International Partnerships to Advance U.S. Shipbuilding Capabilities – Chapter 2: Naval/Military Shipbuilding Alliances

Overview: The United States has a long history of naval shipbuilding cooperation with allied nations. Such alliances range from co-development of warship technologies and joint construction programs to the standardization of systems that allow interoperability. Partnering with trusted countries in military shipbuilding strengthens collective defense, spreads development costs, and ensures that U.S. naval forces and those of its allies can operate together seamlessly. Key partners include traditional NATO allies (e.g. the United Kingdom, Italy, Spain, Norway), Indo-Pacific allies (Japan, South Korea, Australia), and other close defense partners. This section examines which countries are best suited to advance U.S. naval shipbuilding through alliances, highlighting historical and current collaborations, joint defense projects, and the mutual benefits of these partnerships.

United Kingdom: A Special Relationship in Naval Construction

The United Kingdom is arguably the United States’ closest military shipbuilding partner, with a “special relationship” spanning many decades. The U.S. and U.K. have collaborated on some of the most sensitive naval technologies, reflecting deep trust and aligned defense goals:

• Nuclear Submarine Cooperation: Since the Cold War, the U.S. Navy and Royal Navy have worked hand-in-hand on nuclear submarine capabilities. Under the 1963 Polaris Sales Agreement (amended for Trident in 1982), the U.S. provided the U.K. with ballistic missile technology for its deterrent submarines . This evolved into a true co-development effort in the 2000s. The two nations jointly designed and are producing a Common Missile Compartment (CMC) for their next-generation ballistic missile submarines . The CMC will house Trident II D5 missiles on both the U.S. Columbia-class and the U.K. Dreadnought-class SSBNs, ensuring compatibility and cost-sharing on this critical system . This project exemplifies a deep alliance: American and British engineers literally working side by side on the same submarine modules, with Missile tubes built in the U.S. being shipped to the U.K. for integration . The mutual benefit is significant – the U.K. could field its new deterrent subs affordably, and the U.S. gains a partner to split design costs and keep production lines hot. It also guarantees interoperability in any future combined strategic operations.

• Aircraft Carriers and Naval Aviation: The U.K.’s newest aircraft carriers (HMS Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales) were built domestically, but with considerable consultation and systems from the U.S. Notably, they are designed to operate American F-35B Lightning II strike fighters (the U.K. was a Tier 1 partner in the F-35 program). While the carriers themselves were U.K.-built, the close integration of an American aircraft and combat systems (like radar and communications compatible with U.S. Navy standards) highlights an alliance of design philosophy. The U.S. and U.K. also share carrier operational know-how; for example, Royal Navy personnel have trained on U.S. carriers, and the countries plan to cross-deck F-35Bs on each other’s ships. This synergy in carrier strike operations is underpinned by aligned shipbuilding goals (e.g. designing ships to embark common aircraft and data systems).

• AUKUS – New Alliance in Submarine Construction: In 2021, the U.S., U.K., and Australia announced the AUKUS pact, a landmark security arrangement that has a major naval shipbuilding component. Under AUKUS, the U.S. and U.K. are collaborating to help Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines. The plan (announced in 2023) involves trilateral development of a new submarine class (SSN-AUKUS) based on a U.K. next-gen design with U.S. technology, to be built in both the U.K. and Australia . In the interim, Australia will purchase a few Virginia-class subs from the U.S., while gearing up its own industry. This is an unprecedented level of shipbuilding cooperation: American, British, and Australian shipyards will work together over decades to produce identical submarines for their navies . BAE Systems in the U.K. (which has built all British nuclear subs) and Australia’s ASC will share construction of SSN-AUKUS, with U.S. tech like reactor components and combat systems integrated . The mutual benefits are clear – the U.K. gets economies of scale for its new subs and further U.S. tech infusion, Australia gains nuclear sub capability it couldn’t achieve alone, and the U.S. strengthens allied undersea power in the Indo-Pacific while expanding production beyond its own constrained shipyards. This three-way alliance will also create common standards, making future joint naval operations (patrols, training, maintenance) more efficient among the partners.

