The relatively large swings from year to year are due to the fact that, in any given year, the Armed Forces can place a number of large contracts for, say, new missiles, air defence systems or modernisation programmes etc. But the actual payments will be spread over many years so that there is not necessarily a direct relationship between the volume of contracts placed and the sum paid out within that year. As the summaries show, France has been the largest supplier of defence materiel for the Norwegian Armed Forces in 1997. This is mainly due to the large contract placed by the Royal Norwegian Navy for command and control equipment for the HAUK Class MTBs. Otherwise the ranking of other countries in terms of the value of contracts placed remains the same as last year.

The five largest contracts placed in 1997 together amounted to NOK 1.6 billion. This accounted for about 28 percent of the Armed Forces' total investment in new materiel. The two largest contracts were both placed with firms from France and Germany. The Navy has placed a contract with the French supplier DCN International for command and control equipment for the HAUK Class MTBs and the Army has placed a contract with Rheinmetall GmbH for the purchase of modular propelling charges for the 155 mm field artillery. The third largest contract was for the purchase of the ARGES automatic off-route anti-armour system. Fourth largest was a contract for the updating of Penguin missiles for the Air Force while the fifth largest contract was for the purchase of fuel for 1998 from Esso Norge AS.

The ten largest defence contracts placed with Norwegian companies during 1997
No.	Main Equipment	Main Supplier
1	Penguin update	Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace
2	Fuel for 1998	ESSO Norway AS
3	Cartridge, 7.62 x 51 NM 60	Raufoss ASA
4	ULA Trainer update	Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace
5	Mod 1, Change of explosive in 12.7 mm	Raufoss ASA
6	Electrical and electronic equipment components	Nera ASA
7	Research	Forsvarets Forskningsinstitutt
8	40 mm Automatic grenade launchers	Hærens Forsyningskommando
9	Fuel F-34	Statoil Norway AS
10	Workshop and spares storage containers	BNS Contra AS
Table summarising the largest defence contracts placed with Norwegian companies during 1997 listing main equipment and main contractor concerned.

The table shows that the ten largest defence contracts placed in Norway in 1997 were awarded to eight different companies. Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace was the largest supplier in 1997 in terms of contract value.

The two tables above show that Norwegian companies occupy a strong position with regard to the supply of defence equipment for the Norwegian Armed Forces. Five Norwegian companies are among the top ten suppliers for 1997. In terms of total contract value, just under half of all contracts placed in 1997 were awarded to Norwegian companies. The summary of the 10 largest Norwegian suppliers in 1997 shows that it is the established defence contractors that head the list.

The ten largest defence suppliers in 1997
No.	Main Supplier	Country
1	Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace	Norway
2	DCN International	France
3	US Government (United States SAC)	United States
4	Kværner Mandal	Norway
5	Raufoss (Gruppen)	Norway
6	Aerospatiale-Missiles	France
7	Bofors AB	Sweden
8	Siemens Nixdorf Informasjonssystemer AS	Norway
9	Rheinmetal GmbH	Germany
10	Forsvarets forskningsinstitutt	Norway
Table summarising the largest defence suppliers based on total payments made to individual suppliers in 1997 in respect of contracts placed in 1997 or earlier.

The ten largest defence companies in Norway in 1997 in terms of turnover
No.	Company	Turnover
1	KOG ASA/Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace	781
2	Alcatel Telecom Norway AS	443
3	Raufoss Technology AS	437
4	Kongsberg Ericsson Communications ANS	255
5	Kværner Mandal AS	229
6	NERA AS	143
7	Kværner Eureka AS	111
8	Dyno Industrier ASA	110
9	Hägglunds Moelv AS	108
10	Siemens Forsvarssystemer AS	107
Table summarising the largest Norwegian defence companies in terms of turnover in the defence sector on sales both to the Norwegian Armed Forces and to customers abroad, hence the differing rankings in these two tables.