Air and Missile Defense Through an Allied Lens
September 22, 2025
Watch the Video
Read the Transcript
This transcript was generated with the assistance of AI. Please report inconsistencies to comms@afa.org.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
All right, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I’m Houston Cantwell, Senior Resident Fellow at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. Thank you so much for joining us this afternoon on this afternoon’s panel. We are going to discuss air and missile defense through an allied lens. And with us we have two most distinguished leaders from our NATO alliance, and I am most excited to share the stage with them this afternoon and hear about their expert opinions and insights into this most critical topic. As you all are aware, if you just follow the news, this issue is more pressing than ever before. We are facing a reality where our adversaries are testing our defenses on a daily basis. Obviously what’s going on in Ukraine is extremely troubling, but even most recently we had an inclusion, or excuse me, a drone set of over several dozen drones entered into Polish airspace. And then just last week, we had the Russian aircraft, manned MiG-31s, enter into Estonian airspace. So this topic could not be more relevant than it is. So with me today, we have from the French Air and Space Force, Brigadier General Alexis Rougier. Sir, thank you for being here. And then from the Royal Air Force, Great Britain, we have Brigadier General Nikki Thomas, again, who’s currently the attache here in Washington, DC. Thank you both for being with us today. Okay, we don’t have a lot of time, so I’m gonna start off with the questions. NATO’s new IAMD policy emphasizes the growing complexity of the air domain. We’ve got everything from hypersonics to the drones that are coming in at low altitude. How has this threat environment changed most significantly from your operational perspective? What does this mean as NATO allies must adopt new defensive approaches? Alexis?
Brig. Gen. Alexis Rougier:
Yeah, thank you very much for your invitation first. I’m very happy and honored to be here and share all these issues with you. To answer your first question, it’s a change of mind really in our French point of view. We had in the past, well, missile defense on one side specifically, with ballistic missiles specifically as well, cruise missiles maybe. And we had air defense on the other side. And what we see nowadays, and especially in Ukraine, the lessons learned of Ukraine, is that are arriving lots of different types of threats. We can talk about hypervelocity threats, for example. All these Russian Kings, Zircon missiles on one side. Drones, you talked about it afterwards, on the other side. Cruising missiles, HAPS, high altitude permanent systems. So all different types of weapons. And our adversaries are using all these types together to give some problem to the defense in front. So that’s why we are thinking more and more in the NATO field, like integrated air and missile defense. And that’s the trend today, to mix all these in a common structure. In the NATO, we call that EAMD, as you said. That’s the idea.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
Thank you. Nikki?
Air Cdre. Nikki Thomas:
And again, Houston, thanks so much for the invite. I think getting an allied perspective, especially where we sit with Ukraine, is quite important. And again, I’ll sort of emphasize the same things. It’s multinational, it’s multilayered. I think that the problem set is bringing us more jointly together, and it’s bringing us together as nations as well. As you’d expect, I think our adversaries look at our capability gaps, they look at our weaknesses, and they’re always trying to exploit those. We always used to use range as our sanctuary, and in the current area, we just don’t have that luxury where we’re based over in Europe. They’ve just developed those longer range systems, they’ve developed more mass, and it makes it hard. But I also think the problem set is potentially not changed as much as we think. We’re still learning the lesson that control of the air is the critical element, as we’ve always imagined. And that, as an Air Force, that’s our core role. That is what we get after all the time. And control of the air, and also in space, it will enable all the other domains, and it will help bring the IMD problem set together. I won’t go into too much detail of capabilities, because I’m sure we’ll have time later on. But for context, in our Royal Air Force, our Chief recently, only in September, announced that IMD was in our top three priorities to get after. We see the problem set, and we see where we need to go with it. So, as we look at the context across in the bigger picture, we’ve got to be able to preserve our offensive capabilities, and we use that through both active and passive defences. I’m going to quote my Chief slightly on this one. He used a couple of medieval examples, is how I describe it. In the past, we’d go after the archer. We would go after the key missile firer, the exact system. He describes it now as we need to go after the whole system. It’s the fletcher, the bowyer, the armourer, the whole system set. It’s identifying where the weaknesses are, and being able to get after them, rather than just concentrating on the sharp pointy bit at the other end. It’s looking at the system as a whole, and looking at systems, how we can do them more multinationally, and how we can get benefits from there, and using that approach to make sure we have a joint look at IMD going forward.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
I was most interested in a story that came out just a couple of weeks ago. So, the Ukrainians, as most have heard, have been using drones, long-range drones, against the Russians. And they’ve been using the cell phone network to command and control many of these drones. And something that I had not seen, and maybe this will impact us, Europe, who knows, is that the Russians decided that they will turn off their cell phone LTE data networks at indiscriminate times, in a way to defend from these drones, and eliminate the command and control signals that are being used. I know there’s no plans for the United States to do that anytime soon, but as our civilian networks and our military networks become more entwined, it’s going to become a complexity that we’ll have to deal with in the future.
