval developments closely, I appreciate the significance of the Type 26 for UK shipbuilding and NATO partnerships. However, this analysis is not about national loyalty or industrial interests—it is about identifying which frigate best meets Norway’s operational needs, strategic priorities, and future challenges. My approach is based on facts, considering each contender against key criteria, including ASW capability, interoperability, cost, and delivery timeframe. However, I’m human and I make mistakes, always cross check information when in doubt.

Ultimately, Norway requires a frigate that can protect its waters, deter emerging threats, and integrate effectively with its allies. With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at how each option compares.

The decision Norway makes won’t just determine the future of its surface fleet—it will shape its long-term strategic partnerships. In mid-November, Norway’s Ministry of Defence announced that it had invited France, Germany, the UK, and the US to discussions on a “strategic partnership” for its new frigates.

The emphasis here is on more than just procurement; these new ships are set to be part of a deeper collaboration with whichever country is chosen, spanning everything from joint maintenance to operational cooperation.

As Defence Minister Bjørn Arild Gram put it, “The new frigates represent the largest acquisition planned for the Norwegian Armed Forces in the coming years. Norway is an important maritime nation in NATO, and through this and other maritime investments we will be strengthening both national and allied security.”

The Norwegian Parliament’s 2024 defence plan outlines the purchase of at least five, potentially six, anti-submarine warfare (ASW) frigates, all of which will carry embarked ASW helicopters. Given the scale of this programme, it’s no surprise that major shipbuilders from the UK, US, France, and Germany are all vying for the contract.

So how does Type 26 compare, and why might it be the best choice for Norway? Give me a few minutes, and I’ll explain.

Norway’s search for its next-generation frigates presents a challenging decision, balancing capability, cost, crewing requirements, and long-term strategic value. Each of the four contenders—the French FDI, British Type 26, American Constellation-class, and German F127—brings distinct strengths, making this a contest of trade-offs rather than clear superiority.

The Royal Norwegian Navy’s primary concern is anti-submarine warfare (ASW), given the growing Russian submarine presence in the High North and North Atlantic. However, considerations such as air defence, interoperability with NATO, industrial participation, future adaptability, and manning efficiency also weigh heavily in the decision.

Norway must ensure that its choice is not just operationally effective but also sustainable in terms of crew requirements and integration of emerging unmanned technologies. While all four frigates meet Norway’s core requirements to some extent, the Type 26 stands out as the best overall option, striking the right balance between ASW excellence, modularity, NATO integration, crew efficiency, and future-proofing for drone warfare.

The French FDI is the smallest and least expensive of the contenders, making it an appealing option for rapid fleet renewal. At 4,500 tonnes, it is a compact yet highly capable multi-role frigate with respectable ASW features, including CAPTAS-4 Compact towed sonar and an embarked NH90 ASW helicopter. It also boasts a strong air-defence suite with 16–32 ASTER-30 missiles and the advanced Sea Fire radar. A key advantage of the FDI is its low crew requirement, operating with around 120–130 sailors, making it an efficient solution for a navy facing recruitment and retention challenges. However, its smaller hull limits future expansion, particularly for mission bays dedicated to drones and additional systems. While its affordability and fast delivery (potentially by 2028) make it an attractive short-term solution, it may not offer the long-term growth potential or high-end ASW performance Norway requires. If speed, cost-efficiency, and low crewing needs are prioritised, FDI is a solid choice, but it does not offer the same level of capability or adaptability as its larger competitors.

The American Constellation-class, based on the FREMM design, is a multi-role powerhouse that brings significant NATO interoperability, particularly with the US Navy. At 7,500 tonnes, it is larger and more heavily armed than the FDI, featuring 32 Mark 41 VLS cells, SM-2 and ESSM missiles, and Naval Strike Missiles (NSM) for surface warfare. Its Aegis-derived combat system ensures seamless integration into NATO’s maritime operations, and its AN/SPY-6 radar enhances its area air-defence capability. In ASW, it is well-equipped with a towed array sonar and an MH-60R helicopter, but it lacks the ultra-quiet propulsion and advanced ASW specialisation of the Type 26. One of its biggest drawbacks is its high crew requirement, with approximately 200 personnel needed per ship, significantly higher than the FDI or Type 26. This poses a challenge for Norway, where smaller naval crews are preferred. While the ship has some modularity, its drone capabilities are not as developed as Type 26 or F127, and its large crew size means greater long-term personnel costs. While its combat capability is well-rounded, the later delivery timeline (~2031–33) and high manning requirements make it a less attractive choice. For Norway, the Constellation-class offers strong multi-role flexibility and NATO integration but falls short in crewing efficiency and and high resourcing requirements.

