Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO07026 | European Defense’s Never-ending Death Spiral
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO07026 | European Defense’s Never-ending Death Spiral
    Richard A. Bitzinger

    04 April 2007

    download pdf

    Commentary

    Although the European Defense Agency (EDA), the European Union’s fledging military arm, hasn’t accomplished much in its short three-year lifespan, the one thing it has done is highlight Europe’s continuing dilemma when it comes to spending enough, and spending wisely enough, on its defense capabilities.

    Criticisms of Europe’s failure to dedicate sufficient resources to defense – and to spend these monies efficiently – are not new. Moreover, we have long been aware of the huge disparity in U.S.-versus-European expenditures on defense. Now, however, the EDA, in a series of quietly released reports on EU military spending, has provided us with a set of quantitative data that adds further fuel to the fire over Europe’s inadequate efforts to arm itself for 21st century military operations.

    The details are depressing:

    • According to the EDA, the EU member-states spent a total of €193 billion (US$255 billion) on defense in 2005, about 1.8 percent of the European Union’s total GDP and less than four percent of all government expenditures by EU member-states. This is equal to roughly half of what the United States spent on defense that year, including supplementals for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    • The EU, as a whole, in 2005 spent €26.4 billion (US$35b) on procurement, and €9 billion (US$11.8b) on research and development (R&D). In comparison, U.S. military expenditures for 2005 included approximately US$103 billion for procurement and US$71 billion for R&D. In other words, Washington spent nearly three times as much on equipment as the EU combined, and more than six times as much on R&D alone.
    • The transatlantic gap in defense expenditures is, if anything, widening. In 1999, the ratio of U.S. to European spending on military R&D was 4:1, while the gap in procurement spending used to be two to one.
    • In addition, the share of the US defense budget going to procurement and R&D is nearly twice as big as Europe’s: 32 percent of all military expenditures versus 18.4 percent for the EU combined. And just four countries – Britain, France, Germany, and Italy – accounted for two-thirds of all equipment spending and over 90 percent of all R&D spending.

    European defense spending has been stagnant for years, and what spending there is tends to spread thinly across a highly fragmented and zealously protected European arms market. The EDA, for example, reports that estimated military expenditures in 2006 by EU member-states will be €192 billion, a 0.6 percent drop from the year before.

    According to NATO statistics, between 2000 and 2006 real military expenditures have fallen in Germany and Italy, while they have risen around five percent in France and six percent in the United Kingdom. In comparison, U.S. defense spending has grown by more than 40 percent (not including supplemental spending for Afghanistan and Iraq).

    The answer to the problem of declining defense spending, one would think, would be to pool these scarce defense euros among EU member-states in order make R&D, manufacturing, and acquisition more efficient and cost-effective. And yet, according to the EDA, in 2005 only 18 percent of all EU procurement – €4.75 billion, or US$6.2 billion – was collaborative, i.e., performed with other countries, and only one-eighth – €273 million – of all research and technology spending (R&T, that is, for basic and applied research) was multinational. That year, only one-fifth of French, 23 percent of Italian, and 12.5 percent of British procurement was dedicated to collaborative programs.

    Overall, after more than twenty years of talking about the relative decline in European defense, there is still too little spending within the EU on defense, and what spending there is, is still being done too inefficiently. Moreover, there has been little progress when it comes to the rationalization of European defense procurement and of the European defense industry in general.

    Clearly, “economic patriotism” – to use a French term to describe national preferences when it comes to defense procurement – is still alive and well within the EU. Most procurement and military R&D spending within the EU is still concentrated in redundant and often competing national programs, further eroding the overall buying power of European equipment budgets. The European arms market is currently beset with a number of duplicative and competing programs, such as three fighter aircraft (Rafale, Eurofighter, and Gripen), two heavy-lift utility helicopters (the EH-101 and the NH-90), at least three air- defense surface combatants (the Franco-Italian Horizon and the Spanish F-100 frigates, and the British Type-45 destroyer), and countless armored vehicles. Where there is collaboration, there is too much emphasis on ad hoc cooperative programs that do little to make the outlay of scarce defense euros more cost-effective.