Air Cdre. Nikki Thomas:
I think if you turned off the network in the UK, there’d be an all-out war anyway, so I don’t think it’ll happen on our side.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
I couldn’t agree more, saving the United States. Shifting the topic just slightly, back to you, Alexis. I recently read that your Ministry of Defence has released a new strategy for high-altitude operations. And that strategy was released just in June. Can you give some details about how that plays into how France is moving forward in this area?
Brig. Gen. Alexis Rougier:
Thank you for that question. If you don’t mind, I will spend a few minutes of my time on that question, because it’s the new thing in France right now. Our Minister of Defence just released our strategy last June, so I would like to be clear on that one. It starts with just an observation. According to altitudes, if I focus on those altitudes, if you have in mind that the general liner you use every month is flying at 10K, roughly, 10, 12, well, when the fighters are flying at 15, maybe 20, some Russians a little bit above, the U-2, the SR-71 a little bit above, well, and when the satellites are orbiting, roughly the lowest we find are 200K. We are talking about low Earth orbit and more and more very low Earth orbit, extremely low Earth orbit, so in between these 20K and 200K, there is a hole. But due to technological development, this hole will be filled up in the future, and right now, already. So we have to think about that. And nowadays, we just have two types of aircraft flying in this area. On one side, what we call the HAPS, high altitude permanent system, balloons, roughly, but as well, solar aircrafts. And on the other side, hyper-velocity weapons, who use their velocity to be able to fly with few air remaining there. What’s the interest to fly there? There are three important military points there. First, to get some range. The balloons are flying all around the globe. It’s not so easy with a typical aircraft. While the hyper-velocity weapons are striking deep inside at more than 1000Km, so range first, then permanency for the HAPS, while a classical aircraft is flying 24 hours, 48 maybe, in the future, one week, those HAPS are flying a month, until a year. So that’s permanency. Second advantage, and the third one, survival ability, due to the altitude, it’s not easy to get there, really, I will talk about that, or due to the speed plus maneuver, to strike the A2AD, for example, S300, Russians, the S300, for example. So for these three interests, it’s interesting for us to focus on that new domain, there is a double issue there. The first one, that superiority I was talking about, and second one, a question of sovereignty. A deep question of sovereignty. Why? Because the Chicago Treaty of 1944 says that air domain is sovereign, but never tells you when air lasts, and the Space Treaty of 1967 tells you that space is free.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
Right, there’s no border.
Brig. Gen. Alexis Rougier:
Yeah.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
There’s no border up there.
