Soldiers saddled with incompatible kit, NATO says
Oct 3, 12:03 PM (ET)
By Tim Hepher
PARIS (Reuters) - NATO planners gave a withering assessment of the West's defense arsenal on Tuesday, saying their forces are sometimes unable to talk to each other on the ground because costly defense systems are not compatible.
Problems in getting state-of-the art equipment from rival manufacturers to link up are making it harder for forces of different countries and even units within the U.S. military to co-ordinate -- and costing taxpayers millions to sort out.
In some cases, the crossed-wires in communications only come to light when defense gear is being used for the first time in exercises or even battle zones, defense industry chiefs heard at an annual conference between NATO and its arms suppliers.
"We are all taxpayers and all taxpayers would shoot most of us if they realized how much money is being spent in trying to get systems to talk to each other after the fact," U.S. Air Force General Lance Smith, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, told delegates.
He said three different command and control systems were being used in Afghanistan, where NATO is due to take over responsibility for security across the country from Thursday, and U.S.-led forces went into Iraq with 7 tracking systems.
The problem can be as mundane as getting a telephone to communicate with a switching system no more than 100 yards (meters) away, Smith told reporters between sessions.
Yet that poses a serious headache for commanders as Western countries reshape their forces to deal with a more dispersed threat operating over long distances -- meaning units from different countries and services need to co-ordinate locally.
Smith heads NATO's "Transformation" project which is designed to prevent the Atlantic alliance fighting with yesterday's weaponry and defense systems.
NATO planning during the Cold War assumed that armies would operate on a large scale, partly in the confines of the North German plains, with commanders sharing information at the top headquarters level rather than lower down the command chain.
Now NATO thinks in terms of "capabilities" -- building teams and hardware which are designed for specific tasks and can respond flexibly to unknown future threats. Emerging needs include more live video and the ability to see round corners.
BATTLEFIELD "NOT A LAB"
The trend means not only that systems must talk to each other, but that defense companies must be able to move quickly to help maintain them in the world's hotspots such as Iraq.
"Many of you tell us 'no'," Smith told the arms delegates.
NATO's commander in Afghanistan, General Gerhard Back, gave the firms a reminder about their duties to make sure the equipment they supply to the battlefield is actually working.
"A battlefield is not a laboratory and this requires systems to be effective. If something can break, then find out before the system is fielded," he said.
Contractors said they were already working on developing common architecture but needed government help, while one speaker from a German firm said manufacturers were left in the dark.
"We can't spend 40 million euros ($50.8 million) to develop an armored vehicle without knowing the military requirements," he said.
Asked whether NATO could come up with common technical standards mirroring the software or telecoms industries, Denis Ranque, head of Europe's largest defense electronics maker Thales, predicted companies would get there faster.
"The technology is now extremely complex; the devil is in the detail and NATO officers wouldn't always be aware," he said.
Link Here
By Tim Hepher
PARIS (Reuters) - NATO planners gave a withering assessment of the West's defense arsenal on Tuesday, saying their forces are sometimes unable to talk to each other on the ground because costly defense systems are not compatible.
Problems in getting state-of-the art equipment from rival manufacturers to link up are making it harder for forces of different countries and even units within the U.S. military to co-ordinate -- and costing taxpayers millions to sort out.
In some cases, the crossed-wires in communications only come to light when defense gear is being used for the first time in exercises or even battle zones, defense industry chiefs heard at an annual conference between NATO and its arms suppliers.
"We are all taxpayers and all taxpayers would shoot most of us if they realized how much money is being spent in trying to get systems to talk to each other after the fact," U.S. Air Force General Lance Smith, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, told delegates.
He said three different command and control systems were being used in Afghanistan, where NATO is due to take over responsibility for security across the country from Thursday, and U.S.-led forces went into Iraq with 7 tracking systems.
The problem can be as mundane as getting a telephone to communicate with a switching system no more than 100 yards (meters) away, Smith told reporters between sessions.
Yet that poses a serious headache for commanders as Western countries reshape their forces to deal with a more dispersed threat operating over long distances -- meaning units from different countries and services need to co-ordinate locally.
Smith heads NATO's "Transformation" project which is designed to prevent the Atlantic alliance fighting with yesterday's weaponry and defense systems.
NATO planning during the Cold War assumed that armies would operate on a large scale, partly in the confines of the North German plains, with commanders sharing information at the top headquarters level rather than lower down the command chain.
Now NATO thinks in terms of "capabilities" -- building teams and hardware which are designed for specific tasks and can respond flexibly to unknown future threats. Emerging needs include more live video and the ability to see round corners.
BATTLEFIELD "NOT A LAB"
The trend means not only that systems must talk to each other, but that defense companies must be able to move quickly to help maintain them in the world's hotspots such as Iraq.
"Many of you tell us 'no'," Smith told the arms delegates.
NATO's commander in Afghanistan, General Gerhard Back, gave the firms a reminder about their duties to make sure the equipment they supply to the battlefield is actually working.
"A battlefield is not a laboratory and this requires systems to be effective. If something can break, then find out before the system is fielded," he said.
Contractors said they were already working on developing common architecture but needed government help, while one speaker from a German firm said manufacturers were left in the dark.
"We can't spend 40 million euros ($50.8 million) to develop an armored vehicle without knowing the military requirements," he said.
Asked whether NATO could come up with common technical standards mirroring the software or telecoms industries, Denis Ranque, head of Europe's largest defense electronics maker Thales, predicted companies would get there faster.
"The technology is now extremely complex; the devil is in the detail and NATO officers wouldn't always be aware," he said.
Link Here
posted by Kangaroo Brisbane Australia at 3:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home