What are the most important lessons learned from defence cooperation in the Netherlands so far? What should be the way forward in that regard?
Often, when we talk about cooperation, we tend to focus on specific areas such as training or procurement. In my view as Director of the Defense Materiel Organisation (DMO), I think that when considering cooperation on new capabilities, we have to look at it from the widest angle possible: maintenance, life-cycle support, doctrine, simulators… Everything must be taken into account if we want to yield significant benefits. When we look at potential new programs, we seek partners that share this same vision.
The partnership we have built over the years with Belgium in the naval domain is a great example of this. Our navies have set an integrated force sharing tasks, people as well as capabilities. What we did more than 30 years ago with France and Belgium as part of the Tripartite-class minehunter program is one of the oldest examples of European defence cooperation. Building on this equipment program, we have established a common training and exercise facility, and today the Belgian and Dutch navies are working in an entirely integrated fashion, for example to clear the North Sea of maritime mines. And in the future, we will look together at future plans for the acquisition of next-generation mine countermeasures capability.
The F-35 has been selected as the Netherlands’ next-generation combat aircraft. What will be the benefits of this program for the Dutch defence industrial and technological base?
The program is now in good shape, and two aircraft are already participating fully in the Operation Test & Evaluation program in the United States, as well as Dutch pilots. A parliamentary debate is planned for late February, during which we will propose to sign the first low-rate initial production (LRIP) contract. Meanwhile, preparations are ongoing for the transition from the current F-16 fleet to the future F-35. The objective is to reach an Initial Operating Capability (IOC) in 2021. In terms of cooperation, it seems important to us to align with other future European F-35 users – something that we already take into account in our decisions. It would be a missed opportunity not to cooperate on the whole lifecycle of this capability. At the same time, we are also looking at the future logistic footprint of the aircraft in Europe. The Netherlands were recently selected to be one of three maintenance shops for F-35 engines in Europe.
The Netherlands are leading a European effort to develop a new-generation MRTT fleet. How important is that project to your country’s armed forces?
This is an extremely important capability which is used every day by our armed forces. There is a clear need to replace it in order to field a new aircraft as early as 2019, while avoiding a capability gap. We have looked at cooperation in that domain since the very beginning. In 2007, I was personally involved in the SAC C-17 project and I witnessed firsthand the benefits of pooling and sharing when it comes to strategic capabilities. The new MRTT (multirole tanker transport) project is building on previous experiences such as this one, and we were pleased by the role the European Defence Agency played in project, bringing nations together and harmonising requirements between them. At the end of the day, what matters most is to have the capability available wherever and whenever we need it, no matter the flag on the aircraft or the location of its main operating base. Together with Poland and Norway, and maybe other partners in the future, we will share the costs of this common fleet and in the end we will benefit from an increased capability.
A new Defence Cyber Command was recently established in the NL. What are your priorities in terms of developing new cyber capabilities?
 | Vice admiral Matthieu Borsboom, former Commander of the Royal Netherlands Navy and Admiral Benelux, has taken office as DMO Director in 2014. |
The DMO is responsible for the whole Information Technology (IT) domain, with around 3.000 staff focusing on this issue. Part of them are working on cyber defence issues, under several work strands such as the protection of essential defence networks or the detection of anomalies. As part of our official defence cyber strategy, our first priority is to have an integrated approach in order to put all capabilities of the Cyber command available to the government agencies that might need them. We also look at improving our digital responsiveness as part of a “defensive cyber” approach, while exploring potential offensive capabilities. We have regular exchanges on these issues with our EU and NATO partners. Our overarching objective is to build a comprehensive knowledge base, then to deliver this expertise to the armed forces. .
Is interoperability with other EU allies now a top priority for the Dutch armed forces when it comes to capability development?
I would almost say that this is our number one priority. If you don’t have a built-in interoperability in your equipment, you can join a NATO, EU or coalition mission but if you’re not able to connect with other partners, you’re simply useless. You might have sensors, effectors, command-and-control systems – but if we cannot plug into the global network, we’re out of the game. Interoperability is very difficult. It has always been important in the NATO framework, but now with the changing geometry of ad-hoc coalitions it gets more and more complicated. Hybrid connectivity between civil and military systems also has to be taken into account and this is no easy feat, considering the pace at which new commercial standards are emerging. All this seems to be well understood by the defence community, but we need to increase our efforts if we want it to be as effective as possible.
In the short to mid-term, which capabilities could benefit most from an increased cooperation at EU-level?
The opportunities are widespread. I should not exclude any capability from the cooperative approach, which should in fact be the default approach. Of course, when we start talking about completely new capabilities, the complexity lies in the industrial strategy and the alignment of defence industries at a European level. In my experience, the desynchronisation of national budget cycles can be overcome. What matters is that we have to tackle issues as early as possible, be it for the identification or requirements or the procurement strategy. Part of the reason why we need to cooperate is also to maintain the knowledge base – something we might not be able to afford on a national basis anymore. Eventually, we need to look at an increased interdependence with our EU allies.
What do you expect from an Agency like EDA to boost defence cooperation in Europe?
I have known the European Defence Agency from the capability side for several years now, thanks to my previous postings within the Dutch MoD. I think what EDA does best is bringing together countries at the earliest stage possible, thus making it easier for Member States to get going with new cooperative programmes. I see more and more countries that just cannot do it on their own anymore; we need to cooperate, but we must not wait until it’s too late. One of the reasons why we chose to take the lead on the MRTT project is to send a clear signal to other nations, trying to convince them that cooperation is the way forward. For the Agency to keep proving its added value, it needs to make it as easy as possible for Member States to join such initiatives. Every time EDA succeeds in reducing their workload, this a clear victory for European defence cooperation.