We are in the midst of a significant build-up of Danish and European defence capabilities. Billions are being invested in aircraft, ships, sensors, communications systems and other capabilities that we expect to remain operational for 20, 30 or perhaps 40 years.
At the same time, more and more of their operational value depends on technology that develops at an entirely different pace: computers, software, communications, data and integrations.
How do you buy something for 30 years in a world where parts of the technology evolve in cycles of just a few years?
A familiar challenge – with a widening gap
This is not a new problem. When I was in the Danish Armed Forces, we also worked with systems and platforms that were continually updated. The F-16 is an obvious example. The same applies to Leopard tanks, which have undergone upgrades and modernisation throughout their service lives.
So I do not see managing the relationship between military procurement and modern technology as a fundamentally new discipline. It is a challenge we already know. That said, I feel the gap is becoming wider and more important.
A hammer is still a hammer. Today, I can use the old hammer my wife’s grandfather used as a blacksmith for essentially the same task he could. But the way I use it may have changed. Where measurements and levelling were once done manually, I can now set up a laser measuring device on a tripod.
The hammer’s core function did not need to change, but the technology around it and our expectations of the end result have changed.
A tank must therefore still be a tank. A ship must still be able to carry out the task we bought it for. The same applies to a combat aircraft. But the world around the platform changes.
Drones are a very visible example right now. In 10 or 20 years, the challenge may be something else.
As a former commander once said to me: You do not know what you do not know.
That is why I do not really believe in “future-proofing” if, by that, we mean we can predict today what a platform will need to do in 2040 or 2050. We cannot. But we can try not to paint ourselves into a corner.
Integration must be part of the product
NATO standards already provide an important framework for interoperability between nations and systems.
But the standards are old and typically address the broader architecture rather than integrations on an individual platform. Existing standardisation is therefore not the answer to everything.
A system may communicate perfectly well with another through agreed standards, while access to the data or functionality needed for a new integration remains very difficult.
Here, I think we need to set higher expectations both for ourselves as customers and for the companies we buy from.
That does not mean everything has to be open. The defence industry depends, among other things, on its technology and intellectual property. Of course companies must be able to protect it. But we should pay far more attention to whether their products can be integrated with products from other suppliers.
Almost every supplier will say that their system can be integrated. The problem often comes afterwards:
“We can certainly do that. As long as the other supplier is willing to cooperate.”
And the other supplier says the same thing.
Integration is not necessarily easy. It requires technical interfaces, access to the necessary data and often genuine industrial cooperation between companies that may also be competitors.
Fortunately, there are already good examples of companies that understand this and work together on integrated solutions. We need more of that.
We must reward those willing to integrate
In many other areas of technology, we regard integration as a quality of the product itself. A car is no worse for allowing me to use Apple CarPlay and connect it with technology the car manufacturer did not develop.
The point is not that a military system should work like a smartphone or a car. The point is that the ability to integrate has value. And if it has value to us, it must also carry weight when we choose a supplier.
If European countries invest very large sums in defence equipment over the coming years, we also have an opportunity to reward companies that make a genuine effort to cooperate with others.
Not necessarily by requiring them to open up all their technology. But by requiring them to participate in a broader ecosystem.
Industry naturally responds to the market we create. If we want different behaviour, we also need to get better at buying it.
But it must not delay the defence build-up
We should therefore not wait for the perfect architecture. If we have an essential operational need now, and the alternative is to wait four or five years for a technologically perfect solution, we should not wait.
We need to build military capability quickly. Future flexibility must not become yet another perfectionist requirement that delays the procurement we need. But we must understand the choices we are making.
When we buy a major military platform, we are effectively entering into a marriage with a supplier that may last 30 years. That supplier needs to make money. This is both reasonable and necessary if we also want a stronger European defence industry.
But when we are investing as heavily as we are now, I also think we should use our position as customers.
We must reward companies that cooperate. We must ask for integration across suppliers. And we must consider how the platforms we buy today can be adapted as the world around them changes.
We do not know what the next technological breakthrough will be. Nor do we necessarily know what the next threat will be.
You do not know what you do not know.
But when we invest in equipment that needs to last for the next 30 years, we can at least make sure it is not built solely for the world we know today.