• Interoperability and Standardization: The U.S. and U.K. navies frequently operate together, from the North Atlantic to the Middle East. Decades of cooperation have led to many systems being standardized. For example, both navies use similar combat management systems on some ships (the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers and upcoming Type 26 frigates use missiles and radars compatible with U.S. systems). The allies also coordinate on R&D – a recent milestone was the 200th meeting of the U.S.-U.K. Joint Steering Task Group on strategic weapons, underscoring 60+ years of teamwork in naval tech . Culturally and technically, U.K. shipbuilders (like BAE Systems) and U.S. contractors (like Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics) have a habit of collaboration, facilitated by a common language, similar engineering standards, and reciprocal security agreements. This makes the U.K. an ideal partner for just about any naval shipbuilding initiative the U.S. undertakes.

Assessment: The U.K. offers compatibility (NATO standards, similar naval doctrines) and proven success in joint projects. Both nations benefit through cost-sharing and enhanced capabilities – for instance, the Common Missile Compartment ensures both American and British SSBNs will deploy the world’s most advanced ballistic missile launch system for decades . By pooling resources on projects like this, each navy gets more than it could alone. Moving forward, the U.S.-U.K. naval partnership (exemplified by AUKUS) is set to deepen, covering submarines, unmanned systems, and possibly future surface combatant designs. The special relationship thus continues to significantly advance U.S. shipbuilding capacity and innovation.

Australia and Canada: Commonwealth Partners in Naval Programs

Other English-speaking allies, notably Australia and Canada, have a history of working with the U.S. on naval procurement and construction, albeit to varying degrees:

• Australia: Beyond AUKUS, Australia has collaborated with the U.S. on several naval projects. A prominent example is the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program – the U.S. Navy’s Independence-class LCS is based on an Australian design. The Independence-class, a 127-meter aluminum trimaran warship, was originally designed by Austal in Australia and is constructed by Austal USA in Mobile, Alabama . This means a foreign commercial shipbuilder (Austal) translated its high-speed ferry design into a combat ship for the U.S. Navy, working in partnership with General Dynamics. This U.S.-Australian industry cooperation successfully delivered 19 advanced warships to the U.S. fleet . It showcases how allied design expertise can be harnessed for U.S. naval needs. Australian firms also supply important components (for instance, Austal’s Australian parent designs and initially builds parts of the aluminum hull modules). The benefit to the U.S. was access to a proven high-speed trimaran concept and fast construction of LCS; for Australia, it demonstrated their ship design prowess and secured Austal a long-term U.S. foothold.

Australia often standardizes its military equipment with the U.S., making future co-development likely. For example, the Royal Australian Navy’s Hobart-class air warfare destroyers use the American Aegis combat system, and their new Hunter-class frigates (while based on a British hull) will also carry U.S. missile systems. This means Australian shipyards have experience building ships to accommodate American weapons and electronics. Through initiatives like AUKUS, Australia is on track to co-build some of the world’s most complex vessels with the U.S. (nuclear subs), marking it as a key partner for advancing U.S. shipbuilding in the Pacific sphere.