Brig. Gen. Alexis Rougier:
Exactly, but never tells you when starts the space. So, there is, as you told, there is no border between the two, so it’s a grey zone between these 20 and 200Km, and 100Km. So we wanted to have a vision on this, on these issues, on the operational importance it has, so the Ministry of Defense released that strategy in June, to be able to master this area. Mastering meaning, detecting the objects passing through there, being able to intercept them, and being able to operate as well. So that’s the general idea, and it’s linked with your first question, because it’s just the idea that we have to operate from the ground till the space in a continuum. It’s what you call the integrated air and missile defense. Yeah, and I’m really glad you brought that up.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
I grew up flying F-16s down in the 10s to 20s, like you talked about, but my last stint as a pilot was as an RQ-4 pilot, and they operate above 50,000 feet. And one thing I learned from that was, the weather is better up there, the engines are more efficient up there, there’s very little traffic, so you can kind of point wherever you want to go and head that direction, and there’s just a lot of advantages operating above 50,000 feet. I think that we have not explored that so much, because up until the last few years, aviation has been primarily manned aviation. And unfortunately, when you go above 50,000 feet, if you’ve ever seen a U-2 pilot, it’s very onerous. It’s a very difficult procedure to get the human body prepared to go above 50,000 feet. But now, with new technology, there are several opportunities to get high-altitude aircraft up in that regime, and like you said, where does air end, and where does space begin? Very different rule sets on each of those. So, fantastic overview. Thank you so much for that.
Brig. Gen. Alexis Rougier:
You’re welcome.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
Moving on to NATO, in terms of… There’s a debate going on about three different visions for European air defence. Some folks believe a greater NATO-led integration is required, while others, like the Germans, believe a sky shield is going to emphasise an off-the-shelf and a more ad hoc participation. And then finally, I think France has had a focus on an EU-led approach. How do these various approaches complement each other? How do they maybe oppose each other? Could you please share your thoughts? -Nikki?
Air Cdre. Nikki Thomas:
-So again, you start with the sort of word ‘debate’ across things. I can say they can be all complementary. I think, for example, the way we use NATO to provide ourselves the interoperability standards, not just against the equipment, but the training, TTPs, integration, I think it offers an opportunity. If nations want to go down slightly different paths, but still provide capabilities that complement each other, then that can only be a positive thing. For example, the German approach with sky shield. Again, we always like another country to maybe go first, learn the lessons, provide that evidence that everyone else can use. So again, it means the next nation that comes in and maybe looks at a similar approach, it will add an advantage and speed up a procurement process. So I do think that any capacity and capability that’s being purchased under any of the different models can be brought into a complementary approach. So I just see the positives from it.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
-OK. Alexis?
Brig. Gen. Alexis Rougier:
-Yeah. Well, I think we have to separate on one side what is organisation and what is procurement. Even if we think EU in organisation and operations, etc., well, we perfectly understand that we have to build up this capacity on the NATO pillar, using the Berlin Plus procedures that allows us as European countries to use the NATO organisation to do our operations. So it’s complementary, as you said, on that side. And if we go on procurement, well, you have initiatives. You quoted the German initiative, Sky Shield. Well, French, we are not on that field. So ask them what’s their purpose. But anyway, we have plenty of initiatives. I could tell… In the space domain, for example, we’ve got Audience Eye initiative to have an alert from space. That’s another example. And, well, yeah, in the procurement field, well, we’ve got European initiatives, but sometimes if it’s impossible to find the answer in Europe, we find it elsewhere.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
I think when it comes to looking at it holistically, certainly there’s going to be an interoperability challenge because if each country is procuring their own equipment and there’s no guidance given from above, there could be challenges as you later try to integrate in an ad hoc manner. I was surprised during my time in NATO, NATO does not generally procure a lot of stuff. NATO is an alliance that fights together, trains together, but does not do a lot of procurement together, the large systems at least. The RQ-4 is one example. The AWACS aircraft several years ago is another example. Organisations like NSPA, NCIA, play a really important role in ensuring that there is that interoperability when you bring all the different countries together.
