Transatlantic Armaments Cooperation - Federation of American ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objective: To provide a comprehensive overview of transatlantic armaments cooperation relevant to both policy makers and members of the acquisition workforce. Policy makers will find an assessment of current cooperation, its historical background, future prospects, and suggested courses of action. Members of the acquisition workforce will find a helpful guide to the unique aspects of international cooperation in general and transatlantic cooperation in particular. Background: Transatlantic armaments cooperation, defined as partnerships with two or more members spanning the Atlantic for the purpose of developing and producing defense articles, has about a 40-year history. The gains expected from this cooperation include cost savings through pooling of resources for development and economies of scale for production, and interoperability among the allies. It is a relationship born out of Cold War realities, a context that has changed dramatically in a short period of time. Throughout, the amount of cooperation achieved has been modest and fraught with difficulty. Discussion: Despite the urgency of the Cold War, the Atlantic Alliance fielded different models of the same basic equipment types, often not mutually interoperable. Cooperation aimed at overcoming duplication of effort and proliferation of types is hindered by protection of national industrial bases, labor concerns, security considerations and a lack of harmonization of military requirements. Though the threat has receded, armaments have become more complex and therefore more expensive, underlining the need for cooperation. Moreover, the trend is unmistakably toward coalition operations, boosting the importance of interoperability. At the same time, Western military budgets are smaller, European unification is well underway, and there is a palpable desire to resist a perceived U.S. hegemony in culture, economics, and political-military affairs. The need for cooperation still exists, but the process promises to be as tough as ever. Conclusions and recommendations: • Cooperative programs are indeed more difficult, but can be conducted with proper attention paid to the appropriate areas. • Motives for cooperation differ between Europe and the U.S. • Time is working against the prospects for transatlantic cooperation. xii
• The U.S. has a reputation as a difficult partner in cooperation. • The objectives of cooperation are only served by success. Abortive or acrimonious programs defeat those objectives. • The transatlantic defense technology gap invites cooperation. • The U.S. should persist in its support of transatlantic cooperation. • The U.S. must cultivate an organizational culture supportive of international armaments cooperation, and… – emphasize exploration of cooperative opportunities. – select programs based on long-term prospects. – work toward funding stability to the extent possible. – make the export control process more responsive to cooperation. – avoid giving false impressions to partners. – educate the acquisition workforce in international cooperation. – pursue all avenues toward the easing of harmonization. – select leaders and participants in cooperation with care. – provide effective incentives for those participants. xiii
Page 2 and 3: xviii
Page 4 and 5: DISCLAIMER This book was produced i
Page 6 and 7: NOTICE Copies of this report may be
Page 8 and 9: PART II - TRANSATLANTIC AND INTRA-E
Page 10 and 11: Technology Transfer................
Page 12 and 13: PREFACE This publication presents t
Page 16 and 17: INTRODUCTION “An unidentified pro
Page 18 and 19: xvi
Page 20 and 21: xviii
Page 22 and 23: international programs, work share
Page 24 and 25: the genesis for the harmonization o
Page 26 and 27: later in the program. Currently, KP
Page 28 and 29: For cooperative development program
Page 30 and 31: When negotiations are completed, th
Page 32 and 33: 1. Interview with Frank Kenlon, Off
Page 34 and 35: The definitions of terms that are t
Page 36 and 37: Export Control/Technology Transfer
Page 38 and 39: using first class or parcel post. I
Page 40 and 41: If a disclosure is deemed to be in
Page 42 and 43: Its preparation must involve all pr
