ANALYSIS: The German-Norwegian submarine fleet that controls the Baltic Sea

From Four to Six Submarines: A Decision in January 2026

In late January 2026, Norway signed a contract for two additional submarines, bringing its total order from four to six units, according to Naval News. This expansion represents one of the largest orders in the history of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, and it was approved by a large majority in the Norwegian Parliament.

The total cost of the Norwegian program now stands at approximately $9.69 billion for the six submarines, according to Breaking Defense—a figure that illustrates the scale of the investment made by a country of just five and a half million people to ensure its maritime security in the Arctic and the Baltic.

A rearmament drive fueled by a historic increase in the defense budget

On March 27, 2026, the Norwegian government announced the addition of 115 billion Norwegian kroner—approximately $12 billion—to its long-term defense plan through 2036, according to Reuters. This additional funding is intended, in particular, to accelerate the deployment of new submarines and the acquisition of the first Type 26 frigates built by the British company BAE Systems.

This budgetary trajectory should enable Norway to reach 3.5% of its GDP allocated to defense—a level well above NATO’s minimum target—confirming Oslo’s status as one of the Alliance’s most fiscally disciplined members.

This is a concrete example I will cite whenever I am told that European countries do not take their defense seriously: Norway is already exceeding NATO’s targets, without fanfare or procrastination.

Berlin is also doubling down

Germany is not to be outdone: the federal government has officially committed 4.7 billion euros to the acquisition of two additional submarines, bringing its total order to six units—a decision finalized in April 2026, according to several industry sources. This increase follows the German Parliament’s approval in December 2024, as part of the “Zeitenwende” strategic shift initiated after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

This simultaneous expansion by both countries confirms that the Type 212CD program is no longer merely a bilateral arms contract, but a cornerstone of NATO’s northern flank’s submarine defense.

An initial €5.5 billion contract that has continued to grow

The original contract, signed in July 2021, called for the construction of six submarines at a cost of approximately 5.5 billion euros, with four units for Norway and two for Germany. Four years later, that figure has skyrocketed, driven by additional orders from both countries and inflation in the defense sector—a phenomenon documented in black and white in Norway’s own government reports.

This continued expansion of the program, far from being a sign of uncontrolled budgetary overspending, reflects instead a shared strategic awareness: the Russian threat in the Baltic Sea justifies investments that no one would have considered a decade ago.

I see this deliberate budgetary escalation as a rare positive sign: for once, Western political leaders are not shying away from the cost of their own security.

A Joint German-Norwegian Diplomatic Push

In late May 2026, Germany and Norway joined forces to convince Canada to choose the Type 212CD as its navy’s next submarine, according to a CBC News report. If Ottawa gave the green light, the combined total of orders would reach twenty-four submarines, making it the largest fleet of identical conventional submarines in the world.

To win over the Canadians, Germany even committed to delivering four submarines by 2036—a promise that would require Berlin and Oslo to each forgo one submarine in their own delivery schedule to expedite Canada’s, a strong diplomatic gesture that illustrates the magnitude of what is at stake.

A Race with South Korea to Win Over Ottawa

This German-Norwegian offer comes amid direct competition with a rival South Korean proposal, according to CBC News. The fact that two major industrial blocs—European and Asian—are vying so fiercely for the Canadian market demonstrates the growing strategic value placed on conventional submarine capabilities in the current geopolitical context.

If Canada joins this program, it would significantly strengthen industrial and operational integration among Western allies—a goal I consider highly desirable in light of the growing naval ambitions of Russia and China.

I sincerely hope that Canada will choose the German-Norwegian option: every identical submarine added to this network strengthens the interoperability of NATO as a whole, not just that of a single country.

A Narrow Sea, Multiplied Challenges

The Baltic Sea, which is relatively shallow and surrounded by numerous NATO member countries, has become a major theater of tension since Sweden and Finland joined the Alliance. This unique geographical configuration makes the presence of submarines both technically more difficult and strategically more crucial, as every movement can be detected more easily but also carries greater consequences.

In this context, Norway’s and Germany’s ability to operate submarines with unmatched stealth represents a decisive advantage in deterring any incursion or provocation by the Russian navy in this sensitive area.

Incidents Involving Submarine Cables That Have Raised Awareness

Several incidents involving damaged undersea cables in the Baltic Sea over the past two years have reinforced the conviction among coastal nations that the region requires enhanced undersea surveillance. These events, widely documented by the defense press, have helped provide political justification for accelerating the Type 212CD program in the eyes of the Norwegian and German public.

This aspect of protecting critical undersea infrastructure—often underestimated in public debates on defense—illustrates just how much modern maritime security extends far beyond direct military confrontation alone.

It is not said often enough: protecting an undersea cable that carries our banking data is just as vital today as protecting a land border.

