The equipment office of the German armed forces signed a contract with MBDA Deutschland and Rheinmetall Waffe Munition in June to develop the full system, from reconnaissance to target tracking and engagement, the companies said in statements on Thursday. The contract value is in the “mid three-digit” million-euro range, Rheinmetall said.

Several European navies are working on laser weapons, with the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy planning to fit the DragonFire directed-energy weapon on a destroyer by 2027, in work led by MBDA in partnership with Leonardo and QinetiQ. Naval vessels are particularly suited to deploy powerful lasers, as they can provide the physical space, electrical power, sensors and cooling required.

“The laser weapon system will provide our personnel deployed on naval vessels with a significantly higher level of protection, particularly when it comes to countering drones,” Roman Koehne, head of Rheinmetall’s weapons and ammunition division, said in a statement.

The laser weapon system from MBDA and Rheinmetall has a “very high level” of technological maturity, the companies said. The demonstrator has been deployed on the German frigate Sachsen, covering 28,000 nautical miles from the Baltic Sea to the Mediterranean, and firing over 1,000 shots at air, sea and land targets in more than a year of testing, according to MBDA and Rheinmetall.

The containerized laser effector will also be a cost-effective weapon for port security, MBDA Deutschland Managing Director Thomas Gottschild said. The system can focus power on an area measuring just a few centimeters, and has proven to be effective even in adverse weather conditions, according to Rheinmetall and MBDA.

The MBDA-Rheinmetall joint venture will place “particular emphasis” on German supply chains and local systems expertise to secure national sovereignty in the technology, the companies said. Serial production will “largely” take part in Germany, according to Koehne.

In other weapon-development news, the French-German Research Institute of Saint-Louis said it tested its electromagnetic railgun outdoors for the first time in June, moving the system out of laboratory conditions. The institute will now work on higher energy levels and longer distances as a path towards a possible future deployable system, it said in a statement on Thursday.

Railguns use electromagnetic acceleration rather than chemical propellants to fire a projectile, and could provide a possible counter to hypersonic threats.

Meanwhile, Belgium said it will buy 20 of Rheinmetall’s Skyranger 30 anti-drone cannons as well as 14 Thales GM200 radars, in addition to a previously announced plan to buy 10 NASAMS air-defense systems from Kongsberg. The country is investing €3.1 billion ($3.5 billion) to build up a layered air defense system, after two decades of going without, Defense Minister Theo Francken said.

But berthed in port — or sailing on the surface while transiting to and from port — these powerful yet fragile boats can be sitting ducks for drones, mines and even anti-tank rockets.

What once seemed the plot of thriller novels has become reality. Ukraine claims it successfully used an underwater drone to damage a Russian submarine in the Black Sea port of Novorossiysk last year. Guerrillas and terrorists lurking along a waterway could use anti-tank guided missiles or handheld anti-tank rockets to ambush an unwary sub.

To face the new threat, the U.S. Navy is looking to develop better methods of protecting its missile subs, as well as the shore installations that support them.

These defenses include “prototype technologies to detect, track, identify, deny, and defeat unmanned systems across all domains,” according to a Sources Sought announcement. “This area seeks scalable solutions for shore-based installations and afloat operations in Port, Harbor, Littoral, and Waterways (PHLW) and open ocean environments.”

The Navy is also searching for ways to escort and protect its missile subs as they transit to and from port.

The goal is to “ensure the zero-failure secure movement of strategic maritime assets,” the announcement said. “This area seeks advanced maritime situational awareness, physical security enhancements for escorting SSBNs [nuclear missile subs], and the detection, avoidance, and mitigation of maritime mines, and the defeat of direct-fire kinetic threats (e.g., shore-launched ATGMs/RPGs) during transit through PHLW to and from dive points.”

The threat of anti-tank weapons even extends to the truck convoys hauling ICBMs to sub bases. The Navy is interested in active protection systems — sensors and shotgun-like launchers mounted on armored vehicles to destroy incoming anti-tank rockets — “for ground transport and convoy operations of strategic weapons and equipment.”

US Air Force wants more armored transporters for ICBM warheads

Other security items in the Sources Sought announcement, which lists 22 “focus areas” that the Navy’s Strategic Systems Program wants to address, include sensors to protect harbors. The Navy is also interested in security robots, including “Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) for waterside patrol, Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) for perimeter screening, and robotic inspection platforms that seamlessly integrate with existing response forces.”

Artificial intelligence has also emerged as a threat in the form of drone swarms or cyberwarfare.

The Navy is searching for countermeasures that “focus on defeating autonomous swarms, disrupting AI-enabled Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) directed at nuclear facilities, and hardening strategic security networks against AI-driven cyber-physical attacks or spoofing.”

The best defense for submarines is simply not to be detect in the first place. To that point, the Navy is seeking “prototype technologies that may mitigate the generation, radiation, propagation, and scatter of a variety of signal types (acoustic, chemical, optical, electromagnetic, radiological, hydrodynamic, and cyber) associated with submarine and unmanned system operations, to include both peacetime and wartime operations.”

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced July 6 that TKMS has been selected as the winning bidder in the country’s project to acquire the new boats. The company offered Canada its Type 212CD submarine which is being built for both Germany and Norway.

Carney did not provide a dollar figure on the submarine project but noted the deal is expected to be the largest defense procurement in the country’s history. It is estimated that the entire project could cost as much as $70 billion ($100 billion Canadian) when long-term maintenance, new infrastructure, weapons and other factors are considered over the life of the boats.

Negotiations with TKMS will begin shortly with a contract expected to be in place by the end of the year.

TKMS beat out a bid from Hanwha Ocean, which was offering its KSS-III submarine.

“This was a difficult, close decision between two highly qualified suppliers,” Carney said in making the announcement in Halifax, Nova Scotia. “Both the TKMS and the Hanwha platforms met the very high capabilities of the Royal Canadian Navy, and both of them put forward strong proposals to maximize benefits for Canadian workers and businesses.”

“These subs will strengthen our defense industrial base, they will deepen our partnerships with trusted allies, and they will open new opportunities for Canadian businesses in European supply chains,” he added.

The new submarines will replace the Royal Canadian Navy’s aging Victoria-class submarines. Government officials said the first submarine is expected in 2033 with three more hopefully being delivered in 2034.

“In the end, this decision was about choosing the absolute best platform and partnership to meet Canada’s combined strategic, security and economic interests,” Carney said.

Carney made the announcement the day before the NATO Summit is set to begin in Turkey. “These subs will strengthen our defense industrial base, they will deepen our partnerships with trusted allies, and they will open new opportunities for Canadian businesses in European supply chains,” Carney said.

Oliver Burkhard, CEO of TKMS, said in a statement that the company is ready to provide Canada with significant economic benefits. “We stand ready to work alongside the government of Canada, Canadian industry and our partners in Germany and Norway to deliver a world-class submarine capability that will strengthen security, create economic opportunity and generate lasting benefits for future generations,” Burkhard said.

Glenn Copeland, CEO of Hanwha Canada, said the company was disappointed with its loss but he noted that the competition showed Canada what South Korea can offer. “The team at Hanwha have demonstrated to the Canadian public and government that there is unlimited potential to unlock within the South Korean defense industrial base and that Hanwha and its business divisions will continue to grow aside from today’s decision,” Copeland said in a statement. “We look forward to continuing to demonstrate why Hanwha is the backbone of the world’s fourth-largest defense export nation.”

Hanwha mounted a significant economic and public relations push to convince Canada about the value of its boats. That included the Republic of Korea Navy sending one of its KSS-III submarines to Victoria, British Columbia, in May to show the long-range capabilities of the boat as well as to conduct joint operations with the Royal Canadian Navy.

The South Koreans were also promoting the procurement as a way for Canada to expand its relations in the Asia-Pacific region. Carney said that the loss for Hanwha does not signal a change in Canada’s commitment to the area. “We’re very committed to the Indo-Pacific strategy,” he said. “There are a series of other initiatives Canada and Korea are pursuing that build our economic resilience and security footprint.”

Stephen Fuhr, secretary of state for defense procurement, said at a news conference in Victoria on July 6 that the submarine competition was completed in record time. The whole process took less than a year.

Fuhr said one of the main criticisms of Canada’s defense procurement process is that it is too lengthy. But he noted he intends to change that and speed up other future defense procurements.

The current fleet of Victoria-class submarines operated by the Royal Canadian Navy will be decommissioned in the mid-2030s, the Canadian government has noted.

Thales will offer to buy the remaining Exail shares for €134 each, the company said on Monday. That’s a 44% premium to the Exail share price on June 25, the day before Safran announced talks with the Gorgé family at a price of €128.50 a share.

Safran said it ended exclusive negotiations on Friday about the potential acquisition after the parties were unable to reach mutually acceptable terms.

