European industry might be better off dropping "me too" developments and instead focus on truly innovative technology
Call it a draw, this time around. Europe is set to proceed with development of the Airbus Military Company A400M despite US doubts about the market for a four-turboprop strategic airlifter. The US military, meanwhile, is to go ahead with the lease of 100 Boeing 767 aerial-refuelling tankers despite European claims the deal is a thinly disguised government subsidy. As in previous rounds of the transatlantic war of words, someone wins and someone loses - but everybody misses the point.
Now that Germany has cleared the way for the A400M to proceed, the questions over whether there is a rational reason for development of the aircraft are probably moot. But the doubts will certainly persist into the production phase, just as the debate has over whether Europe needs to produce its own world-class combat aircraft when the USA's all-conquering Joint Strike Fighter is just around the corner.
Just as Europe believes its defence requirements and the world market justify development of multirole fighters to rival those of the USA, there is some logic to the argument that Europe needs its own solution to the chronic shortfall in airlift capability exposed by recent coalition operations. It may not be the most cost-effective solution, particularly from the US viewpoint, but it is a response to calls for Europe to do more.
The problem for European industry is that the A400M is viewed by the USA as a "me too" response, as are the Eurofighter and countless other programmes. These projects are as much attempts to challenge US market domination as they are efforts to meet customer requirements. The Eurofighter is designed to be better than any current US fighter, but risks being eclipsed within a decade by the JSF. The A400M is deliberately pitched between the Lockheed Martin C-130 and Boeing C-17, but risks falling between two stools.
At a time when European industry is clamouring for more government investment in aerospace research and development, it seems unable to look up from its competition with the USA and ahead to emerging markets where it has an opportunity to dominate. The Galileo global navigation satellite system, for example, is simply an effort to wrest domination of an existing market away from the USA. They are not creating a new one.
Europe's EADS concedes it is investing hundreds of millions of euros into exactly the same new technologies that its US counterpart Boeing is spending billions of dollars on thanks to deeper government pockets. But independent thinking is what got Airbus, for example, to where it is today - a serious competitor to Boeing and the US dominance in the airliner manufacturing business. Developments such as widebody twinjets, fly-by-wire and extensive use of composite technology were all pioneered in Europe and then copied across the Atlantic.
The USA remains the only country that can justify maintaining a full-spectrum defence and industrial capability. But even its resources cannot meet all requirements. As the US military transforms itself, even its budget cannot stretch to cover the capabilities required to make the digital battlespace a reality.
Where the USA leads, others tend to follow, and the defence infrastructures of Europe and other allied nations will inevitably experience similar transformations. A far-sighted European industry would see in this inevitability an opportunity to develop unique solutions that could dominate the world market.
Take, for example, the emerging requirement for a multirole command-and-control aircraft to be the hub of the intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and targeting network. The USA is looking at, and can justify and afford, a 767-sized platform. Scale that capability down to a business jet or small airliner, and the result could be affordable to the range of nations who will, eventually, need such an aircraft.
Supporters would argue the A400M offers just such a unique European solution to the strategic airlift requirement. The question remains, is the aircraft unique and affordable enough to dominate its market? Or will its US rivals simply divide and conquer? And should European industry be tied up developing a high-power turboprop when a breakthrough in environmentally friendly turbofan technology is what the market needs?
The transatlantic war of words will continue, but perhaps it is time for Europe to break out of its me-too mould and grasp the opportunities new technologies are providing and the USA has yet to exploit.
Source: Flight International