Mind the Gap

CHAPTER THREE

Building Compatible Forces
for RMA Operations
The Second Tier

The United States and its European allies could take years to converge on the common global security view just suggested. In the meantime, though, their military forces could be made more capable of conducting combined operations, which would enable them to cooperate when they agree on broad strategy or at least when they decide to respond jointly to a specific threat. Interoperability would also help rectify the current imbalance in risks and responsibilities--i.e., whereby only the United States can defeat WMD-armed rogues--that accentuates differences over political strategy. With better forces, the Europeans at least could not decline to participate in coalition military operations because they are physically unable to do so, and the United States would not need to act unilaterally for lack of any capable allies. Thus, with interoperable military forces the Atlantic allies might find it easier to agree on security issues that now divide them. This chapter addresses how such an agenda can be pursued.

Making U.S. and Allied Forces Complementary

Even if the United States and its allies might not be able to agree in advance on precise circumstances in which forces would be used together, they could agree on the need to make improvements to prepare for generic operational military challenges. They could, for example, agree that NATO should be able to call on both U.S. and European RMA forces to undertake tasks such as air intercept, deep strikes, fast-maneuvering ground counterattacks, and sea-based bombardment with cruise missiles. Based on such agreement, European forces could be tailored to perform a general set of missions and tasks that likely would arise when conducting operations with U.S. forces. For example, in the event of a coalition operation in response to aggression by a rogue state, some missions and tasks would arise in the early halt phase of the operation, some in the middle build-up phase, and others in the late counterattack phase. The critical point is that although they might be uncertain about the future situations in which their forces would be called to conduct alliance operations, the United States and the Europeans could agree on the military tasks that are likely to be performed when such operations are launched.

Planning for generic military missions and tasks has a distinct advantage in that it does not hold an Atlantic RMA hostage to debates between the United States and Europe over foreign policy and strategy in each key region and specific situation where their interests might be at risk. It does not depend on a consensus on the legitimacy of the use of force, nor does it require prior agreement on a fixed blueprint that resolves all the programmatic and investment details before any one step can be taken. Concentrating, sequentially, on missions, tasks, forces, and programs allows the U.S. and European militaries to make progress in parallel with, and perhaps to help along, the process of narrowing differences over strategy.

Convergence in military doctrine and requirements can in turn help close the technological gap. Insofar as U.S. and European militaries are setting similar requirements, their defense and information technology industries should be able to compete and cooperate on a transatlantic basis. Moreover, as European requirements become more advanced, industry should rise to the challenge, thus helping further close the gap in capabilities and giving the Alliance, as a whole, a broader, stronger North Atlantic technological base from which to draw.

Making progress in this area will not be easy. Whereas differences in foreign policy and diplomacy often can be resolved by words, military differences cannot. Resolving them requires long-term planning and investment, stitching together technology, structure, and doctrine. Both sides have their work cut out for them. The Europeans face the challenge of learning how to operate in the new ways being adopted by U.S. forces. The Americans will no longer be free to think of the RMA as applying solely to U.S. forces.

Fortunately, the two sides have in place a mechanism of proven value for forging coalition military plans and requirements--NATO. The Alliance's apparatus for military cooperation already has been modestly reformed, with the creation of combined joint task forces (CJTFs) to tackle "out-of-area" needs. But further reform is needed, if NATO is to enable the Americans and Europeans to build a new military coalition that exploits the RMA.

Before suggesting an Atlantic RMA, one needs to examine the military origins, impact, and future course of the RMA. Once the mystique is removed, one finds that the purposes, technologies, and doctrines of the RMA are not alien to NATO, even though the integrated whole is new to European allies. Closing the RMA gap does not require European forces to become carbon copies of their American cousins or to invest heavily in entirely different platforms than their current ones. It merely means that they must adopt enough RMA capabilities and doctrine to be able to fight effectively alongside U.S. forces in a wide spectrum of situations, and that the United States must "open" its RMA capabilities and doctrines to its allies.

What Does the RMA Mean in Military Terms?

Understanding the challenge of operational convergence between U.S. and European forces requires understanding the RMA itself. Military revolutions arise from the interaction of two forces: the opportunity presented by new factors (usually technology) and the impetus supplied by challenging strategic problems. As already noted, the RMA is propelled by the need to project force quickly to protect global interests and the opportunity to apply information technology to that end. But the initial stimulus came two decades ago on the North German plain and it affected U.S. and European forces.

In the late 1970s, NATO was concerned with a deteriorating military balance in Europe, especially the Soviet capacity to conduct a surprise attack in Central Europe. At the same time, the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan raised alarms in the United States about a growing danger to Persian Gulf oilfields. In both theaters, a key risk was the lack of sufficient combat forces to stop attacks in the critical early stages. In Central Europe, NATO lacked operational reserves to bolster its vulnerable fixed defense. In the Persian Gulf, there were virtually no forces deployed in peacetime to defend Western interests. Thus, in the worse case, both Central Europe and the Gulf were vulnerable to being overrun before the West could mobilize its superior industrial and technological resources.10

At the time, the large American forces stationed in the continental United States could not be moved overseas rapidly enough to make a difference. So, the United States embarked on a major change in its defense strategy aimed at swift power projection. It established the demanding goal of being able to add 5 divisions and 12 fighter wings to its European peacetime presence in order to yield a total of 10 divisions and 20 fighter wings within the first month or two of a crisis. It also aimed to deploy about 8 divisions and 12 fighter wings to the Persian Gulf in a similar period. In both theaters, this was enough force to make the difference between defeat and successful defense.