Exail provides maritime drones for several European autonomous mine-hunting systems, including the French program led by Thales. The market for mine warfare is expected to grow in the high single digits through to 2030, while the addressable market for unmanned anti-submarine warfare is forecast to increase eightfold by the end of the decade, Thales said in a presentation.

“With this acquisition, Thales aims to increase its scale in the underwater warfare market, and to expand its capabilities in inertial navigation systems through the addition of Exail’s complementary expertise,” the company said.

Thales said the acquisition allows it to gain critical mass in the growing market for unmanned mine countermeasures and speed up innovation in anti-submarine warfare. Exail produces a range of underwater and surface drones, as well as inertial navigation technology, with 76% of its sales coming from navigation and maritime robotics, and the remainder from advanced technologies.

Exail’s autonomous maritime drones are used for underwater mine clearing and seabed mapping, with emerging uses including anti-submarine warfare as well as intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. Thales is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of sonar systems, including towed sonar used by many Western navies.

The purchase by Thales of the Gorgé family stake is expected to close in the third quarter of 2026, after which the company will file a mandatory tender offer for all of Exail’s shares and convertible bonds that is expected to close by early 2028 at the latest.

Thales said it expects “significant value creation” for its shareholders from the acquisition, with Exail adding to the company’s earnings per share from the first year, and an impact on Thales operating profit of more than €90 million by 2032.

Exail had 2025 revenue of €479 million, and an order book of €1.1 billion at the end of March, according to the presentation document. That compares with Thales sales of €22.1 billion last year, and an order book of €53.3 billion at the end of December.

Thales said the purchase will strengthen its underwater warfare business, allow it to gain market share in inertial navigation systems, and help accelerate development of quantum sensors. Combining the two companies could generate additional revenue of €500 million within 10 years, Thales said.

Fincantieri acquisitions

Meanwhile, Italian shipyard Fincantieri is spending €600 million to acquire four maritime drone and undersea engineering firms as it seeks to strengthen its role in the growing civil and defense undersea market.

The Italian state-controlled yard said it was buying firm Next Geosolutions, which offers offshore construction support services, as well as Italian start-ups WSense, Graal Tech and Defcomm which specialize in underwater communications and surface and undersea drones.

“The acquisitions announced today mark a historic transformation for Fincantieri, as it creates an international champion in the underwater domain,” the group’s CEO, Pierroberto Folgiero, said in a statement.

Supported by a €500 million capital increase in February, the acquisitions add to Fincantieri’s recent purchases of undersea firm Remazel and torpedo maker WASS.

Following the new acquisitions, Fincantieri’s sub-sea revenue will hit €1.1 billion this year, €1.4 billion in 2028 and €1.8 billion in 2030, the firm said.

Fincantieri said it would seek synergies between civilian and military sub-sea technologies, in the same way it has long sought synergies between its naval vessel and cruise ship businesses.

Following the acquisitions, Fincantieri will employ 1,500 in sub-sea activities in Italy, the Netherlands, the U.K., Norway and the United Arab Emirates, the firm said.

A Naval Air Systems Command Request For Information posted on July 1 is asking industry whether it is capable of supplying up to 600 Advanced Emission Suppression Missiles per year.

In February — before the Iran War and the consequent guided missile shortage — NAVAIR posted a Sources Sought notice that stated “production demand is expected to be on the order of up to 300 [all up rounds] per year.”

The new RFI asks for a “mature design” of at least technological readiness stage 6 — the fully functional prototype stage.

“The U.S. Navy is seeking to enhance its capabilities to suppress and neutralize enemy air defenses in contested environments,” the RFI said. “This effort aims to identify and potentially acquire a weapon system focusing on extended range, advanced targeting, counter-countermeasures, and integration with existing and future platforms.”

Both the RFI and the earlier Sources Sought share some details. The Navy wants an “advanced anti-radiation seeker with broad frequency coverage” and the “ability to target modern and advanced radar systems.”

The AESM should be compatible with the F/A-18 E/F and the EA-18G, as well as being capable of mounting internally and externally on the F-35. It should also require minimal maintenance, and have at least a 15-year service life and more than 500 captive carriage flight hours.

But the RFI does not include several specifications contained in the Sources Sought. In particular, the Sources Sought asked companies to “describe ability to engage air-to-air and air-to-ground targets.”

The RFI doesn’t mention an air-to-air capability for the AESM. Nor does it repeat the Sources Sought call for an anti-radiation missile “with a longer range than existing in the Navy’s current inventory.”

The Navy’s existing anti-radar missile, the 1980s AGM-88 High Speed Anti-Radiation Missile, or HARM, has a range of up to 80 miles, depending on the launch aircraft’s altitude.

The AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile Extended Range, or AARGM-ER, has a longer range. But amid development delays — including problems with the rocket motor and software — the Navy has paused procurement for the AGM-88G, with limited procurement set to resume in Fiscal Year 2028.

The U.S. has sent HARMs to Ukraine for use against Russian air defense radars. However, the Ukrainians are replacing them with domestically produced attack drones, perhaps out of concern over the limited number of HARMs received.

The Sea Baby, a strike boat built and operated by Ukraine’s Security Service, or SBU, can now carry six to eight FPV drones in side compartments that open during an attack, alongside thermobaric Shmel rockets, according to Russian accounts of the boats operating around the Kinburn Spit, roughly 40 miles east of Odesa, shared by Forbes.

Ukrainian officials count on the autonomous vessels’ ability to move closer toward Russian military positions than land-based launchers could, with the SBU assuming a range of 930 miles (1,500 kilometers) on a 4,400-pound (2,000-kilogram) payload. Some of the drones in the cargo hold are guided by fiber-optic cable, leaving them immune to the radio jamming that downs ordinary FPVs, according to Forbes.

Ukraine has turned nearly everything it fields into an FPV launcher. Sea drones carrying fiber-optic FPVs struck the Russian ports of Tuapse and Novorossiysk in September. Several companies have rigged ground robots to fire the same drones, and both sides have flown balloons carrying them.

“The SBU became the first in the world to pioneer this new kind of naval warfare,” Brig. Gen. Ivan Lukashevych said at an unveiling of the Sea Baby’s latest generation in October 2025, “and we continue to advance it.”

Ukraine fields two distinct naval drone families.

The Sea Baby is developed and operated by the SBU, Ukraine’s domestic security service. The Magura – built by Uforce for the GUR, Ukraine’s military intelligence directorate – is a separate system with its own lineage and export path.

The Sea Baby is primarily remote-piloted from a mobile ground station but carries AI-assisted targeting and navigation systems that allow it to operate autonomously when communications are jammed or degraded – a design imperative born from Russia’s intense electronic warfare environment over the Black Sea.

American forces have begun using the boats themselves.

U.S. special forces sank a target ship with a Ukrainian Magura at the Balikatan 2026 exercise off the Philippines on June 24, the first use of the technology in the Indo-Pacific.

The interest is not one-off. A cheap, expendable boat that can carry a cluster of attack drones to within striking range is exactly the kind of weapon the United States is looking for as it prepares for a possible war with China across the Pacific’s vast distances.

“Magura’s successes on the Ukrainian-Russian front confirm their value for use in the Indo-Pacific region,” Oleg Roginsky, chief executive of Uforce, the London-based startup that makes the Magura, told Bloomberg last week.

Uforce is in talks with Indo-Pacific buyers and weighing at least two production sites in the region, Roginsky said. Ukraine barred weapons exports in 2022 to keep its arms at the front, and only began opening that market in 2025.

Ukrainian naval drones have sunk or damaged roughly a dozen Russian warships since 2022 and forced the Black Sea Fleet to pull its main operations back to Novorossiysk, the U.S. Naval Institute reported in September.

Each boat costs a few hundred thousand dollars, below the price of a single modern torpedo.

The Pentagon is studying the lesson as it shifts focus toward a possible conflict with China.

The U.S. Navy expects to field thousands of small uncrewed surface vessels across the Indo-Pacific by 2030, Capt. Garrett Miller, who leads its Surface Development Group One, said at a Navy symposium on April 20, as reported by USNI News.

In a report last July, the Center for Strategic and International Studies urged the U.S. military to copy Kyiv’s acquisition methods, arguing that “unlike theoretical models or peacetime pilots, Ukraine’s innovations in defense acquisition are battlefield tested.”

And Ukraine has continued to innovate. Its Sub Sea Baby underwater drone struck an Improved Kilo-class submarine at its pier in Novorossiysk on Dec. 15, the first time an unmanned underwater vehicle has hit a submarine in port, the SBU said.

Russia denied any damage, but satellite imagery taken the following day showed a 9-meter crater in the pier, the submarine visibly lower in the water, and the vessel, later identified as the B-271 Kolpino, unmoved at its berth more than a month later. Ukrainian and independent analysts assessed it as a mission kill.

NATO is already training with Kyiv’s tactics, too.

Ukraine’s navy led a NATO red team and beat the alliance’s blue force in all five scenarios at the REPMUS naval-drone exercise in Portugal in September, the first time it had run the opposing force.