Air Cdre. Nikki Thomas:
And again, on that, I’d probably say that as we look forward to future capabilities, that’s something that is key to everything we’re looking at. From it links from the government reference architecture, discussions going on to make sure everything we are looking to develop in the future has the interoperability, A, across NATO and any other allies and partners. I think the challenge is the older equipment, is how does that still speak into the mix? So yeah, I think you’ve raised interoperability, it is one of our key discussions going forward and it’s something that is critical for us to get right.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
Yeah, I think I saw an article last week that Palantir’s MAVEN was actually purchased by NATO to try to get at some of these interoperability challenges and with the C2 structures and data transport. So I think that’s certainly a move in the right direction. Thanks. Let’s talk about Ukraine. Ukraine has demonstrated innovative approaches from Sky Fortress. They’ve got that acoustic sensor network that is showing some success. They’ve integrated some Soviet era systems. However, some NATO allies are now looking to incorporate Ukrainian innovations, like Sky Fortress, into their own defences. What are the key operational lessons that you’re seeing as you watch Ukraine defend against these sustained air attacks?
Brig. Gen. Alexis Rougier:
Well, as I mentioned before, the first lessons learned is adaptability. I mean, Ukrainians are amazing on that field. They adapt every system, they change, they use innovation every day and it’s very impressive in that field. A variety of air assets, that’s a key point, as I said just before, from the drone to the hyper-resolucity, from etc. There is a variety of assets in the detection field, in the interception field, in the operation field as well. And one of the key points is the cost and the effectiveness. If you use, I mean, a Patriot, for example, as an interceptor in front of a drone, there is an offset, very important, you have to keep in mind, the price of the interceptor in front of the price of the drone. And, well, General Allvin this morning gave us a very good example of an adaptation with weapons much cheaper, I remember like 20 times or 30 times cheaper than some classical air-to-air missiles. So that’s a very important point. Sometimes they use very strange ideas, because balloon is one of my jobs. They use some balloons with some SER, and the Russians just sent some ACE 300, so the balloon was like maybe $300, you can guess the price of the ACE 300 missile. So that’s a very good example of the adaptation innovation, and that’s what they do. What is making the situation complex is that every asset, every system, air system, needs a specific counter system. So the C2, to put it together in the idea we developed just before of integrated air and defense missile is something huge. Resilience as well, because they have very deep strikes in front of them, so that’s a bunch of lessons learned from Ukraine.
Air Cdre. Nikki Thomas:
Well, I’m definitely not a balloon expert, so I won’t go into that element of it. I think what we’ve seen, the innovation that’s come from Ukraine, it’s just been remarkable over the past few years, and both from Ukrainians themselves, but I think it’s really kicked us as other nations to think about how we do things quicker, we do things better, how we work together and use evidence, for example, from Ukraine to embed systems into our own capabilities. I think it has been a step change in mentality, which is one thing. But although those lessons come out, the basic principles of air and missile defense have probably still not changed. You still need to have to be able to sense the threat as far out as possible, and again, the further the better to give you a chance to react. And again, that challenge is different depending on how close you are to the threat. Where we sit in the UK is clearly a different prospect for those nations that border up. And that time gives you the ability to have a maximum effect against the adversaries you can. But I think, again, as you look at the innovation, we can’t find any golden bullet. There is no golden bullet that gives a solution to the problems we have. And I sort of raised it before, it’s that innovation is designing a blend of capabilities that layers up, there’s different threats, it’s organized in the same system, and it has a solid C2 structure around it to make sure we can control it. It’s also taught us it’s not just about active systems, it’s about the passive systems, it’s about how we think about our adversary, it’s about dispersing, redundancy, it’s all the basic things that we’d forgotten for a long time. So while we’re innovating, we’re also going back to a time before when we used to think about these things. And also it’s about making sure you’ve got the offensive capabilities to be able to defend accurately as well. So there is so much to come out from Ukraine, but it still goes back to the basic principles.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
We hosted a NATO workshop at our headquarters over in Arlington last week, and the Swedish reminded us of the importance of dispersal. And they said, it’s not just a tactic. They said it’s not just something that you can just add on to whatever it is you’re doing on a daily basis. They said, with us, it’s a culture. And everything from the time they start designing a weapon system goes into how will they be able to operate in dispersed locations. And I thought that was a really good reminder that different countries have different outlooks on how to defend from this threat that could come at any time. It was a really good reminder. And then secondly, I want to point out the magnitude of the threat as we look at the drones is astounding. When Ukraine and Russia, when the war began, Ukraine was dealing with thousands of attacks a year. Now Russia is building millions of one-way drones every year. And so it’s hard to even comprehend how many of these one-way attacks are coming on a regular basis and wrap our brains around how do our air defenses have to adjust to this new reality. So thanks for bringing those up. Next, E-7 Wedgetail. Nikki, tell us a little bit about UK, their air missile defense capability, supported by an extensive early warning network, fielded by– we had the E-3 many, many years ago. And you all retired that several– back in 2021. Now you’re looking to plan to field the E-7 Wedgetail by 2025 or by the end of this year. Tell us about how that fits into your overall plan of air and missile defense, please.
