NATO is pouring new spending into much-needed air defenses. Money alone won't fix the West's problems.
NATO sorely needs air defenses. Secretary General Mark Rutte said Europe does "not have enough," outlining "clear gaps" in command and control, long-range weapons, and sensor systems, all while Russia's military growth is "really threatening."
The way Russia is fighting in Ukraine and the reconstitution of its military have led to greater urgency in NATO.
Defense experts say higher spending is warranted, especially on ground-based air defenses, but the alliance can't expect a quick fix from money alone.
The West needs air defenses and big missile stocks
Russia's invasion, specifically its relentless attacks on Ukrainian cities, shows air defenses are needed in a major conflict. For the West, worried about Russia and China, it's a wake-up call.
The West scaled back air defenses in recent decades as it battled weaker adversaries that posed no major air threat. However, Russia's bombardments, sometimes using hundreds of missiles and drones, show the West must be ready for the same. It's not yet.
"NATO faces a significant shortfall in ground-based air defense systems," both with the number of systems and ammunition supplies for them, Justin Bronk, an airpower expert at the Royal United Services Institute, said.
NATO is acting, but investments don't mean weaponry can actually be made quickly.
Bronk said fixing the issue "is much more a question of building production capacity at every stage in the supply chain as rapidly as possible as part of a crisis response rather than just spending more money."
"Currently, there just isn't enough production capacity in the world of Patriot interceptors, SAMP/T interceptors," he said, referring to surface-to-air missiles for eliminating air threats.
Struggling with production woes not easily fixed
Following the Cold War, the West's defense manufacturing and industrial prowess atrophied.
Companies consolidated, specialized production lines closed, workforces shrank, and inventories decreased — all crippling the ability to surge weapons.
Work is underway to boost production. For instance, Lockheed Martin expanded PAC-3 interceptor production for the Patriot system to 500 missiles in 2024, then a new production high, with plans to grow production further. Boeing upped seeker production, and Raytheon is boosting PAC-2 interceptor output, though it grapples with massive backlogs.
Rheinmetall and Lockheed Martin plan to establish a European missile production hub, including the PAC-3 used by Patriots.
Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger told German newspaper Hartpunkt that Europe has struggled getting missiles from the US because of production shortfalls there. He said the wait could sometimes be 10 years, describing that as far too long.
It won't start full missile production until 2027, and Papperger said he expects its engine producing capacity will be quickly used up.
For the Patriots, demand pretty consistently outpaces supply. And clearing backlogs isn't quick.
European defense company MBDA, which makes ASTER air defense missiles and other products, saw orders double since Russia's invasion. In April, Fortune reported that its backlog was projected to take up to seven years at current capacity.
The Financial Times reported the company's plans to double the number of hours worked and hire more, but CEO Éric Béranger also wants more action. He called this a "moment of truth" for Europe and said: "We need to be much more industrial."
Decreased production capacity has been "a tremendous problem in the United States," said Mark Cancian, a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "You can sign all the contracts you want, but the production capability is lacking."
It takes time to make top-of-the-line interceptors
Even if more companies boost production, manufacturing sophisticated weaponry simply is not quick.
Thomas Laliberty, Raytheon's president of land and air defense systems, told Politico last year that it takes 12 months to build a Patriot radar, just one part of an operational battery.
Sophistication is a key issue.
Bronk said missiles designed to attack are easier to build: "It's much, much cheaper to build offensive missiles than it is to build defensive interceptor coverage."
The price reflects that sophistication: Naval interceptors, like the SM-series, can cost up to almost $30 million a missile.
Defense systems are "some of the most sophisticated bits of hardware that militaries have, and producing them takes time with pretty skilled labor," former Australian Army Maj. Gen. Mick Ryan, a warfare strategist, explained.
Increasing production enough "will be a challenge," he said.
There are steps forward, but challenges remain
The alliance is taking steps in the right direction.
Retired Air Commodore Andrew Curtis, an airfare expert with a 35-year career in the Royal Air Force, said countries speaking confidently gives the industry the reassurance it wants to invest.