Sunk more than 200 nautical miles off the coast in the Mariana Islands Range Complex, the death knell to the Juneau came from a torpedo strike from a Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force submarine.

“This SINKEX provided an outstanding opportunity for our joint team to integrate capabilities across domains, honing the lethal precision and coordination essential for high-end maritime operations in the Pacific theater,” said Rear Adm. Eric Anduze, commander of Carrier Strike Group 5 and Task Force 70.

Valiant Shield involving the U.S., Japan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand is a biennial field training that builds real-world proficiency in sustaining joint forces through detecting, locating, tracking and engaging units at sea, in the air, in space, on land and in cyberspace, according to the Navy.

The SINKEX of the USS Juneau comes nearly 84 years after the first USS Juneau, CL-52, was infamously sunk by a Japanese torpedo during the Guadalcanal campaign in November of 1942. Upon contact with the torpedo from Japanese submarine I-26, the Juneau exploded and sank within minutes. Only 10 crew members survived the attack — and among those lost were the five Sullivan brothers. As a result of their loss, according to Naval History and Heritage Command, the U.S. Navy barred close relatives from serving onboard the same ship.

Juneau (LPD-10) entered service in 1969, seeing action in the Vietnam War and Operation Desert Storm. It was decommissioned in 2008 and was moored in Naval Sea Systems Command Inactive Ships On-Site Maintenance Office at Pearl Harbor before being used by the U.S. and its allies as a means to gain proficiency and confidences in their weapons systems that can not be duplicated in simulations.

According to the Navy, prior to the sinking of any vessel for participation in a SINKEX, each vessel is put through a rigorous cleaning process, “including the removal of all liquid polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from transformers and large capacitors, small capacitors to the greatest extent practical, and all trash, floatable materials, mercury or fluorocarbon-containing materials, and readily detachable solid PCB items. Petroleum is also cleaned from tanks, piping, and reservoirs.”

In addition, a Navy environmental, safety and health manager and a quality assurance supervisor are on hand to inspect the environmental remediation conducted.

In a statement, Saab said that the contract’s value corresponds to around SEK 47 billion ($4.8 billion), and deliveries are scheduled to be completed during 2038. Saab has also committed to developing maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) capabilities in Poland in close partnership with the country’s industry.

The deal was signed on June 29 in Gdynia, a city on the Polish Baltic Sea coast where a large part of the Navy’s fleet is stationed, in the presence of Poland’s and Sweden’s prime ministers and defense ministers.

Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz, Poland’s deputy prime minister and national defense minister, who took part in the official signing ceremony, said that the new submarines will carry drone swarms that will be used to safeguard the nation’s critical infrastructure and shoreline.

“Poland is acquiring, under the deal that was signed a moment ago, three fifth-generation A26-type submarines. These are the most advanced submarines designed for operations in the Baltic Sea, capable of carrying out missions both for the Navy and for special operations forces,” Kosiniak-Kamysz was quoted as saying in a statement released by the ministry. “They will be able to deploy swarms of drones controlled from aboard the submarine and support the management and protection of the Baltic Sea’s security infrastructure and architecture.”

Under a separate deal, Poland aims to urgently acquire a “gap filler” boat for its Baltic Sea operations that will be used to train its sailors. Swedish submarine HMS Södermanland is to be procured for that role, according to officials.

The past months have brought a series of contracts that Warsaw has signed to modernize and expand the operational capabilities of the Navy which had traditionally been the most underinvested branch of the Polish military.

Most recently, the ministry awarded a deal to U.S. defense technology firm Shield AI to purchase its V-BAT drone for the naval forces.

The corvette ROS Contraamiral August Roman was originally constructed for the Turkish Naval Forces as offshore patrol vessel Akhisar, at the Istanbul Naval Shipyard operated by defense company Asfat. Romania purchased the ship under a government-to-government contract signed in December 2025, worth €223 million ($254 million) excluding VAT.

The transfer marks the first delivery of a Turkish-built warship to a European Union and NATO member state, underscoring Turkey’s growing naval exports.

In its current configuration, the ship has a 76mm main gun, two 12.7mm machine guns, navigation and combat management systems, a 3D surveillance radar, a fire-control radar integrated with an electro-optical sensor, electronic warfare systems, a keel-mounted sonar, and an integrated communications suite.

The Romanian Naval Forces stated the vessel can perform surveillance, reconnaissance, maritime patrol, interdiction, search and rescue, anti-air and anti-submarine warfare operations, while supporting helicopter operations.

Bucharest plans a follow-on procurement package worth €42 million in the second half of 2026 to achieve full operational capability. The package is expected to include a vertical launching system for air-defense missiles, a 35mm close-in weapon system, rocket-propelled depth charges, and additional electro-optical and infrared tracking sensors. Romania also intends to equip the ship with NSM anti-ship missiles under the EU’s SAFE (Security Action for Europe) program.

Last week’s delivery comes in the context of growing defense cooperation between Turkey and Romania. During a June 20 ceremony, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan described the delivery as a reflection of the strategic partnership between Turkey and Romania, saying that “Black Sea security is an inseparable part of the Euro-Atlantic security architecture.”

Romanian President Nicușor Dan said the two countries discussed wider industrial cooperation, including Turkish investment in Romania’s defense sector and expanded cooperation in protecting critical underwater infrastructure in the Black Sea.

The U.S. Embassy in the Philippines announced this week the transfer of the AUSVs worth 754 million pesos ($13 million) and produced by American firm Ocean Aero to the sea forces to enhance capabilities “to detect and respond to maritime challenges and illegal maritime activities.”

The transfer comes after the Armed Forces of the Philippines revealed that China discreetly deployed a 6x6 meter floating platform equipped with an antenna in late May at the southeastern portion of Scarborough Shoal, a fishing lagoon within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone.

Philippine officials claim the platform was being used to illegally gather Philippine maritime data and could serve as a prelude for China’s island-building activities. Philippine officials lodged diplomatic protests, and China removed the structure last week.

Solar-powered Tritons are capable of autonomous navigation both on the surface and underwater and can support a diverse array of missions such as intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), anti-submarine warfare, maritime strike, and mine countermeasures.

The drones can be fitted with video cameras, thermal imaging and sonars, and may be deployed from shore, vessels, or aircraft. It can dive down to 100 meters and remain underwater for 10 days. It can also conduct surface patrols for up to 30 days.

In Ocean Aero’s headquarters in Gulfport, Mississippi, the AUSVs are mobilized to protect subsea cables from sabotage, and the company has pitched the AUSVs for U.S. Navy mine-clearing in the Strait of Hormuz.

Officials told Defense News the AUSVs were shown to the Navy during the recent iteration of Exercise Balikatan and are among a series of systems and platforms the U.S. had planned to transfer to the Philippines to boost military capabilities.

The Tritons will also boost existing efforts to monitor subsea cables and gas pipelines, officials said.

“The ability to monitor and respond to maritime challenges — illegal fishing, gray zone activities, and threats to freedom of navigation — requires persistent, long-endurance awareness that no single ship or aircraft can provide alone. The Triton fills that gap by expanding the capabilities of the Philippine Navy into critical waterways,” U.S. Embassy Chargé d’Affaires Bridgette Walker said in a statement.

The drones are included in the Philippines-U.S. Security Sector Assistance Roadmap, a multi-year agreement to ease the acquisition, transfer, and sharing of equipment like radars and unmanned systems to strengthen maritime surveillance.

Last December, the U.S. Senate earmarked $2.5 billion for Philippine military modernization to be disbursed from 2026 to 2030.

The decision follows years of delays and cost overruns under Dutch shipbuilder Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding, which was awarded the original contract in 2020 to build six of the 10,550-ton frigates for roughly €10 billion ($11.3 billion). The ministry said Damen had given notice that the ships could not be delivered within the agreed timeline or budget.

The military had been exploring a transfer of the general contractor role to Naval Vessels Lürssen since 2025, the newly Rheinmetall-owned shipbuilding group. But negotiations put the price tag for a Lürssen-led continuation of the F126 program at around €15.2 billion for six ships. When accounting for work already completed under the Damen contract and associated support agreements, the total financial requirement would have exceeded €18 billion.

The ministry said a contractor switch would also have required Berlin to waive potential damage claims against Damen — a condition it was unwilling to accept. The legal review of those claims is ongoing.

The pivot to MEKO frigates had been in the works since at least March, when Defense News reported that Germany was pursuing a “bridge solution” of four MEKO A-200 DEU ships from TKMS to ensure anti-submarine capability ahead of NATO commitment deadlines. At the time, officials said the F126 program was not altogether sunk, and negotiations with Lürssen as a replacement lead contractor were continuing, with Damen expressing interest in remaining “an essential partner.”

