Back to news

October 17, 2019 | International, Other Defence

A compromise is needed on trans-Atlantic defense cooperation

By: Hans Binnendijk and Jim Townsend

The incoming European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, will need to work with Washington to defuse a quietly simmering trans-Atlantic defense cooperation issue that, if left unsettled, could do more long-term damage to the NATO alliance than U.S. President Donald Trump's divisive tweets.

The United States for years has sought to stimulate increased European defense spending while minimizing wasteful duplication caused by Europe's fragmented defense industry. Europe has finally begun to deliver: Defense spending is up significantly, and the European Union has created several programs to strengthen its defense industries. But in the process, the EU has created a trans-Atlantic problem. These advances in Europe could come at the expense of non-EU defense industries, especially in the U.S.

The European Defence Fund, or EDF, established in 2017, is designed to support the cooperative research and development efforts of European defense industries, especially small and mid-sized firms. Three eligible companies from at least three EU countries need to apply in a coordinated fashion to receive project research and development funding, which can be up to a 100 percent grant for the research phase. Plans call for spending about $15 billion between 2021 and 2027 to strengthen Europe's defense R&D and stimulate innovation. Model projects include the Eurodrone and ground-based precision strike weapons.

A second related EU program, Permanent Structured Cooperation, or PESCO, also inaugurated in 2017, focuses more on efforts to foster defense cooperation among subsets of European states. Initially envisioned in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, PESCO is an effort to develop a more comprehensive European defense consistent with EU's common foreign and security policy needs. Thus far, 25 of 28 EU nations have signed up, with 34 modest cooperative projects agreed to by the European Council.

The EU estimates that the inefficiency caused by the lack of adequate defense cooperation costs its members between $25 billion and $100 billion annually. These new EU programs, designed to pool and share scarce defense resources, are intended to help address that problem. But the exclusivity of these approaches favor the defense industries of EU members, and the hostile Trump administration rhetoric toward the EU is only supercharging this controversy.

President Trump's negative attitude toward NATO and European leaders has undercut European confidence in American trans-Atlantic leadership and strengthened a call in some European capitals for European “strategic autonomy.” Part of this autonomy is developing a more capable and independent European military supported by a stronger European defense industry. A stronger European military capability is a goal shared on both sides of the Atlantic, but not at the expense of defense cooperation. While European leaders understand that they are probably decades away from real, strategic autonomy and military independence, they are shaping the EDF and PESCO approaches to protect European defense industry by being fairly exclusive of U.S. or other non-EU defense industries.

This has U.S. defense officials worried. A May 2020 letter to the EU from two senior U.S. officials stated their “deep concern” about the programs' regulations. While current EDF and PESCO programs are small, U.S. officials are worried they will set precedents and will be a model for more ambitious European defense cooperation in the future. They fear not only that U.S. industry will be cut out, but that two separate defense industry tracks will be established that will undercut NATO interoperability and promote further duplication. Some U.S. officials have threatened U.S. retaliation unless changes are made.

EU officials respond that these criticisms are excessive. They note that some American defense firms established in European countries will be eligible, that there is nothing comparable to the “Buy American Act” in Europe, that plenty of trans-Atlantic cooperative projects can take place outside of these two EU programs, that the PESCO projects will be guided by both EU and NATO requirements, and that over 80 percent of European international defense contracts go to U.S. firms anyway. They also note that a deterrent to U.S.-EU defense cooperation is that U.S. arms transfer control regulations create potential American restrictions on the sale to third countries of any U.S.-EU cooperative weapons systems that contain U.S. technology.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who seems caught in the middle, has supported both EDF and PESCO, so long as the results fill NATO capability gaps and do not lead to further duplication.

Flexibility will be needed on both sides of the Atlantic to defuse this issue before it becomes too difficult to manage. Some opportunities for third-country participation will be needed.

Possible approaches to level the playing field include focusing on modifying PESCO, which is still under development in the EU. One suggestion is to create a “white list” of NATO nations not in the EU (such as the U.S., Canada, Norway, post-Brexit United Kingdom and Turkey) that might be invited to participate in selected PESCO projects on a case-by-case basis. This would at least set a precedent that PESCO does not completely exclude third countries. And it would strengthen EU-NATO defense links.

Additionally, formal procedures might be established for closer cooperation between the PESCO project selection process and NATO's defense planning process. This will help avoid duplication and identify at NATO those areas where NATO nations outside the EU could cooperate on PESCO projects,

The U.S. might also consider amending its arms export control legislation to waive the third-country transfer review requirement for the export of U.S.-PESCO joint projects if the sale would be made to a country to which the U.S. would have made a similar sale.