Although it was soon on the road to achieving these mobility goals, the United States was not content with becoming better at power projection. It also embarked upon an effort to make its forces more effective once they arrived. Not only was NATO outnumbered 2:1 on the ground, it also faced a well-armed enemy with a capacity for fast offensive campaigns. Moreover, NATO defense strategy in Central Europe was cursed with a brittle forward defense concept. This concept was to be carried out at the intra-German border in a way that relied on the mechanical application of firepower to contain enemy attacks. NATO had neither adequate operational reserves nor the ability to countermaneuver rapidly. The effect was to make NATO vulnerable to an enemy breakthrough
attack that could cause its entire defense to unravel and collapse. Powerful NATO air forces were capable of contesting the enemy for air control of the airspace, but they could contribute little to helping beleaguered ground forces stave off defeat.

As a consequence, NATO feared that it might quickly be compelled to use nuclear weapons as part of its strategy of "flexible response." Before the 1970s, U.S. nuclear superiority provided enough of an edge for NATO to rely on the credible threat of nuclear first-use in order to deter a Soviet armor attack in Europe. But once the Soviets achieved strategic parity and could devastate the United States itself, doubts about nuclear deterrence left NATO with a strong
incentive to come up with a better conventional defense.

At the time, the United States and its European allies were entering a new phase of modernization. Emerging technologies gave them opportunities to refashion both their air strategy and their ground strategy. These developments led, in the 1980s, to an integrated strategy for a joint "air-land" battle. The result was a major upgrading of NATO conventional defense prospects through a combination of more U.S. forces, better overall NATO force capabilities, and an effective joint strategy that left the Warsaw Pact increasingly uncertain of its prospects in a war.

In air operations, the deployment of AWACS, new fighters (e.g., the F-15 and Tornado), better air-to-air missiles, and the Patriot surface-to-air missile made effective air defense possible, thus denying enemy air forces access to NATO territory. This took away the enemy's option to carry out a blitzkrieg air offensive to destroy NATO ability to defend against tank attack. Moreover, these systems allowed NATO to perform the air defense mission with fewer aircraft than before, thereby permitting more sorties to conduct offensive air missions.

Cruise missiles helped by targeting rear areas, thus taking pressure off NATO manned air sorties to perform that task. Equally important, in their first systematic effort to gain an edge from new information technologies, the United States and its NATO allies began developing new C3I assets, aircraft avionics, and smart munitions for conducting air strikes on enemy armored formations at or behind the front line, even at night and in bad weather. Before then, NATO air forces lacked the intelligence assets to see such formations as they massed to attack in echelons, and they also lacked the munitions to destroy armored targets even if they could be found.

As new tactics and new technology appeared, NATO was able to start thinking not just about how to slow a Soviet armor advance, but even about how to win the entire war. Several new technologies worked together to give NATO ground forces the capacity to bring together modern infantry, artillery, armor, and helicopters to form a potent battlefield combination punch, thereby taking advantage of the improving air situation to do better in the land battle. NATO commanders started substituting firepower for mass, thereby allowing front-line troops to maneuver and to be thinned out in favor of building more reserves, both of which are key to winning armored battles. Again, technology provided high leverage. The attack helicopter with armor-penetrating munitions was especially important, for it gave NATO commanders a capacity to move and concentrate lethal forces quickly, across the breadth and depth of the battlefield.

Equally important were the changes that took place in Western tanks and armored fighting vehicles. New NATO models had bigger guns and better munitions for greater firepower, laser range-finders and solid-state computers for improved firing accuracy, and better armor for survivability. They moved fast enough to make flanking attacks and to separate the enemy's infantry, armor, artillery, and logistic support, making the enemy vulnerable to being defeated in detail.

The overall effect of these ground changes was that NATO shifted away from linear forward defense and attrition war toward echeloned non-linear defense and maneuver war. Its new philosophy made use of heavy firepower, but not in old mechanical ways. It aspired to master the dynamics of concentrating and counter-concentrating, thus gaining an advantage through speed, tempo, and synchronization. Fast, coordinated maneuver became the instrument for making the enemy vulnerable to devastating, precision-delivered firepower. The two together became the key not only to initial defense, but also to the possibility of victory--without having to use nuclear weapons.

Although new technologies made these changes possible, what brought them to life was the recasting of U.S. and NATO operational doctrine. The new technologies and doctrines blended air and ground operations, and combined deep strikes with close battle. They improved drastically the West's defense prospects and they changed the face of warfare.

These changes were led by U.S. forces. But they were also carried out by the Europeans--not as thoroughly, but in significant ways. The new doctrine and force posture came across not as made-in-the-USA but as a synthesis that also included German concepts of maneuver warfare and British approaches to combined-arms operations. By the early 1980s, multilateral brainstorming, coalition operations, and force planning, and the transatlantic bond itself, were working well, with profoundly positive effects for common European and American security.

