Retour aux nouvelles

2 décembre 2019 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

Head of European Defence Agency: EU strategic autonomy is an opportunity, not a threat

By: Jorge Domecq

The European Union's strategic autonomy in defense is on everybody's lips since it was put forward as a long-term goal in the EU's 2016 Global Strategy. Yet, it remains unclear what it means in practice and how it would impact NATO and our trans-Atlantic relationship. This has led to a mostly academic debate about the concept's end goal, fueled by doubts and fears stoked from both sides of the pond. However, the risk of too much abstract talk is that we get distracted from the concrete action needed to bring us closer to, what in my view, is a laudable objective.

It is time we approach strategic autonomy more positively and look at it as a constructive project — not something directed against NATO, the United States or anybody else. It's about putting EU member states in a position where they can autonomously develop, operate, modify and maintain the full spectrum of defense capabilities they need. It's about giving the EU the option and tools — political, operational, technological, industrial — to take military action whenever needed, either together with partners (notably NATO) wherever possible, or separately if necessary.

Instead of undermining trans-Atlantic trust and security, as some fear, a more robust and autonomous European defense will ultimately lead to a stronger NATO. It is in the interest of our trans-Atlantic partners to have a more capable and efficient EU in defense. The U.S. wants Europe to take on its fair share of burden in defense? A stronger and more credible European pillar in NATO will contribute to that.

The EU's ambition, as stated in the 2016 Global Strategy, is to reach “an appropriate level of strategic autonomy” in order to “ensure Europe's ability to safeguard security within and beyond its borders.”

However, it takes more than ambition and political will to get there.

Strategic autonomy presupposes at least two things. First, that our member states' armed forces have at their disposal the full spectrum of military assets that, taken together, could enable the EU to take military action, and on its own if necessary. Second, that the functionality and usability of these assets is not restricted by any technological or political caveats controlled by non-European actors.

Today, admittedly, this is not the case yet. Hence the need to invest more, and better, in defense. The good news is that we are moving in the right direction, both in terms of “more” and “better.”

But more spending does not automatically guarantee more efficiency or interoperability. To achieve that, we must invest better through cooperation: from joint priority setting to the development, procurement and deployment of cutting-edge defense capabilities.

Prioritization is the foundation stone on which all subsequent steps must build. It is already in place: the Capability Development Plan, developed through the European Defence Agency and revised in 2018, lists member states' joint priorities for the years to come. One of them targets cross-domain capabilities that can contribute to strategic autonomy. Using the priorities as a compass will ensure efforts and funding are spent on assets that are really needed and contribute to making the EU more efficient in military terms. The Coordinated Annual Review on Defence, another new tool to boost joint capability planning and development, will help keep the focus on agreed priorities.

To achieve strategic autonomy, the EU must also be able to master cutting-edge technologies and their integration into defense products. That's why it is so crucial that it acquires, maintains and develops the technological knowledge and industrial manufacturing skills required to produce the defense equipment it needs. Those key strategic activities have to be preserved and strengthened if we want to turn the goal of strategic autonomy into reality.

EDA, which is the EU hub for defense innovation and collaborative capability development, has for years been involved in this critical work. The agency identifies critical, overarching strategic research areas and other key strategic activities underpinning the EU's strategic autonomy. The aim is to identify, and then support, must-have technologies and industrial capacities, without which strategic autonomy isn't possible. Artificial intelligence, micro- and nanotechnologies, or unmanned and autonomous systems are only a few examples of such critical disruptive technologies that are reshaping defense.

It's through concrete action — not political and academic rhetoric — that we can make progress toward strategic autonomy. At the same time, we must ensure coherence and avoid any unnecessary duplication with NATO, which will continue to be the cornerstone of collective defense for its members.