• Canada: Canada’s shipbuilding industry is smaller and has not directly built U.S. warships, but Canada is deeply intertwined with U.S. defense, and there is significant collaboration in design and procurement. The Royal Canadian Navy often buys or licenses allied designs. Historically, Canada built American-designed warships under license – for example, in the 1980s it constructed the City-class (Halifax-class) frigates domestically with modular methods learned from Europe. More directly with the U.S., Canada’s Halifax-class modernization and Arctic patrol ships involve equipment from U.S. suppliers, creating industrial links. In the 1960s–70s, Canada and the U.S. jointly participated in NATO projects like the NATO Frigate for the 70s, though that particular project didn’t materialize, it set a precedent for idea-sharing. Recently, Canada’s new Combat Ship Program selected the British Type 26 frigate design; however, the combat system and armaments will be heavily American (including Lockheed Martin as the integrator and U.S. missiles). This means Canadian shipyards (Irving Shipbuilding) are working closely with U.S. defense contractors to build their warships, indirectly boosting North American naval industrial base integration. Additionally, Canada is part of the National Technology Industrial Base (NTIB) with the U.S., which allows easier exchange of defense technology and could pave the way for future cooperative ship projects. For instance, if the U.S. were to develop a new auxiliary ship or icebreaker, partnering with Canada (which has icebreaker building plans) could be sensible.

Assessment: Australia stands out as a robust partner given its willingness to co-develop and even co-produce naval vessels with the U.S. (as seen with LCS and AUKUS subs). The compatibility is high: Australia’s navy uses many American systems, and its strategic needs (Pacific security) align with U.S. interests, ensuring political support for joint programs. Canada’s cooperation is more on the technology and procurement side (common systems, shared contractors), but its inclusion in the U.S. defense industrial ecosystem means it could become a bigger player in collaborative shipbuilding (particularly for coast guard or support vessels, or niche areas like Arctic operations). Both countries, as close allies, provide mutual benefits – the U.S. gains forward partners in key regions (Pacific and Arctic) who can share the burden of naval production and upkeep, while Australia and Canada gain advanced capabilities and technology transfers that enhance their own shipbuilding industries.

NATO Europe: Italy, Spain, Norway and Other Allied Builders

Several continental European NATO allies have strong naval shipbuilding capabilities and a track record of partnering with or supplying the U.S. and other allies. These include Italy, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, France, and Germany. While the U.S. historically built most of its combatants domestically, in recent years it has shown openness to foreign designs and collaboration where it serves U.S. interests:

• Italy (Fincantieri): Italy’s role in U.S. naval shipbuilding rose to prominence with the Constellation-class frigate (FFG-62) program. In 2020, the U.S. Navy selected Fincantieri’s FREMM multipurpose frigate design (originally developed for the Italian and French navies) as the basis for its new frigates. Fincantieri’s American subsidiary in Marinette, WI is now building these frigates for the U.S. Navy, incorporating minor modifications but essentially an Italian hull and systems design . This is a landmark case: a European-designed front-line warship being built for the U.S. fleet. It underscores Italy’s value as a design and production partner – the FREMM was a modern, proven warship that met U.S. requirements with minimal risk, and leveraging it saved the Navy years of development time. Fincantieri’s presence in the U.S. (via its Marinette Marine shipyard) made the transfer of know-how straightforward. Additionally, Italy and the U.S. have cooperated on other naval projects: Italian shipyards built some smaller vessels for the U.S. Coast Guard in the past, and Italian companies (like Leonardo DRS) provide electronics to U.S. ships. For Italy, partnering with the U.S. Navy elevates its profile and secures long-term work (the contract for the first frigate and options for up to 10 ships is worth billions). For the U.S., it gains a proven warship design quickly – a clear win-win.

• Spain (Navantia): The Spanish naval shipbuilder Navantia has engaged in design collaborations with the U.S. and allies. A notable historical example is the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate: Spain built six of these U.S.-designed frigates under license (the Santa María class) in the 1980s . This gave Spain’s industry experience with American standards. In modern times, Navantia partnered with Bath Iron Works (U.S.) to propose a patrol cutter design based on a Spanish offshore patrol vessel (BAM) for the U.S. Coast Guard . While that specific project didn’t proceed to construction by Navantia, it shows the willingness to team up. Moreover, Spain’s F100 Álvaro de Bazán-class Aegis frigates influenced the design of some Australian and Norwegian ships and share the Aegis system with U.S. destroyers, demonstrating a standardization synergy. Navantia also designed refueling ships for the Royal Australian Navy that use American combat systems. All this positions Spain as a compatible partner – Spanish yards understand NATO standards and have cooperated with U.S. firms on and off for decades. The benefit to the U.S. in future could be drawing on Navantia’s skills in auxiliary ships or amphibious ships (Spain’s Juan Carlos I LHD design was exported to Australia as the Canberra class; the U.S. might glean lessons for its amphibious assault ships).