The German F127 represents an ambitious future option, offering the largest and most heavily armed frigate in the competition. At 10,000 tonnes, it is closer to a destroyer in scale, with 64 Mark 41 VLS cells, SM-2 and SM-6 missiles, and ballistic missile defence (BMD) capability. It features two ASW helicopters and room for advanced sonar systems, though its focus is primarily on air defence rather than ASW specialisation. The Aegis combat system ensures full NATO interoperability, and its large hull provides excellent future growth potential. However, despite its investment in automation, the F127 still requires a large crew of around 220–230 personnel, which could strain Norway’s recruitment efforts. Crucially, Germany has proposed a high level of Norwegian industrial participation, similar to the successful U212CD submarine partnership, making it an attractive long-term investment. However, the first F127 is not expected until the mid-2030s, making it the slowest option, and its high cost would make it the most expensive platform in both procurement and operation. While its drone capability and upgrade potential are strong, its sheer size and high manning requirements may not be ideal for Norway. For Norway, F127 would provide exceptional air defence and future growth but at the cost of delayed delivery and operational sustainability challenges.

In contrast, the British Type 26 Global Combat Ship is the only contender designed from the outset as an ASW specialist, making it uniquely suited to Norway’s operational needs. At 7,000–8,000 tonnes, it balances size and capability, featuring the Thales 2087 towed array sonar, Type 2150 hull sonar, and a silent CODLOG propulsion system, ensuring ultra-quiet operation crucial for submarine hunting. A critical advantage of the Type 26 is its low crew requirement, with approximately 157 personnel, a significant reduction compared to the Constellation and F127. Additionally, the Type 26 incorporates a large mission bay specifically designed for unmanned systems, allowing it to operate underwater drones, autonomous surface vessels, and UAVs for expanded ASW, mine warfare, and reconnaissance roles. This makes it the most future-proof ship in terms of integrating drone warfare, ensuring that Norway can continue to adapt to emerging naval threats. Its 48 CAMM missiles provide self-defence air cover, while its 24 Mark 41 VLS cells allow for future upgrades, including SM-2 or land-attack cruise missiles.

Critically, the UK has already committed to Norwegian industry participation, offering a strategic partnership that ensures Norway plays a role in maintenance, upgrades, and potentially even shipbuilding. With first deliveries possible by 2030, it fits within Norway’s required timeline while providing the best ASW performance of any contender. If Norway prioritises anti-submarine warfare, future drone warfare, long-term adaptability, and NATO-standard interoperability, the Type 26 is the strongest overall choice.

To summarise the ranking of the contenders based on how I have interpreted Norway’s key requirements.

  • 1st Place: Type 26 (UK) – Best overall for Norway, combining world-class ASW performance, NATO integration, industrial partnership, and future-proof design. Its silent propulsion and advanced sonar make it the most effective submarine hunter, while its flexibility and mission bay ensure seamless drone integration. Its relatively low crew requirement (157 personnel) reduces strain on Norway’s recruitment efforts. It is more expensive than FDI, but its capabilities justify the cost, and it is available in a reasonable timeframe (~2030).
  • 2nd Place: F127 (Germany) – Maximum capability but highest cost and longest wait. Its Aegis system, BMD capability, and 64 VLS cells make it the most powerful ship overall. It has strong modularity for future weapons and drones but requires a high crew (~220–230 personnel) and will not be available until the mid-2030s.
  • 3rd Place: Constellation (USA) – A well-balanced, NATO-integrated multi-role frigate with strong air defence and strike capabilities, but less ASW specialisation than Type 26 but delivery (~2031–33) is later than ideal. Additionally, it requires a large crew (~200 personnel), making it less sustainable for Norway’s long-term naval force planning.
  • 4th Place: FDI (France) – The fastest and most affordable solution, offering a capable multi-role package with modern sensors and weapons, and the lowest crew requirement (~120 personnel). However, its smaller size and lack of quiet propulsion reduce its long-term growth and ASW effectiveness. If quick fleet replacement at a lower cost is Norway’s top priority, FDI is a good option, but it does not match the long-term potential of the larger ships.