EU internal negotiations on EDF are finished, and changes will be hard to make. Plus, EDF provides R&D funding grants that use European financial resources. While some $118 million in U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency funds go to European firms, that is about 3 percent of DARPA's budget. So the U.S. might ask for some modest reciprocity from the EDF. But more constructively, DARPA and the EDF might co-fund R&D for joint U.S.-EU projects.

The United States has much to gain from a strong European defense industry. Europe has much to gain from cooperation with the U.S. defense industry. All NATO allies need to stimulate defense innovation to compete effectively with Russia and China. Both sides of the Atlantic have much to lose if this issue further disrupts NATO's already shaky political equilibrium. Hopefully von der Leyen's experience as a former German defense minister will help her to understand the urgency and to find a solution to this problem.

Hans Binnendijk is a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and formerly served as the senior director for defense policy on the U.S. National Security Council. Jim Townsend is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and formerly served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/10/16/a-compromise-is-needed-on-trans-atlantic-defense-cooperation/

On the same subject

  • The carrier Ford is trying to shake years of controversy and find its groove

    February 3, 2020 | International, Naval

    The carrier Ford is trying to shake years of controversy and find its groove

    By: David B. Larter ABOARD THE CARRIER GERALD R. FORD IN THE VIRGINIA CAPES — Capt. J.J. Cummings is literally jumping up and down with excitement. “Ahhhhhh I love that s---!” he shouts as the roar of an F/A-18 Super Hornet's twin engines fades into the distance. The fighter jet's low flyby a few hundred yards off the port side of the U.S. Navy's most expensive-ever warship is a loud reminder that the aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford isn't a construction project anymore. For Cummings, the ship's Massachusetts-born commanding officer, and for the ship's crew, Ford is now a living, breathing warship with jets operating from its $13 billion flight deck. “I could watch flybys all day,” the career fighter pilot said Jan. 27 during a visit by Defense News aboard the vessel. Standing on the deck of the first-in-class Ford, Cummings is showing off the major redesign of the flight deck, which expanded the available space to maneuver and refit fighters to get back in the air. “This spot right here is what defines the Ford class,” he said, stopping in front of the in-deck refueling stations. “On the Nimitz class, if you want to refuel an aircraft you have to pull a hose across the flight deck and you can't drive over it so you can't maneuver aircraft the way you might like. “Now you just open this hatch, pull the aircraft up and hook up right here.” The redesigned flight deck, which was developed in consultation with NASCAR pit engineers, gives the Ford an extra half acre of real estate over its predecessors. The extra space is key to the Navy's newest platform, built from the keel up to maximize how efficiently the ship can generate sorties, as well as be adaptable to new aircraft and weapons systems over time. But the 23 new technologies incorporated into the Ford, while making the ship a technological marvel, have also been the cause of ongoing controversy as delays and cost overruns marred the program. Over the coming year, Ford will be underway 11 times over 220 days, working out the kinks, training sailors and writing the book on how the new class of carriers will operate. In the mind of the Cummings, that puts his crew in the history books. “What the American people should know is that this ship is absolutely amazing, and our crew is even more amazing than that,” Cummings said. “What people should know is that we are, no kidding, pioneers in naval aviation. Every [major] system on this ship is different from Nimitz class, so these people are pioneers. We're writing the book for the Ford class for the rest of history.” One of the enabling technologies to help them increase sortie generation is the advanced weapons elevators. The system is designed to cut the time it takes to move bombs from lower decks — where they are assembled and tested — to the flight deck for arming the Super Hornets. Delays with that technology contributed to the downfall of former Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer and have been the latest in a long line of headaches caused by new technologies the Navy packed into the Ford. To date, four of the planned 11 advanced weapons elevators work as advertised. As secretary, Spencer made a public pledge to have the weapons elevators ready by last summer, but now they may not all work until 2021, delays he blamed on shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls Industries. Ensuring the Ford's readiness has been a major focus of the acting Navy secretary, Thomas Modly. For Modly, the continued troubles with the Ford are hurting the organization. "There is nothing worse than having a ship like that, our most expensive asset, being out there as a metaphor for why the Navy can't do anything right,” Modly said at a December U.S. Naval Institute forum. 'Managing the complexity' The high-level attention on Ford, which has become a favorite topic of President Donald Trump when he talks about major defense programs, has made the Navy eager to highlight efforts dedicated to preparing the ship for theater operations. For the crew and officers, many of the headaches come from managing the sheer number of new technologies on the ship, said Cmdr. Mehdi Akacem, the air boss on Ford. “The biggest challenge is managing the complexity,” Akacem said. “I think there is more technical complexity packed into this ship than the Apollo program. I learn so much every day, I have to constantly refocus on what's in my lane. “There are so many new systems. ... The challenge is sustaining that focus on one new thing after another. I don't think there are any five people who understand all the complexity on this ship, all these technical challenges happening in parallel.” That has made it difficult to develop maintenance and qualification procedures for the crew. However, slowly but surely the crew is figuring it out, Akacem said. “One of the parts of the overall system that's still maturing is the maintenance documentation, the technical manuals, parts lists, periodicity of preventive maintenance,” Akacem said. “One of the neat modifications on the Advanced Arresting Gear, very simple to look at but a huge time saver: We used to have to take the system offline, climb into the Advanced Arresting Gear, climb all around it with a grease gun to go grease the bearings," he added. “Now there is a manifold so the sailor can just walk up with a gun — pump, pump, pump and done. And it saves about 45 minutes out of the grease process. Those are the kinds of things we've learned through the post-shakedown availability.” That's what the officers and crew of Ford hope to figure out this year: How does this ship work, and what is the best way to man and maintain it? And for sailors, the only way to figure that out is to get the ship underway. “All good things come from ships at sea,” Akacem said. “We've sat around and philosophized about, ‘Well, can we get by with less?' or ‘Do we need more