Europe’s dire defense industrial straits

Europe’s dire defense industrial straits

PARIS — Those worried about the state of the U.S. defense industrial base need look no further than Europe to feel better about their situation. Of course, the shrinking defense budgets across Europe has only led to additional competition for the few weapons programs up for bid making the situation tougher on U.S. companies.

Defense executives here at the Eurosatory land warfare conference have said all week they must expand their global view beyond Europe and the U.S. if they want to survive the economic crisis that has tightened defense purse strings. An echo chamber listing the Middle East as a potential site of industry growth means countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia will have plenty of bidders to drive down prices.

Heidi Shyu, the Army’s top acquisition executive, said she would work to partner U.S. companies with smaller international companies  in hopes of leveraging the technology that might not reach the market otherwise.


Countries like Italy are slashing their personnel numbers in order to keep modernization programs afloat. Research and development investment has been scuttled in many budgets. This is why Shyu emphasized the need for the U.S. Army to maintain, if not increase, its science and technology budget to ensure technological advancements continue.

The European Defense Agency has assembled 17 defense companies to launch a European wide defense industrial study headed by BAE Systems. Claude-France Arnould, EDA’s chief executive, told reporters here on Tuesday the team completing the study must focus on emerging markets and ways in which the companies can collaborate in ways to compete for the shrinking number of contracts.

The study will focus on land systems after EDA published their Future Air Systems study last year. Defense analysts tasked for the study will look not just at the current market, but also those 5, 15 and 30 years into the future. EDA officials conceded that predicting threats 30 years into the future will present challenges, but must be done.

Not everyone is sure the lone target for defense growth is the Middle East. Morri Leland, an international business development executive with Lockheed Martin, said his company has also targeted the Pacific region. Leland said he anticipates countries such as the Philippines will look to improve their military in the coming years.

The White House’s new defense strategy has targeted the Pacific region as the site for the U.S. military’s realignment. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta traveled to the region this month to pave the way for incoming U.S. forces.

Pat MacArevey, Navistar’s vice president for government business and government affairs, listed India has a site for future growth. His company has heard from interested buyers for the Saratoga, a vehicle the company built to fill in between the requirements for a Humvee and MRAP. MacArevey said Navistar has received international interest in the vehicle.

Executives here don’t anticipate a new onslaught of modernization programs in the Middle East or the Pacific to bail them out. Instead, upgrade programs as well as networking opportunities are seen as life preservers before the economy can bounce back and countries can again bolster their military budgets.

The Eurosatory floor was littered with networking programs targeted for the many countries looking to outfit their soldiers with portable computers. Rheinmetall Defense announced it would send 900 units of its Gladius system to the German Bundeswehr to be deployed to Afghanistan. Thales is building a soldiers communications system for the British Army.

“We wanted to expand to build systems to improve the infantry soldiers,” said Oliver Hoffmann, a Rheinmetall Defense spokesman.

As expected, Eurosatory has been slower than previous years because of the state of defense budgets. Instead, a sense of desperation hovers above the floor. The days of lavish chalets are over. Companies, at this point, just want to survive the lean years.

Join the Conversation

That’s it we need to start the Cold War again. Seems a divided Europe was a more prosperous Europe..LOL

Overall since most of our enemy’s are bums in caves in the desert or some weirdo state that has 70s vintage F-4s or MiG-21s. The need for the newest planes and tanks isn’t there and most of our and Europe’s industry was lead astray in the early 2000 with stuff made to fight Iraq 100 time over and not needed now.

Overall a pre 1941 Roosevelt approach may be needed here in the states. Keep current equipment in service but have the industry test and ready new gear if needed when war come bring into service. The M-1 Grand and the P-38 Lighting fighter are good examples of that.

I miss the Cold War. It forced us to make weapons that actually are actually practical for war and made us extremely competitive to push ourselves to new limits. Crappy systems or poorly designed platforms like the LCS would have never survived in a Cold War climate. Back then we couldn’t afford to be stupid with our defense industry or how our dollars were spent if a third world war erupted.

