Pros and Cons of International Weapons Procurement Collaboration.

Over the past few years, U.S. policymakers have become increasingly interested in pursuing collaborative arrangements with our allies. Cost appears to be a major incentive As military technologies become more complex and more expensive, even the U.S. national market is becoming too small comfortably to support the costs of developing and producing new weapons systems. By combining defense procurement with other nations, the U.S. government may be able to reduce the average cost of a given weapons system. In addition, collaborative programs offer the potential for greater operational integration of allied forces and greater political integration through shared training and doctrine. However, substantial anecdotal evidence suggests that the predicted cost savings from collaboration rarely are achieved. This failure appears to occur primarily because few collaborative programs result in a rational division of work, economic specialization, or the elimination of RD research and development redundancy. Furthermore, collaborative programs have a mixed record on the achievement of operational and political objectives such as the promotion of equipment interoperability and standardization and the promotion of alliance cohesion and support for friendly nations. One problem in the past with transatlantic programs, for example, has been the difference between U.S. and European emphases on objectives for collaboration. While the Europeans have stressed national or European- wide defense industrial base issues-acquiring technology, maintaining employment, propping up a full-spectrum defense industrial base-the United States has tended to focus on military RD and equipment rationalization. Even within the United States, different policymakers have pursued competing objectives for collaborative programs, making achievement of those objectives difficult.