capability development plan - European Defence Agency - Europa

12
OPERATIONALISING A EUROPEAN SECURITY
STRATEGY
MILITARY CAPABILITY NEEDS FOR THE FUTURE. At this time in the development of the initial CDP it is
worthwhile to pause and reflect on its overall objectives. They can be summed up as - within the
context of ESDP to assist pMS to identify priorities and collaborative opportunities for capability
development, to guide research and industry and to provide a measure of progress. Currently, the
Headline Goal (shorter-term) and the European Security Strategy (longer-term) articulate the ESDP
mission set, strategic assumptions and future ambition which provides the baseline for EU capability
development. If pMS are to provide real substance to this, they must be able to intervene in a regional
conflict, prevent and stabilise potential conflict in Europe’s neighbourhood, deal with proliferation of
WME/WMD or address threats from terrorism. This provides a patent challenge to project force further
afield, more quickly and more robustly. This, in turn, places a premium, for instance, upon knowledge,
deployability and sustainability capabilities, sometimes operating with different cultures, in theatres
where access cannot be taken for granted, where basing may be too sensitive for potential hosts or
overflight is not guaranteed. Likewise, introducing network enabled capabilities and the ability to utilise
non-kinetic options in conjunction with traditional kinetic methods will be important components for
future mission achievement. Increasing demands on international intervention, post the Cold War, are
expanding the range and breadth of military tasks, the geographic scope of normal deployments, and
will require forces and their supporting structures to be more flexible and adaptable.
The challenges of achieving knowledge-based operations, as well as addressing the complexities of
concurrent operations and the sequential nature of a developing crisis will place further demands on
defence and security priorities. For example, it could be envisaged that within individual operations,
military forces may be faced with several tasks simultaneously, conducting high intensity combat,
stabilisation and humanitarian assistance operations - ‘the 3 bloc war’. Such complexity demands
highly adaptive forces that are able to quickly identify and meet the needs of both; the most likely
missions (frequently occurring) and the most the challenging (large scale, high-intensity conflicts such
as separation of parties by force or conflict prevention within an urban environment). However, despite
the broad nature of ESDP strategic planning assumptions, the benchmark against which pMS are likely
to plan and judge operational capability will, inevitably, be based on high intensity warfighting.
CAPABILITY-BASED PLANNING. To date, the evolving EU capability development processes have focused on
being more capability-based than threat-driven.This should not be surprising, as its roots stem from the
post-Cold War period when the mission sets became expanded and the taut defence fiscal situation
required forces to consider output in terms of achieving military tasks not input in terms of quantity. The
Headline Goal 2010 has taken this principle forward with great success within ESDP. However looking
to the future, as set out in the ESS, the initial Long Term Vision for ESDP and the CDP Strand B Phase
1 work, it is becoming important to consider required operational outcomes in the form of strategic
objectives or effects. In other words, what are the specific roles of military force in a truly joined-up,
traverse-departmental, cross-pillar approach to crisis management And thence, what joint capabilities
Mirages F1 at EUFOR © EUFOR Tchad RCA
are required to achieve them Such a challenge reflects the need to support a coherent civilian/military
comprehensive approach to crisis management and reaffirms that the use of armed force is primarily to
serve political ends.
Furthermore, a capability-based process supports, not competes with, this integrated civil/military,
comprehensive approach to crisis management. After all, and without needlessly trying to impose or
propose a definition, what is a capability but an ability to achieve a required objective, end or effect
through a combination of means (equipment, trained forces, etc) and ways (concepts, etc and their
implementation) . So, by using such logic the military must focus upon capabilities that can, for
example, overcome and deter adversaries, which can disrupt an adversary’s plans to use deception
and asymmetry and which can prevent and stabilise a situation from political spiralling out of control -
all as part of a coherent and co-ordinated civil/military operations plan.
THREAT WITHIN A NEW ENVIRONMENT. Pausing again, it is important to return to the issue of threat.
Although threat-based planning itself is less relevant, threat and the risk it poses will remain a key
consideration to the capability planner. For example, without an assessment of the potential threat how
could pMS consider, in quantifiable terms, what a ‘good’ capability is - and how good does good have
to be In the Cold War, broadly similar forces were deployed with broadly similar equipment. The
enemy, his ways of behaving and the axes of threat were all reasonably familiar and as a result
FUTURE TRENDS FROM THE CAPABILITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN