Norway and Iceland to discuss defence cooperation

The Norwegian forces have arrived in Iceland now and it is two F-16s, one Orion, ground crews for these and soldiers from HJK (the army’s ranger command).

Norwegian F-16s and special forces heading for Iceland exercise:
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1925022.ece

AFAIK, Icelandic citizens can apply for Norwegian officer candidate schools and military academies.

Yes, that too.

Personally I don’t see a problem with this “Co-operative Agreement”.

It is not controversial in Norway at all and has been welcomed across the political spectrum. I think most Icelanders are happy with the arrangement too, but I have read some reactions in Morgunblaðið from people who feel that Iceland is falling in under Norway again. I think that is a large overreaction, but you can never please everyone.

I believe that Norway should recruit from Iceland if they are going to have this joint co-operation deal…

The Norwegian military has been open to Icelanders for many years. The first (and present?) commander of the Icelandic Crisis Response Unit (ICRU) served in the Norwegian army and even was an officer in 2. bataljon (Brig N/Div 6) if I remember correctly. ICRU personnel is given basic training by the Norwegian military and wear Norwegian uniforms (with Icelandic flags) and use Norwegian service weapons in Afghanistan.

Iceland could afford to fund 10% of the budget let alone a token contribution of 5%.

Here is an English translation of the MoU that was signed by Norway and Iceland:

http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/icelandmou.pdf

It covers who should pay for what. In short each country will pay for their own contributions, but Iceland will take all basing costs for Norwegian personnel and equipment on Iceland.

Regarding the Aegis frigates the Norwegians have acquired from Spain, they really did manage to come up with something they cannot afford which seems to be havijng all sort of problems, something to be expected when you go with an orphan design.

Has there really been that many problems? There are problems with new classes and large construction projects. I don’t see why this class should be viewed as especially troubled.

Hell, even though manning is an issue, they could have applied to the USN for second hand Arleigh Burkes. Greece has already indicated it want’s several transferred as military aid, and Norway could probably have as good a case as Greece.

There certainly are manning issues. The Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga classes have crews of 323 and 360 respectively. That is very different from the 121 on the Fridtjof Nansen class. Norway also has the second highest GDP per capita in the World (after Luxembourg) and almost $300 billion in the bank, so I don’t see why Oslo should be bothering Washington with applications for military aid.

I am afraid that the Norwegian frigates will go into the same book as the Australian Sea Sprite helicopters, the British Bowman radios, the USCG Deepwater patrol boat lengthening work, the Canadian shipboard helicopter project, the Sgt York PIVADS and the Thai aircraft carrier as case studies of how not to manage the acquisition and operational requirements of military projects.

I don’t think that is fair at all. You have grounded helicopters and prestige aircraft carriers without fighters on that list.

…I believe that Norway should recruit from Iceland if they are going to have this joint co-operation deal, Iceland does have a fair bit of money to splash about in reality what with Japanese bribe money to support Whaling (something which both Iceland and Norway do anyway). Iceland could afford to fund 10% of the budget let alone a token contribution of 5%. ….

For Iceland to pay 10% would mean Iceland spending twice as big a share of GDP as Norway, & about 70% more per head. Why do you think it could afford to pay so much more than Norway? Norway has 15 times the population & 19 times the GDP of Iceland, & far more money to splash around, both in absolute terms & per head. Oil . . . 😀

5/95 is almost exactly the right split as a share of GDP. 6/94 would roughly equalise spending per head.

Personally I don’t see a problem with this “Co-operative Agreement”. We have a similar agreement with our kiwi brothers across the Tasman down here. Sure they have a Navy of their own and aren’t completely defenceless, but then again if you look at Icelands Coast Guard, you’ll find that they aren’t completly defenceless either.

I did a bit of research earlier this year into the Icelandic defence situation and I came up with some rather interesting finds: one of the Icelandic ships was sunk during the Cod Wars after it deliberatly rammed an RN vessel that was on patrol in the disputed area. The RN paid for another ship out of courtsey but the war went on for a long time.

I believe that Norway should recruit from Iceland if they are going to have this joint co-operation deal, Iceland does have a fair bit of money to splash about in reality what with Japanese bribe money to support Whaling (something which both Iceland and Norway do anyway). Iceland could afford to fund 10% of the budget let alone a token contribution of 5%. Now if this happened then Norway would be able to get it’s full 48 F-35’s and posibly base a sqdn on Iceland in a rotational sence similar to what we used to do with Malaysia (RAAF Butterworth). I feel that it’s only right that if Norway operates in the Icelandic area then Iceland should contribute extra man power to help take up the slack- otherwise the Norwegian defence will over stretch itself and have to pull back leaving a nasty feeling between two good friend over something that couldn’t be helped.

As with everything, there are pros and cons for the situation. It just depends on the terms of the agreement struck between the two countries and the pollitical climate that the world lives in today.

Interesting point, but are you sure its the Arleigh Burke class? I would of thought the early Ticonderoga class destroyers in storage would be more likely.

Those destroyers are too nice to go to rust in storage! What would the be the practical issues of removing the MK26 twin rail launchers and fitting MK41 VLS to allow a wider range of missiles to be carried? There is a fair amount of deck penetration for the MK26.

Regarding the Aegis frigates the Norwegians have acquired from Spain, they really did manage to come up with something they cannot afford which seems to be havijng all sort of problems, something to be expected when you go with an orphan design.

As has been suggested they could have gone with a four ship buy of Meko’s from Germany, or acquired something like the Absolom.

Hell, even though manning is an issue, they could have applied to the USN for second hand Arleigh Burkes. Greece has already indicated it want’s several transferred as military aid, and Norway could probably have as good a case as Greece.