Ultimately, Norway’s choice depends on whether it prioritises immediate fleet replacement, long-term capability, crewing efficiency, or industrial collaboration. The FDI is the quickest and cheapest option but lacks the high-end ASW and future upgradeability of larger competitors. The Constellation is an excellent multi-role combatant but is delivered later than would be ideal. The F127 is the most capable in sheer firepower and drone capability but is expensive, crew-intensive, and arrives too late.

The Type 26, in my view, offers the best balance, excelling in Norway’s primary mission of ASW, while also ensuring NATO compatibility, future flexibility, drone warfare integration, and industrial cooperation. For a navy focused on countering Russian submarines, maintaining an efficient crew structure, and integrating unmanned technology, Type 26 is the most effective and strategically sound choice.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

67 COMMENTS

  1. I­’m­ m­a­k­i­n­g­ o­v­e­r­ $20k­ a­ m­o­n­t­h­ w­o­r­k­i­n­g­ p­a­r­t­ t­i­m­e­. i­ k­e­p­t­ h­e­a­r­i­n­g­ o­t­h­e­r­ p­e­o­p­l­e­ t­e­l­l­ m­e­ h­o­w­ m­u­c­h­ m­o­n­e­y­ t­h­e­y­ c­a­n­ m­a­k­e­ o­n­l­i­n­e­ s­o­ i­ d­e­c­i­d­e­d­ t­o­ l­o­o­k­ i­n­t­o­ i­t­. w­e­l­l­, i­t­ w­a­s­ a­l­l­ t­r­u­e­ a­n­d­ h­a­s­ t­o­t­a­l­l­y­ c­h­a­n­g­e­d­ m­y­ l­i­f­e­. t­h­i­s­ i­s­

    w­h­a­t­ i­ d­o­….. 𝐖𝐰𝐰.𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐤𝐬𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐢𝐭𝟏.𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞/

  2. Great article George. Type 26 is a fantastic frigate…trying hard not to get ahead of the tendering process but I do think the security partnership Norway and the UK signed recently puts the type 26 in a very strong position.

  3. What a pleasure it is to read a detailed analysis piece from George. We get them too infrequently. It doesn’t hurt that its conclusion panders to my prejudice as well 😉.

    The article made me think again about the Constellation class, which is looking like a better ship than I gave it credit for (I love the Bergaminis though, so I shouldn’t be too suprised). I didn’t understand the comment about the F126 “It has the highest industrial collaboration potential, allowing Norwegian shipyards to participate in construction.” Why couldn’t other the ships have blocks built in Norway? Given the Norwegian shipbuilding pipeline, would that be an advantage or a disadvantage? Perhaps “allows Norwegian shipbuilders not to participate much” would be an advantage too.

  4. Looks like we are using ChatGPT now for articles, which i am actually supportive of, creates a really interesting piece.
    I would add to this model that some factors are weighted higher, cost wont be as important for Norway, and delivery speed and industry alignment may be higher.
    Agree that T26 would be the right direction for Norway here

  5. I would love to see us build Frigates for Norway while Norway can build the Castle Class MHC’s for us. I hate the idea of loosing Belfast but for Norway I woukd make an exception.

    • Hi Jim, I take it you mean we join in the Norwegian Standardised Vessel project, which is likely to come down to VARD(Resilience) vs Kongsberg (Vanguard). It’s a design that can come in medium or large (3 or 8k tonnes) and be used for multiple tasks such as MHC, OPV, Survey, Coastguard even ASW TAS so buying into that would be an excellent idea.