• Norway: Norway’s direct shipbuilding for the U.S. has been limited, but its defense industry contributed a major capability to the U.S. Navy in recent years: the Naval Strike Missile (NSM). This is a next-generation anti-ship and land-attack missile co-developed by Norway’s Kongsberg and the U.S.’s Raytheon. In 2018, the U.S. Navy selected the NSM (with Raytheon building launchers in the U.S.) as its over-the-horizon missile for LCS and future frigates . The NSM program is the first cooperative development program between the U.S. and Norway in missile technology, indicating strong trust . While a missile is not a ship, it is a naval weapon that required integration into U.S. ships, meaning U.S. and Norwegian engineers worked jointly on system design, testing, and deployment. The success of NSM (a contract worth nearly $850 million) suggests that Norway could be a partner in other naval areas, such as sensors or smaller combatant craft. In fact, U.S. Special Operations Command has procured Norwegian-designed combat boats in the past. For shipbuilding, Norway’s strengths are in high-tech systems, and its shipyards specialize in ice-strengthened and offshore vessels – potentially useful if the U.S. Coast Guard or Navy pursue Arctic-capable ships (an area where Norway has experience).

• United States–NATO Standardization: Many NATO allies align their naval equipment with U.S. systems, which indirectly advances U.S. shipbuilding influence. Countries like the Netherlands and Germany have built frigates and destroyers equipped with the U.S. Aegis combat system or U.S.-made missiles (SM-2, SM-3, etc.), meaning their ship designs had to accommodate American components from the start. This standardization means if needed, those countries could more easily collaborate with the U.S. on future combined ship projects. For example, the Netherlands’ Damen Schelde shipyard builds Air Defense frigates that use American radar and missiles, and Germany’s forthcoming F126 frigate will have U.S. cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) data-links. Interoperability is built-in, and joint development of certain subsystems (like data links, missile launchers) has occurred through NATO fora.

• France: France is a unique case – it has a large naval industry (Naval Group) and builds its own nuclear ships, but it typically pursues independent projects. U.S.-France naval co-development has been limited due to France’s strategic autonomy, but they have collaborated in specific technologies (for instance, the two countries worked together on some undersea weapon technology in NATO). The canceled French submarine deal with Australia (superseded by AUKUS) caused diplomatic friction, yet France remains a top-tier shipbuilder and a NATO ally. While not a primary partner for U.S. shipbuilding advancement currently, cooperation could grow in areas like carrier aviation (both operate catapult-equipped carriers and share know-how) or anti-submarine warfare systems.

• Germany: Similarly, Germany’s naval industry (e.g. ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems for submarines, and Lürssen for surface ships) is advanced. The U.S. Navy has not bought German ships, but Germany has sold advanced conventional subs to many U.S. allies. There is a quiet form of partnership in that the U.S. often provides combat system components for German exports (e.g. U.S. torpedoes on Israel’s German-built subs). In the future, as the U.S. Navy looks to build new types of smaller vessels or unmanned craft, German expertise in engineering could be tapped under NATO cooperation.

Assessment: NATO Europe offers a pool of highly capable shipbuilders who share strategic alignment with the U.S. The compatibility is generally high due to NATO standards and decades of joint exercises and missions. For the U.S., partnering with these countries can accelerate development cycles (as seen with the Italian FREMM frigate adoption) and reduce costs via shared programs or off-the-shelf purchases. Allies benefit by gaining business (contracts, licenses) and often technology from the U.S. (like Aegis systems, weapons, or advanced materials). A concrete example of mutual benefit is the SM-3 Block IIA missile project with Japan: “the missile, developed jointly by a Japanese and U.S. government and industry team, is vitally important to both our nations”, said the U.S. Missile Defense Agency Director – this sentiment applies to shipbuilding projects too. Overall, engaging NATO shipbuilders in U.S. naval programs strengthens the alliance and ensures that if conflict comes, the U.S. and its friends will sail ships that were, quite literally, built together.

