Balancing Act – Norwegian Security Policy, Strategy and Military Posture

ISBN 978-91-7566-956-4 May 2013

SUMMARY: Norway has important interests, especi- than many NATO member states, which This paper discusses Norway’s security ally in the north, that are not necessarily have optimised their force structures policy and military posture as it has shared by its allies or partners. This means for international operations. Moreover, developed in the past two decades, with that Norway needs a military capability to because crises related to disputes at sea a particular emphasis on the relationship handle crises on its own. Accordingly, the are seen as far more likely than an invasion between national interests and military Norwegian Armed Forces have maintained of the mainland, the air force and the navy posture and strategy, Swedish-Norwegian a broader range of military capabilities have suffered far fewer cuts than the army. relations and Nordic-Baltic security.

Balancing act – Norwegian security policy, strategy and military posture

BY: STÅLE ULRIKSEN

In February 2013, General Sverker both Sweden and Norway during the Norway lives off the Sea. Its economy Göranson, the Swedish Chief of De- Cold War, both generals were un- and welfare depend heavily on oil, fence, stated that if Sweden was ever doubtedly right. Even so, both state- gas and fish, and on the advanced invaded, the country would be able to ments caused huge controversy. From maritime industries that support and defend itself for one week. Thereafter, my perspective, the public reaction to supply these fields both at home and according to Aftonbladet, the general the generals’ frustrated outbursts was abroad. Norway controls areas of sea hoped for help from Norway.1 In Janu- far more interesting than the state- seven times the size of its land territo- ary 2008, General Robert Mood, at ments themselves. ry. The successful management of fish- the time chief of the Norwegian Army, This paper discusses Norway’s eries in Norwegian waters stands in held that the army was only capable of security policy and military posture sharp contrast to the tragic depletion defending a single district of Oslo, or a as it has developed in the past two of fish stocks elsewhere. The enforce- line 5 kilometres in length.2 Assuming decades, with a particular emphasis ment of Norwegian sovereignty and an opposition with capabilities even on the relationship between national law in these areas, as well as respon- slightly similar to the threats faced by interests and military posture and sibility for environmental protection strategy, Swedish-Norwegian relations and search and rescue, are important

1 “ÖB: ’Sverige kan försvara sig en vecka’”, and Nordic-Baltic security. day-to-day tasks of the Norwegian Aftonbladet 13.01.2013, Downloaded Armed Forces. While Norway’s most April 2013 from http://www.aftonbladet. Norwegian interests and important maritime interests are se/nyheter/article16013259.ab security policy coastal and local, the country also has 2 “Hæren kan bare forsvare én Oslo-bydel”, Seven simple propositions go a long strong global maritime interests. Nor- Verdens Gang 28.01.2008. Downloaded way towards explaining Norwegian wegian shipowners control the sixth April 2013 from http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=503300 security and defence policy: largest merchant fleet in the world.

Frivärld · May 2013 1 May 2013

Norwegian companies are increasingly The Norwegian military Norway. Instead it states that Rus- involved in the production of and posture in the high north is sia is likely to prioritise international providing support services to offshore not based on fear. It is better cooperation and avoid militarisation oil and gas all over the world. explained as an acceptance in the high north. Norway and Russia After decades of dispute and ne- of the truth of the statement have developed a cooperative, if not gotiations, an agreement setting the that ‘good fences make good always friendly, modus of coexist- maritime border between Russia and neighbours’. ence in their high-north neighbour- Norway took effect on 7 June 2011. It hood. To a certain extent Norway and settled one of Norway’s two remaining Norway is an Arctic country with Russia have common interests in the important geopolitical challenges. The strong interests in the high north. In a region, especially in the management second challenge, the as yet unresolved geopolitical sense Norway stands with of fisheries. However, there is a broad dispute between Norway and many one foot in a thoroughly regulated consensus in Norway that the country other states over the status of the wa- European park which to a large extent must be able to back up its policies ters around the Svalbard archipelago, may be defined as a security commu- with force if necessary. The Norwegian is probably the single most important nity and an area where war between military posture in the high north is issue of Norwegian foreign policy. The states is more or less unthinkable. The not based on fear. It is better explained special status of Svalbard is regu- other foot is placed in the cold wilder- as an acceptance of the truth of the lated by a treaty of 1920, which gives ness of the high north. The high north statement that ‘good fences make good Norway sovereignty over the islands is not unregulated, but it is not a secu- neighbours’. but any signatory to that treaty equal rity community. In the European park Norway is highly dependent on the ex- rights to conduct business there. The states do not reinforce policy towards isting world order. Norwegian foreign treaty also defines Svalbard as a demil- each other with displays of military policy is geared towards the promotion itarised zone. Some signatories to the power. In the high north they do. of a rules-based international order. treaty hold that it should be extended This does not mean that Norwe- This is not just words or values-based to an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) gians fear a Russian invasion. Such rhetoric. Norwegian control of its of 200 nautical miles (nm) around scenarios have not been part of EEZs and continental shelf is based the Islands. Norway’s position is that Norwegian defence planning since on the UNCLOS, which in turn is the area in question, beyond the 12 2002. In 2013 the Norwegian Intelli- based on the UN and international nm that defines the territorial waters gence Service expressed some concern society at large. Norway is therefore of Svalbard, is part of the Norwegian regarding political developments in a very strong supporter of the UN, continental shelf and thus, according Russia and recognised Russia’s grow- and it was the fourth largest financial to the United Nations Convention of ing military capabilities.3 However, the contributor, in absolute terms and by the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), under report does not see Russia as a threat far the largest per capita, to the UN Norwegian jurisdiction. The area is or as having hostile intentions towards system in 2010.4 currently defined by Norway as a fish stock protection zone, which is one 3 “Fokus 2013” , Etteretningstjenestens step removed from a regular EEZ. vurdering. Available at http://forsvaret.no/ 4 After the USA, Japan and the UK. Norway om-forsvaret/organisasjon/felles/etjenes- and Sweden together would have ranked ten/Documents/FOKUS-2013.pdf second