here?' Now we're proving that out." “With the Advanced Arresting Gear — that's probably where the steepest learning curve exists for our sailors — we were feeling overwhelmed the first couple days with preventative maintenance, corrective maintenance and a bunch of the technical preparations. But our level of uncertainty has gone down so much in just a couple of weeks,” he added. “Just the confidence growth has been tremendous.” The learning process has even led to some firsts for the Navy, said Cummings. “We have aviation boatswains mates — typically some our roughest, toughest people up here — and we're making them be electricians and fiber-optics experts, which is a different theme," the ship's commanding officer explained. “So now we're putting [interior communications specialists] into the air department, which is a first. So now you have your ICs, who are your techie fiber-optics people, with your hardcore, hydraulic fluid-drinking, grease-wearing hard-chargers. It's a very interesting mix in the air department," he added. “So is the manning right? Absolutely not. We're still figuring it out. Some of these systems are a little immature, and we're figuring it out, but it's going to take time.” A training challenge A major hurdles for the crew has been getting sailors trained and qualified to operate, maintain and fix their own gear, Cummings said. “Self-repair: That's a challenge” he said. “The ability to get underway, operate and fix our gear ourselves without having to pull in and bring in tech reps out from all over.” In the absence of new schoolhouses, which are on the way, sailors have relied on shore-based testing sites and simulators from vendors for training, Cummings said. “It's a challenge. The infrastructure to train up our sailors — well, it's coming and we're working toward that end,” he said. “[There's] a lot of on-the-job training." As far as schools, General Atomics will host sailors at Rancho Bernardo, a neighborhood in San Diego, California. From there, the sailors will have access to a simulator to practice catapult launches. The Navy will also send sailors to the test site for Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System and Advanced Arresting Gear in Lakehurst, New Jersey. “The schoolhouses are coming, but it's a challenge. We're a first-in-class, we get a lot of Nimitz-class stock projected on to our ship, but it doesn't work for our ship,” Cummings explained. Another challenge has been rack space. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, the Navy is 100 racks short of what it would need to house a full crew and air wing. And while that isn't an immediate issue for this event, it could prove a problem closer to its first deployment. But Naval Sea Systems Command said in a statement that the ship has what it needs for its first deployment already. “The ship's bunks will be sufficient to meet ship's crew, air wing, and embarked staff requirements for first deployment, based on overall berthing numbers identified in the manpower estimates for the Gerald R. Ford class,” NAVSEA said in a statement. “For ship's crew, specifically, USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78) is designed to operate with hundreds fewer Sailors than required on the Nimitz class.” ‘Off and running' But for all the myriad issues that come from fielding a radically different first-in-class ship, Cummings and his crew are jazzed about how it's performing. Many of the key technologies, such as the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System and the Advanced Arresting Gear have performed remarkably well — a significant improvement over some of the bugs the ship faced when aircraft started landing on and launching from the carrier in 2017. “I just spoke to some of the first ones to use the flight deck back in 2017 and 2018: exponential improvement in performance,” Cummings said. “For the catapult, we smoothed out many of the software issues and tolerances. We reduced those tolerances to a right number and we've had very few issues with the catapults. “Our Advanced Arresting Gear is performing spectacularly. A couple hiccups here and there, a quick reset: off and running.” Ford has been using its time at sea to develop wind envelopes for all the aircraft currently flying in the fleet. The process included generating a series of wind conditions, launching and landing an aircraft, and downloading the technical data; then rinse and repeat. “By the time we pull in at the end of January, every fleet aircraft — C-2, E-2D, F/A-18 Super Hornet, Growler and T-45 (our jet trainer) — will be validated to be given their full envelopes for these aircraft to go on deployment or to train our young aviators,” Cummings said. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will ultimately be integrated into the ship, which is a matter of reconfiguring some spaces to handle classified materials and storing parts, among other things, but the ship will not deploy with the jet at first. As the ship keeps to a breakneck schedule over the next year, Cummings hopes to rack up a significant number of “cats and traps” (meaning individual catapult launches and recoveries) to get a stronger idea of how the ship will stand up to the crushing operations tempo of a carrier on deployment. “Our goal is to get about 7,000-8,000 cats and traps to figure out: ‘Hey, what's going to break?' ” he said. “What parts do we need on order?' Let's refine our procedures. So through post-delivery test and trial period, that's our goal. And with an embarked air wing in the April time frame, we're going to be able to start getting after that. We've got a big year ahead of us." The Ford is doing about 10-15 traps per day as it works through the data set, and ultimately it should have about 1,000 by the time it pulls back in at the end of January, Cummings said. To get to that 7,000-8,000 goal, the Navy must get its student pilots lots of traps on Ford. “For the Next year, the only carrier on the East Coast able to provide carrier qualification capability is the Gerald R. Ford,” Cummings said. “When we get our flight deck certified in March, after that we're going straight into carrier qualifications. So all year, any chance we can: ‘Hey, bring 'em out because we need some time in the batting cage. Hit off the tee and see where we have holes in our swing.' ” The post-delivery test and trial period is supposed to last 18 months. After PDT&T, the ship is headed to full-ship shock trials, where live explosives are set off next to the ship to see how the class stands up to shock damage. Navy officials previously testified the entire process could delay the Ford's deployment by up to a year. So taking a year to conduct the trials, then fix all the broken crockery: That would allow Ford to enter the 7.5-month carrier predeployment workup cycle in the second half of 2022, and then it would likely be able to deploy by mid-2023. So, after years of delays, cost overruns and controversy, the ship is finally getting into its groove. And that's the message Cummings wants to send over the next year of operations. “This ship is kick-ass,” Cummings said. “I came here a year and a half ago, I heard all the stories, heard from the critics, came here, and they were all wrong in their assumption about our ship. What people should know is that this ship is amazing.” https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/01/30/the-carrier-ford-is-trying-to-shake-years-of-controversy-and-find-its-groove/