Wednesday’s announcement closes that chapter. The German Navy’s top officer has formally blessed the MEKO A-200 DEU as capable of fulfilling Germany’s core submarine-hunting mission and meeting NATO obligations, the ministry said.

Subject to approval by the Bundestag’s budget committee, the first four MEKO frigates would cost approximately €6.3 billion ($7.15 billion), with an option for four additional ships exercisable through end-2026 for roughly €5.3 billion ($6 billion) — a combined total of €11.6 billion ($13.2 billion) for all eight hulls. The ministry attributed the price increase relative to earlier budget estimates primarily to the conversion of an industry cost estimate into a binding TKMS contract offer, with Navy-requested additions accounting for only about 5% of total costs.

The ministry said it intends to submit the requisite approval paperwork to the Budget Committee of the Bundestag, Germany’s parliament, as quickly as possible to stay on target for the NATO capability deadline.

The most significant induction, which took place Sunday in the eastern city of Kolkata, was the stealth frigate named “Dunagiri.” One of India’s most advanced surface combatants, it is nearly 149 meters in length and displaces around 6,600 tonnes.

Equipped with advanced weapons, sensors and stealth technologies, the new warship is designed to perform air-defense, anti-surface, anti-submarine and long-range strike missions simultaneously.

In a statement, the Defense Ministry said the frigate represents a leap in indigenous warship design and combat readiness. “Built using modular construction techniques and armed with supersonic surface to surface missiles, advanced air defense systems, MR Gun, close-in weapon systems and advanced antisubmarine warfare capabilities, the frigate is designed for high-end operations.”

The warship is the fifth in a class of stealth guided-missile frigates inducted since last January. Armed with Brahmos cruise missiles, MF star radar, and Barak-8 surface-to-air missiles, these multi-role platforms will gradually replace aging warships. Two more frigates are scheduled for induction in the coming months.

The other two ships commissioned on Sunday will augment the navy’s capabilities in anti-submarine warfare and maritime surveillance. The increasing deployment of submarines by China and other countries in the Indian Ocean region has made these naval platforms are significant for New Delhi.

The anti-submarine warfare shallow water craft, Agray, is equipped with lightweight torpedoes, indigenous rocket launchers, and shallow-water sonar systems to detect, track and engage enemy submarines operating close to India’s coastline. The third vessel, Sanshodhak, will support hydrographic survey of coastal waters.

The three ships were built by a state-owned shipyard, Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers in Kolkata with about 75–80% domestic content, according to the Defense Ministry.

Building and designing naval vessels is considered one of the more successful achievements of India’s efforts to increase domestic defense manufacturing and reduce its massive reliance on imports. However, analysts point out that while India is constructing complex naval platforms at home, it still remains dependent on foreign suppliers for key technologies such as propulsion systems and naval radars.

“India has done pretty well in terms of designing warships, but it still has a lot to do regarding the propulsion package of ships. It is also import-dependent on big-ticket ordnance such as missiles, guns and heavy torpedoes and so on,” according to retired Commodore C. Uday Bhaskar, director of the Society for Policy Studies in New Delhi.

“In the frigate Dunagiri for instance, the guns are with Italian collaboration, the engines have come from GE (General Electric) USA. But what has been achieved is positive,“ he said.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi emphasized India’s goal of enhancing domestic defense production at the commissioning ceremony for the ships on Sunday. “Today India no longer wants to remain a mere buyer in the defense sector,” he said. “Our military power cannot become a market for the world, The definition of our power lies in self-reliance.”

The three new ships are among 19 vessels that India plans to add this year to enhance its naval prowess as protection of critical sea lanes becomes a priority amid rising geopolitical uncertainties. About 90% of India’s trade by volume and vital energy imports come via sea.

Speaking to the press before a meeting of NATO defense chiefs in Brussels, German Minister of Defense Boris Pistorius said that the mine-clearing ship Fulda and the supply ship Mosel had passed the Suez Canal. They are bound for Djibouti, which they are expected to reach in five to seven days and where they will be refueled and restocked.

A total of 140 German soldiers are aboard the ships, according to the German Ministry of Defense, including mine clearance divers, vessel protection teams and “autonomous systems.”

The two ships are currently operating under the EU operation Aspides, which was launched in response to the strikes against commercial ships by the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen. During their Red Sea transit, the ships will contribute to the situational awareness of the EU naval mission as a whole, the German MOD said in a press release.

A mission in the Strait of Hormuz would require separate parliamentary approval, Pistorius said. The Ministry of Defense said it intended to present a corresponding resolution to the Bundestag, Germany’s parliament, before the summer recess, which is set to begin on Jul. 10.

Additional preconditions for a German involvement in the strait include a durable end to hostilities surrounding Iran, as well as an international mandate.

France’s Mediterranean armada signals clout as Middle East may rethink alliances

Pistorius also outlined the need for a “permissive environment” on Thursday, saying that included “in particular, the consent of Iran and Oman for the relevant mine-clearing activities.”

He welcomed the negotiated cessation of hostilities between the U.S. and Iran but said the details of any possible German mission would depend significantly on the outcome of negotiations between Washington and Tehran over the course of the next 60 days.

A multinational naval mission in the Strait of Hormuz has been brewing for months, led by the United Kingdom and France and including Albania, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Japan, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden, as of May 12.

On Monday, the leaders of France, the UK, Germany and Italy issued a joint statement welcoming the ceasefire announced by U.S. President Trump and reaffirming that their countries remained committed to a “strictly defensive and independent mission to reassure commercial shipping and conduct mine clearance operations.”

Iran has previously warned European nations not to send warships to the region, even for the stated objectives of mine clearing and protecting shipping. In May, Tehran’s deputy foreign minister, Kazem Gharibabadi, warned that European warships would be met with a “decisive and immediate response” from the Iranian armed forces.

“The Strait of Hormuz is not a property shared with powers from beyond the region, and Iran, as a littoral state, has the right to exercise sovereignty and determine its legal arrangements,” Gharibabadi was quoted by Iranian media at the time.

The statement by U.S. Air Force General Alexus Grynkewich, NATO’s top commander and the head of U.S. forces in Europe, followed a decision by the Trump administration to shrink the pool of U.S. military capabilities available to NATO in a crisis.

U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO and told its European members they will have to take over primary responsibility for the conventional defense of the continent.

The U.S. told allies last month of its decision to reduce its contribution to a framework known as the NATO Force Model, which includes a pool of forces that could be activated during a crisis. But it did not publicly disclose any details.

Grynkewich’s statement, issued after a meeting of NATO military planners on Wednesday, was the first public indication of what areas the U.S. plans to cut first and where it expects allies to step in.

Manned and unmanned aircraft and naval vessels are two areas where Canada and European allies “can step up now and in the near term - as the United States reduces forces ‘sourced’ to the NATO Force Model in Europe and refocuses them elsewhere,” he said.

“There has been an unhealthy co-dependence in the NATO Force Model on U.S. forces,” Grynkewich said in his written statement. “President (Donald) Trump, (Defense) Secretary (Pete) Hegseth and others have been clear that this needs to change, and it will change. The potential reality of simultaneous conflict in multiple theaters demands it.”

NATO expects no gaps

The NATO alliance is under unprecedented strain, with some European countries concerned that Washington may withdraw outright. A major adjustment to the forces the U.S. would make available during wartime will only intensify those concerns.

A spokesperson for NATO’s military headquarters, U.S. Army Col. Martin O’Donnell, said the areas mentioned by Grynkewich were “where allies already have or soon will have sufficient capabilities, meaning no defence gaps are expected to emerge.”

“Nations just need to assign the capabilities they have to NATO,” he added.

O’Donnell declined to elaborate on when Grynkewich expected allied nations, whose leaders will meet at a NATO summit in Ankara in July, to have replaced the U.S. capabilities.

The number of U.S. fighter jets available to NATO is set to fall by a third, and the U.S. will also make fewer U.S. destroyers and no U.S. submarines available as part of the crisis pool, according to a report last week by German news outlet Spiegel.

Europe will also be forced to provide its own reconnaissance drones, while the U.S. plans to significantly scale back the provision of armed models, the report added.

The annual exercise, held for more than five decades since 1971, brings together some 20 vessels from 15 nations with around 6,000 personnel - roughly half the size of last year’s drills - during a period of heightened tensions in the Baltic region.

Officials say the smaller footprint reflects operational realities rather than waning commitment, as Western navies remain tied up in other areas including the Middle East’s Strait of Hormuz and the Arctic.

The US BALTOPS naval exercise, which takes place from June 4 to June 20, will still be the biggest maneuver in the Baltic Sea this year, with Washington providing the flagship Mount Whitney vessel, despite months of fierce criticism of NATO by U.S. President Donald Trump and plans to cut U.S. commitments to the alliance.

While the U.S.-led exercise is not designed as a direct response to current events, German Rear Admiral Stephan Haisch said the timing inevitably amplifies its political relevance.

