The Norwegian Ministry of Defence has announced its intent to engage with the UK, US, France, and Germany in discussions on a strategic partnership for the Royal Norwegian Navy’s next-generation frigates.
These ships will replace the aging Fridtjof Nansen-class and represent Norway’s largest planned military investment, aimed at bolstering national and NATO maritime security amidst growing geopolitical challenges.
“The new frigates represent the largest acquisition planned for the Norwegian Armed Forces in the coming years,” said Defence Minister Bjørn Arild Gram. “Norway is an important maritime nation in NATO, and through this and other maritime investments we will be strengthening both national and allied security.”
Approved by the Norwegian Parliament in June 2024, the Long-Term Plan for the Armed Forces outlines the acquisition of at least five, optionally six, anti-submarine warfare frigates equipped with embarked helicopters.
In a departure from traditional procurement methods, these new frigates will not be standalone purchases but part of a strategic partnership with a close ally. This collaboration will encompass joint acquisition, operation, maintenance, and development throughout the ships’ service life.
Norway also seeks to accelerate delivery by joining an existing production line, avoiding interim upgrades to the current fleet. Gram noted, “Solid and predictable cooperation on both security and defence policy will be at the heart of the strategic partnership that we envision, which will include everything from force generation to operations and joint development of new capabilities.”
A decision on Norway’s strategic partner is expected by 2025, with the Government prioritising industrial collaboration. Gram emphasised the potential for domestic economic benefits, stating, “The Norwegian Government’s goal is that our planned maritime investments should help generate jobs and opportunities throughout the country. A key consideration will therefore be the ability for Norwegian technology and industry to contribute to the development and sustainment of both our own future frigates and those of our chosen strategic partner.”
The UK’s Type 26 frigate, already under construction for the Royal Navy and adopted by Australia and Canada, is considered a strong contender. Designed for advanced anti-submarine warfare capabilities and equipped with cutting-edge technology, the Type 26 benefits from an active production line—aligning closely with Norway’s requirements for expedited delivery. Earlier reporting by the UK Defence Journal highlighted that BAE Systems, which builds the Type 26, recently hosted Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace at its Glasgow shipyard to explore potential collaboration.
BAE Systems has also hosted senior Norwegian officials to view the Type 26 frigates under construction, further showcasing the platform’s capabilities.
Norway’s broader defence strategy, outlined in its long-term plan, also calls for increased spending on submarines and standardised vessel classes, reflecting its commitment to modernising maritime capabilities.
shame we won’t know how good the T26 really is until we bloody get one
I wish UKDJ would be more specific on when things happened. This could be new information with another announcement by Norwegian MOD or warmed up news from earlier in the year, or some combination of both. It’s impossible to judge the detail of what has been said outside the context of when.
Hope they are happy to wait 10 years!!!!
Don’t be too sure. An easy way to raise cash, and win the order, is simply to sell them ones off the UK production line. The ship is still dedicated to ASW in the North Atlantic, only with a Norwegian crew, and the British defence budget saves some money.
I’d be happy with that – especially if the UK was also able to ramp up production so that they could (eventually) almost become ‘off the shelf’ products. Permanent on going production (so that we may finish up buying more than we want) means we would have ships available for sale to allies on short notice – seems to be the best of both worlds.
T83 has to be built at some point, and T26 is already set to finish building rather late so i dont see a continuous production
With the T45 having been built with a longer service life in mind than the T23’s ever were and the fact they have sent so long aside with all their issues, I can see the T83’s being kicked down the road a few years?
Sea Ceptor ER has better range than ESSM.
Will the Skywegians want that or will they go for the RAN/RCN version and keep their American weapons?
With their previous frigates they have tended to adopt the combat system wholesale along with the ship. This is their entire surface combatant fleet so less of a logistical issue than with the RN.
I suspect they will retain the mix with CAMM and also Artisan from the T26 UK variant.
Yes. But they would be jumping from VHS to Betamax wouldn’t they?
VHS?
I meant from ESSM etc. to the British weapons systems.
An interesting tale, that of VHS and Betamax. In the shift from movie film to analogue magnetic tape, back in the late 1970s, prices started to drop low enough that cartridge/cassette systems could be sold to the home market like they had with audio a decade earlier. Three main formats were available, Philips V2000, JVC VHS and Sony Betamax. All three were mag-tape based and incompatible with each other. Once you bought one system you were locked in.
The Philips was very expensive and there was precious little to watch. I remember watching some videos on V2000 in the library, but they were quickly left behind and I don’t remember anyone having one at home.