Air Cdre. Nikki Thomas:
So first of all, we’re really looking forward to getting the E-7 Wedgetail 10 in and get it operational. It flew at Royal International Air Tattoo this summer. So it is flying in the UK and we’re building up the operational capability as we speak. And it gives us, again, a chance to get that sovereign capability back. As you said, we took a gap, which is always a dangerous thing to do, because it’s hard to build up a capability from scratch again. But we see corn crews out. We’ve been continuing to develop the TTPs. And we are really excited to get the E-7 into the country and operational as we go forwards. I think for me, it’s just the capability it provides is exactly what we need for the future. The extended ranges, the low-level coverage, the ability to take those really difficult air threats. I think it’s a capability that you think about the E3 and you think it’s a bit like that. It’s nowhere near it. For us, it is a game changer that provides that extra capability that we need as well. It’s also– we need to remember it’s not just about the sensor. It’s the C2 capabilities that it will provide. And it will be a core aspect of our IEMD structure going forwards. Also for us, we’re using the same airframe as we have for our P8s, which again gives us a bit of efficiency. So for us, it’s a lot of advantages of bringing the capability in and the ability for it to deploy globally, to work with our other partners who are also looking at getting E-7. For us, it is one of those critical elements of IEMD that will structure going forward. So we’re all pretty excited about it.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
Yeah, that’s fantastic. At the Mitchell Institute, we are completely supportive of space-based AMTI. One day, that is going to be an absolutely tremendous capability for the warfighter around the globe. But that, up until now, that technology has not proven itself. And so we think that the flexibility and the command and control that E-7 provides is just unmatched. And so really excited to see what you all are able to do with it once you get it in the field, in the hands of the warfighter, and able to see what it’s really able to accomplish. So thanks for that, Nikki. Going back to some of our UAS conversation, as the small drones continue to grow, we talked about Russia building millions of these things every year. How are your respective countries looking at this threat? And how is it affecting whether it’s your investment priorities or how you want to go field different technologies? How is it affecting you all within your respective countries? Alexis?
Brig. Gen. Alexis Rougier:
Well, as an Airman, we are very preoccupied by the air-based defences, and especially when you have tankers or AWACS aircrafts, big aircrafts that are very vulnerable on those airbases because they are not inside shelters, they are big, you don’t have lots of those assets. So that’s a real weakness and we have to think about that, and that’s what we do. We focus on our air-based defences with that type of aircraft. More generally, we were very focused on that issue during the, if you remember, the Paris Olympic Games. That was a very important point at that time. One year before, the Rugby International Challenge was a preparation to the Olympic Games. So, well, we tried to find lessons learned there and we found some. The integration, I told before, open architecture is something very important because you never know what’s going on in the end and you have to be interoperable by design in that field. Well, like in many fields, by the way. The C2 is key in that field. C2 not only in the Ministry of Defence, but Homeland Security as well, specifically in these defence fields. Multi-layer from the drone, the small drone, to the bigger one, to the aircraft, etc. So all these are challenges and it’s not an easy job.