“In this period, it is a sign of the alliance’s strength, that a major exercise is being conducted, under U.S. leadership, with broad NATO participation”, he said. “It is a sign of the alliance’s unity and strength, and I am speaking of all allies here.”

As Commander Task Force Baltic, Haisch is in charge of a multinational naval headquarters for the Baltic Sea, established by Germany in the coastal city of Rostock in 2024 amid a growing focus on the area as tensions with Russia grew.

His headquarters is capable of leading NATO operations in the Baltic Sea during a conflict with Russia and will do so for the upcoming US BALTOPS drills which are traditionally planned by the U.S.

Securing vital sea routes

BALTOPS will begin with drills in the western Baltic before shifting eastward to rehearse resupply and protection of free sea routes around the Swedish island of Gotland - a core task for NATO as the region’s strategic importance has grown.

Open sea routes are seen as critical, particularly for supplying the Baltic states - linked only by a narrow land corridor to NATO’s mainland - in a crisis.

“Free sea lines of communication - that is central,” Haisch said, pointing to the need to safeguard military logistics as well as commercial shipping.

Asked about past incidents in the Baltics attributed to Russia by Western officials, Haisch said he did not expect Moscow to cross a threshold that would trigger NATO’s collective defense clause, known as Article 5, even as tensions remain elevated.

“I would assume Russia to stay below the Article 5 threshold if they seek to test us.”

Seoul plans to launch its first boat in the mid-2030s, and commission it in “the late 2030s,” the government proclaimed last week.

The Ministry of National Defense (MND) announced what it has dubbed the “Basic Plan for the Development of South Korean Nuclear-Propelled Submarines” on May 26.

This effort is being labeled as the Jang Bogo-N project, named after South Korea’s first ever submarine; built in Germany, it was commissioned in 1992. The “N” refers to “next generation,” “nuclear” and “neo technology.”

The Republic of Korea Navy previously declared a need for four SSNs. The submarines are likely to displace some 8,000 tons, which makes them similar in size to the American Virginia class.

Why is South Korea going nuclear?

Kim Jae Yeop, senior researcher at the Sungkyun Institute for Global Strategy in Seoul, listed four reasons why Seoul wants to adopt SSNs. The first has to do with fielding a counterweight military capability, as it must “counter Pyongyang’s submarine-launched ballistic missile threats, and possess a highly survivable deterrent against neighboring powers like China.”

North Korea unveiled its new nuclear-powered, missile-armed submarine in December 2025. Pyongyang’s first move in this direction gave South Korea a political and moral green light to follow suit.

Secondly, Kim said, Seoul wishes to deepen and enhance cooperation with the United States, just as Australia is doing under the AUKUS program.

A new national nuclear-submarine push “will enable Seoul to broaden the geographical range of combined military activities with the U.S beyond the Korean Peninsula,” he added.

A third factor is boosting the politico-military status of Korea in the international community. Finally, Kim pointed out, SSNs “present a valid alternative to nuclear armaments, which have been strongly demanded in Korea for the past several years in response to growing threats of nuclear weapons by the Pyongyang regime.”

According to the Defense Ministry announcement, “Nuclear-powered submarines possess dramatically enhanced operational capabilities compared to existing diesel submarines,” especially their submerged endurance and mobility.

Indigenous development

The ministry said development of SSNs “is a national industrial development project spanning over 40 years (ten years of construction plus over 30 years of operation) that connects shipbuilding, nuclear power and defense industries.”

The emphasis is on domestic construction, with a prediction of 40,000+ jobs being created. This is in contrast to President Donald Trump’s declaration last October that Seoul should construct them at Philadelphia Shipyards in the United States. Hanwha Ocean acquired that shipyard in late 2024, but the site is not equipped to build nuclear-powered vessels.

Importantly, Korean submarines will use low-enriched uranium and long-cycle reactors, rather than the highly enriched fuel the U.S. Navy utilizes. This choice of fuel will minimize Korean submarine refueling requirements.

“As one of the leading powerhouses in nuclear energy and shipbuilding industry in the world, Korea is widely believed to have sufficient capacity for developing and building its own nuclear-powered submarine,” said Kim.

This includes developing a small modular reactor. Nonetheless, the main challenge will be nuclear fuel supply and complying with international nonproliferation regulations, Kim indicated.

Seoul will work with the United States to secure and manage its uranium, and the two allies are expected to launch a working group in early June.

Kim pointed out that his country has produced more than 20 conventional submarines to date. The latest 4,000-ton vessel arrived in Canada on May 23 after completing a first-ever trans-Pacific voyage.

Design concept

The same day the Jang Bogo-N project was announced, shares in local shipbuilders Hanwha Ocean and HD Hyundai Heavy Industries rose 10.2% and 9.6%, respectively.

Hanwha Ocean displayed an SSN concept at Busan’s MADEX exhibition in May 2025. That radical submarine design featured technological leaps such as a rim-driven propulsor, X-form rudder, electro-optical mast with 360º view, AI-based combat management system, a diver lockout, and manned-unmanned teaming.

Not all these features will end up on the Jang Bogo-N, but it does indicate Korea’s shipbuilding ambitions. A vertical-launch missile section will definitely be part of the design, however.

Because it will take at least a decade for Korea to develop the new submarine type, Kim said the navy “will need to keep up efforts to improve current conventional submarine forces in countering underwater challenges from Pyongyang or other regional powers.”

The Defense Ministry described the Jang Bogo-N as a “historic milestone that opens a new horizon for the Republic of Korea’s maritime security.”

The government vowed not to pursue nuclear weapons, but Kim noted the acquisition of SSNs “will contribute to efforts of the U.S and its allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific region to maintain a strategic balance against the challenge of revisionist powers like China.”

However, one side effect, according to Kim, is that “it’s highly probable Japan may also pursue development of nuclear-powered submarines in response to Korea’s choice. In this case, Seoul will have to closely coordinate with Tokyo on the matter, so that such moves shall not endanger security cooperation between the two countries.”

Japanese Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said last November that Tokyo would consider acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.

Cao stated that Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia will be part of a pilot program exploring the concept of an installation “powered from an aircraft carrier.”

“We’re going to export the energy from the aircraft carrier to the base,” he said. The American Nuclear Society first reported the Navy’s initiative.

In a statement confirming the plan, a Navy spokesperson told Military Times that the service “is executing a multi-pronged strategy to ensure the delivery of firm, baseload power to our installations for energy resilience and mission assurance.”

“One line of effort in the strategy is to deliver power from a Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier to a compatible shore installation, to demonstrate the capability to meet emergent, mission critical needs,” the spokesperson added. “An initial test of this capability is being planned for later this year at Naval Station Norfolk.”

While neither Cao nor the Navy confirmed the hulking vessel tapped for the assignment, the guinea pig in question is likely the USS Gerald R. Ford, the only Ford-class carrier currently in active service. The sea service’s second Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier, the USS John F. Kennedy, completed sea trials earlier this year.

The Ford recently returned from a historic 322-day deployment, during which time the ship and its strike group participated in Operation Epic Fury in the Middle East and operations Southern Spear and Absolute Resolve in U.S. Southern Command.

During the May 14 hearing, Cao noted that the possibilities generated by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier could be innovative — with its power being used to fix military bases or to supply fresh, potable water to drought-stricken places like California.

In the same hearing, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle noted that the aim is to create a Navy reactor pilot program comparable to that of the already established Army and Air Force programs.

“We need an overall programmatic champion for the SMR program,” Caudle said. Adding that the Navy needed to stop “dithering.”

“While the Army may be tapped to be the overall lead for it, I see no world in which the Navy is not going to be part of that discussion and bring our expertise through our long-established naval reactors, deep understanding of reactor physics, and understanding safe operation,” he said. “But we need to get a pilot established and a target date and get one going.”

The foreign ministers of the four countries made the announcement at a meeting of the Quad, a strategic security grouping focused on the Indo-Pacific at a meeting in New Delhi this week. The move to boost cooperation comes amid concerns about China’s growing influence in this region.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the maritime surveillance agreement is “going to leverage each of our country’s maritime surveillance capabilities in the Indo-Pacific to enhance information sharing.”

The aim is to integrate the four countries’ capabilities to help partner countries in the region access new maritime technologies for tracking activity in their waters, according to officials.

The Quad will also upgrade port infrastructure in Fiji, a South Pacific island nation, marking the group’s first joint regional infrastructure project. The partnership, according to Rubio comes in response to “insufficient port capacity in the Pacific Islands.”

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong called the decision to invest in port development in Fiji the strongest ever commitment from the Quad to the Pacific. “It is a practical demonstration of our collective ability to deliver high quality, resilient infrastructure in partnership with the region and in response to Pacific priorities.”

The announcement to build port infrastructure in Fiji comes amid China’s deepening ties with the South Pacific island, which straddles vital sea lanes. Beijing has become a key development partner for the small country, funding several infrastructure projects.

