ARTICLE

December 2002

Are Europeans Willing to Invest in Interoperability?

A new report says allies must increase spending significantly to stay relevant

by Elizabeth Book

Defense contractors and government agencies should work together to help bridge the military interoperability gap between the United States and Europe, experts said.

“One thing we discovered is that interoperability is not really a priority. There’s nobody who is really in charge at the highest level,” said Jacqueline Grapin, the author of a recent report on the subject of U.S.-European interoperability.

The study, titled “Transatlantic Interoperability in Defense Industries: How the U.S. and Europe Could Better Cooperate in Coalition Military Operations,” was sponsored by the European Institute, a Washington D.C.-based association.

European countries have been sharply criticized in recent years by U.S. government officials and analysts for making inadequate investments in defense technology.

Critics of Europe’s defense investments claim that the United States and European forces will not be able to fight effectively in coalition operations, because they will not have comparable technology. Additionally, Europeans see that the United States is “willing and able” to act alone in military operations, so they feel pressured to bolster their defense technology in an effort to retain relevance in the NATO alliance, experts said.

During the 1990s, Europe’s military budgets dropped below 2 percent of gross domestic product, while the U.S. defense budget stayed relatively constant, at about 3 percent.

Recognizing Europe’s inability to send troops alone even to its own backyard to contain conflicts such as the ones in Bosnia and Herzegovina, both American and European officials have started encouraging defense investments that would ensure interoperability with the United States.

Robert Kagan’s 2002 article in Policy Review famously invigorated the debate, recommending that Europe build up its military capabilities, “even if only marginally,” while at the same time saying, “there is not much ground for hope that this will happen.” Kagan’s only reason for optimism was that “maybe concern about America’s overwhelming power really will create some energy in Europe,” he wrote.

Unlike other reports and debates on the subject, the European Institute report was not intended to be controversial, said Grapin. “We wanted something that would really address the practical issues of interoperability,” she said. This is the only report of its kind that focuses on the problems of defense cooperation from an industrial perspective, she added.

The group formulated its report by putting 75 questions together that were sent to hundreds of people within the defense community. Based on their answers, “we started a series of meetings,” Grapin said, and four working groups were created. “One worked on governmental issues between Europe and the U.S.; one worked on financial and industrial issues; the third was norms and technical questions, mainly composed of people from the electronic industry, and the fourth was focused on C4 (command control communications and computers),” said Grapin.

The report makes several distinct recommendations, including encouraging the adoption of common transatlantic standards that promote allied interoperability. It also provides an appendix with a diverse set of both U.S. and European government and industry officials’ opinions.

The study concluded that international coalition operations have been significantly hampered in recent years by a perceived and real lack of compatibility between the military capabilities of the United States and those of Europe. Grapin mentioned that one of the recommendations was that government, together with industry, should initiate a review of common allied needs.

Concrete Actions
Jeffrey Bialos, former deputy undersecretary of defense for industrial policy, indicated that concrete actions, and not reviews, are needed to fill the interoperability, or capabilities gap.

Without new investment by Europe, Bialos told National Defense, “over a period of years, the capabilities gap is likely to continue to exist and be exacerbated as the U.S. moves forward with its transformation.

“Rather than exhort Europe to spend more and acquire more capabilities, maybe we ought to take a different direction,” he said. “It’s a freebie for the U.S. to say to Europe, go spend more and buy more capabilities—it doesn’t require us to do anything. That approach is essentially what we did with the Defense Capabilities Initiative, and it hasn’t yielded significant fruit. It’s been useful in getting Europe focused on capabilities, but they haven’t ‘bit the bullet’ and committed to certain platforms for the future,” Bialos said.

Bialos stressed that the process requires gradual steps. “We should pick a cluster of platform-based areas,” like command, control and communications, and “spend a relatively small amount” in specific areas.

An obvious first step is communications, Bialos said. “Our allies simply can’t talk to one another.” U.S. investments in interoperable communications systems should come from an increase in U.S. funding for coalition warfare. “A few hundred million a year could go a long way,” he said.

Tactical communication upgrades also top the European Institute’s list of needed improvements. “Take Kosovo, when the planes couldn’t speak to each other. They had to use non-protected systems in order to communicate,” said Grapin. “It’s really critical for international military operations to have interoperable technology,” she added.

Other interoperability priorities that should be initiated immediately, Bialos said, include projects to decrease friendly-fire accidents and to obtain secure radios that work together.

NATO’s Role
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Defense Capabilities Initiative is considered by many to be a failure. Established at the Washington Summit in 1997, NATO member countries, which include much of Europe and the United States, committed to improving their basic military capabilities, but the results have not been impressive.

“There has been no meaningful progress in Europe in actually acquiring new military capabilities, and the gaps look likely to widen measurably in the years ahead,” said Bialos.

“Europe is somewhat of a free rider on our defense spending,” said Bialos. At the same time, “they don’t like the U.S. to be a go-it-alone cowboy,” he said.