Page 44 and 45: Security Service, IAPs that have in
Page 46 and 47: For Official Use Only (FOUO) inform
Page 48 and 49: 2-16
Page 50 and 51: 2-18
Page 52 and 53: fight together in a potential confl
Page 54 and 55: the most optimistic and proved the
Page 56 and 57: spending on R&D between Europe and
Page 58 and 59: that requirements can be addressed
Page 60 and 61: 1. Farr, Charles Michael, An Invest
Page 62 and 63: Each of these programs will be asse
Page 64 and 65:
European production did not start u
Page 66 and 67:
involved in MLRS production. It gre
Page 68 and 69:
estructure there were no more cost
Page 70 and 71:
Background GUIDED MLRS (GMLRS) ROCK
Page 72 and 73:
cooperation continues. The GMLRS pr
Page 74 and 75:
In May of 1967, NNAG approved the P
Page 76 and 77:
costs may be waived in part or in w
Page 78 and 79:
Background ROLLING AIRFRAME MISSILE
Page 80 and 81:
The CPA provided a specific answer
Page 82 and 83:
Europeans are also accustomed to a
Page 84 and 85:
Link-16 enables secure, jam-resista
Page 86 and 87:
Command (SPAWAR) contracting person
Page 88 and 89:
team was still able to compress the
Page 90 and 91:
Program objectives are outlined in
Page 92 and 93:
Initial operational capability was
Page 94 and 95:
oversight for European audit bodies
Page 96 and 97:
and specifically allowed the access
Page 98 and 99:
Management Structure The FTMA manag
Page 100 and 101:
Background JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JS
Page 102 and 103:
limited partners are provided acces
Page 104 and 105:
of levels and is tailored to the ne
Page 106 and 107:
These transatlantic cooperative pro
Page 108 and 109:
• Human Dimension - Selection of
Page 110 and 111:
4-50 ROLLING AIRFRAME MISSILE (RAM)
Page 112 and 113:
MLRS 1. Multiple Launch Rocket Syst
Page 114 and 115:
16. Ibid, pp 13-14 17. Ibid, p. 15.
Page 116 and 117:
JSF 1. David Mulholland, “Debate
Page 118 and 119:
4-58
Page 120 and 121:
It has been observed that U.S. arms
Page 122 and 123:
success for exclusively European co
Page 124 and 125:
Germany The German acquisition syst
Page 126 and 127:
increases the incentive to find par
Page 128 and 129:
can be traced to the early 1970s. O
Page 130 and 131:
1. Interview with a U.S. officer as
Page 132 and 133:
5-14
Page 134 and 135:
atlanticism among mid-level officia
Page 136 and 137:
Europeans often perceive a differen
Page 138 and 139:
components follow a standard format
Page 140 and 141:
the actual savings are difficult to
Page 142 and 143:
1. John Vincour, “France Has a Ha
Page 144 and 145:
cases to unstable nations that may
Page 146 and 147:
the U.S. DoD is attempting to reach
Page 148 and 149:
7-6
Page 150 and 151:
A-2
Page 152 and 153:
5. Project Management • Briefly d
Page 154 and 155:
A-6
Page 156 and 157:
B-2
Page 158 and 159:
F. Hand Carry. The hand carrying of
Page 160 and 161:
C-2
Page 162 and 163:
C-4
Page 164 and 165:
D-2
Page 166 and 167:
D-4
Page 168 and 169:
E-2
Page 170 and 171:
E-4
Page 172 and 173:
F-2
Page 174 and 175:
I. MISWG Document Number 10, “Tra
Page 176 and 177:
F-6
Page 178 and 179:
G-2
Page 180 and 181:
G-4
Page 182 and 183:
H-2
Page 184 and 185:
November 14, 1994 WEU Ministers iss
Page 186 and 187:
I-2
Page 188 and 189:
When I came to the program in Septe
Page 190 and 191:
• Second, even if the U.S. employ
Page 192 and 193:
1. General Memorandum of Understand
Page 194 and 195:
J-2
Page 196 and 197:
Horizon Direction des Constructions
Page 198 and 199:
K-2
Page 200 and 201:
DCI Defense Capabilities Initiative
Page 202 and 203:
MIDS Multifunctional Information Di
Page 204 and 205:
STANAG Standardization Agreement ST
Page 206 and 207:
L-2
Page 208 and 209:
Susan Ludlow McMurray Director Inte
Page 210 and 211:
BDir Gerhard Coors Chief, Missiles,
Page 212 and 213:
Captain Mike Nixon Deputy Director
Page 214 and 215:
Richard McCarthy Tank Main Armament
Page 216 and 217:
LTC Ray Nulk, USA Office of the Dep
Page 218 and 219:
L-14
Page 220 and 221:
M-2
Page 222 and 223:
Challands, Guy. Sense About Europea
Page 224 and 225:
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
Page 226 and 227:
M-8
Page 228 and 229:
N-2
Page 230:
N-4
show all

Transatlantic Armaments Cooperation - Federation of American ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?