      Then you mention losing Belfast ! Why would we lose it ? Belfast is in a completely different league of shipbuilding with a pipeline of work that we can’t easily build anywhere else in U.K. these days (FSS is 40k tonnes),

      RFA Stirling Castle and Proteus weren’t built in Norway the hulls were built in Romania and outfitted in Norway and FYI it may have VARD on it but they are owned by Fincantieri, who are the builders of the Constellation Class.
      Kongsberg don’t build ships and spookily their designs are basically the old RR Commercial ship design bureau UT one, and yes it was based here in Derby.

      Google RR Commercial Ship Design ! There is an old RR blurb and you’ll see what I mean.

      But just like Babcock and BAe (with T26 / 31) the Norwegians would get offset income for the design, project management, support etc. That could be very important !

  6. Given anything MAGA now comes with increased uncertainty, if not risks, it makes me wonder if the Constellation rules itself out by default. I also lean toward the “26”

    • The USN want ten ships pronto and ten more to follow. If the USN won’t given way on some of the first ten ships to get faster delivery to Norway, what sort of deep alliance can the Norwegians expect for the future. I think the USN will rule out the Constellations for that reason.

    • “it makes me wonder if the Constellation rules itself out by default”

      The US connection is deep, there are more Norwegian Americans than Norwegians, but we don’t understand MAGA. We live with constant hybrid and gray zone provocations from Russia, GPS jamming of our air space, after 2022 been way more NOTAM in our EEZ. Just like Australia do not enjoy China to do NOTAM outside their coast, we do not like it either, it affect our fishing fleet and S&R missions. Moscow is being an ass to sail into our EEZ for NOTAM, instead of using their own waters, so zero understanding from Norway why Putin ain’t seen as an aggressor and a dictator. We share land and sea border with Russia, there is zero confusion to us about who is a threat.

      However, I am not sure MAGA will be able or want to destroy the military relationship we build over the last 80 years, it would be a big mistake by US, we are next to naval bases of the Russian Northern Fleet. If worrying about missile threat to US from submarines, it would be pretty dumb to drop intel from Norway, just out of self-interest. However, I agree, we need to take MAGA serious, if they want to pull our of Europe, then they do not share our worry about submarines, seabed infrastructure, the hybrid attacks and war in Europe.

  8. Can the RN really afford to have t26 delivery interrupted by export. Wouldnt a better option be for Norway to assemble them or even the Canadians?

    • Yes, but if its being exported to a close ally it’s almost as good as operating it ourselves. And it would surely be worth forgoing a hull in the short term to help guarantee a substantial export order.

    • Norway wants an off the shelf solution with minimal modification, delivered as quickly as possible, they don’t want to build them domestically.

  9. An interesting analysis but I think you have underestimated the potential Norwegian industry involvement for the USA/Italy Constellation bid. One of largest Norwegian shipyard groups – Vard – is a subsidiary of Fincantieri. Admittedly Vard currently focus’ on off-shore platforms, but their Ålesund shipyard can build ships up 183m long – and the Constellation design is just 151 m long. Fincantieri may surprise everyone by being the only bidder to propose building some or all of the frigates in Norway. If their score of 2 becomes a 4 or even a 5 then that’s a game changer in your rankings. Conversely, why have you given the German/Dutch F-126 proposal a 5 for industry involvement? They have been the least active of the four contenders in exploring deals with local partners and suppliers, I would have expected a 1, maybe stretching to 2 due to the potential you mention. My take is that it’s a very close call between FDI and T26, but the lower price (equating to 6 rather than 5 ships) and much faster delivery rate (c.2 years less) of the former may prove decisive. Of course political considerations could Trump everything else in the end.

  10. Great article . I really do think that uk will miss a huge opportunity if they do not get the Norway contract. If uk do not it will be down to incompetence a d short sited. Giving Norway the first or second frigate made is a no brainer . Production should be speeded up and as the uk is short of frigates then kier starmer should already commit to another order of at least 3 more t26 to show how willing uk is and also to get BAE and industry fully organised and proactively ahead of any future Norway contract. The uk needs three more frigates any way . It’s a no brainer and the extra defence spending which is way too little should should partly go towards committing to building extra frigates . I am sure this would swing the balance very much in favour of UK for Norway contract

  11. I wish the RNZN would acquire a pair to replace the ANZAC frigates. We could piggy back on the Aussie order to get some economies of scale.