The Beginning of Divergence

Although some aspects of the RMA have origins in NATO, U.S. and European militaries are now growing apart. The key reason, as the previous chapter explains, is that with the threat to Europe gone, the United States has refocused its military strategy on the Persian Gulf and East Asia. The sorts of military challenges that exist there, not in Europe, provide the template for how the United States plans for and exploits the RMA.

The Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991 dramatized the divergence in U.S. and European military doctrine and capabilities, especially for conflicts outside Europe. The war validated the U.S. emphasis on swift power-projection, superior maneuver-and-strike forces, and thorough battlefield awareness. It also rewarded the U.S. policy of maintaining an all-volunteer military at high readiness with intensive training. It illuminated the value of information superiority and of smart munitions. And it underscored the importance of joint operations, even though it also revealed stubborn problems in getting ground, air, and naval elements to work in harmony.

In a sense, the Gulf War turned NATO doctrine on its head. The doctrine's original authors envisioned that it would be used to mount a stalwart defense against aggression. Because the Iraqi Army stopped and hunkered down when it reached the Kuwait-Saudi border, the United States was compelled to use the new doctrine offensively. It discovered that the capabilities created to stop a massive armor attack could be used quickly to obliterate the forces and infrastructure of a lesser enemy.

Yet, the Gulf War left questions. The Iraqi Army was fighting way out of its league. Did the decisive victory result from the West's military superiority or Iraq's inferiority? Did it herald similar victories in the future, or was it a unique event? How would the capabilities and tactics that won the Gulf War fare against an enemy prepared to use WMD?

These questions point to a more dangerous regional threat that the United States and its European allies may face in the future: an enemy that may field, say, 20 divisions and 1,000 combat aircraft--enough to aspire to major power status. This enemy may operate in league with regional allies. Indeed, the next adversary is likely to come better prepared and wield better weapons than Iraq did in 1990. Its forces and weapons may be able to carry out asymmetric strategies that target U.S. weaknesses and offset their own.

Or, consider another surprise Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, but carried out more skillfully than in 1990. A smaller but well-armed and mobile Iraqi army might storm through Kuwait and, instead of stopping, drive deep into Saudi Arabia to seize oilfields, ports, and airbases before U.S. forces can arrive in strength. Such Iraqi forces might have better air defenses than now and thus be less vulnerable to attack. They might be better able to maneuver and thus be harder to destroy quickly. They might have accurate, long-range missiles with which to bombard ports and airbases, or they might employ sappers, guerrillas, and local supporters for this purpose. Their naval missiles and mines might be able to interdict and block the Gulf sea lanes, thus interfering with U.S. and allied reinforcement efforts.

The proliferation of WMD would especially complicate the task of U.S. and allied forces. Throughout the Cold War, NATO was faced with preparing its conventional forces against the background of possible nuclear war. The past decade has seen a welcome respite from this dilemma. The proliferation of WMD and their delivery systems in the Greater Middle East may produce its reappearance. Foes may threaten to use such weapons to deter intervention. Against a WMD-armed regional rogue, the United States would face major new dangers in massing its forces, relying on local allies, and conducting large-scale ground operations. A replay of the Gulf War against a WMD-armed enemy could end with great losses even in victory for the United States.

The RMA as Response

The RMA is intended to prepare U.S. forces for such demanding contingencies. In essence, the RMA manifests itself in rapid force deployment, decisive force employment, and reduced vulnerability. The first comes from lift assets and lean mobile units. The second results from advanced C4ISR systems, joint doctrine, and strike capabilities. The third comes from dispersing forces, exploiting greater weapon ranges without sacrificing weapons accuracy, and using information dominance to render the other side incapable of inflicting damage.

What puts the R in the RMA is the shift in the sources of military effectiveness: from massed forces and firepower to information that permits less mass yet more effectiveness. Traditional combat was a matter of putting force on force: getting there first with the most, the bigger battalions, the preponderance of firepower. Over the last quarter century, modern forces equipped with precision munitions have been increasingly able to kill anything they can see. Now, sensors are being used and fused in a way that enables those forces to see virtually every target they need to kill. It is the ability to illuminate the battlefield in great detail and thereby fire precisely, rather than the ability to apply firepower broadly over the battlefield in large amounts, that matters. Force is still the sine qua non of combat. But parsimony in the application of force, in turn, can drastically reduce lift requirements or the number of forces that are put in harm's way, while greatly enhancing the efficiency and lethality of forces that are used. Hence the RMA produces faster deployments, greater effects, and reduced risk, even if the enemy threatens the use of WMD.

The RMA transforms time and space. It compresses time by accelerating the pace of movement and fighting. The advantage lies with the side that can best master the dynamics of concentrating and counter-concentrating firepower. The RMA reduces the importance of space, not only because of faster deployment and operations, but because long-range weapons (i.e., for deep and/or standoff strike) are as accurate as short-range artillery, tank rounds, and bombs. Thus while mass is dispersed by networking, firepower can be concentrated from long distances with great precision. Lethal targeting combines with fast maneuver to provide a decisive edge in both the deep and close battle. Sophisticated technology is key, but so are good leaders and skilled troops with tactics that fully exploit the technology. Under most circumstances, RMA forces can defeat much larger but less agile forces.

