EDITORIAL NOTES

By Bill Kincaid
15 Jul 2004

It is with very real pleasure that I write my first Editorial Notes. If you have already flicked through this issue, you may have noticed some changes to the content. There certainly is change, but I am conscious that change is not, in itself, either good or bad: it is the result of change that is important. Change must be based on three principles: retaining that which is strong, strengthening that which is weak and introducing essential ingredients that are missing.

I see an overriding necessity to retain what has been an undoubted strength over the years of RUSI Defence Systems and, before that, World Defence Systems – the profusion of articles by many eminent people in issue after issue. I shall do my best to build on that. In this issue we are honoured to have an interview with General James Jones, Supreme Allied Commander Europe. NATO is in the process of important change and we mark this not only with SACEUR’s views but also with those of Admiral Ian Forbes, Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Transformation. This process of Transformation is of vital importance to all NATO nations.

Contention and Debate

As to the other two principles I mentioned, I intend to meet them both by introducing a greater element of debate. The Royal United Services Institute is the oldest military think-tank in the world, and it is right and proper that it leads debate, rather than follows it. I intend that RUSI Defence Systems takes its place in the forefront of debate on acquisition issues – from research to capabilities; from procurement to in-service support; from land, sea and air systems to industrial issues; and from acquisition processes to international collaboration. For the debate to be of relevance, not just within the UK, but throughout Europe, North America and NATO, as well as nations elsewhere, we will welcome opinion from everyone. To this end, a section in each issue, under the overall title of contention@rusi.org , will be devoted to exploring a major acquisition topic, with several authors looking at that topic from different viewpoints in short, sharp articles. The points made will not necessarily be to everyone’s liking, but I hope that you will join the debate by writing to the Editor, or emailing contention@rusi.org , to put your viewpoint. Even if you do not wish to burst into print, you may like to visit www.rusi.org/defencesystems to follow the debate. Big issues need to be fully aired. And big issues need an international perspective.

RUSI Defence Systems is published three times a year and there is a need to strike a balance between width and depth in covering acquisition. More articles will give a wider perspective on a particular subject, but this means shorter articles. However, a greater number of shorter, sharper articles, including a few contentious ones to offset those from more orthodox pens, may well give a more focused view. Finally, I am introducing a section on Books and Reports.

This Issue

In this issue, our subject for debate is: ‘International Collaboration – Why Bother?’ The history of international equipment collaboration is littered with failed projects, huge cost increases and long delays. Inevitably, many draw the conclusion that national solutions should be pursued whenever possible. But there are reasons to pursue collaboration and there are methods of doing so which promise better results than the classic models of the European OCCAR type, methods which would give us the important fruit that we should be seeking – interoperability. These are explored at contention@rusi.org and the subject is followed up in the section on European Defence Procurement, which includes opinion from the French MoD and the European Parliament. Network Enabled Capability (NEC) and Network Centric Warfare (NCW) is on everyone’s lips and it is perhaps the greatest challenge facing NATO and other major nations’ armed forces, not just in terms of what capability it will provide, but how it is going to be acquired. It may well be that acquisition of NEC/NCW will prove the greater challenge. Indeed, until we acquire it – rather than just talk about it – European nations will find it increasingly difficult to operate alongside the US.

We also look at space, when we contrast an insider’s view with a welcome opinion from outside; at innovative ways of using private finance to provide better delivery of defence services; and at flexibility in platforms, including future aircraft, submarines and armoured vehicles, as well as the promise of sea-basing

Finally in the Books and Reports section, there is a review of the book on air defence planning in the 1950s and 1960s, which gives a fascinating insight into acquisition decisions in those years. The reports considered are those from the UK National Audit Office on major defence projects, battlefield helicopters, research and technology and effective acquisition, and that from the UK House of Commons Defence Committee on operations in Iraq. These are important reports and deserve close attention.

Have Your Say

I hope that you find the changes stimulating, and that the strength of the old has not been dissipated by the change to the new. Have your say at contention@rusi.org

Add your comments

Index