  • New pact deepens Fincantieri’s stake in seabed warfare business

    March 19, 2024 | International, Land

    New pact deepens Fincantieri’s stake in seabed warfare business

    The shipbuilder signed a deal with Italian energy firm Saipem to integrate that company's underwater drones into Fincantieri's ships and submarines.

  • At Defence Expo 2020, Make-in-India achievement; Rafale engine doors, Falcon front cockpit. Here’s all Dassault aviation will show

    February 5, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    At Defence Expo 2020, Make-in-India achievement; Rafale engine doors, Falcon front cockpit. Here’s all Dassault aviation will show

    For the first time Dassault Aviation of France will be exhibiting at the Defence Expo and the main attraction besides other displays will be the Rafale mock-up with the Indian colours. Defence Expo 2020 is being held at Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh The Rafale fighter aircraft which were handed over to the defence minister Rajnath Singh last October will be arriving in India early summer. The mock-up in the colours of the IAF is to illustrate the determination of the French company's commitment to meet all future additional fighter aircraft needs. Also, a mock-up of Rafale M (Naval variant) will be on display to present capabilities of the variant taking part in the tender of 57 aircraft to equip Indian Navy aircraft carriers. There will also be a Mirage 2000 I/TI mock-up on display. Highlighting its “Make in India” achievements on display will be Rafale engine doors manufactured in the Dassault Reliance Aerospace Ltd (DRAL) 15000 square meters the facility in Nagpur, and the first Falcon 2000 cockpit front section manufactured at Dassault Reliance Aerospace Limited facility at MIHAN, Nagpur. Eric Trappier, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Dassault Aviation has said, “Our participation in the DefExpo is the expression of the company's full dedication to contribute to India's outreach”. According to the company larger infrastructures are being developed which will help in ramping up of DRAL capabilities towards the taking-off of an entire line of Falcon 2000 fully manufactured and assembled in India. This will pave the way for the future manufacturing and assembly of Rafale in India. And these will help to build up an Indian aerospace manufacturing eco-system, both in civil and military fields, which will position India as an international reference in the global aerospace market. The company has played a very important role in helping India to establish a state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities with cutting edge technologies. https://www.financialexpress.com/defence/defence-expo-2020-rafale-mirage-2000-make-in-india-achievement-engine-door-cockpit-dassault-aviation-dral/1855850/

All news