By Marina Malenic
Emerging threats such as international terrorism, cyber terrorism and humanitarian disasters have altered military equipment needs for North Atlantic Treaty Alliance countries, a State Department official said last week.
“The new military emphasis is no longer on tanks, but rather on strategic lift, helicopters and professional, mobile soldiers,” said Bruce Turner, director of the Center for European Security and Political Affairs at the European and Eurasian Affairs Bureau of the State Department.
Transforming the alliance from a “lumbering giant designed to defend NATO territory” to “an agile, expeditionary force capable of engaging in operations far from NATO’s territory and frontiers” has consequences for the types of military equipment the countries will need, Turner explained.
“The idea is to pool resources so that more allies can afford to have certain kinds of capabilities,” said Turner. “With strategic lift, right now it’s only the United States that can provide that capability.”
In addition to lift capabilities, Turner said, NATO countries in Afghanistan also lack helicopters — both for attack and logistics purposes.
“These are expensive pieces of equipment that countries are reluctant sometimes to give up or put into a situation where they may be damaged or lost,” he said.
Turner was speaking at a panel discussion on the evolution of NATO’s military capabilities hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington.
Peter Podbielski, senior analyst at the Center for European Policy Analysis and a retired U.S. Army colonel, said a C-17 procurement effort is well under way.
“NATO has begun to … stand up organizations to support air lift capability,” he said.
The NATO Airlift Management Organization (NAMO) is planning to spend upward of $700 million for three Boeing C-17 aircraft and associated services, the alliance announced last month. The international consortium — made up of NATO, together with Sweden and Finland — will purchase, own and manage the aircraft. The first unit is expected to be delivered in November (Defense Daily, June 13).
Other NATO agencies are taking similar steps to procure new aircraft and upgrade legacy command and control platforms and equipment, Podbielski added. For example, the alliance is currently completing an overhaul of its aging AWACS battle management aircraft fleet (Defense Daily, July 18).
“These are major investment opportunities by NATO … extending into billions of Euros,” Podbielski said. “So there is a comprehensive effort to address many of the shortfalls within the alliance with strategic investment.”
Brigadier Phil Jones, military attaché for the British Army staff at the British embassy in Washington, also drew attention to the need for heavier armor on vehicles as the improvised explosive device (IED) threat evolves in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
At the outset of both wars, Jones noted, troops were transported in traditional Humvees and rented civilian vehicles. The enemy’s use of IEDs, however, sped the development and deployment of various countermeasures, such as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle.
“All of that is phenomenally expensive,” said Jones. “It has stretched our treasury to keep us equipped in Afghanistan. And we are one of the world’s wealthier armies.”