Kongsberg and ThyssenKrupp: A Partnership That Extends Beyond the Baltic Sea

The commercial success of the Type 212CD program directly benefits the European defense industrial ecosystem, particularly through the joint venture kta Naval Systems, founded by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, its subsidiary Atlas Elektronik, and the Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace. This cross-border industrial collaboration illustrates the increasingly deep integration of European military production chains.

The success of this model is already attracting other potential customers, including the Netherlands, which is also considering acquiring the Type 212CD to replace its aging Walrus-class submarines, according to specialized analyses of the naval sector.

A Contrast to Swedish and Polish Competition

While the German-Norwegian partnership is expanding, Sweden has selected Saab’s A26 submarine for its own needs—a program also chosen by Poland as part of its Orka project, according to Nordic Defence Review. Far from weakening NATO’s cohesion, this diversity of industrial choices instead illustrates the vitality of a European naval sector now capable of offering several credible and complementary technological solutions.

This healthy competition among European manufacturers drives each to innovate further—a phenomenon that ultimately benefits the entire Atlantic Alliance and its collective deterrence capability.

I much prefer a European defense landscape where multiple manufacturers compete for excellence rather than a single monopoly, no matter how effective it may be.

Constant U.S. Pressure on Burden-Sharing

We must honestly acknowledge that the pressure exerted for several years by the Trump administration on European allies to significantly increase their defense spending has helped accelerate decisions such as those made by Norway and Germany. This insistence, at times blunt in its approach, has produced concrete and measurable results in the area of European rearmament.

In this specific area—the West’s military posture toward Russia—I have no hesitation in giving this administration credit for helping to push historically more cautious European partners toward defense spending commensurate with current threats.

Strengthened collective deterrence, regardless of political tensions

Despite occasional diplomatic tensions between Washington and certain European allies on other issues, concrete military cooperation around programs such as the Type 212CD remains strong, driven by a shared assessment of the Russian threat that transcends current political divisions.

This strategic convergence—even if imperfect—demonstrates that the Western security architecture remains functional and capable of producing tangible results, despite the political turbulence that regularly makes headlines.

I know that this U.S. administration is deeply divisive—even for me on other issues—but when it comes to European rearmament in the face of Russia, the facts speak for themselves.

Confirmed Interest in Replacing the Aging Walrus Class

The Dutch Navy, faced with an aging fleet of Walrus submarines that have been in service since the 1990s, is seriously considering the Type 212CD as a replacement option, according to analyses by the specialized naval sector. This prospect would further strengthen the industrial and operational integration of the German-Norwegian program across Western Europe.

Dutch participation in the program would create a third European pillar around this platform, consolidating a common technological standard for Western submarine defense in the North Atlantic and the Baltic Sea.

Toward an Unprecedented Interoperable NATO Fleet

If we combine the potential orders from Norway, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands, the Type 212CD program could, over the coming decade, form the backbone of a truly integrated submarine community within NATO, with harmonized standards for maintenance, training, and armament across several allied nations.

This prospect, still hypothetical for some partners, nevertheless outlines a credible path toward a Western submarine defense that is far more integrated than it has ever been since the end of the Cold War.

A truly interoperable submarine fleet among four NATO countries would, in my view, be one of the most tangible achievements of Western rearmament this decade.

A Production Pace Under Pressure

The Norwegian long-term defense plan document itself acknowledges a key risk: several other allied nations are showing growing interest in the German-Norwegian class, which could affect the delivery schedule for submarines already ordered by Oslo and Berlin. This tension between growing demand and limited production capacity poses a real industrial challenge for ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems.

The construction of a second production line in Germany—partly funded by Norway itself, according to Defense News—is specifically intended to address this production pace constraint by enabling the simultaneous manufacture of multiple units.

Rising production costs: a publicly acknowledged phenomenon

The Norwegian government itself acknowledged, in its report to Parliament, that the price of the last two submarines ordered is higher than that of the first four, due to general price trends in the defense market and rising raw material costs. This budgetary transparency—rare in major defense programs—deserves to be commended rather than criticized.

Paradoxically, this honesty regarding rising costs actually strengthens the program’s credibility in the eyes of Norwegian and German taxpayers, who know exactly how every krone or euro they invest is being spent.

I have greater respect for a government that publicly acknowledges a cost increase than for one that conceals it until the press uncovers it against its will.

An Aging but Still Active Russian Submarine Fleet

The Russian Navy continues to operate a significant submarine fleet in the Baltic Sea and the Arctic, even though several Western analysts believe that a substantial portion of this fleet is technologically outdated compared to newer Western-built submarines. This growing technological asymmetry, if it persists over time, could permanently reshape the balance of power in the region’s submarine domain.

China, for its part, is investing heavily in its own submarine fleet, with ambitions that extend far beyond the Western Pacific alone. This global dynamic justifies, in my view, the West maintaining a constant technological edge rather than resting on its laurels.