Frivärld · May 2013 2 May 2013

Norwegian security policy depends on the question of whether the NATO In spite of this fact, Norway is strongly the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation security guarantee is still credible in integrated into EU structures through (NATO). In 1940 both the Norwe- practical military terms. the European Economic Area and the gian Armed Forces and the country’s The USA is Norway’s most important Schengen agreements. Norway con- traditional politics of neutrality were ally. The military relationship between tributes large sums to the EU every crushed as German troops invaded Norway and the USA goes far beyond year and has implemented more EU and occupied Norway. During the the fact that both are members of directives than many of its member Second World War new forces were NATO. Norway deployed forces to states. Europe is obviously important built in the United Kingdom, the Afghanistan and Iraq to honour that to Norway: some 85% of Norwegian United States and Canada, and strong relationship and to be seen as a good exports went to EU member states in political and military ties were built ally in Washington. A NATO without March 2013.5 with the Western powers. Some traits the USA might not be totally impo- Norway is strongly Scandinavian of neutrality remained, however, and tent, but it will certainly be a far less and Nordic, but Norway is not a Baltic NATO forces were not permanently credible military force. While Norway power. The Nordic states, and Sweden stationed in Norway during the Cold would prefer NATO to focus on the in particular, are important to Norway War. At that time it was very impor- defence of its member states, it cannot economically, culturally and in terms tant to be able to secure and train ignore US repositioning towards Asia. of shared values and common perspec- reinforcements for Norway at times of Norwegians have not yet debated tives on the main issues in internation- crisis or war. NATO is still of fun- what this means for NATO and for al politics. In terms of Nordic-Baltic damental importance to Norwegian Norway’s security. If the USA were to security, however, it is important to security policy and defence planning. make a request for Norwegian forces note that for Norway the Barents Sea to participate in a future conflict in is far more important than the Baltic Asia, for instance, what would the Sea. Norwegian support for Baltic co- In terms of Nordic-Baltic answer be? operation should be understood in the security, however, it is Norwegians are split as regards mem- light of Norway’s wish for Finnish and important to note that for bership of the European Union (EU), Swedish engagement in the north Norway the Barents Sea is but Norway is integrated into the EU. In These seven truths affect Norwegian far more important than the both 1972 and 1994, by a small major- security and defence policy in differ- Baltic Sea. ity, the Norwegian population voted ent ways and to different degrees. The against membership of the EEC/EU. importance of each is perhaps best Norway, for instance, has participated No other political question is more discussed in the light of Norway’s in all the NATO operations in the controversial or provokes more heated military choices. After all, what a state Balkans and Afghanistan. The ongoing political debate. Norwegian national- repositioning of US forces to Asia, ism is to a large extent a reaction to 5 Only goods, not services. Based on Statistisk sentralbyrå: Utenrikshandel med the downsizing of NATO command historical unions with Denmark and varer, mars 2013, foreløbige tall. Down- Sweden from 1397 to 1905. National- structures and cuts in European de- loaded 3 May 2013 from http://www.ssb. fence capabilities, however, are viewed ist sentiments and symbols are rarely no/utenriksokonomi/statistikker/muh/ in Norway with some unease – raising used in political debates, but debates maaned/2013-04-15?fane=tabell&sort=nu on EU membership are an exception. mmer&tabell=107627