The ability to see the battlefield in detail without putting high-value platforms or warfighters at great risk, coupled with weapons that can hit even mobile targets from standoff ranges (beyond 20 kilometers), means that such forces can fire with great effect without being effectively fired upon. Such forces could scan the battlespace looking for targets, sift through large amounts of data to generate high priority battlespace knowledge, and strike whichever enemy forces pose the most urgent threats or lucrative targets. Some information assets (e.g., satellites, long-range unmanned aerial vehicles) can provide continuous sweeping surveillance, while others (e.g., air-mobile, ground, and over-the-horizon sensors) can be deployed for more focused looks relatively quickly. The ability to deliver weapons from nearly any range offers the prospect that decisive force can be employed within days, perhaps even hours, rather than the weeks and months currently assumed.11 With the RMA, a small number of air and ground forces can accomplish a great deal, especially in disrupting or delaying an enemy attack in ways that allow larger reinforcements to converge on the scene in time for a decisive counterattack.

To achieve this, the RMA exploits communications to link all echelons, computers both powerful and proliferated, big but accessible data banks, fast displays, highly sophisticated and integrated sensors, and software that yields an intuitive grasp of the battlefield. The Pentagon's new C4ISR architecture outlined in the recently completed Quadrennial Defense Review and in Joint Vision 2010 exploits these processing and communication advantages. It has four elements:

Together, these systems give U.S. commanders full knowledge of the battlefield (e.g., terrain and weather), of U.S. and allied force dispositions (size, location, vector, readiness, logistics), and of similar data on the enemy. They also deny the enemy comparable situational awareness and communications, thus illuminating war for one side and darkening it for the other.

Even with these information advantages, success still depends on the capacity of combat forces to perform these operations effectively. Success cannot be taken for granted if radically different types of forces are deployed--if U.S. forces have RMA assets, but European forces are pre-RMA. The compression of time and the widening of distance raise the hurdles that RMA and pre-RMA forces will face in operating together. If U.S. and European forces are to operate as a team, each must be aware of what the other is doing in some detail. If a threat emerges or an opportunity arises, each component must shift gears on the spot. This entails a high degree of shared situational awareness, which means trading high volumes of secure information quickly, often in the face of heavy electronic or information warfare. If such information cannot be exchanged, forces cannot act in synchrony, which is often the case for pre-RMA forces.

The incompatibility of RMA and pre-RMA forces is manifested operationally in other ways, all of which are affected by the use of information technology. Combined forces must be able to travel safely and be ready to fight upon debarkation under tight timelines. A protected lane opened for a brief period may allow RMA forces and supplies to rush through, but may not be enough for pre-RMA forces, which need more time to move bulkier or less agile forces. RMA forces may elude danger by using stealth, electronic countermeasures, and the ability to see fleeting holes in the other side's coverage; pre-RMA forces may have to be held back or take great casualties in trying. A combined operation that requires deception or the use of hard-to-detect devices may run aground if the slowness or errors of any one force element reveal everything to the enemy. An agile RMA force may be endangered trying to rescue a pre-RMA force, in trouble because it tied itself down.

Fire support is another example of how the gap between RMA and pre-RMA forces can limit combined operations. To get covering fire when called for, coordination must be immediate and flexible, and fire support units must be within range, capable of responding, and survivable. RMA forces engaged in close combat may be able to call for support without worrying about friendly fire inadvertently destroying them. If pre-RMA fire support is inaccurate or there are no quick reliable ways to distinguish friend from foe (and thus fire support cannot keep up with dynamic battlefield circumstances), such assurance will be missing. As a consequence, the RMA forces will not be able to fight with full effectiveness. Conversely, broad fields of fire cannot be laid down by RMA forces if friendly pre-RMA forces cannot get out of the way. The advantage of RMA fire support therefore could be lost.

The threat of WMD further exacerbates incompatibilities between RMA and pre-RMA forces. RMA forces may be able to avoid the effect of WMD attacks through dispersion, movement, precision strikes, and rapid countermeasures (e.g., the ability to detect air-borne toxins and neutralize themselves against them). By contrast, pre-RMA forces may have to be physically concentrated to create sufficient firepower for operations. If they dig in to limit casualties, they immobilize themselves. If they take heavy casualties, they will be a millstone on combined operations and could inhibit RMA forces from performing their missions.

On the whole, RMA forces may be better off fighting alone than in combination with pre-RMA forces. This is precisely the conclusion that U.S. commanders might reach as their forces are transformed but allied forces are not. If so, the combination of European political reluctance to send forces for political reasons and American reluctance to integrate them for operational reasons could virtually kill any chances for effective coalition responses to future threats to common interests. It is therefore critical both to accelerate European investment in RMA forces and to open U.S. doctrine to include these forces in operations.

Roles for Europe

What sort of military contribution does the United States need from Europe, and what capabilities do Europeans want for themselves? The Europeans have four options:

The first option--building forces identical to those of the United States--is impractical and unnecessary. The Europeans likely will not be able to progress quickly enough to replicate U.S. forces as the latter continue to undergo RMA transformation. Moreover, even as the U.S. and European strategic views converge, there will be differences, which will warrant somewhat different capabilities. Fortunately, U.S. and European forces can have different degrees of RMA capability and still be able to work together.