"Governments are now talking the right language," he said.
The industry saw investing in production facilities during the Cold War as "a sound business," as demand was there. But that changed.
He said the industry would not invest long-term in expensive facilities that require skilled workers "with no guaranteed orders at the end of it."
Increased cooperation is also needed.
NATO has cultural problems, with countries working separately. Jan Kallberg, a security expert at the Center for European Policy Analysis, said "the major challenge in NATO is not money, it's coordination."
Multiple companies working on similar systems means doubling up on some expenses, and makes scaling up harder, Kallberg said. Fixing that "would free up a tremendous lot of resources."
Military officials want greater collaboration. A US general last month urged defense firms to coordinate more and "stop selling us pieces of the puzzle."
Progress is happening: More companies and countries are working together. The Nordic countries are integrating their air defenses to act as one, and with joint air defense planning.
Changes are taking place at the top level. The European Commission is proposing new measures to cut red tape, encourage joint purchases, and facilitate billions of investments.
But challenges remain. Kallberg warned: "Culture takes far more time to change than just buying hardware."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
40 minutes ago
Trump says he's 'not happy' with Putin and blames him for 'killing a lot of people' in Ukraine
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he's 'not happy' with his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, saying Moscow's ongoing war in Ukraine is 'killing a lot of people' on both sides. 'I'm not happy with him, I can tell you that much right now. This is killing a lot of people,' Trump said of Putin during a meeting with his Cabinet. The president also acknowledged that his previous suggestions that he might be able to cajole Russia's president into bringing the fighting to a close and quickly ending the war in Ukraine has 'turned out to be tougher.' It was notable for a president who has all but aligned himself with Putin at moments in the past and has praised the Russian leader effusively at times — though less so in recent months. The Cabinet meeting comments came a day after Trump said the United States will now send more weapons to Ukraine — dramatically reversing a previous announcement of a pause in critical, previously approved firepower deliveries to Kyiv in the midst of concerns that America's own military stockpiles have declined too much. 'We wanted (to) put defensive weapons (in). Putin is not, he's not treating human beings right,' Trump said during the Cabinet meeting, explaining the pause's reversal. "It's killing too many people. So we're sending some defensive weapons to Ukraine and I've approved that.' Trump's decision to remove the pause follows his privately having expressed frustration with Pentagon officials for announcing a halt in some deliveries last week — an action he felt wasn't properly coordinated with the White House, according to three people familiar with the matter. But the president refused to provide more details on that matter Tuesday. 'I don't know," he said sarcastically to a reporter who pressed him on the weapons pause's original approval. "Why don't you tell me?' Still, his expressing open displeasure with Putin — especially after approving a resumption of U.S. weapons to Ukraine — underscores how much Trump's thinking on Russia and Ukraine policy has shifted since he returned to the White House in January. It also lays bare how tricky navigating the ongoing conflict has proved to be. Trump suggested during last year's campaign that he could quickly end the Russia-Ukraine war. But by April, he was using his Truth Social account to exhort Putin to end military strikes on the Ukrainian capital. 'Vladimir, STOP!' he wrote. But large-scale Russian attacks on Ukraine have continued since then and Trump's public pronouncements on Putin have continued to sour. Trump said after a call last week with Putin that he was unhappy with Russia's president and 'I don't think he's looking to stop' the war. Then, speaking at the start of a dinner he hosted for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on Monday night, Trump said, 'I'm not happy with President Putin at all.' Asked during Tuesday's Cabinet meeting what his growing displeasure with Putin might mean for U.S. foreign policy, Trump declined to discuss specifics. 'I will say, the Ukrainians were brave. But we gave them the best equipment ever made,' Trump said. He also said that without U.S. weapons and military support, Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 might have otherwise sparked what 'probably would have been a very quick war.' 'It would have been a war that lasted three or four days," he said, 'but they had the benefit of unbelievable equipment.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Britain and France must shoulder burden of keeping Europe safe, Macron says in historic parliament address