VHS and Betamax went head to head to control home video watching across the world. Think Pepsi vs Coke, except with video. Sony Betamax was more expensive but technically streets ahead: the picture quality, the effects, the ability to watch at different speeds. Not only did VHS have a worse picture, you couldn’t even get a proper still screen on pause without lines and flickers.
However, while Sony had put their money into the tech, JVC had hoovered up far more content, often exclusively. Content became king, a lesson Sony has remembered to this day, and eventually JVC won the war. At least until SD and DVD threatened to repeat the war in the 1990s, for digital/optical.
This time Sony and Philips joined forces and went head to head with JVC/Toshiba and a few others. Neither side won. Having lived through the VHS-Betamax debacle, computer companies like IBM, Apple and Microsoft said they would support neither data format until the manufacturers came up with a single standard. The manufacturers compromised and the name DVD adopted for the universal standard result.
Of course that isn’t the whole truth, but it’s close enough for history.
Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD, Xbox vs Playstation, CD vs MiniDisc, VHS vs Betamax, Audio Casset vs 8-Track tape, it’s a tale as old as Multinational Tech Corps.
To younger participants of this website, the distinction between VHS and Betamax technologies is probably as foreign as the distinction between the horse and carriage, and the horseless carriage. 🤔😉
You forget you are replying to someone who is looking for an engineering career, I think!
Genuinely, what do either of those things mean?
Morning SB, and with Sweden adopting CAMM too on their corvettes. The might go for something other than Artisan but he’ll, It’d still be a great coup to get this order, and maybe some Merlin’s for icing on the cake.
If they want to pull from our production line they cant have an alternative version, as Ship 3 for example is obvs being built to our spec
Plus up until ship three (Belfast) they are batch 1’s which are more expensive and I can’t see the Norwegians paying extra for ship one than the rest? I would be happy if they had every other ship starting with ship four (Birmingham) onwards
“Solid and predictable cooperation on both security and defence policy will be at the heart of the strategic partnership that we envision, which will include everything from force generation to operations and joint development of new capabilities.”
I read that as they want a single class of ship with an ally that they jointly develop in future. You can have joint training, joint logistics, joint R&D. That’s very attractive for us too, because at that stage you’ve got a 14 ship fleet with about 40% funding from the Norwegians.
I think what they are offering is fundamentally different to the AUS and CAN Type 26 which are really just a common hull and engineering, but really very different as weapons platforms.
I wonder if we could come up with an offset deal for the second Proteous style ship or the three MCM motherships to join Stirling Castle. The Norwegians have great capabilities in the offshore supply vessels field that fits in very well with these roles.
Much better for us to build more frigates than try and start something fresh like MCM.
I would be very disappointed if Norway didn’t go for the T26 given its requirements. Seems like a perfect fit and if I remember correctly Norway is already part of the supply chain.
I think that the Type 26 is not very lucky because given the setbacks of the British naval defense industry, this raises questions!
moreover according to forecasts the first type 26 will leave the factories from 2027, with delivery, it”s too slow!!!
I think the closest to winning this contract are the FDI, the f126 and the ficanterie constellation
They want a ship before 2030, constellation doesnt meet that, F126 is rather under armed for its size, FDI is a close contender with T26 but doesnt have the best ASW of the bunch
Oop, I seem to have stolen your comment 😂
Constellations can be build in Norwegian VARD shipyard which is owned by Fincantieri.
Thank you Hugo, that was a very kind statement characterizing the current status of the Consternation Class. Surely the Norweigians are not seriously considering partnering w/ a country which announced a three year schedule delay, as virtually the first official act in its next frigate development program?!? 😱 The Norwegians are steadfast allies, not foes, why oh why, would the US wish to sabotage/sink their efforts?? 🤔😳☹️
Well UK has nothing to talk about since Type 26 takes 10 years – laid down in 2017 – to see service and Hunter and CSC have the issues of changing a concept.
Sure but were near the end of that 10 year period, compared to constellation.
Correct Hugo, but i don’t think Norway will be happy with T26 CAMM only. Hunter and CSC are still being developed.
Hmmm…even if the Norwegians prefer the Hunter or River variants of T-26,.
presume BAES could still become the prime, w/ appropriate US and Australian or Canadian subs.
First T26s have left the build hall and are fitting out, much better progress than Constellation.
The idea would be that Norway receive one of the frigates already in build and so they would get the first before 2030, the main timings requirement.
FDI isn’t an ASW frigate
Constellation has a whole heap of issues, Navy Lookout has a really good article on it.
F126 seems very underarmed for it’s size, I don’t know how much of a consideration that is.
FDI is a multi-role Frigate of which ASW forms a big role,they will have 2 Sonars fitted after all.