Asia-Pacific Allies: Japan and South Korea in Naval Technology

While the European allies bring a lot to the table, U.S. partnerships in naval shipbuilding are also expanding in the Asia-Pacific with Japan and South Korea – two countries that have advanced naval industries and deepening defense ties with the U.S.:

• Japan: Since WWII, Japan’s constitution limited military exports and co-development. However, in recent years Japan has cautiously entered collaborative defense development with the U.S. The hallmark naval project is the SM-3 Block IIA ballistic missile interceptor, a missile for ship-based anti-ballistic missile defense developed cooperatively by the U.S. and Japan . This program saw Mitsubishi Heavy Industries work with Raytheon, and Japanese defense labs with the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, to create a critical naval weapon that arms both nations’ Aegis destroyers. The first intercept test in 2017 was a success, hailed as a “critical milestone in the cooperative development” of a system vital to both countries . This set a precedent for U.S.-Japan co-development of high-end defense tech. While Japan’s shipbuilders have not yet built U.S. warships, the two navies frequently collaborate on ship systems. All of Japan’s Aegis destroyers use American Aegis combat systems and missiles, effectively integrating U.S. tech into Japanese hulls. There’s discussion of co-developing a new guided-missile destroyer radar or working together on unmanned naval systems as Japan expands its military posture. Culturally and strategically, Japan’s highly advanced tech sector (with firms like Mitsubishi, IHI, Kawasaki) and the U.S. defense industry are starting to interact more due to shared threats (North Korea’s missiles, Chinese naval expansion). As an example of alignment: in 2023, the U.S. and Japan signed agreements for reciprocal military asset maintenance, including using Japanese shipyards to repair U.S. Navy ships in region . This Master Ship Repair Agreement means U.S. warships can get upkeep in Japan’s yards, indicating a new level of trust and cooperation in naval logistics. Going forward, Japan’s proficiency in automation and its sizable shipbuilding base (which builds destroyers, submarines, and support ships at a high quality) make it an ideal partner for any future allied naval construction should policy allow – for instance, joint development of next-gen submarines or patrol vessels to keep pace with China. The mutual benefit is apparent: the U.S. gains a powerful, tech-savvy partner in Asia to help shoulder the defense burden, and Japan gains access to top-tier U.S. technologies and the assurance of U.S. support in enhancing its maritime defenses.

• South Korea: South Korea has rapidly advanced as a builder of not only commercial ships but also modern warships, including destroyers, frigates, and amphibious ships for its navy. The U.S. and South Korea traditionally had a client-supplier relationship (the U.S. supplied Korea with ships or designs in past decades), but this is evolving into a more equal partnership. For example, South Korea’s indigenous KDX-III Sejong the Great-class destroyers are essentially larger variants of the U.S. Arleigh Burke destroyers, equipped with Aegis systems and built in Korean yards. This means Korean engineers mastered building Aegis warships, a highly complex task, using U.S. combat system components. There’s clear synergy: the U.S. provided the systems, Korea provided the shipbuilding might. Recognizing South Korea’s capabilities, the U.S. is now seeking its help to boost U.S. shipbuilding capacity in the face of China’s naval expansion . In 2023, HD Hyundai (parent of HHI) signed an MOU with Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) – America’s largest military shipbuilder – to form a “shipbuilding alliance” . The goal is to share know-how and “maximize production efficiency… improve shipbuilding costs and delivery times”, including introducing Korean-style process automation and robotics into U.S. naval shipbuilding . This unprecedented alliance between HHI and HII (both of whom build Aegis destroyers for their nations) could significantly advance U.S. practices by adopting South Korean innovations. As South Korean officials stated, cooperation will not only develop both countries’ shipbuilding industries but also strengthen security cooperation . Another aspect is South Korea’s specialization in certain vessel types that the U.S. Navy needs, such as amphibious assault ships and support vessels. The ROK Navy’s new LPX-II amphibious ship or its oilers could provide design inspiration for U.S. programs. Moreover, South Korea is co-producing fighter aircraft and other military systems with the U.S.; extending this to naval projects (for instance, collaborating on a new frigate or corvette class for littoral missions) would benefit both sides by splitting R&D costs and enabling interoperability. Mutual benefit: The U.S. gains additional production muscle and potentially faster construction rates (a Korean forte) to build up its fleet, while South Korea gains access to advanced U.S. technologies and a stronger guarantee of U.S. support against regional threats. Both share the strategic aim of countering aggression in the Indo-Pacific, making their naval industries natural partners in that cause.

