Summary:
The European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI) aims to create a unified air defense system for Europe, but faces several challenges. First, the initiative involves a diverse group of nations, some within and some outside of NATO and the EU, requiring complex system integration. Second, there are competing national interests and strategic cultures, as seen in Poland’s reluctance to join and France’s potential rival initiative. Third, the sp...
Summary:
The European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI) aims to create a unified air defense system for Europe, but faces several challenges. First, the initiative involves a diverse group of nations, some within and some outside of NATO and the EU, requiring complex system integration. Second, there are competing national interests and strategic cultures, as seen in Poland’s reluctance to join and France’s potential rival initiative. Third, the specialization dilemma requires smaller nations to rely on larger nations for coverage against long-range threats. Finally, ensuring interoperability between diverse systems presents a significant challenge, requiring accurate air pictures and complex operating doctrines.
Questions to consider as you read/listen:
- What are the biggest challenges to the success of the European Sky Shield Initiative?
- How does the ESSI address the need for interoperability in a diverse European defense landscape?
- What are the long-term implications of the ESSI for European defense cooperation and integration?
Long format:
European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI)
- Short range: Skyranger 30 (German manufactured, generally an anti-air cannon system with some optional missile capabilities, very short range mobile system capable of engaging fixed wing and rotary aircraft as well as UAS, loitering munitions and cruise missiles, only one prototype exists but a lot of orders for it)
- Medium range: primarily IRIS-T SLM (European manufactured, short/medium range air to air or surface to air missile using infra red as its base, in service since 2005)
- Long range: MIM-104 Patriot (the US system, mobile surface-to-air missile/anti ballistic missile system in operation since 1984)
- Very long range (exoatmospheric): Arrow 3 (Israeli with joint development with the US exoatmospheric hypersonic anti ballistic missile system, it can even be an anti-satellite weapon, in service since 2017
My big question is the integration aspect. How do we get all of these players to communicate and work smoothly?
After all, we are talking quite a few players. Some in NATO some not. Some in the EU, some not. That’s a lot of systems to integrate.
In October 2022, fifteen European states (Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, the United Kingdom) signed a declaration to join the German-led initiative. In February 2024, the German government announced that Greece and Turkey would join the initiative. In February 2023, Denmark and Sweden joined the project.[9] In July 2023, neutral states Austria and Switzerland signed the declaration to join the initiative, raising questions about the future and practicalities of their policy of neutrality.
As of today, France, Poland, Italy, and Spain did not make a decision to join the ESSI.
This report gives some answers: https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2023-05/230519_Monaghan_European_SkyShield.pdf?VersionId=lqRTBNFTvHja1Qc3ThfdCfvL5B0GSChA
From the report…
The strategic cacophony problem occurs when domestic imperatives to develop national forces and defense industries work against cooperation. One example is Poland’s conspicuous absence from Sky Shield following a difficult period between Warsaw and Berlin, including a public spat over deployment of German Patriot systems to Poland, given Warsaw has recently committed to developing its own short- and medium-range GBAD systems in cooperation with the United Kingdom.
The strategic fit problem relates to overcoming deep national differences in strategic culture, priorities, and so on. For Sky Shield, navigating both problems among 17 members will require strong leadership and creative solutions. An example is the potential for a competing French led initiative on Europe’s air defense announced by President Macron at the Munich Security Conference. This could be due to concerns about a north-south divide in European air defense, especially given the industrial expertise in southern European nations such as France, Spain, and Italy, or the sputtering “Franco-German engine.” As one assessment of Sky Shield puts the political challenge bluntly: “Important European partners, above all France and Italy, are currently unwilling to follow Germany’s lead. The lack of political unity shows that Germany’s proposal does not take European security interests sufficiently into account, has failed to convince partners, and leaves many questions unanswered on the strategic, military, industrial, and economic levels.”
The specialization dilemma undermines reliance on others to deliver shared capability. For Sky Shield, specialization is unavoidable because not every nation in Europe can afford to develop and field an independent air defense system. For example, smaller nations that cannot afford to procure or operate complex systems must rely on others for coverage against long range missile threats. Conveniently, some specialization already exists through NATO’s Air Policing and Air Shielding mission
The next challenge is interoperability between nations. This is especially demanding for integrated air and missile defense, which requires a common air picture that is extremely accurate and complex operating doctrine that requires high levels of training. This is why the Latvian state secretary Jānis Garisons suggested interoperability “might be the big challenge” for Sky Shield.
