When Norway and NHIndustries (NHI) announced a settlement over the cancelled NH90 submarine-hunting helicopter contract, one might have expected a quiet footnote in defence-industry circles.

Instead what we see is a symptomatic collapse of Europe’s ability to execute multi-national defence programmes with the precision and accountability the moment demands.

Under the deal, NHI — backed by Airbus, Leonardo and GKN Fokker — will pay Norway roughly €305 million on top of €70 million previously paid, in return for Norway returning the delivered helicopters and equipment Reuters reports.

It may sound like a large number – yet, in context, it is remarkably modest. Norway’s original claim stood at €2.86 billion, citing damages from a contract signed in 2001 for 14 NH90s, whose delivery should have been completed by 2008 but instead stretched for more than a decade and ultimately collapsed.

A Lesson in Procurement Dysfunction

Let us examine what has gone wrong. The contract – for a key submarine-hunting helicopter in the Arctic region, where Norway faces the submarine threat of the Northern Fleet – should have been at the heart of Norway’s maritime defence. Instead, persistent delays, missing parts and escalating costs turned a strategic gear into a liability. By scrapping the order in 2022, Norway was forced to turn elsewhere, escalating its replacement costs via a contract with the American Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky Seahawk helicopters — and citing €2.1 billion of that as part of its damages claim.

What the settlement highlights is that multinational defence programmes — especially within the European industrial base — are still blighted by over-optimism, weak accountability, and the inability to deliver to schedule or contract. Worse, such failures ultimately fall on taxpayer-sovereign states who depend on these systems for strategic deterrence.

Strategic Importance — and Institutional Weakness

This failure matters beyond commercial litigation. Norway operates in the Arctic — covering a vast 2 million km² area in the North Atlantic, facing the Russian Northern Fleet on the Kola Peninsula. The NH90 contract was not a minor purchase. It was a critical element of NATO’s northern flank. Yet a decade of postponements and equipment shortfalls meant that capability-gaps persisted.

How can a network of European defence firms, backed by government budgets and political commitment, still under-deliver something so fundamental? The settlement suggests that institutional risk-sharing is weak, contractual discipline is lax and military demands are not enforced with sufficient rigour. In an age when deterrence counts, such laxity is not just a financial failure — it is a strategic one.

A Cheap Escape for Industry, an Expensive Lesson for States

One may observe that NHI’s payment of €305 million is a fraction of the claim. For a contract worth billions and for a programme so late it was cancelled, this is hardly a punishment. Indeed, one might conclude that the industrial consortium got off lightly, while Norway — and by extension European defence consumers — bear the real cost: replacement programmes, capability delays and erosion of trust.

Moreover, the return of the delivered helicopters and parts suggests the manufacturers are reclaiming what they could salvage, while the state absorbs the rest of the burden. This asymmetric outcome underscores an imbalance in power: suppliers negotiate their way out, but states pick up the tab.

Broader Implications for European Defence Autonomy

This saga points to a broader malaise. As Europe seeks greater defence autonomy in the face of Russian aggression, rising Asian threats and trans-Atlantic uncertainties, the ability to field complex platforms reliably is non-negotiable. Yet if states cannot hold manufacturers to account for delivery, cost-overrun and performance, then autonomy remains a rhetorical nicety, not an operational reality.

Furthermore, cooperative programmes — by their nature facing multiple national requirements, integration challenges and cross-border supply-chains — are vulnerable to exactly the delays and cost escalations seen in the NH90 case. Europe must ask: are these models fit for purpose, or do they welcome dysfunction disguised as complexity?

The Government’s Role — Not Just the Balance-Sheet

It is tempting to view this as a commercial dispute. But the Norwegian government, like others, must take a more muscular posture. Why were oversight mechanisms unable to hold the contract on course? Why did the sanctioning of delays only happen after a decade? Why is the revision of capability doctrine deferred by industrial strains? In short, states must act not just as customers, but as sovereign guarantors of outcomes.

In a European context, this means governments should enforce stricter milestones, financial penalties, transparency in supply-chains, and readiness metrics. If contracts slide for years without serious repercussions, then the credibility of defence procurement collapses.

A Wake-Up Call for Europe’s Defence Posture

The Norwegian settlement, modest though it may be, should serve as a wake-up call. It should remind defence ministers across Europe that when the capability is delayed, the threat does not wait. The industrial base may weather litigation, but what it cannot afford is the loss of strategic relevance.

Europe is awash with announcements of increased spending and modernisation targets — yet if the NH90 fiasco is any guide, more money alone will not harden capability. The hard work lies in delivery. Otherwise, billions spent will yield months of delay — and adversaries will take advantage.

The Bottom Line

States and taxpayers may applaud a settlement. Politicians may move on to the next headline. But the underlying lesson is stark: the architecture of European defence procurement remains fragile. For Norway, the settlement is only the end of one chapter. The bigger question is whether Europe has learned the lesson — that industrial promises must convert into operational helicopters, ships and missiles — on time and on spec.

If not, then the next crisis may not end with a handshake and a check — it may end with a capability gap and a strategic vacuum. And in the cold seas of the Arctic — and beyond — that is a price Europe cannot afford.

Main Image: By Ministerie van Defensie – https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=97942147

Norway turns to Britain’s shipyards in landmark naval deal to counter Russia