    Moreover, despite the emergence of such global champions as the European Aeronautic, Defense and Space Company (EADS), Thales, and BAE Systems, the European defense industry still suffers from excess competition and overcapacity. There has been little new transnational consolidation in the European defense industry in recent years, and efforts to make manufacturing in the European defense sector more efficient have met with stiff opposition. Meanwhile, BAE Systems is actually jettisoning some of its holdings on the continent, in favor of investing more in North America, where the money is.

    So what does it all mean? Basically, there are two dangers to Europe. The first is that the European military is becoming increasingly impotent and irrelevant, because it is failing to spend what few defense euros it has on acquiring the capabilities for 21st century warfare. The EU, both separate member-states and as a whole, is simply not investing enough funds in those areas that will transform Europe’s armed forces, particularly those systems for network- centric warfare, conventional precision-strike, and sustained power projection. Instead, there is still too much emphasis on large, job-creating Cold War legacy programs, such as fighter aircraft, blue-water warships, or strategic nuclear forces – systems that, arguably, would be ill-suited for the kinds of counter-insurgency, counter-terrorist, and peacekeeping operations that are more likely to occur in the first half of this century.

    Meanwhile, the gap with the United States in expeditionary warfare is widening, and it should come as little surprise that the armed forces within the EU can deploy only four percent of its troops outside Europe, versus 16 percent for the United States. And the EU’s goal, agreed to in 1999, of deploying 60,000 troops overseas and sustaining them for up to a year, remains an elusive quest.

    Secondly, the European defense industry risks become a “mercenary” business. The European defense sector still manufactures a lot of sophisticated military equipment, but it is becoming so increasingly export-dependent that it is producing less to meet the future defense needs of Europe than for the sake of jobs and profits. Consequently, it is increasingly selling off the cream of European military technology, perhaps even to adversaries of the United States, such as China. It would do no one any good for Europe to become a serial proliferator of arms, but this could easily be an unintended consequence of Europe’s failure to deal with its continuing defense death-spiral.

    About the Author

    Richard A. Bitzinger is a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University. 

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Europe

    Commentary

    Although the European Defense Agency (EDA), the European Union’s fledging military arm, hasn’t accomplished much in its short three-year lifespan, the one thing it has done is highlight Europe’s continuing dilemma when it comes to spending enough, and spending wisely enough, on its defense capabilities.

    Criticisms of Europe’s failure to dedicate sufficient resources to defense – and to spend these monies efficiently – are not new. Moreover, we have long been aware of the huge disparity in U.S.-versus-European expenditures on defense. Now, however, the EDA, in a series of quietly released reports on EU military spending, has provided us with a set of quantitative data that adds further fuel to the fire over Europe’s inadequate efforts to arm itself for 21st century military operations.

    The details are depressing:

    • According to the EDA, the EU member-states spent a total of €193 billion (US$255 billion) on defense in 2005, about 1.8 percent of the European Union’s total GDP and less than four percent of all government expenditures by EU member-states. This is equal to roughly half of what the United States spent on defense that year, including supplementals for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
    • The EU, as a whole, in 2005 spent €26.4 billion (US$35b) on procurement, and €9 billion (US$11.8b) on research and development (R&D). In comparison, U.S. military expenditures for 2005 included approximately US$103 billion for procurement and US$71 billion for R&D. In other words, Washington spent nearly three times as much on equipment as the EU combined, and more than six times as much on R&D alone.
    • The transatlantic gap in defense expenditures is, if anything, widening. In 1999, the ratio of U.S. to European spending on military R&D was 4:1, while the gap in procurement spending used to be two to one.
    • In addition, the share of the US defense budget going to procurement and R&D is nearly twice as big as Europe’s: 32 percent of all military expenditures versus 18.4 percent for the EU combined. And just four countries – Britain, France, Germany, and Italy – accounted for two-thirds of all equipment spending and over 90 percent of all R&D spending.