Constellation is in a terrible mess. Don’t see any of the builders being able to supply ships quicker overall than T-26 especially as I previously, and others here have said the ships will be operating where they would be anyway just under a Norwegian crew so mostly win win if a uk version was passed on to Norway. I’m also sure programme speed up to some degree is feasible as much of the work is already sub contracted and the new build sheds will help.
Not quite sure what the ‘unlucky’ remark refers to, what specific setbacks are you referring to after all, all programmes have ‘setbacks’ of some kind and certainly Constellation’s setbacks are about as bad as it gets currently. T-26 certainly the uk version seems pretty much within parameters so far.
One major set back for the T26 was the slow delivery of the first gearbox from David Brown which resulted in HMS Glasgow having her hull cut open to put it in as it wasn’t ready before the hull was welded together.
Still I do hope the Norwegians chose the T26
“T-26 certainly the uk version seems pretty much within parameters so far.”
T26 took 10 years. I bet Constellation will be in service before 2034.
If we can’t flog T26 to Norway given what a natural fit it is for their defence needs and cooperation with the UK on ASW in the North Sea and North Atlantic then we frankly don’t deserve to have any sort of export success elsewhere.
Will all come down to how fast we can deliver vessels.
When you’re a France or Italy with continual shipbuilding you can divert units to a foreign customer without massively impacting availability in the active fleet.
Personally I think we should definitely divert Belfast or Birmingham whilst production is ramped up (by any means).
And some Vanguard MCM vessels from the Norwegians in return would be great.
remember that you have 2 aircraft carriers to protect and that the type 23 are decommissioned without waiting for their replacement, even worse they are not replaced 1 for 1!
So I don’t know which is more important between the protection of capitlship or the defense industry!
Remember that we’ll have a Norwegian frigate protecting Prince of Wales next year. The two are not incompatible.
Not sure what everyone means by in return, wed still have to buy said MCMs off them more than likely.
We can’t slow down the rate at which WE take this ships in to the fleet. We don’t just need these for the North Atlantic, we need them, potentially, for other theatres, too.
I know what you mean but there is some leeway because by far their most important role will be where the Norwegians will be operating them, that’s our major weak point, everywhere else we will be but a add on to others essentially esp in a conflict. Not ideal I agree but likely doable on balance and as we would be operating with the Norwegians either way the potential efficiencies, operating advantages and overall flexibilithwould be substantial after that initial hit.
Absolutely agree
Can’t BAE build 3 ships at once, two in the new shed and another one on the hard standing where they have been built up until now.
No, the idea is to use the old shed and hardstanding to improve the efficiency of block fabrication for the main shed.
The slower outside build would interfere with timings and need extra attention paid to protection from the elements that will be saved with the move inside.
Uk missing a trick here . We should already be placing an order for new t26 , and speed up existing order . The new 6 can then be purchased by uk , Norway or another foreign nation. If uk waits for an order to be signed , we will most likely already be behind the race . The future benefits of this contract is very great
The UK T26 build is being speeded up as far as is practical – the new Build Hall and outsourcing of specific Blocks are underway.
Politically a toss up between T26 and Constellation. T26 perhaps has the edge on offsets as Norwegian companies already supply some quite significant items, e.g. masts. France and Italy are long shots, but can’t be ruled out as one may make a dramatic offer such as offering to transfer a FREMM to Norway immediately at no cost beyond its on-going maintenance and support.
VARD is Fincantieri owned.
Norway will have more leverage for what they want with T26. They want joint capability development. With the RN, that’s 8+6 ships. With the US Navy that’s 20+6. And I suspect the US will only consider what they want and need.
If you go by quality of the ship and build times then Type 26 is the favorite and FDI is a distant second.
If they want to build locally then they may pick the US variant FREMM design.
Makes you wonder why they did not pick the normal FREMM considering the US problems, but perhaps the logic is that they want a US weapon fit and not the Franco/Italian stuff.
This requirement is for a rapid OTS solution with minimal modification over the parent design,there won’t be any Local Build needed.
Interesting to note that Canada have classed the River as a destroyer. Is due to the weight over the previous class of ships. Or due to a more heavy air defence capability, putting them more in line with an Arleigh Burke?
It’s due to Destroyer/Frigate being a nebulous distinction in modern warfare that comes down more to “vibes” than any classification (the UK Frigate= ASW Destroyer = Air Warfare distinction comes down to a quirk of WW2 terminology, the US preferred “Destroyer Escort” and “Destroyer” and only later introduced Frigate as a term for a lighter, but not necessarily ASW focused, combatant).
The idea of us giving a couple of our build slots to Norway is pretty ridiculous when you consider that our own escort numbers have plummeted to worryingly low levels, we need these ships ourselves.