    • T26 for RNZN will most likely be unaffordable. They could ask Poland to build them some upgraded Arrowhead/T31s with a hull sonar?

      • The price of the T26 will likely be more competitive as the build efficiencies come into play, while the Polish A140 variant is nowhere near as cheap as the T31. It might be the case that the T26 makes more sense for NZ.

    • In reality your right because the future threat for both NZ and Australia will be the new generation of Chinese SSNs and possibly even their AIP subs ( which they have a lot of).

      China is starting to lay down a lot more SSNs with likely 6 commissioned by 2025 all within 3 years of each other where as the previous generation to of SSNs took 20 years to build 6..essentially it looks like china has decided it’s got to the point its worth it to mass build SSNs.

    • Wish NZ would put some NSMs on ther two frigates even FFBNW. They look underdone. At least NZ and Aus now have a frigate each watching these 3 Chinese vessels SE if Adelaide here. Like to see the RN T26s also able to take 2×4 NSMs, on top of the hangar like RAN and RCN ships and especially if the FC/ASW slips.

  12. BAE must be confident, I can’t imagine they would have invested in the new construction hall just for the remaining 6 T26’s under construction. I think appeasing the Norwegian timescale by interrupting our own is an excellent deal as it brings in much needed work & money. Top it off with a 9th T26 from the budget uplift and we have ourselves a decent amount of shipbuilding work.

    • They have built it on the back of the T26 then T83 work stream, it’s a long term investment which makes them far more efficient.

      • Hopefully we will not see the previous incompetence in funding programmes and we see the first T83 being laid down next to the last T26.

        But for this to happen I think they will need a tranche 3 T26 build because I would be surprised if the are ready to sign a build contract on the batch 1 T83 by the early 2030s.

    • BAES originally demanded that the MOD to pay for a new “frigate factory”. When the MOD refused they cancelled its construction! When the MOD then gave the T31 order to Babcock, BAE management finally got real world, they re-did the sums and found that even with 8 rather than 13 T26’s there was ROI for the Janet Harvey Hall at Govan, and the business case was sealed by the MOD agreeing in principle to sole source the T83 class from BAE – rather than run a competitive procurement process. The construction of any T26 export orders on the Clyde is a bonus.

  13. I don’t think there’s a navy in the world which wouldn’t be a good fit for Type 26
    And between her and the Type 31 we can offer outstanding hi/lo capabilities enabling the client nation to focus it’s high end frigates in near peer deterrence and low end on general purpose missions to not tie up increasingly expensive and smaller fleets of high tier warships
    And with their roomy high tonnage hulls They’re eminently upgradeable, much more so that the 1990’s crop of smaller Destroyers and Frigates.

      • I agree which sort of worries me a bit around the T31, I think the lack of hull sonar was a step to far in saving some money.

        • Were the T31’s not intended to be deployed in less arduous mission areas such as the Caribbean, where onboard sonar is less of a requirement?
          They still have a mission bay and hanger, so they can embark USV’s and/or a Merlin if the need arises.

        • Maybe, but I guess if they’re only intending to operate it in lower-threat environments, then it seems like a reasonable economy. Perfect being the enemy of the good, and all that. The problems will come if they start using it for tasks it was never intended for, but it’s not like that ever happens, is it?!

  15. In the end Norway want more capability not less, they have clearly stated they don’t think there present frigate fleet is up to the present risk profile…so they want more..at preset they have a modern 5000 ton ship with 32 ESSM missiles, NSM, 76mm gun, good ASW. I simply cannot see them purchasing a 4500 ton frigate with less capabilities. For me it’s either the T26 or F126.

  16. “2 (US-built, minimal Norwegian participation beyond NSM missiles)”
    The analysis is incorrect. Norway VARD shipyard is owned by Fincantieri.

    Type 26 radar is obsolescent and worse than current Norway navy radar being a rotating device only. T26 cannot use SM-2/6 with current radar and fire control system.
    It will need to be the Type 26 CAN or AUS that are with usual problems of adapting an existing design to a more complete ship.

    None of starting deliveries dates can be possible except if RN gives their ships to Norway.