“This is a good initiative because it will signal to China that it cannot take its presence in the South Pacific for granted. By deepening their engagement with Fiji and with their united presence, the Quad countries will try to blunt China’s influence which is increasing by the day and offer an alternative to Chinese investments,” according to Chintamani Mahapatra, chairman of the Kalinga Institute of Indo-Pacific Studies in New Delhi.

The group did not mention China by name, but a joint statement issued at the end of the Quad meeting said it remained “seriously concerned” about the situation in the East China Sea and the South China Sea.

“We reiterate our strong opposition to any destabilizing or unilateral actions including by force or coercion that threaten peace and stability in the region,” it said.

The statement also criticized “dangerous maneuvers by military aircraft and coast guard and maritime militia vessels” and the “ramming or blocking actions in the South China Sea.” It expressed serious concern “by the militarization of disputed features” in the waters.

The Quad partners often accuse China of flexing its military muscles and aggressively pushing its maritime territorial claims. China, which claims almost the entire South China Sea, has built military facilities on contested features and has disputes with several Southeast Asian countries such as Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam, who also claim parts of the waters. China and Japan have a separate dispute over territory in the East China Sea.

Analysts said the recent meeting will inject momentum into the Quad group which was seen as a counterweight to growing Chinese influence and aggression in the Asia-Pacific region, but which critics said was losing momentum.

Calling the Quad a partnership of action, Rubio said “We are beginning to show real achievements and real accomplishments. We are deeply committed to this partnership. It is a linchpin and a cornerstone of our global strategy as a nation in the United States.”

Analyst Mahapatra said the recent meeting demonstrated that the Trump administration remains invested in the grouping.

“The Quad was perceived by many as a group losing steam but this meeting in Delhi indicated that the Quad is not dead,” according to Mahapatra.

“Without confronting China, these initiatives will signal that countermeasures are being taken so that Chinese hegemony should not be established in the Indo Pacific,” he said.

China, which criticizes the Quad as a Cold War-style bloc reiterated its opposition to the group following the foreign ministers’ meeting in New Delhi.

In response to a question about the Quad initiatives, Beijing said that cooperation among countries should promote regional peace and stability and not target third parties.

“We do not support forming exclusive small groupings or bloc confrontation. Any cooperation should not undermine mutual trust and cooperation among regional countries,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said in Beijing on Tuesday.

The Quad also agreed to launch an initiative on Indo-Pacific Energy Security and a critical minerals framework.

Standing alongside Canadian Defense Minister David McGuinty in front of a Franco-German helicopter fitted with Canadian engines, Pistorius made an explicit pitch for TKMS’ Type 212CD in Canada’s Canadian Patrol Submarine Project, a contract estimated at up to C$60 billion (US$43.3 billion) and among the largest defense procurement decisions in Canadian history.

“This is a very unique offer,” Pistorius said at a fireside chat hosted by the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. “Canada opting for the 212CD would mean to consistently and sustainably pursue the transatlantic path towards closer integration of our economies.”

The pitch was strikingly direct for a German defense minister. Germany has historically maintained a tradition of restraint in arms exports, with political leaders deliberately keeping a distance from commercial defense sales. That posture is shifting. Pistorius’s appearance at CANSEC was his third visit to Canada as defense minister in three years, and he arrived with an investment package, government-to-government endorsements, and detailed economic figures − a playbook far more reminiscent of France’s state-backed arms export model than Berlin’s traditional approach.

Germany and Norway submitted a joint bid for up to 12 Type 212CD submarines in March. In his public remarks, Pistorius cited figures of C$86 billion (US$62 billion) in GDP impact, C$167 billion (US$120.5 billion) in total economic output, and more than 650,000 job-years over the contract period − numbers derived from modeling commissioned by TKMS and the German government.

The German bid faces stiff competition from South Korea’s Hanwha Ocean, whose KSS-III Batch II submarine sailed to Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt in British Columbia last week in a conspicuous show of hardware diplomacy. Pistorius was pointedly dismissive. “We are not in a theater,” he told German journalists. “This is not about showing, it’s about proving experience and technology.”

But he also took the opportunity to remind Canadian listeners that Germany had been instrumental in facilitating Ottawa’s acceptance into the European Union’s SAFE defense financing mechanism.

The German-Norwegian offer attempts to counter South Korea’s main advantage − a pledge to deliver four submarines by 2035 − by reallocating vessels from Germany’s own order pipeline to put four boats in Canadian hands by 2036. Fleet interoperability across NATO’s northern flank is Berlin’s strongest substantive argument: Germany and Norway already operate or are acquiring the 212CD class. Together with Canada, there would be a NATO fleet of 24 such boats, making it “the world’s largest and most modern conventional submarine fleet,” he said.

It would also strengthen Berlin’s emergence as a key NATO player for the Arctic region. Germany previously launched a North Atlantic maritime security partnership with Norway, Canada and Denmark, and Pistorius was the first to disclose on Wednesday that Iceland is on the verge of joining the group as well.

An acquisition decision by the Canadian government is expected by early July, before the NATO summit in Ankara, Pistorius told reporters in German.

The boat Farncomb, the submarine with the greatest mileage, is the first vessel to undergo the process at the government-owned ASC shipyard near Adelaide. Work starts in late May.

Replacement of the Collins fleet – introduced from 1996-2003 – had been formally proposed as long ago as 2009. However, successive governments dithered as they first considered French-designed boats — spectacularly dumped in 2021 — and then AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines.

Now budgeted at A$11 billion (nearly US$8 billion), the extension program became ever more critical as a bridging capability before Australia’s navy anticipates its first American Virginia-class submarines in the early 2030s and SSN-AUKUS boats in the 2040s.

The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) issued a damning verdict on Department of Defence planning for the life-extension program. It noted that “substantial further expenditure has been incurred, delays have accumulated and capability risks have remained.”

Auditors concluded that Defence is not in a good position “to demonstrate that the project will achieve its intended capability outcomes or represent value for money.”

Defense officials claimed in a press release that the extension program “will reduce risk, enhance capability and maximize availability.” The statement proposed a “conditions-based sustainment approach” that restores base components and upgrades critical weapons and systems.

Work on Farncomb will start with a detailed engineering assessment, and subsequent work will depend on what is discovered.

This first effort, which may uncover hidden issues such as corrosion, will inform work to be performed on the remaining submarines. Priority will be given to the youngest boats.

Auditors determined that accumulated delays and a decade of planning forced a revised delivery strategy. Instead of redesigning and replacing key systems like engines and generators, the program will simply refurbish and maintain them, without substantially improving their combat capability.

As some issue experts expect delays in Australia fielding nuclear-powered submarines, and the future possibility of having few or no operational submarines whatsoever, Canberra insists there is no plan B for interim conventional submarines.

Meanwhile, new submarines may be cheaper than Australia’s proposed life-extension refit. For example, Japan will pay US$760 million for its newest Taigei-class submarine.

Asked about Australia’s submarine aspirations, Rear Adm. Stephen Hughes, Head of Navy Capability, told Defense News last November: “Are they high risk? Sure – schedule is demanding, technologies are demanding, workforce is demanding. I could list all the things that could go wrong, but one thing we’re really good at in Defence – despite maybe some other commentators’ views – is risk management.”

Still, ANAO auditors stated: “Ten years after the initial decision to establish the life-of-type-extension project, Defence was not well placed to demonstrate that the project will achieve its objective to maintain Collins-class capability and availability to 2048.”

Operation Epic Fury may have strengthened the case for directed energy weapons, but the U.S. Navy’s dream of putting “a laser on every ship” may take significantly longer than expected to realize.

In a posture statement delivered to the House Armed Services Committee on May 14, Chief of Naval Operations (and noted directed energy champion) Adm. Daryl Caudle delivered a forceful argument for why high-energy laser weapons are a necessity for the sea service — namely, to take over missile defense from kinetic interceptors and free up space for offensive weapons across the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, which he proclaimed “the workhorse of the surface Fleet, as illustrated clearly by Operation Epic Fury.”

“Directed energy is a critical component of future naval warfare, particularly for ballistic missile and terminal defense,” Caudle stated. “The current paradigm, which forces a trade-off between defensive interceptors and offensive strike weapons within the limited space of the Vertical Launching System (VLS), is unsustainable. Every VLS cell used for a defensive missile is a lost opportunity for a long-range offensive strike.”

But Caudle’s testimony also contained an admission that the dream of a laser fleet remains a dream deferred — at least, until the Navy can actually build it.

The vision of a laser fleet Caudle laid out in his posture statement is anchored in the Navy’s proposed nuclear-powered battleship and future surface combatants, platforms that must be “designed with the power and cooling capacity necessary to scale these systems to very high energy levels, thereby providing lethality against exquisite threats.”