The second option--assigning non-RMA European assets to support U.S. RMA operations--relieves allies of the need to enter the RMA, yet in theory allows their militaries to contribute to U.S.-dominated operations. In this option, European forces would reassign traditional assets to duties such as truck transport, ammunition-hauling, medical support, naval demining, SLOC escort, rear-area security, maintenance, and repair. Such tasks are important and U.S. forces suffer from shortfalls in them. But they are essentially combat support, not combat tasks. As a variant, the Europeans could provide traditional ground combat forces while the United States provides deep-strike units.

Both variants of the second option are politically, militarily, and strategically unsound. Neither the United States nor its allies should be content to see the latter provide noncombat forces. Placing large, slow allied ground forces in greater danger than U.S. deep strike forces is not a formula for an effective coalition. Besides, future wars will be fought not only with sophisticated deep-strike systems, but also with quick, networked RMA ground forces. Compared to using RMA assets across the board, an RMA operation with good deep-strike assets but traditional ground forces for close combat will be far less effective, and perhaps unable to defeat future enemies. Regardless, the reality is that when U.S. forces are committed, their deep strike assets are going to arrive with ground forces that are RMA-prepared. If European ground forces offer nothing more than traditional capabilities, they are not going to be capable of working with U.S. forces in performing major operational tasks. They will have to be left standing in place or confined to the rear areas--present in numbers, but doing little of central importance.

A strategy of parceling zones to U.S. and European forces based on their different capabilities is also problematic. On a pre-RMA linear battlefield, for instance, the United States could take the center while Europeans take the flanks. Or U.S. forces could be positioned for offense and movement while Europeans take defensive positions. But with the RMA, such a division of labor fails for operational reasons. It virtually invites enemy forces to exploit vulnerabilities in the U.S.-European posture. The deeper the battle, moreover, the more operations from different sectors may merge with one another. The notion that U.S. ground forces can advance quickly and deeply while Europeans move slowly over short distances is untenable because it prevents a coherent operational scheme of maneuver from being carried out. The two components would not be able to support each other, and each would find its flanks exposed because the other is operating far away.

The third option--having the Europeans acquire information systems that can talk to U.S. forces, is, alone, inadequate. Access to information is essentially useless if it cannot be exploited. Exploitation, in turn, requires forces with structures, weapons, and doctrines similar enough to carry out RMA operations with only minor adjustments. This option is fine for bridging only a communications gap, but not the larger operations gap.

This leaves the fourth option, which calls for Europeans to develop the weapons, forces, and doctrines needed to carry out genuine RMA operations alongside U.S. forces. This option does not aim for carbon-copy forces. But it does aim for comparable and complementary capabilities, i.e., European forces of sufficient similarity and compatibility with U.S. forces that they can perform meaningful, mutually supporting combat roles and missions in RMA operations.

Under this option, the European allies would have sufficient capabilities to carry out the close teamwork needed in RMA operations. As a result, they would qualify for meaningful positions in combined deployment plans, as well as in campaign plans for force employment with comparable risks and responsibilities. The role of British forces operating with U.S. forces in the Gulf War is the forerunner. The remainder of this chapter addresses what such European forces would be and how they could be combined with U.S. forces.

Obstacles Facing Current European Forces

How do European forces need to change so that they become RMA-capable in an operational sense? How do they need to improve so that they can deploy and employ forces rapidly and effectively in RMA operations in concert with U.S. forces? What programmatic agenda should they pursue? These questions can best be answered by first addressing the obstacles facing the Europeans.

One obstacle is the European lack of money for investments. The European annual defense budget of $160 billion and manpower of 2.5 million troops builds combat forces of 57 division-equivalents, 3,400 combat aircraft, and 350 naval combatants. This posture is about 50-70 percent larger than U.S. forces, on a defense budget total that is only two-thirds as large. True, several southern region countries, with their poor economies and low personnel costs, sustain large forces on a pittance. But even the wealthy northern European countries spend only about $110,000 per soldier, while the United States spends $170,000. These costs are the inevitable consequence of major differences not only in near-term readiness, but also in the long-term capacity to invest in new capabilities. In essence, the Europeans have lots of quantity but not quality and they are not acquiring better quality fast enough to match the U.S. RMA.

To improve its smaller forces, the United States spends about $42 billion on procurement and $24 billion on R&D--the mother's milk of any RMA. By contrast, The Europeans spend far less: $30 billion on procurement, and a mere $8 billion on R&D. Moreover, the Europeans focus on stocking such regular items as vehicles, spares, ammunition, and materials, thereby further constraining their ability to buy new weapons. As a result, Europeans provide fewer of their forces with top-quality weapons and other equipment, notably smart munitions or their delivery systems. They also maintain smaller stocks of war reserves, especially stockpiles of ammunition for big, sustained fights. Their logistic support forces are normally smaller than American forces, and they have few of the specialized logistic assets needed for projection and expeditionary missions, e.g., heavy truck transports, construction engineers, mobile field hospitals, port offload personnel, ammunition haulers, POL supply units, and long-distance communications units for widely dispersed operations.