Why Quality Trumps Quantity in Modern Submarine Warfare

Unlike other military domains where sheer numbers matter greatly, modern submarine warfare rewards, above all, stealth, precision, and technological reliability. A small number of well-maintained and technologically advanced Type 212CD submarines can, in fact, neutralize the raw numerical advantage of a larger but less sophisticated opposing fleet.

It is this qualitative logic that, in my view, justifies the massive investment made by Norway and Germany rather than a simple race to build more units.

In the depths of the ocean, a single invisible submarine is often better than an entire detectable flotilla: this is a lesson that the West seems to have finally fully grasped.

A Clear Message to the Russian Navy in the Baltic Sea

In practical terms, a fleet of twelve—or even twenty-four—Type 212CD submarines distributed among several allied countries radically alters the strategic calculations of any Russian military planner considering action in the Baltic or Arctic regions. The combination of stealth, endurance, and onboard weaponry makes every sortie by this fleet potentially invisible and therefore feared.

This silent deterrent—which does not necessarily make headlines the way a tank parade would—is nonetheless one of the most effective tools in the West’s current security posture.

A rear base as close as possible to the Russian border

The new Norwegian submarines will be based primarily in Ramsund, in Troms County—a location deliberately chosen for its proximity to the Russian border, according to Defense Magazine. This strategic geographic positioning allows for faster deployment in the event of heightened tensions in the Arctic, a region that Russia itself considers a priority for its own naval capabilities.

This deliberate geographical proximity illustrates Norway’s determination to defend its northern flank unequivocally, in full alignment with the commitments it has made to its NATO partners.

Based so close to the Russian border, this deployment sends a message that requires no official statement: true deterrence is built in the silence of the depths.

A Silent Competition Beneath the Sea Ice

Beyond the Baltic Sea alone, the Type 212CD submarines are explicitly designed to operate beneath Arctic sea ice—a crucial strategic capability as melting ice gradually opens up new shipping routes coveted by both Russia and, increasingly, China. This Arctic dimension of the program extends far beyond the mere context of deterrence against Moscow.

The increased presence of Western submarines capable of operating under the ice sends a direct message to any power—whether Russian or Chinese—that might seek to unilaterally exploit the newly accessible Arctic resources or shipping routes.

A strategic interest shared by the entire Alliance

The United States itself is closely monitoring the development of this program, aware that the security of the North American and European Arctic is now inextricably linked. This convergence of interests between North American and European allies strengthens the overall coherence of the Western stance in the face of rivals who, for their part, are closely coordinating their own naval ambitions.

This Arctic dimension confirms, if confirmation were needed, that the Type 212CD program goes far beyond a mere bilateral issue between two neighboring countries to become a matter of collective security for the entire Northern Hemisphere.

The Arctic will be one of the major silent battlefields of this decade, and I much prefer to see Western submarines there rather than Russian or Chinese ones.

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania Reassured

The three Baltic countries, which are particularly vulnerable due to their geographical proximity to Russia, are following the expansion of the German-Norwegian submarine fleet with keen interest. For these nations with limited naval capabilities, the increased presence of allied submarines in their regional waters provides an additional security guarantee, which is essential to their strategic peace of mind.

This Nordic and Baltic naval solidarity concretely illustrates what a united NATO should look like in the face of a common threat: countries of very different sizes pooling their capabilities to collectively protect an entire region.

Increased Coordination of Multinational Naval Exercises

Joint naval exercises involving Norwegian and German units—and soon, perhaps, Canadian or Dutch ones—are becoming more frequent in the Baltic region, strengthening practical interoperability among allied navies. This regular coordination is an essential element of the credibility of Western deterrence, going beyond the mere technical capabilities of the equipment.

It is this combination of cutting-edge technology and proven human coordination that ultimately constitutes the true strength of a modern military alliance like NATO.

A submarine fleet, no matter how advanced it may be, is only as valuable as the quality of the human coordination that supports it: this is where NATO continues to make a difference.

A Model of Cooperation to Be Replicated Elsewhere

The Type 212CD program demonstrates that ambitious industrial and military cooperation among Western allies remains possible, even amid budgetary constraints and a turbulent geopolitical landscape. Norway and Germany have chosen the path of integration rather than costly duplication—a choice that deserves consideration by other European capitals facing similar dilemmas.

If Canada and the Netherlands do indeed join this program in the coming years, NATO will have an unparalleled conventional submarine fleet, capable of securing its entire northern flank against Russian ambitions for the long term.

I conclude this report with a simple conviction: the most effective deterrent is not always the most visible, and these twelve submarines are silent proof of that.

A deterrent built patiently, one submarine at a time

This story of submarines is, at its core, just one chapter among many in a broader Western rearmament effort that began with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But it is a chapter that is particularly revealing of the West’s ability to transform strategic awareness into concrete, measurable, and sustainable industrial commitment.

I will continue to follow this issue closely, particularly Canada’s upcoming decision, which could well become one of the most significant milestones in Western naval rearmament this decade.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist