Why the U.S. Should Use British Missiles on Reaper Drones

Wikimedia Commons

AA Font size + Print

For compatibility and cost-effectiveness, military cooperation between nations must start from the beginning. By Peter Westmacott

During the Second World War, the U.S. gave Britain some aging destroyers in exchange for the use of British bases overseas. When the first American ships arrived, Winston Churchill went to inspect them, along with Franklin Roosevelt’s right-hand man, Harry Hopkins. When he saw the ships, Churchill muttered under his breath: “Cheap and nasty.”

Hopkins heard him and, somewhat taken aback, asked what he meant. “Cheap for us,” the prime minister said. “And nasty for them!”

Destroyers for Bases was soon succeeded by the much broader and more effective Lend Lease program. Since then, we have shared intelligence, equipment and expertise more and more closely.

At a test facility in California, the U.S. military has just finished testing a British-designed missile, the Dual-Mode Brimstone. The tests successfully proved that the Brimstone is compatible with one of America’s main unmanned aerial vehicles, the Reaper, and is a more accurate weapon than anything comparable on the market.

It makes sense to buy equipment that your allies have already developed, rather than invest millions or billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to duplicate what’s already available. This more cost-effective approach to procurement is especially important when budgets are tight.  I’m tempted to say it’s not rocket science—but in this case that’s not strictly true!

It’s an approach that’s worked well for the United Kingdom. For example, we have invested in C-17 transport aircraft, made in the U.S. by Boeing, in Boeing’s Chinook and Apache helicopters, and of course in Lockheed Martin’s F-35. I hope the U.S. will consider doing likewise with the Brimstone, and with other world-class products like BAE’s Hawk trainer jet.

Defense cooperation of a slightly different sort was on the agenda when I spoke recently at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. The panellists came at the issue from different angles, but they all shared a determination that the U.S. and its allies should work more closely together, both on and off the battlefield.

As you might expect, Britain and America lead the way. We have cooperated for decades to improve the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrents. The intelligence we share proves it’s worth every day in military operations and in our efforts against terrorism. And we are planning to take our cooperation even further.

In November 2013, for example, the U.K. received its first U.S.-built Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft. Eventually, we will run three; the United States will run 17. All 20 have been built to a common standard, so they can be used interchangeably to provide support to British and American troops whenever they operate together. We will also share training, maintenance and facilities.

New technology is changing the face of warfare. In the future, air missions will increasingly be remotely piloted, and battles will increasingly have a space or cyber component. With these emerging technologies, we have a golden opportunity to build cooperation into our strategies right from the beginning—an opportunity we should be sure to take.

We look forward to September, when the U.K. will host the 2014 NATO Summit in South Wales. Cooperation between NATO nations—including, of course, its European members—is in everyone’s best interests.  We’ll make sure it’s at the top of the agenda in September.

Peter Westmacott is the British Ambassador to the United States. 

Close [ x ] More from DefenseOne
 
 

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from DefenseOne.com.
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Federal IT Applications: Assessing Government's Core Drivers

    In order to better understand the current state of external and internal-facing agency workplace applications, Government Business Council (GBC) and Riverbed undertook an in-depth research study of federal employees. Overall, survey findings indicate that federal IT applications still face a gamut of challenges with regard to quality, reliability, and performance management.

    Download
  • PIV- I And Multifactor Authentication: The Best Defense for Federal Government Contractors

    This white paper explores NIST SP 800-171 and why compliance is critical to federal government contractors, especially those that work with the Department of Defense, as well as how leveraging PIV-I credentialing with multifactor authentication can be used as a defense against cyberattacks

    Download
  • GBC Issue Brief: Supply Chain Insecurity

    Federal organizations rely on state-of-the-art IT tools and systems to deliver services efficiently and effectively, and it takes a vast ecosystem of organizations, individuals, information, and resources to successfully deliver these products. This issue brief discusses the current threats to the vulnerable supply chain - and how agencies can prevent these threats to produce a more secure IT supply chain process.

    Download
  • Data-Centric Security vs. Database-Level Security

    Database-level encryption had its origins in the 1990s and early 2000s in response to very basic risks which largely revolved around the theft of servers, backup tapes and other physical-layer assets. As noted in Verizon’s 2014, Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)1, threats today are far more advanced and dangerous.

    Download
  • Information Operations: Retaking the High Ground

    Today's threats are fluent in rapidly evolving areas of the Internet, especially social media. Learn how military organizations can secure an advantage in this developing arena.

    Download

When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.