Frivärld · May 2013 3 May 2013

actually does is probably more inter- command structures and response the termination of its participation in esting than what it says. forces. Such activities employ large UNIFIL in Lebanon in 1998.6 The parts of the army, navy and air force as army deployed a field hospital to MI- How are the forces used? well as the SOF. Since 1999 the Nor- NURCAT in Chad in 2009–2010, and The military is only one of the many wegian Armed Forces have contrib- the navy, in cooperation with Swedish instruments of the state. The size of uted to NATO- or US-led operations naval vessels, deployed a squadron of the Norwegian Armed Forces does in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, the fast attack craft to UNIFIL II in 2006. not allow permanent contributions to Mediterranean (Operation Active En- As for EU-operations, a Norwegian all relevant international institutions. deavour), Libya and the Indian Ocean frigate participated in Operation At- Its deployments go a long way towards (Operation Ocean Shield), as well as lanta for six months from August 2009 explaining Norwegian military priori- to policing the airspace over the Baltic and Norway provided some 100–150 ties. states and Iceland. NATO’s ability troops to the Swedish-led Nordic First, the continuous operations to respond quickly to a crisis and the battlegroup in 2008 and 2011. in Norway and the surrounding seas maintenance of NATO interoper- are clearly the most important. They ability are very important to Norway. include surveillance and intelligence, Norway is therefore and will remain This strategy was relatively enforcement of sovereignty and law, a strong supporter of the NATO credible if it was assumed search and rescue, and assistance to Response Force (NRF) and the stand- that Finnish and Swedish the police. Readiness in case of terror- ing naval forces that form part of the territories were either ist attacks is in the process of being NRF. The navy aims to continuously not invaded or could be reinforced. They also include guarding contribute one mine countermeasures successfully defended, and that the royal palace in Oslo and the border vessel to the Standing NATO Mine NATO reinforcements would with Russia. These operations are Counter Measure Group (SNMC- be able to make it to Norway supported by the whole of the coast- MG1) and one frigate to the Standing in good time. guard, a large part of the Intelligence NATO Maritime Group (SNMG1). Service, Special Operations Forces It is highly likely that the army, the air The deployment pattern of recent (SOF), maritime patrol aircraft and force and the SOF will also contribute years is very clear. NATO and US- fighter aircraft on 15-minute alert to units to the NRF on a regular basis. led operations are highly prioritised patrol Norwegian airspace, helicopters Third, Norway contributes to UN- alongside the continuous operations to operating from five airfields in a state and EU-led operations. Both the provide intelligence and enforce sov- of high readiness for search and rescue, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the ereignty and law at sea. Contributions two battalion-sized light infantry units Ministry of Defence have set increased to UN- and EU-operations depend as well as naval ships and submarines Norwegian participation in UN opera- on the availability of capabilities. As for extended periods. tions as a goal for many years. Even so, is shown below, national readiness for Second, there are the contributions apart from individual or small groups more serious threats to national se- and commitments to operations led of officers, Norway has only contrib- by NATO and the US, and to NATO uted to two UN-led operations since 6 One should note, however, that most operations led by NATO and the EU have been mandated by the UN.

Frivärld · May 2013 4 May 2013

curity has been given a lower priority strategic dependency today. Nonethe- In Norway’s exercise Cold Response than NATO operations. less, it is in Norwegian interests for in 2012, the Swedish contingent of When it comes to the geographi- some kind of balance of power to be 1,800 troops and 12 fighter aircraft cal focus of deployments abroad, maintained in Europe’s far north. No was the largest participating foreign ‘who asks’ is probably more important state should be so weak as to invite force. Common systems and mutual than the ‘where to’. Norway has few sabre rattling or gunboat diplomacy as trust built through military exercises or no interests in Afghanistan per a practical political strategy. could ease the way for the deployment se, but close relations with the US Norway turned down Sweden’s of- of combined Nordic forces in interna- and NATO are vitally important to fer of a Scandinavian alliance in 1948, tional operations. Norway. That is not to say that the and joined NATO in 1949. It remains UN or relations with the EU and the true for Norway that no amount of The defence budget Nordic countries are not important, Nordic defence cooperation can re- While most of Europe has experi- just that the armed forces are not the place NATO. Therefore, the impact of enced hard times since the start of the main instrument for engagement in the Nordic dimension on Norwegian 2008 financial crisis, the Norwegian these cases. defence planning is clearly weaker economy has been doing well. Based than that of NATO and the USA. For on estimates for 2012 the Internation- The Nordic and Baltic dimensions Norway, Nordic defence cooperation al Monetary Fund ranked Norway the During the Cold War, 92% of Nor- is a matter of choice, not of neces- 22nd largest economy in the world, way’s eastern borders were protected sity. It is nonetheless true that Nordic with a nominal GDP of USD 500 in the sense that an invader would defence cooperation has improved in billion. Sweden was ranked 21st with have to cross Finland, Sweden or both recent years. It was a disappointment a GDP of USD 520 billion. Norway to reach Norwegian territory. This al- to Sweden that Norway chose to pur- is a high-cost economy, however, and lowed Norway to concentrate most of chase US F35s instead of the Swedish in a similar ranking based on GDP its forces on holding a relatively nar- Gripen in 2008. In 2012, however, purchasing power parity, Norway was row line in Troms County in northern Norway decided to spend NOK 10 46th, with USD 265 billion while Norway until NATO reinforcements billion on Swedish artillery and Sweden was ranked 33 with USD 384 arrived. This strategy was relatively infantry combat vehicles. Along with billion. credible if it was assumed that Finnish other common systems, this opens up In 2012 the Norwegian trade sur- and Swedish territories were either avenues for increased cooperation on plus was USD 414 billion. Norwegian not invaded or could be successfully maintenance, updating and training. reserves in the state owned oil fund defended, and that NATO reinforce- are expected to reach NOK 4,500 ments would be able to make it to Norway turned down billion by the end of 2013. In terms of Norway in good time. In other words, Sweden’s offer of a military expenditure, the Stockholm Norwegian strategy depended strongly Scandinavian alliance in International Peace Research Insti- on Finland’s and Sweden’s will and 1948, and joined NATO tute (SIPRI) ranks Norway 27th in ability to defend themselves if at- in 1949. It remains true for the world, at USD 7,083 million or tacked by the Soviet Union. As long as Norway that no amount of USD 1,245 per capita. That said, in Norway does not fear a Russian inva- Nordic defence cooperation 1990 the defence budget was almost sion of Scandinavia, there is no such can replace NATO. 7% of total state spending and 3% of

