NATO’s New Approach⁢ to Training: A Focus on Audacity and Innovation

Admiral Pierre Vandier, head of Allied Command⁤ Conversion, a key NATO command based in ⁣Norfolk, Virginia, is spearheading a ⁢significant shift in ​teh alliance’s training strategies. His vision emphasizes a more audacious, adaptable, and⁣ innovative approach to‌ preparing allied forces⁣ for future conflicts.

Vandier, formerly the French Chief ⁤of ⁢Naval Staff and‌ Vice Chief ⁣of defense, recently spoke about his​ plans in an interview. He stressed the⁢ need ⁤to move‌ beyond customary training methods that focus solely on pre-planned scenarios. “In training you have‌ different levels – the first is getting‌ people to know how to handle an aircraft,a ship,a battalion. ⁣The second level is to train​ the⁣ plans, ‌where troops know the plans​ and⁤ how to‍ carry them out. As such, ⁤on the‌ first⁤ day [of training] you [already] know what the‍ plan is.The ‍problem⁢ with this is‌ that plans are subject to change, in fact we often‍ say that the plan⁣ is what is killed on the first day of ⁣war, ​so‍ it is much more a question⁢ of being able to adapt,” he explained.

Embracing Uncertainty‍ in ‌Military‍ Training

Vandier’s vision involves creating more realistic and challenging training‌ environments. He advocates for empowering the opposing forces (“red team”) during exercises, allowing‍ them greater freedom ‍to adapt their strategies and‍ tactics. ⁤ ⁢”Training is the ‍chamber where innovation is ‍brought in. Some ideas ⁢we are ‌working on, include giving ⁣the red team more room to maneuver, letting them attack ​when they want, ⁣doing their own course of action, and letting them be innovative.⁣ When the reds are more straining ⁢on​ the blue ​team,​ the blues ​learn more, as⁤ the simulated enemy will do more things that are unexpected, such as⁢ attacking when they are resting, for​ instance,” he⁤ stated.

This approach, he argues, will⁣ better ‍prepare troops‍ for the unpredictable nature of modern⁣ warfare. ​ “I​ would sum up⁢ audacious training as making the OPFOR [adversary for training] ⁢ great ‌again in terms of what you are up for and against​ in an exercise.​ When you have more innovation‌ tools ⁣and ​do⁢ not know in advance when you are going to be killed, it gives the blue team⁢ better lessons learnt. We are​ working on dedicated exercises and vignettes where ‌new equipment will be brought ‌in and given to the reds. Here I am thinking of unmanned and AI tools to put more pressure on the blues… Train for what is non-prepared ​and ‌unexpected ‌to boost the⁢ learning ⁤loop,” Vandier⁢ emphasized.

lessons from the ‍U.S.Model: fostering ‍Innovation⁤ and Risk-Taking

Vandier also‍ highlighted ⁤the need for European NATO members to adopt ⁤a more American approach to technological innovation and‍ risk-taking.‌ ⁣He noted a difference in the approach to developing new⁤ weapons systems: “The way we ⁢have been designing our weapon systems‍ [in Europe] is much ​more reliant on‌ sophistication.”⁢ He advocates for a shift⁣ towards embracing calculated risks‌ and fostering a culture of innovation within NATO nations.

The admiral’s ‍emphasis on realistic training, including the elimination of “magic ⁤moves, no magic replenishment, no magic re-survival,” reflects a commitment to preparing NATO forces⁤ for the‌ complexities and challenges of​ modern conflict.⁤ ‌His vision for a more audacious and ⁤innovative training program is a⁤ significant step towards ⁤strengthening the alliance’s readiness and capabilities.

This new approach to training, inspired by the U.S. model,aims to​ enhance the adaptability and resilience of NATO forces,ensuring‌ they are prepared for the evolving challenges of ⁢the⁤ 21st century ‌battlefield.

Europe’s ​Defense Innovation: A Race‍ Against Time

Europe’s​ defense sector is grappling with a critical challenge:​ the‌ widening gap between​ the rapid pace of technological advancement and its cumbersome procurement‌ processes. The result? billions spent on ⁣military platforms that are obsolete before they’re even fully deployed. ⁣ This slow pace of innovation⁣ puts European nations⁢ at a significant disadvantage⁢ in the face of ⁣evolving global threats.

The problem,⁢ according to one expert, ⁣is a system that prioritizes “fail-safe” over “safe-to-fail.” “Bring all ⁤the military engineers in to determine what the future of the tank could be,” the‌ expert⁢ explains. “They⁤ work ‍for‌ years on this and they‍ come up with a​ generous book of‍ specifications and announce a⁤ contract, ​industry runs this for another⁤ decade, and ultimately you have a tank that you ⁣are not certain fulfills your goals as things have​ changed.” This lengthy process,they argue,allows new technologies to render​ the⁢ final product obsolete before it even sees​ action.

While the advancement of major platforms like aircraft​ and tanks ‌will always be⁢ a lengthy undertaking, the surrounding technologies – optronics, AI, communication systems, and software – demand a far more agile approach. “The speed of technology is⁣ a ⁢matter of two to three years, which is maybe 10 times quicker‌ than the huge, controlled procurement system in Europe,” the expert notes. this disparity necessitates a fundamental shift in how European nations approach defense innovation.

