NATO faces its biggest challenge since the end of the Cold War - adapting to changes in the security environment. But will it succeed?
This week in Prague, NATO will make another attempt to shake off its Cold War posture and transform itself into an alliance ready to accept more members and be better suited to meet today's threats.
NATO was formed to face the red hordes massed just behind the Iron Curtain. But that threat disappeared more than 10 years ago, and indeed three former Warsaw Pact countries are now NATO members. The threat is no longer unitary, but multi-faceted, consisting as it does of terrorist groups, rogue states and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As a result NATO can no longer rely on large fixed bases nor does it need lots of heavy armour. It needs light forces, rapid reaction, the ability to support and sustain deployed forces over considerable periods, and modern communications and IT networks able to work worldwide. To meet these needs, NATO intends to replace the Defence Capabilities Initiative (DCI) agreed at the 1999 NATO summit in Washington DC with a new plan, which is intended to be more focused than DCI.
The new capabilities will cover chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence; ensure that members have command, communication and information superiority; improve interoperability and combat effectiveness; and ensure rapid deployment and force sustainment. In-flight refuelling tankers, large transports, air-to-ground surveillance systems, and precision munitions are among the items on the shopping list.
Potentially these aims will provide industry with lucrative contracts, but if the new initiative is to be more successful than the DCI then industry on both sides of the Atlantic will have to work together in a more co-operative way. There is no point in European industry seeing NATO's needs as a way of developing capabilities that will allow Europe to compete against the USA. However, it is equally important that US industry does not read "interoperability" as "buy US" - NATO's needs should not be seen as a means of putting Europe's aerospace and defence industries out of business.
Already, there have been moves in the right direction, with Northrop Grumman and a group of European companies being set to begin work on an alliance air-to-ground surveillance programme that will marry elements of the US Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Programme with the European Stand-Off Surveillance and Target Acquisition Radar technology demonstrator.
If handled correctly the air-to-ground surveillance programme will show the co-operative way, leaving neither European nor US industry feeling it has lost out to a potential competitor. Handled incorrectly, NATO is likely to be no closer to having an alliance air-to-ground surveillance capability in 2008 than it is today. This would mean NATO's capability is restricted to the US Air Force's Northrop Grumman E-8 JSTARS platforms, plus the odd national asset, such as France's Horizon or the UK's ASTOR.
In-flight refuelling is likely to be a contentious issue as it will no doubt provide another bloody battleground with Airbus and Boeing struggling to sell their wares. But to what end?Tankers are hardly high-tech and sharing the spoils between the two companies is not an unreasonable way forward.
An undoubtedly thorny issue will be Europe's air transport fleet, which NATO secretary general Lord George Robertson has mandated to the leading European members. Justification for Robertson's move is obvious. European air forces are desperately short of large transport aircraft. Seven are meant to be jointly acquiring the Airbus Military A400M, but no deal has been signed as Germany has not funded its share. So if Europe does nothing, the Lockheed Martin C-130 will be the continent's largest transport (apart from the UK's four Boeing C-17s) for the best part of a decade. This is unsustainable.
But the transport debate has already been the source of transatlantic dispute with Boeing, Lockheed Martin and the US government accused of using DCI as a means of emasculating European industry.
NATO is an alliance, which means co-operation is a key part of its being. Whereas traditionally co-operation within NATO has been concentrated on the frontline, the process needs to spread to industry. If it does not, the odds are high that NATO will still trying to improve its capabilities at its next major summit. And if that happens, the question is unlikely to be: "When will we receive this capability?" More likely it will be: "What is NATO for?"
Source: Flight International