Frivärld · May 2013 5 May 2013

GDP. By 2012 defence’s share of the than the Swedish, the reality is differ- capabilities that enable it to man- state budget was slightly more than ent – the Swedish defence budget still age a crisis or conflict on its own. It 3% and its share of GDP around 1.5%. provides substantially greater purchas- also provides flexibility as regards the In comparison, Sweden is ranked ing power than the Norwegian. choice of tools. This is what Norway 31st, spending USD 5,248 million has tried to do. The downside of this (1.2% of GDP) or USD 657 per Military strategy and choice, however, is the lack of quantity capita. This comparison does not take posture and sustainability within each cat- into account the introduction of gross Given a certain amount of resources egory of capabilities. The Norwegian budgeting by the Norwegian Ministry a military organisation may decide Armed Forces are small. It is obvi- of Defence in 2011, which led to an either to put its efforts into a broad ous that even if they could handle a upward technical adjustment of the range of capabilities or to focus on a crisis or even a conflict alone, such budget by some NOK 3.5 billion com- small number. Each capability, how- a capacity would be limited in time pared to 2010,7 to reflect the fact that ever small, still needs a critical mass of and space. It is not a force designed the armed forces must now pay rent resources for education and training, primarily for the defence of the realm for all the buildings and land they use. procurement, maintenance, and so on. in times of war. Rather, it is designed The defence budget for 2013 is NOK The fewer the number of capabilities, to enable Norway to contribute 42.2 billion but the nominal budget the larger the proportion of total fund- forces to NATO, on the one hand, and would be NOK 35.8 billion. In other ing that can be spent on operational protect the country against political words, the actual defence budget is units. For instance, a state that gives and armed threats, on the other. In some 15% lower than the number used up its fighter aircraft can spend more addition, if the need should arise, it in national and international statistics. on its infantry and will be able to ro- is designed to handle a crisis or the Thus, while a glance at the statistics tate large contingents of ground forces first phase of a conflict on its own. may show that, for the first time, the in operations – but it will have to This balancing act between contribut- Norwegian defence budget is larger depend on allies to provide air support. ing to the long-term maintenance of Nor will it be able to handle conflicts international society and the continu- above a certain level of complexity or ing concern for national security is the The Norwegian Armed Forces intensity on its own. For a state that crux of Norway’s military strategy. are small. It is obvious that feels completely secure within an al- Obviously, this structure would be even if they could handle a liance, it is a rational choice to focus hard-pressed to sustain prolonged crisis or even a conflict alone, on fewer capabilities, not least because participation in international op- such a capacity would be this will increase its contribution to erations based on the rotation of any limited in time and space. It is and influence within that alliance. single capability or force category. not a force designed primarily For a state that either does not trust Thus, it is planned to contribute dif- for the defence of the realm that help will be immediately available ferent types of forces in different roles in times of war. Rather, it is or has national interests separate from and perhaps different operations. This designed to enable Norway to the alliance, it makes more sense to model was the starting point for of contribute forces to NATO. retain a broad range of independent departure Norwegian operations in

