7533
The US is determined to remain the world leader
in defence technology. After several years of procurement
and research cuts (a 14% reduction to
$168 billion in fiscal year 2013 and a further 4%
to $162 billion in 2014), the US is now planning
to stabilise spending levels in this field. To ensure
that it stays ahead in the technology game even in
times of tighter budgets, the Pentagon will shift
more money to basic research and early stage developments
– the level where concepts are turned
into prototypes. The trade-off is that the budget
for system development and demonstration is being
reduced, meaning that many promising new
technologies may never materialise or enter production.
Meanwhile, the US will continue producing
systems of incrementally improved levels of
technology so as to ensure that its military keeps
its edge until new breakthrough technology can
be fielded.
Knowledge is power
New technologies are game changers in war and
peace. By exploiting its advantage in science and
technology during the Cold War, the US was able
to counter the Soviet Union’s superior numbers of
soldiers, tanks and aircraft. Technologies such as
smart bombs, stealth aircraft, remote surveillance,
command and control networks and other hightech
systems were all developed during the Cold
War and provide the basis for US conventional
military dominance today.
However, the spread of technological know-how
and aggressive efforts of other countries to catch
up in the fields of natural sciences and engineering
means that the US may soon face technologically
equal (if not superior) competitors and opponents.
Technology superiority remains a priority
for all the major powers in the world. Though
the US is adamant that it should retain its lead in
defence technology, Russia has embarked on an
ambitious technological modernisation process
of its own. Elsewhere, China is investing heavily
in new technologies able to destroy satellites and
new weapons able to evade missile defences while
India recently demonstrated its ambitions by successfully
sending a space probe to Mars.
To ensure it remains the undisputed leader in
defence technology, even in an age of austerity,
Washington plans to ‘leap-frog’ a generation of
technologies. This strategy has been proposed before
but never fully implemented. Then presidential
candidate George W. Bush proposed moving
beyond marginal improvements to skip a generation
of technology in 1999. Once in office, however,
the pressing needs of two major land wars in
Central Asia and the Middle East made procurement
of existing gear more important than future
research needs.
This time around, it may be different. While money
remains tight, the Pentagon will ring-fence its
spending on research, development, test and evaluation
(RDT&E) programmes for future gear at
Staying ahead: the US and future technologies
by Jan Joel Andersson
Advanced Tactics/REX/REX/SI PA
European Union Institute for Security Studies October 2014 1
© EU Institute for Security Studies, 2014. | QN-AL-14-042-2A-N | ISSN 2315-1129
the expense of current procurement. A shift is also
planned within the RDT&E budget itself. Since
spending on RDT&E will remain relatively flat,
the Pentagon wants to further cut its spending
on system development and demonstration (reducing
it from $20 billion in 2009 to $10 billion
in 2018) to protect basic research and early stage
development: the level at which real technology
breakthroughs take place.
The drawback of this focus on future technologies
is that many promising projects still in the pipeline
may never be fielded. With this approach,
the US is expected to produce more prototypes
but not put them into production. To compensate
the military for these ‘gap-years’ of slower modernisation
in the medium term, the Pentagon will
receive more resources to allow the military to finalise
and field short-term technological advances
and upgrades.
Cuts in discretionary spending required by the
Budget Control Act of 2011 have reduced or
slowed down planned purchases over the last
three budgets of a variety of weapons systems
and equipment – such as manned and unmanned
aircraft, helicopters, ships, ground vehicles, and
communication systems. Once current ongoing
major programs (like the replacement of the current
Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines for the
US Navy, the Space Fence for the Air Force, the
WIN-T battlefield network for the US Army, and
the Advanced Air and Missile Defence Radar) are
completed, the expectation is that many newly developed
technologies will be shelved.
This push for leap-frogging ahead requires an element
of risk-taking and a willingness to tolerate
failure. While the US is increasing funding for
Pentagon and Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) research, private industry is also
expected to increase its own investment in defence
R&D. Between 1999 and 2012, top US defence
industry companies cut their internal R&D
spending by a third. And while some US defence
companies are now slowly reversing this trend,
the majority of companies have yet to do so.
Mind the (transatlantic) gap
A major challenge for the future is the US’ ability
to protect R&D funding in a worsening economic
climate. Unfortunately, not much extra funding
can be expected from Washington’s closest partners,
the member states of the EU and NATO,
since they consistently underspend in the fields of
research, technology and development (RTD).
That Washington is increasingly frustrated by
what it perceives to be European unwillingness to
provide enough investment in military capabilities
and defence research is well known – and has
long been a sore point of contention across the
Atlantic. Over the past ten years, the aggregate
defence expenditures of the 26 members of the
European Defence Agency (EDA) has been about
half of the US total. In GDP terms, this translates
to a 1.6% of GDP spent on defence in the EU compared
to 4.8% in the US. There is also a significant
difference in how money is allocated. While EU
member states spend about 20% of their defence
budgets on investments in new capabilities, the
US share is around 30%. The difference is even
more pronounced when it comes to research and
development. In 2010, EU governments spent a
total of €9 billion on defence R&D – the US €58
billion.
There is a risk that Europe may not only lose its
competitive advantage vis-à-vis other actors but
also lose its ability to collaborate with its most important
partner and ally. The difference between
Europe and the US is not only how money is spent
but also on how to approach future technologies.
There is growing concern that Europe is focusing
more on bringing today’s or even yesterday’s
technologies and capabilities to the field then on
developing tomorrow’s potential game-changing
technologies – meaning that transatlantic security
and defence cooperation could become increasingly
difficult.
A major reason for this concern is that new technologies
and capabilities take a very long time to
develop, are costly to field and, once in place, are
to be around for decades. Any new capabilities
must therefore be able to adapt to various types
of future scenarios. Some capabilities, such as airto-
air refuelling, drones and strategic transport,
are generic capabilities necessary for almost any
future scenario – while others are not.
However, many new technologies in areas of vital
importance to security and defence – such as
satellites, communications networks and cybersecurity
– are increasingly driven by commercial
innovators and not traditional defence industry
companies. The relationship between high-tech,
civil security and military defence have become
increasingly blurred. Given that European industry
is quite advanced and competitive in some of
these areas, there are still opportunities for Europe
to remain in the race to stay ahead in technology.
Jan Joel Andersson is a Senior Analyst at the
EUISS.
European Union Institute for Security Studies October 2014 2
No comments:
Post a Comment