The solution, the expert suggests, lies in a hybrid approach: “We‌ need an‌ approach convergence between what I ⁣would say is ‘fail-safe,’ ⁢which⁤ is the big stuff, where you know where the money goes and is very specific, and then a part that can be 10% to ⁢15% ‘safe to fail.’‍ That’s ⁣where you test,and if it doesn’t work,you just put it⁤ out and test again and find a speedy ‍fix.” This “safe-to-fail” element ⁣encourages experimentation​ and rapid iteration,⁣ mirroring the approach taken ​by many ⁢prosperous tech companies in the⁤ United States.

“This‌ innovation loop is vital because the more ​you test,the more you⁢ may find ⁣good solutions,”‌ the expert​ emphasizes. “Of​ course, you need to be clever, but you also need to accept that often the first thing you design is not going ⁢to be the good one. That’s the most important thing,⁢ we need ⁣to be in⁣ a learning loop –⁤ the enemy is‍ learning a lot, and‍ we need‌ to be‍ learning⁣ more than it‌ is. Innovation⁤ is not a smart bullet, but a reinvestment ⁤process where you⁣ put the good minds of good people and test things.”

Obstacles to‍ Innovation: Risk aversion and regulation

Several‌ factors⁣ contribute to ‍Europe’s ⁢risk-averse ‌approach to defense investment. “A‍ lot of rules⁤ have been made⁤ in Europe ⁤regarding defense investments,which were ​under deep scrutiny for legal and financial⁣ control,” ‌the expert explains. ‍⁢ “First, it was seen as bad to spend on defense, and so the ratings of banks is not⁤ so good when‌ defense is in their portfolio. Another element is the size of regulations, which are very complex, lengthy, and slow. You run into a lot of legal issues and contestation…‌ It ​is a fragmented market.”​ This regulatory ⁤burden stifles innovation and slows down the procurement process.

Furthermore,⁤ the expert ‍points out that “The stakeholders make more money ⁣outside of the European Union than‌ in it, ⁤so⁤ they fight to sell their stuff ‌outside of ⁢the continent.” This lack ⁣of a⁤ unified European ⁣defense‌ market ​further hinders innovation and‍ collaboration.

The expert contrasts​ this‍ with the U.S.​ approach: “I was attending ‍an event recently in the U.S.,⁤ where they used the following scenario: imagine you have $100 million and you select ⁤a portfolio of ten start-ups, where‍ ten million are ​attributed to each.You check in ‍after two years, and​ realize some‌ projects are⁣ dead and perhaps keep ​two ‍out of the initial ten. You‍ lose 80%,but out of the ‌two remaining ones,you may ‌make hundreds of‍ millions. The probability of winning⁣ will make‌ you richer.” ⁣This ​willingness to accept ⁣failure and invest in high-risk, high-reward ventures is a key driver ​of ‍innovation in the U.S. defense sector.

The⁣ challenge facing Europe is​ significant. “For ⁢Europe, going on a defense-spending target of‌ 3% of GDP means that​ all ⁣European Union nations‌ combined should spend €100‌ billion more per ⁢year. That is a huge amount.” ​Effectively‍ utilizing⁤ these ⁣increased funds requires a fundamental shift towards a more agile, ⁤risk-tolerant approach to defense innovation, one that prioritizes speed and ‌adaptability in the face‌ of rapidly evolving threats.

The ⁤Return of Intermediate-Range​ Missiles: A ⁢New Cold ⁢War Threat?

Russia’s recent deployment of the Oreshnik, a new intermediate-range ballistic missile, has reignited concerns about European ‌security and the potential for escalating tensions with NATO. This ‌development marks a significant shift‍ in the ⁤geopolitical‌ landscape,echoing anxieties from‌ the 1980s when similar weapons systems posed‍ a direct‌ threat⁤ to the continent.

The deployment of⁢ the Oreshnik, which Russian officials claim can reach any European target, ⁢directly challenges the stability achieved after ⁤the Cold‍ War. ⁢A key⁣ element in ⁢maintaining that stability‌ was the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF ​Treaty), which prohibited the development and deployment of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges ⁢between 500 and 1,000 kilometers. The treaty’s collapse ⁢in ‍recent years has removed ‌a crucial safeguard.

“We ​are ⁣back to the⁢ question we ⁣observed in the 1980s, where you⁢ may have long-range‌ ballistic weaponry⁤ able to threaten Europe,” a source ​familiar with the situation noted. ⁤”As part of the Treaty, the parties were‍ not allowed to build ​missiles of range⁢ between 500 to 1,000 kilometers. Hence, the only long-range⁣ ones at the time were nuclear ballistic missiles.”

The implications of this ⁢resurgence⁤ of intermediate-range ballistic missiles are far-reaching. The potential for miscalculation and escalation is​ considerably increased, raising the specter of a new arms⁢ race. The ‍absence ​of ​the⁢ INF Treaty’s ​constraints ​leaves a void⁤ in the established ⁢security architecture, forcing NATO ‍and⁤ its allies⁢ to reassess their defense strategies​ and capabilities.