7 MOD Prop. 1 (2010–2011) chapter 04.10.

Frivärld · May 2013 6 May 2013

Afghanistan,8 but it proved difficult deployment to Afghanistan had led to high level of situational awareness and to implement in practice. Until 2005 a loss of competence in brigade-level building what is known as a recog- Norwegian forces were ‘plugged into’ operations.9 It recommended that in nised picture, covering both security the roles in which they were needed future operations, Norway should as- related events but also activities related and had the capabilities to contribute. pire to rotate different capabilities in a to fishing and traffic at sea and in This allowed for the deployment of “plug and play” mode rather than take the air on Norwegian and adjacent a wide range of capabilities which on obligations that demand the long- territories. Norway has prioritised took their turn in line alongside other term rotation of specific capabilities. its Intelligence Service and means NATO forces. This practice spread of collecting information. Among the burden of deployment among The command structure these means are the intelligence ship the different services, branches and In 1990 the Norwegian Armed Forces Marjatta, a squadron of P3C Orion units of the armed forces. In Septem- had a single High Command, two maritime patrol aircraft and a number ber 2005 Norway relieved the UK regional Joint Commands, and four of radar stations, which operate in the as the lead nation in the Provincial Territorial Commands for the army high north on a continuous basis. This Reconstruction Team in Meymaneh and seven for the navy. In 2013 there high level of situational awareness and in Faryab province in north-western is only a single Joint Command left. the accumulated knowledge of the area Afghanistan. Almost simultaneously The individual services are responsible form the basis for Norwegian opera- a three-party coalition government for recruiting and training their own tions in the north. took charge in Oslo. The Socialist forces, but the Joint Operational HQ Until 2008 there was a NATO Left party was strongly opposed to (FOH) at Reitan leads all operations. Combined Air Operations Centre Norwegian participation in Operation It is responsible for maintaining a (CAOC) at Reitan, Bodø. When Enduring Freedom, and transferred 1990 2000 2013 2020 its scepticism to ISAF’s operations in Army total 160,000 89,000 approx. 16,000 na southern Afghanistan. The result was that Norwegian forces were concen- Army territorial commands 4 4 0 na trated in north-western Afghanistan Brigades 1+12 1+5 1 1 in one specific military role, which Independent battalions 2+35 3+19 2* demanded the rotation of similar units Home Guard 83,000 83,000 45,000 over time. This increased the burden Home Guard reg. commands 18 18 11 (planned) na on certain units and had a detrimental HG Rapid reaction units – – 11 (planned) effect on important capabilities. In HG SF units 5 5 0 2012, for instance, the Ministry of *includes HJK/FSK, a SOF unit. The strength of Norwegian SOF was dramatically increased Defence recognised that the pattern of after 2000.

8 General, Chief of Army Staff, Lars J. 9 Norwegian Ministry of Defence (2012) Et Sølvberg (2004) Hæren omgrupperer Forsvar for vår tid, Prop. 73 S (2011-2012), til innsatsområdet Afghanistan, article chapter 7.1. Available at http://www. in Aftenposten 15 July. See http://www. regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fd/dok/regpubl/ aftenposten.no/meninger/kronikker/ar- prop/2011-2012/prop-73-s-20112012/3. ticle828338.ece#.T5VDEKu155l html?id=676051

