Editorial Notes
13 Oct 2006
Acquisition issues, rather than equipment, appear to be dominating thinking just now.
Our coverage of the UK’s Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS) in our Summer edition has clearly struck home.
The paper by the RUSI Acquisition Focus that looked at four important issues arising from the DIS (partnering with industry, implementation, the role of the end-user and value for money) and the ‘contention’ section, which asked if the ‘system’ was ready to implement DIS, have sparked responses from the UK’s Minister of Defence Procurement, Lord Drayson (architect and driver of the DIS) and MoD’s Permanent Under Secretary of State (the owner of its implementation), which we are delighted to publish in this issue.
The DIS may be a UK initiative, but it is of great interest in other countries. While we have not had any reaction to the Summer edition as yet from outside the UK, we shall in our Winter edition be covering a wide range of defence acquisition issues in France, Poland, the US, Russia and Asia.
Research and development (R&D) spend is another contentious issue. We covered the subject in the ‘contention’ section in last Winter’s edition, when we looked at the ever-growing gap between European and American technology and what needs to be done to narrow it. We return to the subject with contributions from Nick Witney, Chief Executive of the European Defence Agency, Sir John Chisholm, CEO QinetiQ, Ross Bradley, CEO of the Farnborough Aerospace Consortium and Graham Jordan of the RUSI Acquisition Focus. They all point to the necessity for a major re-think on R&D spend and its distribution, and suggest ways of achieving it without too much pain. But will this be enough to persuade oliticians and officials in UK and Europe to overcome narrow national attitudes and to fund R&D projects which may not have a financial return for a decade or two? There are not many who would bet that it will.
The transformation from Cold War defence to the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) has been difficult and in some respects still has far to go. In the RDS Military Interview, General William Hobbins, Commander US Air Forces in Europe, discusses some of the issues that impact on his responsibilities, including antiterrorism measures in Europe, NATO capabilities and interoperability.
But have our future equipment plans kept pace with the necessary transformation to the GWOT? Considering the underwater world, we publish articles from Germany, Sweden, UK and US on future submarines, their operation and maintenance. If the submariner’s future smacks of ‘more of the same but better’, maybe this is what is really required. However, in the world of artillery there is less of a consensus that we have got it right. Retired warriors from the US and UK – General ‘Dutch’ Shoffner, former US
Army Director of Force Development, and Major General Jonathan Bailey, author of the definitive Field Artillery and Firepower – discuss the future and the slow, incomplete
path being taken to it. There is no cheap option, as Leigh Moore of Redstone Arsenal demonstrates in his article on the cost of precision. And Lewis Page, the contentious author, provides an interesting outsider’s view.
But if we achieve precision, how should we use it? Networking of sensors, communications and weapon platforms may well enable the destruction of fleeting targets, but what about the decision-making process? Should high-value, fleeting targets necessarily be destroyed as soon as they appear? ‘TX’ Hammes, a former US Marine Corps colonel, argues that in many cases they should not and that a more thoughtful approach is needed.
Finally, returning to acquisition matters, the newly formed RUSI Acquisition Focus presents its second paper on the implementation of the DIS, looking specifically at measuring its success, partnering with industry and the handling of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – the latter being the subject of several other contributions in this issue.
But will the DIS remain valid over a period of time or will changes in the acquisition environment sink it? Our ‘contention’ section discusses the continuing escalation in defence equipment costs and the inevitable, detrimental effect on equipment programmes which are already hopelessly overloaded – Gerald Howarth, the UK Shadow Defence Minister, believes that the UK defence budget requires to be increased by 30–40% if it is to be delivered.
Other countries are facing similar pressures. But major increases in defence budgets are most unlikely to be forthcoming. So if current programmes are unaffordable and
will become even more unaffordable as time goes on, and if no significant new money for defence will be made available, what to do? It would seem that a major restructuring of defence programmes is essential – right now. Yet that seems as unlikely as major increases in defence funding.
Do governments live in a different world?
Add your comments
Copyright © 2008 RUSI