Garande :)

Yup…at least in the Cold War there was balance, nowadays the psycho’s whom believe they are the mesiah or some other incarnation of God have come out of the wood works. Bring back the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact…YEA BABY!!

Garand, no “e”

only the dead have seen the end of war

Ah, so we are suppose to feel better because Europe is in worst shape than we are?

I can see the future now, technological advancements backed by spiffy powerpoints. On schedule and on budget but when it gets to the field it crashes.
It seems we were, at one time, pursuing the rebuilding of the systems engineering and developmental test and evaluation of over a decade ago. Now the mantra is budgets, contracts, powerpoints, so we can “field, fail, fix, field again, repeat till the program gets axed”.
It seems all we can do now is spend and complain that what we get is substandard.
We need to do better but until we can get real leadership in DoD we will continue the downward spiral while China continues their ascent.
At least we can sell some of the crap to the buddies in the middle east so they can blow each other up. If it works.

Perpetual war! That’s what the Pentagon and its European buddies want. National security is a core, entitlement program. Why build another Hoover dam when you buy LCS!

The simple solution is for the Europeans to sell to the Chinese. It’s only a matter of time before the arms embargo is dropped.

Good idea on paper, however, the US doesnot have the factory/industrialization ability now, that it had in WW II. Even back then, the US took a beating throughout most of 1942, after Pearl Harbor. However, I do not think in 2012+ will the US have the time needed to make a “comeback” like that.

Europe’s defense industries have been on a shoestring budget for a long time — especially if you compare them to US companies. If you look historically at W. Europe/NATO’s combined budget, they spend only a fraction of what the USA has spent (granted — the USA gets a lousy deal for its weapons, given the state of the acquisition system and its many severe flaws).

Now with an economic downturn, a number of these companies are going to be looking elsewhere — either the consumer market (making other products) or by marketing their hardware to other nations. China and Russia, most certainly should not be amongst them (for obvious reasons).

However — the USA could look to these companies as leverage against US companies that have failed to deliver (I would prefer that we truly fix the US acquisition system — we’d save a TON of money).

Well this kind of sucks. I’m all for new tech and advancement, as well all know… But if the Europeans start chewing on our(USA) defense contracts it’s going to hurt. Exporting weapons and war machines is kind of our bread and butter these days.

But, hey. Go for it, Europe. Maybe you can find a nice cheap balance and actually be able to defend yourselves for once. Us Americans sure would like to see all that extra American money and troops back in the homeland.

That’s exactly the problem — the US has lost the overall/general manufacturing base, not just the military manufacturing base. During WW II the nation switched factories from producing other goods to producing military goods. We have very few factories to switch.

Implying hundreds of billions of dollars weren’t spent on absurdly stupid off the wall systems and machines that were a hundred years out of reach of even modern day technology.

Nothing’s changed. It’s only more expensive now.

I too “prefer that we truly fix the US acquisition system” but where to begin? And who will take the political heat for that? And it will take quite a bit of time because one of the core problems I’ve seen is the standard mentality of the typical government worker where they are reluctant to take ownership or responsibility for decisions. I’ve seen countless hours watsed waiting on a government official to make a decision — it’s amazing anything gets done with such a “corporate culture”.

Lemme see here.… Threat of getting your country turned into glass or threat of getting a building/train/etc blown up by some whackjob with dynamite undies.

I’ll stick to dealing with our terrorist buddies over our nuke buddies any day, balance or no balance.

no, but at least they were an honorable enemy. no hiding behind civilians,etc. If they hated you, they would tell you they hated you. And i would rather play mind games with, and have nukes pointed at me by, someone who is at least rational. Having irrational hyperextremist religious nuts pointing nukes at you would be no fun. Playing mind games with someone out of their mind is also an unfair advantage…to them.

“were an honorable enemy” … is there really such a thing. IF one were to beleive the“news,” US-Soviet relations are “warm” while the Soviet-Sino relations are “cold.” More likely, the Soviet-Sino relations are a lot warmer than the “news” would have you believe, given their joint military exercises, their common goal of overthrowing the US and the large numbers of military hardware. Didn’t Hitler’s per WWII buildup come as a surprise?

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.