Frivärld · May 2013 7 May 2013

it closed its responsibilities were after a heated debate in 2010. If the The SOF are busy units. A transferred to CAOC Finderup in opposition wins the election in Sep- further strengthening of Denmark, which will in turn close tember 2013, these units are likely to their numbers will probably in 2013. NATO currently has only be re-established. The SOF are busy be needed if they are to two CAOCs in Europe. It is perhaps units. A further strengthening of their maintain readiness for both symptomatic of developments in numbers will probably be needed if counterterrorism missions at NATO that the Norwegian Govern- they are to maintain readiness for both home and operations abroad. ment in 2012 decided to establish a counterterrorism missions at home national Air Operations Centre at and operations abroad. not have organised units for mobilisa- Reitan, due to be operational in 2016. tion. The last mobilisation brigade was Ground Forces: The Army closed down in 2008. In 2013, how- The Special Operations Forces: A and the Home Guard ever, the MOD signalled that efforts strategic asset? The army and the Home Guard are are under way to develop new ways of Norway has two SOF units: one in the separate services. Although a merger using reserves systematically in order army and the other in the navy. Both has been debated, the cultural and to improve the sustainability of opera- forces have been strengthened dra- functional gaps between the two tions at home and abroad.10 matically in the past decade, and both organisations are wide. The Home Brigade Nord has three manoeuvre have regularly experienced successful Guard has a very strong political posi- battalions, two mechanised and one but dramatic combat in Afghanistan. tion and there are no immediate plans light infantry, each of which is the core Since August 2012, a debate has raged for a merger. When the army closed of a battalion battle group. Two such over whether the two SOF units its regional commands and abolished battle groups are stationed in north- should be merged into a single unit, its territorial regiments, the Home ern Norway and one in the south. placed under a new SOF command or Guard took over all territorial roles. For a decade the latter, the Telemark remain within their original services. The Home Guard is mainly a light battalion, and its support forces were The MOD has proposed maintaining infantry force with little mobility or manned by professional soldiers while separate units under a new SOF com- firepower. the rest were dependent on conscripts. mand. Both units will be given roles in The army has some 9500 personnel, In 2012 it was decided that both the assisting the police with counterterror- half of whom belong to the one re- Telemark battalion and the Armoured ism operations, hitherto the preserve maining brigade. The only large units battalion would be manned mainly by of the army’s SOF. This role will prob- outside the brigade are His Majesty professionals, but with a number of ably include heightened readiness in the King’s Guard, a light infantry bat- conscripts as well. The Second Infantry order to provide capabilities for rapid talion in Oslo, and the Border guard, battalion, which is being reorganised response nationwide. The introduction a ranger force deployed at the Russian into an Arctic force, the Royal Guard of such a system is a natural response border. and the Border Guard will still mainly to the massacre of 22 July 2011. A large number of trained soldiers be manned by conscripts. Ironically, the Home Guard’s specialist and officers are transferred to the forces, which had rapid response units Home Guard and the army reserve 10 Stortingsmelding 14 (2012–2013) Kom- in the largest cities, were disbanded every year, but the army itself does petanse for en ny tid. Published 1 March 2013.

Frivärld · May 2013 8 May 2013

Since 2003–2004, the army has to reactivate the MLRS. The MLRS, The main problem for the had a strong focus on its operations undoubtedly the most potent weapon Norwegian Army is its in Afghanistan, to the extent that it system in the Norwegian Army, was size. In addition, the Home would now be at a disadvantage in deactivated as part of Norway’s adap- Guard is too lightly armed to operations against a symmetric enemy. tion to the so-called anti-personnel compensate for the army’s low In 2005, the army lost both its air mine convention.11 level of sustainability. defence battalion and its heavy artil- The mechanised battalions operate lery battalion, along with its Multiple Leopard 2A4 main battle tanks and vehicles and to purchase an additional Launch Rocket System (MLRS). CV90N infantry combat vehicles, but 43 from Sweden. Another Swedish More recently, the Ministry of De- they are also equipped with lighter, product, the Archer artillery system, fence has signalled that an air defence wheeled armoured vehicles. In 2012 it will equip the army’s single remaining capability will be re-established in the was decided to modernise the army’s artillery battalion. brigade, but as yet there are no plans 103 existing CV90N infantry combat The main problem for the Norwe- 1990 2000 2013 2020 gian Army is its size. In addition, the Naval territorial commands 7 (3) – – Home Guard is too lightly armed to Coastal defence installations 40 15 – – compensate for the army’s low level of sustainability. The Brigade Nord Frigates 5 3 5 5 may be high quality, but it is only one Corvettes (Light escort) 2 – – – brigade. At a certain point, lack of FAC and Coastal corvettes 36+8 reserve 14 6 6 size seriously threatens quality with Submarines 13 10 6 6 irrelevance. Minelayers 2 2 – – Mine clearing vessels 4 9 6 6 Sea Forces: The Navy and Landing ships tank 7 5 – – the Coastguard Large support ships 1 2 1 na The navy consists of the Coastal Fleet oilers – – – 1 Squadron, which is the navy proper, Combat boats – 20 20 na the coastguard and the Naval Spe- Large OPV with helicopters 3 3 4 4 cial Operations forces. The Coastal OPV 3001t+ – – 4 na Squadron is made up of coastal rang- OPV 1001–3000t 4 6 1 na ers as well as ships and submarines. Patrol vessel 501–1000t 6 5 6 na The main naval base is Haakonsvern, Patrol vessel 500t or smaller – 6 – na in Bergen, while the main coast- OPV= Ocean Patrol Vessels guard base is situated in Sortland, in the Vesterålen Islands, in northern Norway. 11 The Convention on the Prohibition of the In 1990 the Royal Norwegian Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Navy was a force organised in coastal Destruction. districts, structured to fight in the lit-

