European forces operate together, with equipment from many suppliers. Why systems that cannot share data with allies are becoming hard to justify.
By Skyrivet2 min read
European defense is a coalition effort. Forces train and deploy together, buy from many suppliers and depend on each other’s sensors, networks and logistics. In that setting, a system that cannot exchange information with the systems around it creates work for the people who have to bridge the gap, often by hand and under pressure.
From afterthought to requirement
For a long time, interoperability was something to fix after delivery, with adapters, gateways and custom integration projects. That approach is slow and expensive, and it breaks every time one side is updated. Buyers increasingly expect new systems to work with allied equipment from the start.
What it involves in practice
- Open, documented interfaces rather than closed, proprietary ones.
- Common data formats, so that a track or a report means the same thing in every system.
- Support for the standards used across the alliance, so equipment can join existing networks.
- Security that allows information to be shared with the right partners, at the right level.
Interoperability and sovereignty
Interoperability is sometimes seen as being at odds with sovereignty, the ability of a nation to control its own systems and data. In practice the two support each other. Open interfaces reduce dependence on any single supplier, and clear standards let a nation choose which partners it connects with and what it shares.
Questions worth asking
- Which standards and data formats does the system support today?
- Who controls the interfaces, and are they documented for the customer?
- What does it take to connect the system to equipment already in service?
- Who owns the data the system produces?
Skyrivet works for European governments and defense forces. Systems that fit into the way those forces operate together are part of being useful to them.