The growing RMA gap is further exacerbated by European force structures that are not designed for power projection and RMA missions. The Europeans have fewer air and naval forces but more ground forces than the United States. But their larger ground forces are supported by mobility forces possessing only 10-15 percent of the total long-distance lift capacity that the United States possesses. Their tactical air forces are configured for air defense missions and bombing stationary targets rather than for flexible deep strikes and supporting mobile combat formations. Aside from British and French, European naval forces are mostly configured for coastal defense missions, not blue-water deployments or strike roles. Britain and France together have four small aircraft carriers, not the 12 big carrier battle groups possessed by the United States. The Europeans have small amphibious forces, far less than the three active Marine divisions and 12 ARGs deployed by the United States. These major differences in force mix further contribute to European force postures that are designed for local missions led by mobilizable ground forces, rather than distant projection missions carried out by joint, high-tech forces.

The partial exception to this rule is the multinational posture of European "reaction" forces assigned to NATO. These forces are trained and otherwise kept prepared for a prompt response in ways that approach U.S. readiness standards. For the most part, they also are well armed with modern weapons. They provide a balanced combination of ground, air, and naval forces. On paper, they are large enough to contribute to the defense of allied interests: 9 divisions, 500 combat aircraft, and 160 naval combatants.12

But a rapid-reaction mission merely means that a unit must be ready in a week or two, and does not equate to a projection mission or capability. Indeed, only the British divisions and a few other brigades of the NATO reaction force are designed to execute demanding projection missions. The entire posture, with its limited C4I and logistics assets, can operate only in a corps-sized formation of four divisions: hence, its name "Allied Command Europe (ACE) Rapid Reaction Corps" (ARRC). ARRC is no longer what earlier critics labeled as an "incoherent hodgepodge." Nor is it the large field army suggested by its paper structure because it cannot operate in multi-corps formations or be used for more than one major operational mission at a time.13 Moreover, the ARRC has no support assets above corps level, which are critical to projection missions. In NATO plans, such support is to be provided by regional NATO commands in the north and south, though they themselves have only local border defense missions and forces. Thus, the ARRC is unable to assemble expeditionary support assets quickly to move outside Europe.

NATO also lacks strategic mobility forces to support the ARRC, unless the United States provides them. European nations themselves have few heavy airlift assets or well-organized sealift beyond a limited number of cargo ships owned by Britain, France, and a few others. Nor is NATO headquarters charged with creating plans, programs, and force goals for power projection outside Europe, or with monitoring their progress. Thus, the ARRC is far from a powerful corps that can deploy outward rapidly, fight effectively, and keep up with U.S. forces, especially in RMA operations.

The ARRC is fine for missions like Bosnia, with its metered deployments and low intensity operations. It is also well suited to serve as a vanguard of four NATO multinational corps for border defense in Central Europe, provided it does not have to operate so far eastward that it moves beyond the reach of the main NATO logistics facilities in Germany. Perhaps it could be deployed for such demanding projection missions as reinforcement of Turkey. But such operations likely would have to be led by U.S. forces, with the ARRC to serve as a late-arriving supplement. In sum, the ARRC could not conduct major wartime missions outside Europe, and even in a small support role, it could only help out after U.S. power projection forces have entered, and possibly completed, action.

The ARRC inability to deploy rapidly or engage in decisive combat illustrates the degree to which NATO remains hard-pressed to work with U.S. forces in new ways. The problem is not with the ARRC per se, nor with its inadequate numbers of forces. Instead, NATO cannot quickly and effectively apply enough of its large forces to major combat missions. If the Europeans were to stand still, this already-serious problem would worsen as U.S. forces pursue the RMA.

All things considered, how many forces could the Europeans swiftly project outside Europe today, for major combat missions? The answer is about 2 division-equivalents, 3 or 4 air wings, and 20 to 30 naval combatants. Nearly all of these would be British and French forces, with only symbolic contributions from the others. Thus, compared to what Europe contributed in the Gulf War, they could contribute no more today, and perhaps less.

Current European plans are to build gradually improved light forces for low-intensity missions such as peacekeeping interventions, but not better forces for the sorts of major theater wars that motivate RMA doctrine, capabilities, and investment. The two countries currently best able to deploy and employ forces in such conflicts are the ones most capable of embarking on the RMA: Britain and France. But even they face the danger of falling further behind the United States as it moves farther and faster down the revolutionary track. Germany and other allies are trying to learn RMA doctrines and operations, but they continue to maintain large, less-ready forces that cannot project to or operate in distant high-intensity conflicts. Moreover, they will be constrained by the reality that swift deployment and RMA employment operations are interlocked. Even if the allies exploit some of the new technologies to operate more effectively in Europe, this is not the type of RMA that the United States is pursuing or that the strategic situation requires.

The implication thus is that the Europeans have big obstacles to overcome if they are to participate in the RMA. They must generate more money for investment, buy the right equipment, and alter their force structure. But these obstacles are not so large that they cannot be overcome over a period of years, if a sustained effort is begun soon.