To translate those designs into real-world capabilities, the service “must prioritize and fund R&D for compact, high-density energy storage and thermal management systems capable of handling the demands of [directed energy weapons],” he said, as well invest in “digital engineering and land-based test facilities to de-risk the complex integration of DEW systems with legacy combat and ship control systems.”

The structural reason for Caudle’s emphasis on future warships is one Laser Wars readers will recognize immediately: the Navy’s current surface fleet — including its most modern warships, the Flight III Burke-class destroyers — simply cannot support the power demands of laser weapons at scale.

As the service’s then-surface warfare boss Rear Adm. Ron Boxall bluntly put it back in 2019, the Flight III Burkes are already “out of Schlitz with regard to power,” their generators fully committed to feeding the new AN/SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar system.

Caudle isn’t pretending a viable laser weapon for missile defense can be engineered around existing hulls; they must be built into the next generation of warships from the keel up.

The implication is stark: the first vessel in America’s true laser fleet won’t set sail until the first battleship or next-generation frigate steams out of a shipyard. Battleship procurement isn’t planned until 2028, with delivery to the fleet projected for the 2030s, if at all.

The Navy may see directed energy as a critical capability, but don’t expect it to show up on any active warships outside of its existing Optical Dazzling Interdictor, Navy (ODIN)-equipped fleet anytime soon.

None of this makes Caudle’s urgency any less real. Indeed, Epic Fury offers the most vivid illustration yet of exactly why he feels it so acutely.

Consider the Presidential Unit Citation recently awarded to the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group. According to the citation, nine surface combatants — eight as part of Destroyer Squadron 2, plus the USS Winston S. Churchill — fired 207 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles at Iranian targets between February 28 and May 1.

Assuming all of these combatants were Arleigh Burke destroyers with 96 VLS cells apiece, that’s a potential combined ceiling of roughly 864 cells, with those 207 Tomahawks representing roughly one offensive strike weapon for every four cells.

The citation makes clear where the rest of the magazine went: the strike group “protected vital sea lines of communication while under persistent threat from enemy missiles and one-way attack drones,” meaning the remaining cells were loaded with (and presumably expending) the defensive interceptors required to keep the formation in the fight.

This is Caudle’s unsustainable paradigm in action: the destroyers that prosecuted one of the most significant U.S. naval combat operations since World War II potentially went into the fight with roughly three-quarters of their magazine committed to self-defense.

And once those interceptors are spent, they are not easily replaced. Unlike fuel or food, vertical launch weapons cannot be reliably transferred at sea under operational conditions. The Navy has been pursuing an underway VLS reloading capability through its Transferrable Reload At-Sea Method (TRAM) program, but the system is not yet operationally fielded.

The directed energy solution to this problem is, in theory, elegant: a laser weapon defending a warship at $10 per shot leaves every VLS cell free for Tomahawks for offensive strikes and SM-6s for remaining high-end threats, converting the destroyer from a platform split between offense and defense into one optimized for offensive power projection.

“Every VLS cell used for a defensive missile is a lost opportunity,” Caudle told lawmakers — and directed energy, as he envisions, eliminates the choice. The problem is that the ships capable of hosting those laser weapons at the power levels required haven’t been built yet.

Caudle’s posture statement does offer something of a bridge between the Navy’s current surface combatants and the laser fleet of the future: the Containerized Capability Campaign (C³), an initiative he describes as enabling “missiles, unmanned systems, sensors, electronic warfare packages, and directed energy” to be deployed across “a wide range of platforms and shore sites” without major structural redesigns.

Caudle explicitly frames containerization as a workaround for the power and integration constraints that make bolting high-energy laser weapons onto existing warships so difficult.

It “decouples payloads from platforms,” as he puts it, allowing the Navy to “adapt capability faster than traditional acquisition timelines” and deliver combat power “at the speed of relevance — not the speed of platform-centric acquisition.”

Caudle had previously made the vision concrete at the McAleese Defense Programs conference in Arlington, Virginia in March: “From towed array sensors to drone swarms to electronic attack systems to high-powered lasers, I want to containerize everything.”

There is evidence to support this approach. In October 2025, the Navy conducted a successful live-fire test of the palletized 30 kW LOCUST Laser Weapon System from the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush, demonstrating that a containerized laser could draw cleanly from a carrier’s nuclear reactors without the issue that plagues the Burke fleet.

Lockheed Martin, meanwhile, is developing a containerized version of the service’s lone 60 kW High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical Dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS) system currently installed aboard the destroyer USS Preble specifically so the system can be seamlessly transferred across vessels in maintenance rather than sitting idle pierside.

The Navy’s fiscal year 2027 budget request also supports the “development, integration and marinization” of the U.S. Army’s Enduring High Energy Laser (E-HEL) systems for potential shipboard applications.

The most significant containerized effort reaches considerably higher up the power curve. The Joint Laser Weapon System (JLWS) — the collaboration between the Army and Navy whose existence Laser Wars first reported in June 2025 — is designed from the outset as a containerized system, initially aiming for 150 kW with potential to scale to at least 300 kWs specifically for cruise missile defense, according to the Navy’s fiscal year 2027 budget request. The system will also include a Joint Beam Control System capable of supporting a 300-500 kW weapon.

Together, the Army and Navy have outlined a vision of $675.93 million in combined R&D spending through fiscal year 2031, with the Navy planning to award the first JBCS development contracts as soon as the fourth quarter of 2026. If JLWS delivers on its promise, it would represent a containerized laser weapon powerful enough to engage the missile threats that sit at the heart of Caudle’s VLS argument without requiring a keel-up redesign.

What Caudle’s testimony describes, then, are two directed energy tracks running in parallel — with a third, more tentative one emerging between them.

One narrative is near-term and modest: containerized, lower-power systems like LOCUST and even HELIOS, deployable across the surface fleet now and effective against the ever-expanding drone threat.

The second is transformational and distant: megawatt-class systems embedded in the hull of a battleship that won’t reach the fleet for close to a decade.

The JLWS represents an attempt to thread the needle between them with a containerized missile defense capability that could arrive before the battleship does.

For Caudle and his fellow Navy leaders, Epic Fury may have crystallized a need for a laser fleet that matches their ambition for one.

Time will tell if they can actually build it.

The frigates are expected to cost a little over 10 billion Swedish kroner each, with the final price depending on the integrated equipment and systems, Swedish Defence Minister Pål Jonson said in a press conference in Stockholm on Tuesday. The vessels will be equipped with MBDA’s Aster 30 missiles for long-range air defense.

The frigate purchase represents one of Sweden’s biggest defense investments since the Gripen fighter jet in the 1980s and will triple the country’s air-defense capabilities, Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said. For Naval Group, the selection is a welcome win after Norway in August last year picked the U.K.’s Type 26 frigate, primarily manufactured by BAE Systems, over the smaller French design.

Rapid delivery is “absolutely essential given the very serious security situation we are currently in,” Jonson said. With the FDI, “Sweden is acquiring a highly advanced surface combatant for which an adversary would also need to allocate significant resources to counter,” he said.

Sweden picked the Naval Group vessel, known in French as the Frégate de Défense et d’Intervention, due to a combination of delivery time, an active production line ensuring a “very high degree of delivery reliability,” and an integrated and proven air-defense system, according to Jonson. He also cited the possibility of sharing costs with FDI operators France and Greece as important.

The first frigate in what will be named the Luleå class is expected to be delivered in 2030, based on the bid, with one frigate delivered per year, Jonson said.

France has been ordering Swedish equipment recently, including a contract for two of Saab’s GlobalEye airborne early warning and control aircraft in December, with an option for two more.

Jonson said the time of delivery has been the main consideration for the choice of the French frigate, rather than offset agreements.

The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration will now start negotiations with France and Naval Group. The final price will depend on the subsystems and armament, with the acquisition a “very large deal” that will strengthen ties with France and open the door to further cooperation, according to the defense minister.

Kristersson said he put in a call to French President Emmanuel Macron this morning so the French president wouldn’t learn of the Swedish decision via the media.

The Swedish prime minister said there’s no connection between the frigate pick and discussions around cooperation regarding France’s nuclear capabilities.

The new frigates will make the Swedish Navy and armed forces significantly stronger, also because Sweden plans to continue to use the existing Visby corvettes “for a long time to come,” alongside the future Luleå class, according to Jonson. The corvettes will be upgraded with additional air-defense capabilities, Swedish Chief of Defence Gen. Michael Claesson said.

Kristersson, Jonson and Claesson spoke at a press conference held on the Visby-class corvette Härnösand moored on the historical Skeppsbron quay in Stockholm. The Swedish corvettes are 73 meters long and displace 650 tons.

The new surface combatants are expected to be capable of operating in NATO’s entire area of operations, and that requires larger vessels than the Visby-class corvettes, with improved long-range air defenses, according to Jonson. The FDI is 122 meters long and displaces around 4,500 tons, smaller than many recent frigate designs being built or planned in the U.K., Spain, Italy and Germany.