EU strategic autonomy isn't necessarily just around the corner, but it is attainable. The closer we get to it and the more additional defense cooperation it triggers, the better.

https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2019/12/02/head-of-european-defence-agency-eu-strategic-autonomy-is-an-opportunity-not-a-threat

Sur le même sujet

  • Latvia relaunches ground vehicle competition following industry complaints

    3 octobre 2019 | International, Terrestre

    Latvia relaunches ground vehicle competition following industry complaints

    By: Aaron Mehta WASHINGTON — In recent years, the Baltic nation of Latvia has gone on a modernization spending spree, putting down cash for new Black Hawk helicopters, self-propelled howitzers, reconnaissance vehicles and anti-tank weapons. But there's another platform competition on the horizon, with officials in Riga having relaunched a stalled contest for tactical wheeled vehicles. In 2018, Latvia's Ministry of Defence awarded to Finland's Sisu Auto a €181 million (U.S. $197 million) deal for four-wheel drive armored vehicles. But the contract was overturned in early 2019 by a government watchdog after two bidders — AM General from the United States, and South Africa's Paramount Group — filed complaints over the process. Turkish firm Otokar had also bid on the program at the time. The recompete has seen offers from more than 10 companies for what will be a government-to-government agreement for a final contract. The price for the new contract will depend on the eventual winner and is not locked in at the Sisu contract level. Speaking to Defense News in September, Janis Garisons, state secretary for the MoD, said it's unlikely the government will reach a decision on the winner of the competition in the short term. “What we have to do, we will test the vehicles, because we want to ensure we are looking at vehicles fit for our terrain, that can drive into our forests and we are not [getting] stuck on the roads,” said Garisons, who is the No. 2 official at the ministry. “We will look also at the industrial part because we very much interested to have [the] ability to maintain those vehicles.” The last point is key, as Latvia is concerned about the ability to maintain its new purchases, something the country has struggled with, according to Garisons. “We don't want to be in that situation anymore.” The country is also focused on building up its domestic industrial base so that much of the maintenance on its new equipment can be done in-country, in case of conflict. Along those lines, the competition for a four-wheel drive vehicle is likely be the last big platform purchase for a while, as the ministry is turning its attention toward procurement efforts to benefit training and sustainment. “Now we face trying to implement everything and put [them] into service. This takes time, and of course all logistical tails, which goes with that,” he said. “Therefore, we now have to concentrate more on — it's not very fancy things, but basically the training is going on already on all those capabilities that [have been bought], but now we have to ensure all the logistical issues are solved and maintained and sustainment is ensured.” Regarding research and development, Latvia is working on a joint effort with Estonia to produce unmanned ground vehicles. “That is something for the future capabilities. The goal is to understand our limits and how to engage our companies, also, coming up with solutions for autonomous systems,” Garisons said. “Because I think the biggest issue right now is how to ensure that those unmanned vehicles can operate autonomously and not need the soldier operating, as that doesn't add much value.” https://www.defensenews.com/2019/10/02/latvia-relaunch-ground-vehicle-competition-following-industry-complaints

  • North Korea spurs South Korea’s defence spend to $54.7bn by 2029

    30 juillet 2024 | International, Terrestre, Sécurité

    North Korea spurs South Korea’s defence spend to $54.7bn by 2029

    Due to escalating tensions with North Korea, South Korea's defence budget is expected to reach $54.7bn by 2029.