    European defense spending has been stagnant for years, and what spending there is tends to spread thinly across a highly fragmented and zealously protected European arms market. The EDA, for example, reports that estimated military expenditures in 2006 by EU member-states will be €192 billion, a 0.6 percent drop from the year before.

    According to NATO statistics, between 2000 and 2006 real military expenditures have fallen in Germany and Italy, while they have risen around five percent in France and six percent in the United Kingdom. In comparison, U.S. defense spending has grown by more than 40 percent (not including supplemental spending for Afghanistan and Iraq).

    The answer to the problem of declining defense spending, one would think, would be to pool these scarce defense euros among EU member-states in order make R&D, manufacturing, and acquisition more efficient and cost-effective. And yet, according to the EDA, in 2005 only 18 percent of all EU procurement – €4.75 billion, or US$6.2 billion – was collaborative, i.e., performed with other countries, and only one-eighth – €273 million – of all research and technology spending (R&T, that is, for basic and applied research) was multinational. That year, only one-fifth of French, 23 percent of Italian, and 12.5 percent of British procurement was dedicated to collaborative programs.

    Overall, after more than twenty years of talking about the relative decline in European defense, there is still too little spending within the EU on defense, and what spending there is, is still being done too inefficiently. Moreover, there has been little progress when it comes to the rationalization of European defense procurement and of the European defense industry in general.

    Clearly, “economic patriotism” – to use a French term to describe national preferences when it comes to defense procurement – is still alive and well within the EU. Most procurement and military R&D spending within the EU is still concentrated in redundant and often competing national programs, further eroding the overall buying power of European equipment budgets. The European arms market is currently beset with a number of duplicative and competing programs, such as three fighter aircraft (Rafale, Eurofighter, and Gripen), two heavy-lift utility helicopters (the EH-101 and the NH-90), at least three air- defense surface combatants (the Franco-Italian Horizon and the Spanish F-100 frigates, and the British Type-45 destroyer), and countless armored vehicles. Where there is collaboration, there is too much emphasis on ad hoc cooperative programs that do little to make the outlay of scarce defense euros more cost-effective.

    Moreover, despite the emergence of such global champions as the European Aeronautic, Defense and Space Company (EADS), Thales, and BAE Systems, the European defense industry still suffers from excess competition and overcapacity. There has been little new transnational consolidation in the European defense industry in recent years, and efforts to make manufacturing in the European defense sector more efficient have met with stiff opposition. Meanwhile, BAE Systems is actually jettisoning some of its holdings on the continent, in favor of investing more in North America, where the money is.

    So what does it all mean? Basically, there are two dangers to Europe. The first is that the European military is becoming increasingly impotent and irrelevant, because it is failing to spend what few defense euros it has on acquiring the capabilities for 21st century warfare. The EU, both separate member-states and as a whole, is simply not investing enough funds in those areas that will transform Europe’s armed forces, particularly those systems for network- centric warfare, conventional precision-strike, and sustained power projection. Instead, there is still too much emphasis on large, job-creating Cold War legacy programs, such as fighter aircraft, blue-water warships, or strategic nuclear forces – systems that, arguably, would be ill-suited for the kinds of counter-insurgency, counter-terrorist, and peacekeeping operations that are more likely to occur in the first half of this century.

    Meanwhile, the gap with the United States in expeditionary warfare is widening, and it should come as little surprise that the armed forces within the EU can deploy only four percent of its troops outside Europe, versus 16 percent for the United States. And the EU’s goal, agreed to in 1999, of deploying 60,000 troops overseas and sustaining them for up to a year, remains an elusive quest.

    Secondly, the European defense industry risks become a “mercenary” business. The European defense sector still manufactures a lot of sophisticated military equipment, but it is becoming so increasingly export-dependent that it is producing less to meet the future defense needs of Europe than for the sake of jobs and profits. Consequently, it is increasingly selling off the cream of European military technology, perhaps even to adversaries of the United States, such as China. It would do no one any good for Europe to become a serial proliferator of arms, but this could easily be an unintended consequence of Europe’s failure to deal with its continuing defense death-spiral.

    About the Author

    Richard A. Bitzinger is a Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University. 

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info