Emmanuel Macron urged Britain and France 'to shoulder the burden of European security' together as he appealed for the two nations to work more closely on issues including defence and the migrant crisis. The French president delivered his remarks as the first European leader to receive a state visit to Britain and address both Houses of Parliament since Brexit was finalised in 2020. In a passionate address, Mr Macron made clear the events that saw the UK leave the EU are in the past, and he hailed Sir Keir Starmer – whom he referred to as 'dear Keir' – for his reset of the relations. While he listed the economy, climate change and the immigration crisis as areas for cooperation, he put the need to defend Europe at the top of the agenda. In particular, he asserted that Europe would 'never accept that might is right' and would resist the Russian president's attempts to subjugate Ukraine. 'Every time Vladimir Putin's Russia advances in Ukraine, the threat moves closer to us all,' he warned, underlining the importance of a summit he and Sir Keir will host jointly on Thursday to help strengthen a 'coalition of the willing' to ensure any peace settlement there. However, with Nato members agreeing to spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on defence and the US withdrawing its support under Donald Trump, President Macron said that the UK and France must be the pillars on which European defence is built. He said: 'Our two countries, the only European nuclear weapon states, the leading armed forces of the continent, together accounting for 40 per cent of European military budgets, both fully shoulder the responsibility when it comes to European security. 'And we are faced with new threats, with aggressive nuclear powers, with sometimes hesitating alliances, and the return of major conflict on our continent. This is why, in two days, our summit is so important, and the announcement we prepared so historical,' he said in an address to UK parliamentarians. He said there is an expectation that the UK and France, 'faced with revisionist neighbours', have a 'special responsibility for the security of the continent'. While President Macron, who was accompanied by his wife Brigitte, said that Brexit was 'deeply regrettable', he celebrated the return of a close bond between the two countries, which he saw as the pivotal relationship in Europe. He appealed to MPs and peers gathered in the Royal Gallery to 'not let the Channel grow any wider'. In a sideswipe at populists, the European statesman, who has refused to meet Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, also drew inspiration from Winston Churchill's vision of 'a world order based on law, justice and respect for territorial integrity' that was 'today being attacked on a daily basis as we witness direct attacks on our democracies, the return of war on our continent, the resurgence of imperial impulses and the flouting of international rules by destabilising powers'. He also hailed an exchange of museum artefacts, which will see the Bayeux Tapestry displayed in the British Museum next year and the Sutton Hoo treasure to go to France, 'as the beginning of this new era of exchange and the reopening of these mutual movements'. He said it is time to 'make sure that not only our two countries will save themselves by their own exertions, but also that we will save Europe by our example and our solidarity'. The state visit is the first to the UK by an EU head of state since Brexit, and the first to be held at Windsor, rather than Buckingham Palace, for more than a decade, thanks to ongoing refurbishments at the London residence. While the speech to MPs and peers was part of his visit, the focus of the evening was a state banquet hosted by King Charles and Queen Camilla. The honour was granted ahead of Donald Trump receiving his second state visit to Britain which is expected to take place in September. However, as well as the ceremonies and pageantry, the French president is due to settle down to discuss serious political business, with Sir Keir desperate to save his plan for a 'one in, one out' deal to tackle the small boats. The proposal is on the point of collapse because of French domestic politics and objections from other EU partners but the prime minister is under pressure to stop the small boats crossing with migrants. In his speech, Mr Macron referred to the 'closest ever cooperation' to end the crisis, but did not mention Sir Keir's hoped-for deal. In the first six months, 20,000 migrants came across the Channel from France amid frustration that the French authorities are failing to tackle the problem at source. Earlier, the King and Queen rolled out the red carpet for the Macrons in Windsor. Charles and Camilla warmly greeted the French leader and the first lady on a specially constructed royal dais near the town's Windsor and Eton Riverside train station, with the castle in the backdrop. Nearly 400 military personnel from the army, RAF and Royal Navy lined the high street along the ceremonial route, while a 41-gun salute sounded in nearby Home Park in Mr Macron's honour to mark his arrival. The Prince and Princess of Wales accompanied the visitors after meeting them at RAF Northolt in west London on Tuesday morning.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Land mines, a Cold War horror, could return to fortify Europe's borders