  • US Army cancels current effort to replace Bradley vehicle

    16 janvier 2020 | International, Terrestre

    US Army cancels current effort to replace Bradley vehicle

    By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army is taking a step back on its effort to replace its Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle after receiving only one bid in its competitive prototyping program, but this does not mean the end of the road for the future optionally manned fighting vehicle, service leaders told reporters Jan. 16 at the Pentagon. Until now, the Army has been tight-lipped ever since it appeared the competitive effort was no longer competitive, as the service had received only one prototype submission. “Today the U.S. Army will cancel the current solicitation for the Section 804 Middle Tier acquisition rapid prototyping phase of the [optionally manned fighting vehicle]. Based on feedback and proposals received from industry, we have determined it is necessary to revisit the requirements, acquisition strategy and schedule moving forward,” said Bruce Jette, the Army's acquisition chief. “Since its inception, the OMFV program has represented an innovative approach to Army acquisition by focusing on delivering an essentially new capability to armored brigade combat teams under a significantly reduced timeline compared to traditional acquisition efforts. The Army asked for a great deal of capability on a very aggressive schedule and, despite an unprecedented number of industry days and engagements to include a draft request for proposals over a course of nearly two years, all of which allowed industry to help shape the competition, it is clear a combination of requirements and schedule overwhelmed industry's ability to respond within the Army's timeline,” Jette said. “The need remains clear. OMFV is a critical capability for the Army, and we will be pressing forward after revision." In October, the Army ended up with only one bidder in the OMFV competition — General Dynamics Land Systems. The service had planned to hold a prototyping competition, selecting two winning teams to build prototypes with a downselect to one at the end of an evaluation period. Defense News broke the news that another expected competitor — a Raytheon and Rheinmetall team — had been disqualified from the competition because it had failed to deliver a bid sample to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, by the deadline. A bellwether for what was to come in the prototyping competition happened earlier in the year when BAE Systems, which manufactures the Bradley, decided not compete, Defense News first reported. And, according to several sources, Hanwha also considered competing but decided against the opportunity. The CEO of BAE Systems' U.S.-based business, Jerry DeMuro, told Defense News in a recent interview that the company didn't regret its decision not to pursue OMFV as the requirements and schedule were previously laid out, but said it continues to talk to the Army about future opportunities. “It was a very challenging program,” DeMuro said. “It always comes down to three things: requirements, schedule and funding. The schedule was very, very aggressive, especially early on, and at the same time trying to get leap-ahead technologies. There's a little bit of dichotomy there. “The requirements that were being asked for was going to require, in our estimation, significantly more development that could not be done in that time frame and significantly more capital than the Army was willing to apply.” Jette said the Army had a large number of vendors interested in the effort, hosted 11 industry days and had a number of draft requests for proposals on the street, but, he said, “it's always a challenge for industry. I was on the outside two years ago, and you get an RFP in after the discussions — it still cannot align with what you thought, and that is what you have to respond to is the RFP.” The acquisition chief believes what happened in this case is there was “a large number interested, they started paring down, which started causing us some uncertainty about the competition, but we still had viable vendors in. And when you get out to actually delivering on those requirements, we had one vendor who had challenges meeting compliance issues with delivery, and the second vendor had difficulty meeting responsive issues, critical issues within the requirement — not knowing how to fulfill that.” When pressed as to whether GDLS met the requirements with its bid sample, the Army's program executive officer for ground combat systems, Brig. Gen. Brian Cummings, who was present at the media roundtable along with the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team leader Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, said the Army could not discuss results and findings regarding the company's submission. Several sources confirmed a letter was circulating around Capitol Hill from GDLS to the Army secretary that strongly urged the service to continue with the program without delay. So now it's back to the drawing board to ensure the Army gets the prototyping program right. Jette took pains to stress that the OMFV effort is not a failed program with the likes of Comanche, Future Combat Systems, Crusader or the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter. “This is a continuing program. This is an initial effort at trying to get to a programmatic solution yielded, input that we needed to evaluate, which said we needed to revise our approach, not abandon the program or that it was a failure.” Some major failed programs in the past, Jette noted, were canceled after spending large amounts of money and still moving along even though problems were identified as the service proceeded. Crusader cost about $2 billion, Comanche about $6.9 billion and Future Combat Systems about $19 billion, Jette said. “We've spent a very small amount of money in trying to get to where we are, and in fact a good bit of the technology development that was part of the assessment phase is still totally recoverable," he added. Army Futures Command chief Gen. Mike Murray told the same group of reporters he is hesitant to call OMFV a program because it's a prototyping program, not a program of record. “We are still committed to this. This is like a tactical pause,” he said. The effort so far “gave us a great deal of clarity in understanding what is truly doable,” Jette noted. Army leaders said they would be unable to estimate how long its renewed analysis on the program might take before proceeding with a new solicitation to industry, or what that would mean for the program's schedule in its entirety. The original plan was to field OMFV in 2026. Last month, Congress hacked funding for the OMFV prototyping program, providing $205.6 million in fiscal 2020, a reduction of $172.8 million, which would have made it impossible to conduct a competitive prototyping effort. What happens to that funding or congressional support for the overall program is unclear. While sources confirmed to Defense News in early October that the failure with the OMFV prototyping effort revealed rifts between the acquisition community and the Army's new modernization command, Army Futures Command, Jette said while there is a bit of “scuffing here and there" the two organizations are working together “much better.” Murray added it is his view that the acquisition community and Army Futures Command is moving forward as “one team” with “one goal in mind.” https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/01/16/army-takes-step-back-on-bradley-replacement-prototyping-effort/

Toutes les nouvelles