ASD Considerations on a Scoping Paper for the EU Preparatory Action on Defence Research 29 July 2016

Transcription

1 Contact: Isabelle Maelcamp ASD Considerations on a Scoping Paper for the EU Preparatory Action on Defence Research 29 July 2016 Introduction On 30 th June 2016, representatives of the European Commission (EC) gave a presentation to the DRT Committee of ASD concerning their thinking on the Scoping Paper for the Defence Research Preparatory Action. The EC Services asked DRT members for their reactions, and seek input in particular on the relevance of technology clusters and the suitability of clusters for a technology demonstrator project. This exchange followed a long period of informal consultation between the DRT and the EC, resulting in a number of ASD Position Papers, the last The Technology Content of the EC Preparatory Action on Defence Research issued on 23 rd March General Remarks The DRT notes with appreciation that five of the six proposed Technology Areas are consistent with the content of the Position Paper referred to above. The DRT would also support the sixth topic, the Defence Observatory Network, provided it is small and linked with ongoing work in the domain of horizon scanning and technology watch, much of which is application agnostic. It is, however, essential that industry is involved in this network, both in order to ensure that its knowledge of the art of the possible (risks, costs, timescales, etc) is included, and because industry is the route to eventual product and system development. In addition, the DRT recommends that the Technology Area Interoperability, Complementarity and Standardisation is treated not only as a CSA. Indeed, there should be scope for substantive work, including demonstration, on interoperability, for example for soldier systems and land forces (in our Position Papers, we recommended that around 20% of the total budget would be appropriate for this area). Finally, the DRT notes that the definitions of the terms CSA, IA, RIA currently used in H2020 are appropriate for non-defence activities, and need some modification to take into account the specificities of the defence sector. ASD Rue Montoyer 10 I 1000 Brussels, Belgium I T: I info@asd-europe.org I

2 The Strategic Technology Clusters The EC have presented the concept of Strategic Technology Cluster for the Preparatory Action, and have asked the DRT for views on the suggested selection and on the appropriate overall number of clusters. In general, we believe that for the Preparatory Action there should only be a limited number of clusters. Since the PA has limited budget, and is primarily about testing and demonstrating for the EDRP, it can only afford one substantive demonstrator project, and only a few projects on critical defence technologies. Turning to the specific clusters presented by the EC, we do not see a consistent rationale for the eight choices that were listed. Consequently we suggest: 1) Take the following proposed Technology Clusters out of the list: Logistics it is difficult to see this having a major impact in the Prep Action timescales for a defence specific activity. Energy whilst some aspects of energy management and distribution are important for a range of defence systems, we feel that the topic is too dual-use in nature to merit being a Cluster for the Prep Action. Space technologies we believe that this is adequately covered elsewhere, and therefore recommend deleting it as a Cluster for the Prep Action (however, note that space-based services such as navigation and Earth Observation are included in C4ISR). 2) Reorganise the remaining Clusters (RPAS, Autonomy, C4ISR, Effects, New/non-lethal weapons) into three: Autonomous systems this is applicable to all domains, air, land and maritime, and includes mixed manned and unmanned systems. This cluster would replace / specify the current cluster autonomy and also incorporates as a specific sub-element, RPAS and RPAS payloads. C4ISR 1 this covers both connectivity and surveillance for all domains, and includes necessary aspects of communications, sensing and navigation. This is a key area of activity within NATO, for example as manifested by the AFSC (AWACS follow-on) programme. There is therefore opportunity to use capability requirements derived from NATO, while ensuring complementarity with NATO. 1 Our definition of C4ISR includes targeting and countermeasures. Page 2

3 Effects this would also include the current cluster new precise/ non-lethal weapons. For the Preparatory Action, a small number of technology projects, focusing on critical technologies, should be supported. An example could be effects using directed energy (DEW). Consideration could also be given to other candidates for Technology Clusters, specifically: Cyber this is clearly a domain of increasing importance for defence. However, there are significant cyber activities covered elsewhere (H2020, NATO, national). Moreover, cyber protection is extremely pervasive as a challenge. Rather than dealing with it in an additional Technology Cluster for the Preparatory Action, we would propose that aspects of cyber protection are included in all projects for which it is a relevant issue. Domain specific technologies (air, land and maritime) it may be desirable to include these as technology clusters, since there are a number of important topics not covered by the other Technology Clusters. For example, for land systems, topics such as soldier system reference architectures, soldier and force protection, and automated delivery of medical assistance, could be included. The Technology Demonstrator In its presentation, the EC also asked for views on the suitability of the Technology Clusters for a demonstrator project, and suggestions for the call for a Technology demonstrator. In general, we believe that the actual demonstrator content and projects chosen should be based on a capability approach, perhaps best expressed through a set of defence capability challenges. These challenges should be chosen by the Member States, acting in their role as potential future customers, thereby using their assessment of likely requirements to satisfy future defence needs. As explained in the last ASD Position Paper, we recommend a capability driven technology demonstrator focused on the use of mixed manned and unmanned assets, including their payloads, and operating in a combination of Land, Sea and Air domains. As such, this would fit into two of our recommended Technology Clusters autonomous systems and C4ISR. Moreover, a number of comments are in order. 1) From an industrial perspective, due to the limited budget availability for the Preparatory Action, we believe there should only be one demonstrator. We recognise the diverse range of interests of the different Member States. If this results in pressure to have a second demonstrator activity, we would to do this at a more limited scale (for example on soldier protection), and within the Technology Area Interoperability, Complementarity and Standardisation. 2) The demonstrator needs to be planned for the three year life of the Preparatory Action, and the bulk of the budget for the first year should be devoted to the demonstrator. 3) The demonstrator should explore and demonstrate new concepts of operation in the military domain with the aid of new technology. Thus, for example, for the maritime scenario, it could be limited to few, if not single, air, on board and shore connected units, using for ease of Page 3

4 demonstration appropriate platforms (as for example an Optionally Piloted Vehicle) with basic functionalities, leaving fuller functionalities, with multiple assets, to the EDRP. 4) The purpose of the demonstrator is to show application and use, and hence the demonstrator budget must not be diverted into platform development. 5) It will be necessary to show complementarity with other Commission funded programmes, in particular by focusing on military specificity, and with Member State funded activities, including through NATO. 6) In kind support from Member States (infrastructure, loan of assets, operational tests, etc) is highly desirable, both to enhance the value of the work done, and to help ensure connectivity to capability requirements of the Member States. In this way, the work done in the Preparatory Action, and in the follow on EDRP, will be more likely to feed into future procurements. However, this support must not raise any unnecessary funding issues, being treated strictly as in kind contribution, and not as co-funding. **** Page 4

5 Page 5