Recent moves by Poland, the three Baltic states and Finland — and a vow by President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine — to quit a mine ban treaty that came into force in 1999 won't result in any immediate surge in the use of antipersonnel mines. Formally leaving the treaty is a six-month process. But the recent rush of countries rejecting a pillar of the post-Cold War order has outraged antimine campaigners. Advertisement 'We are furious with these countries,' said Tamar Gabelnick, director of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines, which in 1997 won a Nobel Peace Prize for its work clearing antipersonnel weapons and its role as the driving force behind the Mine Ban Treaty, known as the Ottawa Convention. 'They know full well that this will do nothing to help them against Russia,' Gabelnick said, dismissing a retreat from the global accord as 'just political games' by officials trying to present themselves as defenders of national security. Advertisement Senior military officials in at least three of the five countries whose parliaments recently voted to withdraw from the treaty have said in the past they saw little military utility in reviving antipersonnel mines. The weapons mostly kill civilians and offer limited defense against modern mechanized armies. The war in Ukraine 'changed everything,' said Veronika Honkasalo, a left-wing member of the Finnish parliament who is opposed to leaving the treaty, a move supported by an overwhelming majority of her fellow legislators in a recent vote. Because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, she added, 'people got really scared because we have a 1,300-kilometer border with Russia and long history of war with our neighbor.' Of the European countries that share a land border with Russia, only Norway has stayed steadfast in its commitment to the Mine Ban Treaty. The treaty, according to the United Nations, led to the destruction of more than 55 million antipersonnel mines. The weapons were widely used in the Cold War era, in conflicts in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Myanmar, and many other countries, but continued to kill people long after fighting ended. Eighty percent of the casualties from antipersonnel mines are civilians, many of them children, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which estimates that the number of people killed or maimed each year has fallen to around 3,500 from more than 20,000 over the last two decades. 'It is a horrible weapon,' Honkasalo said. Russia, the United States, China, and a few other countries never signed up to the Ottawa Convention, but more than 160 others did. Advertisement Mary Wareham, a campaigner against antipersonnel mines who was involved in treaty negotiations in the 1990s, said the announced departures were a setback after decades of work to limit civilian casualties. They also 'set a terrible precedent,' she added, for the stability of a vast edifice of international law governing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the conduct of war itself. 'Once an idea gets going it picks up steam,' said Wareham, who is the deputy director of the crisis, conflict and arms division at Human Rights Watch. 'Where does it stop?' The push by countries near Russia to leave the treaty started last year after a visit to Ukraine by Laurynas Kasciunas, then the defense minister of Lithuania. Told by Ukrainian military officers that the ban on antipersonnel mines made it difficult to hold back Russian troops, he called for a review of their use by Baltic states. 'I understand the concerns about antipersonnel mines — they've caused immense suffering in many places,' he said in an interview. But, Kasciunas added, claims that they are of little military use are untrue. 'They do not directly stop a mechanized division, but they force the enemy to either take significant risks or commit time and resources to clearing operations,' he said. Russia's widespread use of antipersonnel mines played a significant in role in blunting a major Ukrainian offensive in 2023. In March, the defense ministers of the three Baltic states and Poland, all members of NATO, said their countries needed to pull out of the mine ban accord because 'military threats to NATO member states bordering Russia and Belarus have significantly increased.' Finland said in April that it, too, wanted out. Advertisement Ukraine, which formally joined the treaty in 2006, initially saw little reason to revive the use of antipersonnel mines. But, after its failed 2023 offensive and Russia's increasing reliance on foot soldiers to lead assaults, it decided they were needed. In an early blow to the treaty, the Biden administration last year approved supplying Ukraine with American antipersonnel mines. Zelensky this month announced he had signed a decree to withdraw Ukraine from the Ottawa Convention because Russia, never a party to the treaty, was 'using antipersonnel mines with utmost cynicism.' This article originally appeared in .