Frivärld · May 2013 9 May 2013

toral zones and to protect coastal and years to introduce new classes of ships, or alternatively one Standard 2 or sea lines of communication between which have suffered serious delays. The Standard 3 Ballistic Missile Defence southern and northern Norway. Nor- navy proper has less than one crew missile. Aegis supports the use of the way maintained advanced area denial per ship and suffers from shortages latter, more capable missile, but the systems in areas of strategic impor- of crewmembers with specialist skills. Norwegian Navy has not yet procured tance. These systems included a large The coastguard, on the other hand, any. All this means that the Nansen number of coastal fortress, minefields operates continuously and each ship class has the potential to be developed and torpedo batteries as well as sub- has two crews. There is no doubt that into a far more capable air defence marines, fast attack craft and fighter such an arrangement is needed in the ship at a relatively modest cost. aircraft. Today, the Coastal Rangers navy proper if the billions invested in First and foremost, these frigates are are the only remaining element of fast attack craft and frigates is to yield optimised for anti-submarine warfare the old Coast Defence force, which a proportionate return in terms of and equipped with both hull-mounted used to be able to mobilise more than operational availability. and towed sonar as well as an NH90 30,000 men. The current navy is still a Displacing more than 5,000 tonnes, ASW helicopter. Fourteen NH90s coastal force, but has a much improved the five Nansen class frigates that were ordered for the coastguard and sea-going capability. entered service between 2006 and the navy in 2001. The helicopters were In 1990 the navy proper had 78 2011 are nearly three times as large to have entered service from 2006, but vessels with a total displacement of as their predecessors, the Oslo Class. by 2013 only a single helicopter had 36,500 tonnes. In 2013 its 24 ships The frigates are equipped with Aegis been delivered. displaced more than 40,000 tonnes combat systems to counter air threats Kongsberg’s Naval Strike Missile The coastguard has also increased the but, compared to similar ships in the is the main anti-surface weapon on number, quality and average size of navies of other NATO members, they both the Nansen-class frigates and the its ships since 1990. In 1990, the navy have few missiles. The Nansen class Skjold-class corvettes. The NSM is a had many bases and depots along has only one or two eight-cell verti- highly manoeuvrable medium-range the coast. Now there are few left. In cal launchers (VLS). All the frigates cruise missile with an advanced passive 2009 it was decided to close the only will probably be re-equipped with seeker system. It is especially suited remaining naval base in northern more missile launchers in the future. for use in the littoral zones, but it may Norway, Olafsvern in Tromsø. As the Each cell can carry four Evolved Sea also be used against targets on land. A government has stated repeatedly that Sparrow (ESSM) air defence missiles version is being developed for the F35. the High North is priority number one, the strategic wisdom of this move 1990 2000 2013 2020 has been questioned. The planned F-35 – – – +/– 20 (tot 56) procurement of a combined fleet oiler/ F-16 A/B 62 58 57 Decreasing logistics ship in 2016 might alleviate F-5 RF 16 16 (10 in store) – the need for a base to some extent, but Orion P3 C/N 6 6 6 Na one such a ship will not fill the gap. C-130 transport aircraft 6 6 4 (new) During the Cold War most of the Helicopters (TPT/SAR) 30 30 30 Na fleet was kept in a state of high readi- Naval Helicopters 6 6 2 operational 18 ness. The navy of 2013 has taken many

Frivärld · May 2013 10 May 2013

When the NSM was ordered in 2002 capable submarines with air independ- stationed at Bodø and Ørland, but the the delivery date was 2007. However, ent propulsion around 2020. Even plan is to move all the aircraft to Ør- the first missiles were not tested on with the huge investments in the F35 land in the coming years. A forward ships until October 2012. fighter aircraft, Norwegian politicians base with rapid reaction aircraft will Obviously, these delays in the have stressed the need for submarines be established in Evenes. delivery of missiles and helicopters and the will to pay for them. It is sig- During the Kosovo campaign in have led to severe limitations in the nificant than when Volker Rühe, the 1999, Norwegian fighter aircraft were capabilities of the frigates, as well as German minister of defence, proposed assigned to fly patrols in daylight over for the fast attack craft and the four a common North Sea submarine fleet the Adriatic Sea, probably the least helicopter-carrying coastguard ships. in May 2012, Espen Barth Eide, at demanding task in the operation. In fact, when the 14 Hauk class fast the time the Norwegian minister of The Norwegian F16s were neither attack craft were taken out of service defence, declared that Norway needed equipped nor trained for attack earlier than originally planned, the its own submarines.13 missions against Serbian targets. In Norwegian Navy did not have a seri- The Norwegian Navy suffered a 2002, six F16s were deployed as part ous surface combat capability between serious drop in capabilities between of a Danish-Dutch-Norwegian unit 2008 and 2012. 2008 and 2012. In the next few years operating from Manas Airbase in Kyr- this trend is likely to be reversed gyzstan. In January 2003, Norwegian dramatically as weapon systems are F-16s dropped two bombs on a rebel The Norwegian Navy suffered delivered and skills in using the new, force in Afghanistan that was attack- a serious drop in capabilities advanced ships improve. ing a US patrol. Both bombs hit their between 2008 and 2012. target. It was the first time the Royal In the next few years this Norwegian Air Force had attacked trend is likely to be reversed The Air Force The Royal Norwegian Air Force oper- anyone since the Second World War, dramatically as weapon ates all the aircraft in the Norwegian and a stark contrast to the Kosovo systems are delivered and skills Armed Forces as well as the helicop- experience. in using the new, advanced ters used for search and rescue owned On 19 March 2011 the Norwegian ships improve. by the Ministry of Justice. The number Government ordered six F-16s to take of aircraft has not been dramatically part in operations against Libya. The The six Ula-class submarines are reduced since 1990, and will expand as aircraft were deployed on the 21st and 12 seen as a strategic deterrent. They are the NH-90 helicopters are introduced. dropped their first bombs on the 25th. probably Norway’s strongest deterrent The number of bases, on the other The air force’s F16s carried out 286 against military threats. They are likely hand, has been sharply reduced since missions as part of Operation Odyssey to be replaced with new and more 1990. Fighter aircraft and ground- Dawn and Operation Unified Protec- based air defence units are currently tor. They flew 615 sorties totalling 12 Norwegian Ministry of Defence (2012) Et 3,121 hours and dropped 588 bombs. Forsvar for vår tid, Prop. 73 S (2011-2012), 13 “Norge gir ikke opp ubåter», Aftenposten The procurement of 56 F35 Light- chapter 7.2. Available at http://www. 20 May 2012. Available at http://www. regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fd/dok/regpubl/ aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/Norge-gir- ning II fighter aircraft is by far the prop/2011-2012/prop-73-s-20112012/3. ikke-opp-ubater-6832837.html#.UYwi- largest Norwegian defence procure- html?id=676051 7X0mn8 ment. Four training aircraft have