    • One of the “inside sources” about the frigate procurement process in the Norwegian press stated that they were “collaborating” on ways to improve the radar fit.
      Remember Norwegian companies build the mast, so if they want a slightly bigger radar lower down, then it won’t be too difficult to swap out (as long as BAE play ball with the CMS).

        • Oh, Artisan will certainly have had improvements made.
          But there’s no avoiding the issue that it’s a really small set compared with almost all modern frigates and that limits the power output.
          What we need is for BAE to set up a CEAFAR style family of fixed arrays and put the intermediate type on a slightly lower mast.

          • The frigates are probably going to have a 25 year lifespan, do you really think they’ll soldier through with a 2010 era radar architecture?
            We will almost certainly develop a new radar system for T83, it would make sense to miniaturise it and use the new technology to improve T26 as well.

  17. Not sure how you can factor in the unknown Donald effect. I know his tenure is limited but how much damage can he do to US credibility and trust therein. Would you sign with a US contractor for something he could cancel on a whim.

    • I’d be shocked if they went to the F127. The 126’s are actually in build, while F-127 is still in the “blue sky concept” phase, aka it’s not even really a product they can offer at this point.

    • I doubt if that is correct. The F127 is an AAW not ASW platform, and little more than a concept at the moment. It’s certainly not a close to a low risk mature design as required by Norway. Finally the First of Class won’t enter service until 2034, whilst the Norwegians want their first ship by 2030.

  19. Nice article George, if I may add. I believe from reading through some of the Norwegian blurb on their frigate requirement, they have prioritised ASW as the top of their shopping list. Which you would rationally think the T26 is best suited.

    But I think, Navies are now also looking at the magazine depth of the ship and the potential magazine growth, especially following the Red Sea operations. Where it was seen even the 96 cell Arleigh Burkes had to retire from the area to get replenished. This is where I feel the French FDI suffers significantly. Even if you consider the Greek version of the FDI, its magazine depth is not great with only 32 Sylver VLS cells and a single 21 cell RAM launcher. Perhaps most significantly is that there is little if any scope for further expansion. The design is maxed out for VLS cells, especially when some of these cells are allocated to Exocets. This ship’s much smaller size means that any future enhancements will either have to be squeezed in or replaces something else.

    Looking at the German F127, which at 10,000t is a beast of a ship. Though again its VLS cell count is actually quite poor, when compared to an Arleigh Burke. Plus as you pointed out, its crew size is huge compared to their current Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates. It does have an ASW capability, but the T26 is in a different league by comparison. I can only see this being accepted by Norway, if Germany throws in a new highly discounted sub contract.
    I do see the Constellations as a dark horse contender. According to the US Navy it is supposed to be replacing the disastrous LCS class and in particular covering the ASW role, which is basically covered by the Arleigh Burkes. Based on the FREMM design, it should be a very capable ship. It will have a 32 cell Mk41 but also a 21 cell RAM launcher. Which if quad pack ESSM will give it a decent anti-air defence, which gives it better marks than the FDI. Though there is scope to replace the mid-ship cannister launchers with another Mk41 VLS farm. The big problem with the Constellation is the snow balling redesign of the original FREMM. Initially it was hoped that it would have an 80% interoperability with the legacy FREMM. However, since its redesign this has dropped to 15%. Which has caused significant costs and time delays to the program. It’s not expected to be fixed for the next few years. Although steel was cut in July 2024. It was found that this steel did not match the new drawings, as the ship’s hull shape has subsequently changed from the original FREMM. Including the current political climate, I’m not sure Norway will want to wait to see which way the wind blows with the US.

    Of the four contenders, the T26 I think is best suited to Norway’s needs. It will have seen that there are currently three design versions in production, with both Canadian and Australian version based around the AEGIS system that includes weapons that the Norwegians are experienced with. Meaning that they could either chose one of the designs or have a separate hybrid constructed to their specific needs. The ship can if necessary expand on the number of Mk41 cells it has by sacrificing space in the mission/boat bay or following the RN route, by adding separate CAMM farms, to increase the anti-air capabilities. It will be interesting to see if Norway choose the logical choice or are wayed by politics?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here