Priorities for Improving European Forces

European participation in a transatlantic RMA should begin with two types of planning done in parallel. Programmatic plans must be forged so that the Europeans use their investment resources properly by acquiring the right RMA capabilities. Operational plans must be created to clarify requirements--essential for programmatic plans--and to ensure that as RMA capabilities appear, they will be used with effective doctrine and tactics.

The need for such planning requires NATO to take on an orchestrating role. Unless it does so, at best several European nations may travel down separate and uncoordinated paths. An orchestrating role for NATO does not mean that the integrated NATO command necessarily will formally conduct all or most future RMA operations involving U.S. and European forces. Some may be conducted by CJTFs outside the integrated command, or by European forces that work with U.S. command structures, e.g., CENTCOM in the Persian Gulf. But because multinational efforts must be coordinated, NATO must guide the RMA force planning and commitment process.

With such planning, the European allies will be challenged to develop new capabilities. The Europeans do not need to enlarge their force structures; indeed, they could reduce their end strength. Moreover, the Europeans do not need to upgrade all their forces to RMA standards, but only one-fourth of them. This is what makes a NATO RMA an affordable and feasible idea.

Of course, RMA hardware--C4ISR and PGMs, for example--costs money. Assuming that parliaments are unwilling to fund budget increases, Europeans should shrink the size of their forces further, provided they do not cut their defense spending correspondingly. Such drawdowns would lower personnel and operating costs, thereby generating additional investment funds within a constant budget. If, for example, the Europeans spent an additional $10 to $20 billion per year on the purchase of new systems, they would elevate procurement to 30 percent of their defense budgets, a level that historically has been adequate for substantial modernization. To generate these savings, force reductions of 15 to 25 percent or more likely will be needed. Such reductions in force size can be made without endangering Europe's security. The current European force defense structures are more than adequate to handle future plausible contingencies in Europe. The Europeans do not need nearly sixty divisions, especially if only two of them can deploy and fight outside Europe.

How might the Europeans spend additional investment funds? The allies could tailor an appropriate fraction of their combat forces for overseas power projection and RMA operations. Requirements will have to be studied closely, but an initial estimate is that an RMA-capable posture up to 15 division-equivalents, along with, say, 800 combat aircraft and commensurate blue-water naval forces, would be ample to meet future needs, including concurrent missions. Some of these forces would be used for missions in Europe and along its periphery; others would be available for missions outside Europe. A smaller posture would have less capacity for concurrent scenarios, but at least could provide enough forces for a single contingency of each type--e.g., peacekeeping, crisis intervention, and major wars. The bulk of these forces should come from the major European powers which are best able to create RMA units. This requirement might be met by, say: three German divisions, three British divisions, three French divisions, one brigade or division each from the Low countries, and the remainder from the southern region countries. Air and naval forces would be provided in similar ways.

If these European forces could achieve operational complementarity with American forces, they would give NATO a coalition RMA capability that would hugely enhance NATO strategic effectiveness and secure American-European common interests in the new era.

A NATO RMA Projection Force

European investment and adaptation effort should be guided by a concept for organizing forces. Accordingly, the NATO Reaction Force should be replaced by a new NATO Projection Force, to which U.S. ground, naval, and air forces stationed in Europe would be assigned and with which other U.S. forces could operate. This force would be well suited for reaction missions within NATO borders, especially the defense of new members. More critical, it would be available for missions outside Europe. Such a force would let NATO create sub-postures for each critical mission category, while minimizing dual-hatting of the sort that gives individual units too many different missions to handle. For example, NATO would be able to commit several divisions to East European security, a few divisions to peacekeeping missions and related activities, and still have several divisions to defend Turkey and Mediterranean security, and to conduct major regional operations in the Middle East and Gulf. In particular, the Europeans would have enough deployable divisions, along with air and naval forces, to make a major combat contribution to a U.S.-led coalition.

For this projection force to be effective, participating European forces would have to acquire RMA doctrines, and be trained and exercised so that they would be increasingly ready to carry them out in demanding operations even in the face of WMD. They would need to acquire RMA assets, including C4ISR systems and more smart munitions. Wholesale acquisition of new weapons and platforms, however, would not be an immediate priority because existing models are mostly adequate for initial RMA operations. Eventually, new weapons will have to be bought as old models wear out--but in the normal course of events, not in response to the RMA.

Priorities would have to be set, and improvements made a step at a time. Even so, an RMA modernization effort could be quite expensive if not carried out wisely. But again, the goal would not be to mimic U.S. forces, but instead, to give European forces sufficient capabilities so that they can perform complementary RMA missions. This makes a European RMA effort affordable. It is also all the more reason to set improvement goals and coordinate force plans within NATO.

The new European posture would include fewer (e.g., 30) traditional divisions plus more (up to 15) divisions prepared for power projection and RMA operations. European air and naval forces would be reorganized similarly. Such forces would be trained and kept ready and would have sufficient RMA assets to permit them to work closely with U.S. forces.