But a “wake-up call” for change was presented to Europeans shortly after September 11, when the United States bypassed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s offer to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, to lead operations in the war on terrorism. Instead, the United States gathered its own “coalition of the willing,” solidifying the view that America might not even need Europe in order to complete successful military operations, said Bialos.

“There are some people who would like to take the view that the United States, because of its military dominance, can go it alone with the world, and not engage in coalition warfare,” said Bialos.

“We have to decide: Do you want coalition warfare capability, and if so, why?” he asked. “It is folly to believe that, in the long-term, countries cannot achieve consensus without having the ability to fight wars together.”

Lord George Robertson, secretary-general of NATO, discussed interoperability issues during a recent speech in Washington. “You cannot deliver security in isolation,” he said. “Effective cooperation and security in defense must be the sum of political will plus the right capabilities.” Arguing that Europe simply must invest more, he said, “is a question of [choosing between] modernization or marginalization.”

Robertson has been hawkish on the issue of military capabilities. At the Prague Summit in late November, he renamed the Defense Capabilities Initiative the Prague Capabilities Commitment. Through this new measure, “the NATO nations will commit themselves to acquiring a spectrum of those capabilities which make a genuine difference in today’s operations,” he said.

Current NATO priorities for capababilities, he said, include “heavy lift, air tankers, precision-guided weapons, chemical and biological defenses and ground-surveillance radars.”

The European Institute report also mentioned that military coalitions “are valuable for more than symbolic reasons. Interoperability saves lives. … In coalition operations, fully interoperable C4 is an imperative to force protection, as well as mission success.”

Procurement Policy
There is a growing chorus of experts who suggest that the United States change its procurement policy to facilitate technology transfer to European allies.

Changes in the State Department’s export control policy and Federal Acquisition Regulations were discussed in the European Institute report.

“When we started this work, this was before 9/11,” said Grapin. “We had a traditional approach to procurement. As we have continued our work, we’ve evolved, because there are really two factors that are changing the landscape here. One is net-centric warfare, and the needs, which will be completely different, and counter-terrorism. To implement operations in counter-terrorism, you need to have the military cooperate with the civilian side, and that’s very new for them.”

This led to the European Institute’s recommendation that countries invest in commercial off-the-shelf technologies “that can be then adapted for military activities,” she said.

Defense Department officials expressed optimism that current procurement reforms will help defense cooperation. “I think there is a fair amount of hope for achieving interoperability,” said Suzanne Patrick, deputy undersecretary of defense for industrial policy. Patrick wrote a chapter to the European Institute report, entitled, “The Challenge of Interoperability.”

The 1990s provided “a program as international as the Joint Strike Fighter,” which “points to a completely new and novel concept of true industrial interoperability,” she said.

“If we are able to craft network-centric and the architectures that go with it in ways that are truly compatible and interoperable, we will assure interoperability without having to make some of the more difficult decisions, such as whether we must all fly the same airplanes, have the same ships, etc.,” she said.

However, she warned, “this opportunity is a train that is about to leave the station. The longer we are focused on platform issues, the more likely the train will depart and take with it…the opportunity of interoperability,” Patrick said.

The European Institute report also recommended that the “international defense community” modernize its procurement processes by maximizing the use of experiments and advanced concept technology for common purposes, and advocating specialization among industries.

Europe, meanwhile, is committed to chan-ging its own procurement policies, said industry officials. The establishment of the Organisation Conjointe de Coopération en Matière d’Armement (OCCAR) indicates “a trend toward a unique future European armament procurement agency,” said Francois Gayet, a senior vice president for Paris-based Thales International.

Gayet, as part of his comments in the European Institute report, mentioned joint ventures between the continents as a way to further transatlantic cooperation. “There is an aircraft program in the U.K., where Thales is cooperating with Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. This program, which involves cooperation between industries, has no government requirements.” The goal is to create a complete set of products, such as low-frequency sonar and UHF radios, which meet with NATO standards.

Gayet mentioned several other projects where he believes international cooperation could be of value. But on the whole, he said, Europeans simply need to invest more in defense. “Europeans are grossly under-invested to have a broadly capable force for the modern world. If they maintain current levels of investment they will have to become a niche defensive player,” he said. “How much more widening of the capabilities gaps can we stand before interoperability is no longer even possible?” he asked.

The disparity between U.S. and European spending on research and development also affects chances for interoperability, Gayet said. “Europeans often avoid spending on research and development just by observing what technology the U.S. will pick.”

The report indicated that the European defense industry has undergone considerable consolidation over the past decade, which has left the industry dominated by a small number of gigantic conglomerates. Drastic consolidation also took place in the United States during the 1990s, but so far, transatlantic relationships have been formed only through ad-hoc partnerships, and have been measurably successful only in commercial aerospace projects.

The European Institute predicts that partnerships will be expanded outside the aerospace sector, perhaps for shipbuilding or other large weapons system projects.

“Additional consolidation in Europe possibly could lead to increased transatlantic industrial cooperation, either through joint ventures or even mergers, as European firms reach the point where they can negotiate on equal footing with their American counterparts,” the report said.

Back To Top