The EU is proposing a European equivalent to the US DARPA research body, but time for action is short if the technology gap is to be closed
The European Union (EU) has recognised the need for coherent, co-ordinated defence research throughout its member states. But that does not really deserve any applause; it is an obvious statement. It has also been clear for some time that Europe is falling behind the USA in terms of defence research, and the gap is widening at an alarming rate. A sigh of relief that the problem has been identified and that the current Greek presidency of the EU intends to do something about the problem maybe more appropriate.
Defence research within Europe, as in most countries, including the USA, is split between national research agencies, companies and universities. However, the EU has 15 member states and it is common for all the national research agencies - or companies or universities - to concentrate on a similar group of technologies, duplicating results and wasting money on the same topics time and time again.
This concentrates funding in a small area and leaves little money for more esoteric technologies or "blue sky" research. In the USA, however, research tends to be co-ordinated, which makes better use of the available funds and means a greater number of programmes progress.
The US system is not perfect. NASA and the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA) and others do fund programmes with essentially the same aims, and they do not always fund programmes to their natural conclusion. But the USA must be doing something right: where else are directed energy weapons being developed? Which other country has rolling programmes - such as IHPTET and VAATE - continually pushing the state-of-the-art in turbine engines forward?
Co-operative research in Europe is not new, France's ONERA, Germany's DLR, and the UK's DERA (now Qinetiq and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory), for instance, have collaborated in the past and no doubt will do so in the future, but each has also run essentially similar programmes: each had major fly-by-wire developments, for instance.
Nor is Europe entirely without a co-operative defence research initiative. The continent's six fighter producing countries - France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the UK - launched the European Technology Acquisition Plan (ETAP) in 2001. But it has limited ambitions, concentrating on the technologies for next-generation strike such as command, control, communications, computers and intelligence; conventional air-launched cruise missiles; and manned and unmanned aircraft.
ETAP could provide the basis for a larger European research programme and some of its tenets, including no requirement for all six participants to take part in every programme. This in turn means national governments, and for that matter the defence companies, only funding the technology acquisitions they wish to fund.
Funding of EU-wide research will be an issue. Money is always an issue, and every government will be striving to ensure it gets the maximum benefit for the least spending.
The trouble is that the likely budget is too small. Talk is of €1.8 billion ($1.9 billion) spread over five years. This is pitiful. DARPA's fiscal year 03 budget is just under $2.7 billion. And herein lies the rub. It is all very well the EU knocking heads together and forming a community-wide research programme, but unless it receives proper funding, the initiative will wither on the vine, leaving Europe where it started. The problem is that such a small amount will not entice nations to concentrate on some subjects or to second staff to multinational projects. Without these moves, nations will continue to work across a broad range of areas, "to maintain national crown jewels", in the process duplicating the effort and diluting progress.
It has been recognised in Brussels that military research creates "a virtuous circle" - spending money provides a positive result. And it is recognised that the USA is pulling ahead of Europe in terms of defence research.
The aim is to present proposals to ministers on 19 May. It is vital they seize this initiative and so the EU's members need to ensure that the next four months of negotiations lead to concrete plans. This in turn means the member nations must take a pragmatic view and not the traditional nationalistic "we must lead everything" approach to European defence co-operation.
It is time to act quickly and decisively. The EU must move forward as the gap between it and its principal competitor is already gulf-like. If no action is taken, the chasm will, in the very near future, become uncrossable.
Source: Flight International