Frivärld · May 2013 11 May 2013

already been ordered, and six aircraft a 2011, while simultaneously maintain- military capability to handle crises year will be delivered from 2017. The ing a detachment abroad, the service on its own, albeit a capability that is choice of F35 remains controversial will probably need to be reinforced. limited in space and time. Accordingly, because of uncertainty about the final As a whole, the Royal Norwegian the Norwegian Armed Forces have cost, and because future technological Air Force is a highly operational, maintained a broader range of mili- developments seem likely to favour deployable and professional force. The tary capabilities than many NATO fewer manned aircraft and commit- introduction of NH-90s and F35s will member states, which have optimised ting a larger proportion of resources to dramatically increase its capabilities. their force structures for international drones. Its main challenge, perhaps, is to man- operations. Moreover, because crises The Orion aircraft has supported age the transition from the current related to disputes at sea are seen as Operation Active Endeavour in the system and base structure to the new far more likely than an invasion of the Mediterranean and Operation Ocean one. The air force should be careful to mainland, the air force and the navy Shield in the Indian Ocean, and are avoid the drop in capability experi- have suffered far fewer cuts than the still constantly active over the Barents enced by the navy during the latter’s army. Sea. Norway took delivery of the new recent transition. In terms of capabilities, the Norwe- C130J Hercules aircraft in 2008.14 gian Armed Forces probably reached They, like their predecessors, have been their low point in the period from constantly active supporting Nor- The choice of F35 remains 2008 to 2012 due to both the strain of wegian troops both at home and in controversial because of deployments to Afghanistan and ma- international operations. uncertainty about the jor changes in the navy. Even so, the Between 2008 and 2012, the air final cost. operations in Afghanistan, Libya and force kept three helicopters in Af- elsewhere have proved that the Nor- ghanistan in support of the Nor- wegian Armed Forces have made huge wegian-led PRT. This continuous Conclusion progress in terms of professionalism. deployment was successful but put Norway has important interests, Ongoing and planned technological major strains on the small number of especially in the north, that are not improvements will strengthen them helicopter units. It may also have set necessarily shared by its allies or further in the coming years. Even so, a precedent for future operations, in partners. Moreover, the US reposition- it is an open question whether such which Norwegian Army units may be ing of its forces to Asia and European small forces will be enough in a world reluctant to deploy to high risk opera- cuts in force structures imply that a where multipolarity and great power tions without an organic helicopter rapid NATO military response to a rivalry is on the rise. From such a capability. If military helicopters are to crisis cannot be taken for granted. perspective, the warnings of General play a larger role in domestic security This means that Norway needs a Göranson and General Mood should in response to the events of 22 July certainly be taken seriously.

14 The C-130J that crashed in Sweden in March 2012 with the loss of all five crew members has been replaced.

Frivärld · May 2013 12 May 2013

THE AUTHOR:

Ståle Ulriksen is Researcher of International Politics and Sea Power at the Norwegian Naval College in Bergen, Norway (2007–). He is also researcher at the Norwegian Institute for International Affairs (1993–).

Frivärld · May 2013 13