I am afraid that the Norwegian frigates will go into the same book as the Australian Sea Sprite helicopters, the British Bowman radios, the USCG Deepwater patrol boat lengthening work, the Canadian shipboard helicopter project, the Sgt York PIVADS and the Thai aircraft carrier as case studies of how not to manage the acquisition and operational requirements of military projects.

Unicorn

A defence agreement is now ready to be signed between Norway and Iceland.

http://www.norwaypost.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?id=72317

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1753031.ece

Thanks – saw the link earlier on but didn’t click it since I assumed patrol ship meant… patrol ship and not a full-spec frigate.

You know how it is with politics. The new Japanese helicopter carriers are called helicopter destroyers.

I did vote for the current government.

Yes, so did I. Obviously I like one of the parties better than the other two.

But it’s the prerogative of us plebs to be able to gripe.

Of course… 🙂

I had the impression that the NOK 5b was the cancellation fee alone? I would be surprised if there wasn’t a cancellation fee, what with the previous def.minister signing that MoU without passing it through parliament.

I don’t know, but a MoU is not a contract.

Here you go:

http://forsvaret.dk/smk/projekter/patruljeskibe/

Thanks – saw the link earlier on but didn’t click it since I assumed patrol ship meant… patrol ship and not a full-spec frigate.

Yes, the centre-left government that has increased defence spending compared to the previous centre-right government.

I did vote for the current government. But it’s the prerogative of us plebs to be able to gripe.

The money that has already been invested in the development?

I had the impression that the NOK 5b was the cancellation fee alone? I would be surprised if there wasn’t a cancellation fee, what with the previous def.minister signing that MoU without passing it through parliament…

Yes, that is a point that has to be taken into consideration. I know Australia has shown interest. Any others?

Is there any other AShM that can hit land targets as well and fit in the internal bay? Of course, capability doesn’t necessarily lead to sales. But my understanding is that Tenix of Australia is pretty heavily involved in integrating it with the JSF, and Aus+Nor making a sales pitch together might just have enough combined clout to make some worldwide sales possible.

Are we talking about the same government? 😀

Yes, the centre-left government that has increased defence spending compared to the previous centre-right government.

It’s going to cost $800m to pull out of the JSF deal…

The money that has already been invested in the development?

…and doing so would jeopardise any hopes to sell NSM to every JSF user out there.

Yes, that is a point that has to be taken into consideration. I know Australia has shown interest. Any others?

Do you have any more on this?

Here you go:

http://forsvaret.dk/smk/projekter/patruljeskibe/

and now they’re going for a high capability destroyer/frigate.

Do you have any more on this?

We shouldn’t forget though that it is not primarily an air defence asset, but ASW.

Should have bought 3-4 Karel Doorman class in 1996. 😉

The argument for getting five frigates was to enable a permanent presence in a standing NATO frigate group, and the argument for AEGIS was so they could “plug” into a US CVBG. Both of them incredibly pointless requirements, if they want to increase the NATO INTOPS effort then they should fund forces that are already existing, actually competent and needed by NATO (specfor and the mech units). It’s rubbish to try to mold a competent littoral defence force into a Frigate arm tasked with sailing back and forth between Haakonsvern and the Med.

You should never take the worst for granted. Any reduction in the order is just speculation and Norway might not even buy the JSF.

Are we talking about the same government? 😀
It’s going to cost $800m to pull out of the JSF deal and doing so would jeopardise any hopes to sell NSM to every JSF user out there. It’s actually a real hope since it fits in the bay (at least of the A and C models).

However, it is also true the selling point of the Nansen was the Aegis/SPY system, not the actual vessel design.

I’m certainly not saying that it didn’t play a part in the decision. At the time Norway was still more transatlantic in orientation than today.

We shouldn’t forget though that it is not primarily an air defence asset, but ASW. Judge it on that and the result will be different.

Fair comment, as opposed to Germany being up front that they couldn’t afford five on their budget. However, it is also true the selling point of the Nansen was the Aegis/SPY system, not the actual vessel design.

And lets be honest, the only reason Norway went for the Nansen was it offered a “cheap” way into the SPY/Aegis/Mk.41 club, it wasn’t for any great love for the vessel design.

The main reason as I remember it was that Navantia (then Bazán) was the only competitor that offered five ships for the contract price.

The Absalon is an excellent design, tailored to Denmark’s own needs and explodes the myth that smaller countries have to buy from the big international ship design houses and builders. Now they’re going for destroyers. Denmark has done the sensible thing, they’re using off the shelf products for the high investment items that they can’t afford to develop (missiles, radar, battlefield management system etc.) but going their own way for the hulls, vessel overall design and building a ship that Denmark needs/wants, not what a foreign shipyard wants to sell them. And lets be honest, the only reason Norway went for the Nansen was it offered a “cheap” way into the SPY/Aegis/Mk.41 club, it wasn’t for any great love for the vessel design. Respect to Denmark.

I agree on the Absalons, the 2007 fit will add two of Oerlikon’s 35mm CIWS, Seagnat and torpedo tubes. Along with the previous 5in, 12 Sea Sparrow, 8 Harpoon, ro/ro capability and hangar for two Merlins, it’ll be an impressive ship for something that’s registered with a L and weighs in at 6.3kt.

I can’t help but feel that if Norway really wanted modern frigates (which is fair enough) then a version of the Meko family or a Norwegianised F124/LCF would have made more sense. Either that or go it alone for the hulls, Denmark has shown it is possible for smaller navies to go their own way and design ships optimised for their own needs, the Absalon class is a very interesting design (and IMO much more worthy of discussion than a lot of the other warships discussed on this board) and now they’re going for a high capability destroyer/frigate. If Denmark can do it then norway probably has a more developed maritime industry than Denmark and would be capable of doing it, at least the hulls and marine systems.