In summary, Japan and South Korea – Asia’s leading allied naval powers – are increasingly key to U.S. naval shipbuilding strategy. Whether through co-developing weapons (like missiles), sharing industrial best practices, or possibly co-building actual vessels in the future, these partnerships enhance the U.S. Navy’s capabilities and extend the reach of allied industrial bases. Given the high-tech nature of Japanese and South Korean industries and their geopolitical alignment with Washington, they are among the best suited countries to partner with the U.S. for naval shipbuilding advancement.

Compatible Standards and Joint Programs: Force Multipliers

One of the greatest advantages in U.S. naval shipbuilding alliances is the use of compatible standards and joint development programs that include multiple countries. Many allies utilize American systems (radars, missiles, communications) on their home-built ships – from Canada and Australia’s upcoming frigates to Norway and Spain’s existing warships. This commonality means allied navies operate on the same page as the U.S. Navy. For example, Aegis-equipped vessels from Spain, Norway, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the U.S. can share tracking data and engage threats cooperatively thanks to the common combat system. This level of integration is a result of collaborative shipbuilding decisions made years prior (such as allies opting to build ships with Aegis and Standard missiles).

Joint programs amplify this effect. The co-development of the Standard Missile-3 Block IIA by the U.S. and Japan is a prime example – a defense program where both nations funded and shared engineering for a naval interceptor that protects both . Similarly, the AUKUS submarine project will see a joint design create submarines that three navies will operate, a profound form of force multiplier . During the Cold War, the U.S. licensed the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate design for construction in Australia, Spain, and Taiwan, ensuring those allies had ships that could operate seamlessly with the U.S. Navy . Today’s equivalents are more high-tech but follow the same principle: share the load, share the tech, share the benefit.

From a U.S. perspective, such alliances mean when a crisis emerges, allied fleets can combine effectively as one. From the partners’ perspective, they gain top-tier capabilities and the assurance of U.S. support in development and maybe even production. The compatibility – whether it’s physical (equipment that plugs together) or procedural (training and doctrines developed in tandem) – greatly enhances collective security.

Conclusion (Mutual Benefits): Naval shipbuilding alliances offer substantial mutual benefits. The U.S. can accelerate innovation by tapping into allies’ ideas (the trimaran LCS from Australia), reduce costs through economies of scale (building common frigates with Italy’s input), and address capacity issues by distributing work (possibly having some components built abroad when U.S. yards are at peak load). Allies benefit by securing cutting-edge ships and weapons they might not afford alone, by gaining industrial work and jobs from U.S. programs, and by deepening their military interoperability with the world’s leading navy. A clear example of mutual gain is the SM-3 Block IIA missile: both the U.S. and Japan now deploy a more capable defensive weapon than either could have developed as quickly on their own . In all, alliances in naval shipbuilding strengthen the security of the U.S. and its partners, embodying the principle that “ships built together sail together.”