In addition to the Aster 30, which Jonson described as capable of shooting down ballistic missiles and comparable to the land-based Patriot air-defense system, the frigates will be equipped with the CAMM-ER medium-range air-defense system, also from pan-European missile maker MBDA.

The Aster 30 has a “completely different” range compared to what the Visby corvettes can offer and can be integrated in NATO’s integrated air and missile defense system, said Claesson, who didn’t answer a question about how many vertical launch cells the Swedish frigates will carry.

In the contract talks, Sweden will stipulate inclusion of Swedish components including Saab’s RBS-15 anti-ship missile, Torped 47 lightweight torpedo, Giraffe G1X compact radar and Trackfire remote-weapon station, as well as the BAE Systems Bofors 57mm naval gun and 40mm cannon, Jonson said.

Claesson noted the FDI has an integrated command-and-control system that can interface with NATO systems, and Sweden will be “very careful” about system compatibility.

“The frigates mean that we get a significantly greater freedom of action to be able to participate in a much larger range of the tasks that NATO sets,” Claesson said. He said one reason to move forward with the frigate purchase was because of NATO capability targets.

France had previously touted its ability to supply Sweden with a fully equipped and armed frigate in 2030, and Naval Group said in October it can produce two of the FDI frigates per year.

For the Swedish frigate acquisition, Spain’s Navantia had offered its Alfa 4000 model, with a length of 120 meters and a displacement of 4,300 metric tons, while the United Kingdom’s Babcock had pitched its Arrowhead 120 model for Sweden, with a length of 124 meters and a displacement of 4,650 tons.

France placed an order for its fifth FDI frigate in March, the final vessel currently planned in the class for the French Navy, with delivery planned for 2032. The French budget for five vessels was €4.28 billion ($5 billion), according to the 2019 defense spending plan, putting the price at around €850 million per unit.

Greece in November exercised an option for a fourth FDI frigate, and in March sent the frigate Kimon, its first vessel in the class, to Cyprus.

The FDI is equipped with a Thales Sea Fire radar with four fixed panels, and France describes the frigate as fully digital, equipped with “significant computer power” to process sensor data.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle announced during a House Armed Services Committee hearing that the USS Gerald R. Ford will arrive at its homeport of Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, this weekend after more than 320 days at sea.

“We’re going to give our heroes a welcome back on Saturday and it’s just an extraordinary ship, extraordinary crew, an extraordinary strike group,” Caudle said. “And the sailors, I could not be more proud of.”

The Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group most recently operated in the Middle East in support of U.S. Central Command and Operation Epic Fury against Iran. Before that, the ship participated in operations for Operation Southern Spear and Operation Absolute Resolve in the Caribbean Sea.

Personnel from Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group’s Carrier Air Wing 8 returned to their home stations on Monday.

Future aircraft carrier Doris Miller delayed until 2034

The Ford began its most recent deployment on June 24, 2025, when it left Virginia for a regularly scheduled deployment to the U.S. European Command area of responsibility.

The carrier broke the record for longest post-Vietnam War deployment on April 15, when it surpassed the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln’s 2020 deployment of 295 days.

The carrier USS Nimitz was at sea for a record 341 days in 2020 and 2021, but part of that deployment saw the ship stationed ashore while it dealt with quarantine periods to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The carrier was forward-deployed in support of American security interests for only 263 days when factoring in isolating periods, according to USNI News.

The USS Midway still holds the record for longest carrier deployment, having spent 332 days at sea during the Vietnam War.

The Ford’s extended deployment, meanwhile, was not without its hiccups.

On March 12, the Ford experienced a non-combat fire in its main laundry room, injuring two sailors and sending another off the ship for further medical evaluation.

More than 600 service members lost access to their racks after some berthing compartments were tainted by the flames, according to The New York Times. Sailors reportedly slept on floors and tables in the aftermath of the fire, which took 30 hours to put out.

Reuters reported that about 100 sleeping berths were affected by the fire, which resulted in nearly 200 sailors needing treatment for smoke-related injuries.

The Ford arrived in Souda Bay, Greece, on March 23 for maintenance, then traveled to Split, Croatia, for further repairs before returning to sea on April 2.

The carrier also faced hefty plumbing issues that affected nearly 650 toilets on board.

Ford personnel have called for assistance with the poorly performing toilets 42 times since 2023, with 32 calls coming in 2025 alone, NPR reported.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle spoke about the fiscal 2027 Defense Department budget request at a House Armed Services Committee hearing attended by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle, acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith.

The hearing comes several days after the Navy released a shipbuilding plan that codified the possibility of the service looking to foreign partners for help.

“I will echo some of my Democrat colleagues: As many ships as we can build in the United States, we want to build them,” said retired U.S. Navy SEAL Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis. “I understand that we have to go outside of our lines of communications right now because we just have lost the capacity, but I firmly believe that our American men and women, our tradesmen and women, are the best in the world.”

Van Orden added that filling current Navy production gaps through overseas means was acceptable, so long as the onus was equally placed on reviving the maritime industrial base in the U.S.

Cao told lawmakers that the service needed 540,000 jobs to build the ships in the Navy pipeline. He also stated that a youth movement in the U.S. was needed to bring the workforce up to where it needed to be to address demand.

The acting secretary said the Navy was not investing in foreign shipbuilding, but rather exploring whether foreign models would work for the U.S. fleet, especially with some foreign shipbuilders churning out one to two destroyers a year.

Navy ‘going to study’ possibility of building ships outside US, Phelan says

The Navy’s shipbuilding plan said that the service would “evaluate overseas options and whether allied and partner shipbuilding can supplement domestic production if U.S. industry cannot meet required timelines.”

The sea service wants to spend $2.3 billion over the next five years to purchase five tankers for fuel support, built “potentially” and “initially” at overseas shipyards, the plan says.

This includes two auxiliary ships and the “flexibility for fabrication of some combatant modules overseas.”

Cao also said that U.S. workers, under the new shipbuilding plan, would be traveling abroad to learn shipbuilding techniques from foreign partners to increase efficiency and speed back home.

The sentiment didn’t sit right with some.

“I don’t think you would want to go to a yard of American workers and tell them that you think they need to go overseas to learn their craft,” said Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, a Marine Corps veteran.

Leading U.S. Navy ship manufacturer Bath Iron Works would be forced to lay off workers as soon as next year if a “weak demand signal” for American shipbuilding was approved by Congress, according to Golden.

Republican lawmakers weren’t necessarily opposed to building ships overseas, provided that U.S. resources were still relied upon.

Retired Marine Corps pilot Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Ga., said he wanted to ensure that assembling vessels abroad meant bringing technology and work ethic back to the U.S. to reinvigorate what previously made it a world leader in shipbuilding.

“China’s outproducing us about 200 to one and has about 50 times more ports,” McCormick said. “That’s a problem.”

Retired Navy SEAL Rep. Morgan Luttrell, R-Texas, expressed concern over whether foreign-built ships would utilize integral construction materials made in America.

“I would hate to see the steel that we use on our ships and subs come from another country, if we have the capability inside of the United States,” Luttrell said.

While Luttrell echoed the desire to fabricate Navy vessels in America, Caudle stressed the importance of expanding the aperture of shipbuilding to address the need for ships amid threats from adversaries.

“That will ... require some foreign shipyards to actually help me do that, to ... deliver the actual ships I need in a time frame when that’s important,” Caudle said.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle warned members of Congress at a budget hearing for the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense about the service’s impending budget crunch, amid the current rate of operations in the Middle East.

“I will have to start making decisions to change training, operations, certification events, those type of things we do to generate our force, in the July timeframe and their current expenditure,” Caudle said.

That money would have to come from a supplemental funding request, which the Trump administration has not yet submitted to Congress.

US Army abruptly cancels deployment of 4,000 soldiers to Poland

The Iran war has cost the U.S. approximately $29 billion so far, according to the Pentagon’s acting comptroller, Jules Hurst III, who spoke Tuesday at a Capitol Hill hearing.

The price was $25 billion two weeks ago, he said, but had increased due to “updated repair and replacement of equipment costs” and the “general operational costs” of maintaining military presence in the Middle East.

Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that the U.S. has significantly depleted its stockpile of munitions during the Iran war, including Tomahawk missiles, Army Tactical Missile Systems, SM-3 interceptors, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems, or THAADs, and Patriot missiles.

The fiscal 2027 Defense Department budget request is $1.5 trillion. Of that, $377.5 billion is allotted for the U.S. Navy, representing a 23% increase from the year before.

U.S. and Iran are currently in the midst of a ceasefire that began in early April.

Though the suspension of hostilities was tested last week when the countries exchanged fire, the Trump administration said it is working to reach an agreement with Iran that would end the war.

President Donald Trump, however, cast Tehran’s most recent peace proposal as “garbage” and Iran warned of a “lesson-teaching response” if the U.S. resumed military operations.