How would European RMA forces participate in a crisis? U.S. forces might still be able to deploy faster, but some European forces, notably air forces and light ground forces, could be assigned early deployment roles in the initial days of a crisis. In the following weeks, other European forces could be deployed in parallel with U.S. forces, rather than arrive in strength only after the U.S. buildup, if not the conflict itself, is largely completed. Although European air forces might not perform all RMA missions, they could help in the deep strike campaign and in other critical tasks, such as reconnaissance. Many if not all of their ground forces might be able to operate within a fast-maneuver campaign. Even without big carriers and amphibious assets, European naval forces with cruise missiles could assist U.S. strike forces.

U.S. commanders could not argue that such forces would be unable to keep pace with U.S. operations and so should be marginalized or left in Europe. Indeed, with RMA tactics and training, advanced C4ISR and PGMs, as well as interoperability with U.S. forces, the Americans would have to admit that such allied forces could be counted on even in major intensive fights (e.g., against a WMD-armed rogue). This does not mean that the gap will disappear, but it does mean that an Atlantic coalition could act as one, militarily and politically.

Can the Europeans Meet the Challenge?

The future of NATO depends on whether European and American forces can operate successfully together whenever common interests need defending. By 2010, at the rate U.S. forces are likely to be transformed, this will not be the case--unless at least a fraction of European forces are also transformed. Can this be achieved?

There are several reasons for believing that Europe can close the gap to the extent required to make NATO a working military alliance. First, as noted, the United States and Europe have proven that they can innovate together when motivated by a common strategy. Indeed, from the late 1970s to the late 1980s they produced, together, a credible defense against Soviet aggression. That task was as daunting as this one.

Second, Europeans excell in military competence. Their professional officers are skilled; their pool of high-quality personnel is on a par with the United States; their military establishments have benefited from decades of NATO experience. In general, the quality of their best weapon systems--e.g., tanks, artillery, and aircraft--is comparable to U.S. equipment. As just one example, German artillery tubes are often judged superior to U.S. artillery. Together, the Europeans are the second strongest military power in the world. They already have most of what they need to participate in the RMA. Where they lack is in specific areas: e.g., C4ISR and other information systems, smart munitions, and other deep strike assets. They also lack experience in training and tactical doctrine for RMA operations. These are important deficiencies but many of them can be remedied enough to give the allies RMA forces--and to close the gap enough to ensure that NATO remains militarily effective.

Third, this challenge is not akin to the Anglo-German Dreadnought race of a century ago. Pursuing the RMA, as mentioned earlier, does not require the wholesale replacement of big-ticket platforms. This is apparent even in U.S. spending on procurement. Most military analysts believe the current $42 billion annual rate is inadequate. Plans call for an increase to $54-60 billion. At most, such spending will still be only about 27 percent of the DOD budget, lower than the 30-35 percent of a much larger annual total during the Reagan years. No new armor or surface ship programs are in the works. Few other major acquisitions of new weapons platforms are planned, with the most notable exception being new tactical aircraft to replace the 1970s-era aircraft. U.S. forces in 2010 will have weapons similar to today's.14 PGMs (e.g., BAT, SKEET, and JSOW) and their delivery systems are likely to get emphasis, but even their acquisition will account for only 1 or 2 percent of total DOD spending. Similarly, the Europeans can make tangible progress on power projection and the RMA by allocating only about 10 percent of their defense spending to the effort--an affordable amount for a program of decisive strategic importance.

Fourth, because the U.S. military is still developing its new doctrine, catching up on this front is feasible for the allies. Much depends upon how ongoing U.S. RMA experiments fare. The Air Force and Navy could be affected in significant ways, as missiles and smart munitions come to play a larger role in shaping their long-range assets. But the RMA also will have a big impact on the Army. A debate is now brewing on the future character and size of Army divisions and support structures. Some advocates are calling for a shift away from heavy mechanized formations to greater air mobility, attack helicopters, and MLRS/ATACMS deep fire units. Others call for smaller divisions and leaner logistic support structures, or even replacing divisions with a brigade-corps structure. Regardless of the outcome, European forces likely will have to change in similar ways, but they have made transitions of this sort many times before--and they will have the time to adapt.

Closing the gap thus will not require the Europeans to swap their current forces for RMA forces, but instead to introduce RMA capabilities purposefully and incrementally. The mental aspects of war, including the ability to make many decisions quickly, are coming to be as important as the physical aspects--or more important. For now, it is more important that Europeans change their concepts than their structures and platforms.

These steps by the Europeans will only pay off if the United States leverages allied investments and helps create a common NATO "System of Systems." Just as both the Europeans and the Americans have a stake in being able to project and operate their forces together, both have a role in making it happen. This chapter has portrayed what the Europeans must do. The next chapter describes an essential U.S. step toward a NATO RMA.


Notes

10  For more detail see Richard L. Kugler, Commitment to Purpose: How Alliance Partnership Won the Cold War (Santa Monica, California: The RAND Corporation, 1993).

11 For more detail see Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, Strategic Assessment 1998: Engaging Power for Peace (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1998), 137-152.

12 See North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO Handbook (Brussels, Belgium: NATO, 1995).

13 Origins of the ARRC are discussed in Richard Kugler, U.S.-European Cooperation in Out-of-Area Operations, Problems and Prospects (Santa Monica, California: The RAND Corporation, 1994).

14 See Department of Defense, Annual Report to the President and Congress (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1998).

Table of Contents  |  Chapter 4