The situation is further complex by the ongoing conflict⁢ in Ukraine, which has ⁣already significantly altered the European ⁢security landscape. ⁢ The war underscores the need for robust and adaptable ⁤defense systems capable of countering a wide range of threats, including those posed by advanced missile technology.

For the united States, the re-emergence of intermediate-range missiles in​ Europe necessitates a renewed focus ‌on ⁣missile ⁣defense systems and strategic deterrence.The potential impact on U.S. allies in Europe demands⁤ a coordinated response, emphasizing both ⁤diplomatic ‌efforts and military preparedness.

The⁢ situation calls for a complete ⁢reassessment of the global security architecture and a renewed commitment to international cooperation to prevent further escalation and maintain stability in a rapidly changing​ world.

Europe’s Defense Dilemma: ‍A Wake-Up Call for NATO?

The ⁤escalating geopolitical landscape has left Europe facing a critical⁤ defense dilemma.With long-range missile‍ capabilities proliferating, the continent’s vulnerability‌ is increasingly apparent. ⁢ A leading defense‍ expert warns that a fundamental ‍shift⁢ in military strategy and investment is urgently​ needed to ⁣ensure the continent’s security.

“We are now ⁢again in a ⁢period where these ⁤kinds of missiles are‌ free to ​act – you’ve seen what ‍happened‌ with the Houthis, with iran⁢ against Israel,” the ‍expert notes, highlighting the growing threat. ⁤ “For NATO, it raises the question of⁣ balance between deter and⁢ defend. You’ve seen the limits of the Iron‌ Dome⁣ in Israel, given the size ‍of Europe, the idea to get rid of the threat by creating a European Iron Dome ‌is just unfeasible. ‌It is just like batteries for ​electricity – it simply will not happen.”

The ​expert advocates for a proactive ‌approach, emphasizing the importance of long-range strike capabilities.“The kind of initiative ‌like ⁢the European Long-Strike Approach, or ELSA, [launched in 2024 between France, Germany, Italy and Poland to create a ground-launched cruise missile with a range of 1,000-2,000km] is the way to​ think ⁢about the future. Perhaps⁤ discussions will be more open one day for strategic stability,” they suggest.

Responding to Evolving threats: The Need for ‘Deep Fires’

Addressing ‍the question of necessary ⁢military equipment,the expert stresses the importance of ‍”deep fires”‍ capabilities.‌ “Deep fires. You need ⁢to reciprocate.Stability ‍is the ability to reciprocate. If Russia has means to strike Europe at the depth of 2,000 ‍km, you need to be able to answer. Deterrence is​ a way to put ⁣pressure on⁤ the enemy before⁤ it comes to you. He has to think of the consequences of his actions before he commits them. It’s ⁣exactly the opposite that we see⁤ today‌ – today ⁤we witness a⁢ sort of fait accompli all the time,” they explain.

The expert ⁢further clarifies the concept of⁣ deterrence, stating, “If ⁤you have ⁢more uncertainty, more​ dilemma and the consequences of attacking or⁢ not⁣ attacking, then you have deterrence. Because you know that you might‍ suffer harder than you expect attacking for a minor​ win, or minor gain. You⁤ will ⁤have some square kilometers in a country but then you might trigger something really bad for⁣ you.”

A Wake-Up Call Ignored? The Need for Increased Military Investment

Despite the clear and present​ danger,the expert laments the slow⁢ pace of ⁤military investment across Europe.“Three⁢ Western prophecies​ just went down: the first one is the belief that liberal training will bring democracy, we have​ seen ​that‍ doesn’t work. The second is the idea that interdependence will ⁣bring peace and the last is that disarmament will drive to‍ peace,” they state, highlighting the flawed ⁣assumptions underpinning⁣ previous defense strategies.

Addressing European leaders directly, the expert warns, “I was ‌recently giving a lecture ‌to Franco-German⁢ industry leaders and chief executives.⁢ I said⁢ to⁤ them, you are just like⁤ the ​dinosaurs – ⁤you⁤ see the‍ smoke⁢ of⁣ volcanoes and just say you are ​in changing times.Most Europeans ⁤are ‌herbivores, they think there⁤ is sufficient grass⁢ to feed from. This is not the case.⁤ We need to be ⁢more awake and invest because it is not ⁤only about ‌making some more shells to ​support Ukraine. It’s to ​be ready on ​the new warfighting domains where we may suffer a lot.”

The urgent call for increased military investment underscores the critical ‍need for a reassessment of​ Europe’s​ defense‍ posture. The continent’s security hinges on a⁣ proactive ⁢and robust response‍ to the evolving ​threat ‌landscape.

Elisabeth Gosselin-Malo is a europe correspondent ‌for Defense News. She covers a wide range of topics related⁢ to military procurement‍ and international security, and specializes⁤ in reporting on the aviation sector. She ⁣is based ‍in⁤ Milan,⁤ Italy.