Air Cdre. Nikki Thomas:
So again, all I’m going to do is violently agree with you. I think those challenges are tricky. We did the same. We’re taking forward the lessons we learned when we host the Olympics and how we’ve then technology has generated things going forward from there. But if you look at IEMD, it’s essentially just a collection of systems being brought together, everything from left of launch all the way to going after a system itself. So it’s a bit of anything and everything. For example, you’ve got to think about your base defence, counter-UAS, small drones, large things coming in. So it is a collection of policies, strategies and equipment that will help us bring it together. As you’ve said, it’s multi-layered, it’s multinational. There’s other countries that border threats that will come through. So I think we need to think about it, not just in a sovereign way, but also in the multinational way to make sure we get after the problem set as best we can and work really closely together to do so. And again, when we talk about the base defence side, you’ve seen, especially with the counter-UAS, you’ve seen the UAS activity that took place in the UK earlier this year, as you had across the US. It’s a constant challenge with constant change in technology that we need to get after. But again, for me, it’s layered and multinational is the critical aspect.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
Yeah, and it’ll be interesting to see how each country balances risk in a different way. So many new technologies, both kinetic and non-kinetic, and both the kinetic and non-kinetic have different types of collateral damage. And we haven’t used directed energy or lasers in any wide scale in any type of defence before. And so a lot of people are like, just use high-power microwaves. Well, we don’t necessarily know. They’re doing testing, but we don’t necessarily know what the impacts are going to be large-scale in communities, whether it’s how’s it going to affect cell phone communications, all the different emitters that are going on within communities. You start throwing all these emitters out there. Anyone that’s been on the battle space understands there’s a lot of mutual interference when it comes to these technologies. And they might be great in a scientific experiment, but it’s a totally different challenge when you’re out in the real world.
Brig. Gen. Alexis Rougier:
Yeah, that’s true.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
OK, let’s move the conversation over to training and exercises. So, Alexis, over to you. We recently had the Ramstein FLAG 2025 exercise spanning 12 airbases, over 90 aircraft, A2/AD, integrated air defence. How important are these realistic multinational exercises for building the integration that NATO needs, and what are you learning from them?
Brig. Gen. Alexis Rougier:
Well, that’s deeply important. I mean, to test interoperability, we were talking about, and build trust. When you do missions with 10, 15, 20 nations, you have to build trust, and specifically, and that’s the case with that exercise, specifically with very huge missions involving more than 90 aircrafts for high-intensity missions, like SEAD missions, counter A2/AD, when you have strikers from one nation, SEAD aircrafts from another one, AWACSes from NATO, etc. All that has to be integrated and build trust, so that’s the objective, and with that type of mission, it’s a big deal. That’s the idea in general.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
Yeah, thank you. When it comes to technology and innovation, we’re seeing rapid technical evolution, both on the threats and on the defences. We’ve got AI-enabled battle management. We talked about the directed energy. Do you guys have any keys to how does the Allied forces stay ahead of this technological curve? How do we maintain interoperability with our different developmental timelines? Nikki?
Air Cdre. Nikki Thomas:
So, yeah, we’ve all seen the acceleration and the pace of the technological changes. I love it. I think it’s brilliant. I love how quick technology is changing, but again, you said the challenge is keeping ahead of our adversaries is really, really difficult as well. So, I think I link it back to sort of three key principles from our side. First of all is agility. How do we move away from those traditional procurement models so we can spiral develop, we can use AI quickly, easily get after the problem set much faster, open architectures, etc., so it makes life a lot easier to be agile as we look to procure and field technologies. The second one we started with this is interoperability by design. We’ve got to start with the ability to not just only be able to speak to our own nation’s equipment. It has to be interoperable by design. And then linked to that is collaboration. The more we can do in a joint fashion between nations will also make us much better going forward.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
General Rougier?
Brig. Gen. Alexis Rougier:
Yeah, well, to continue on the Secretary’s ideas this morning, three words, innovation, innovation, innovation. And on our side, we created a special agency, procurement agency focused on innovation and only innovation. So, they don’t use the classical procurement agencies, laws and techniques. They try to be very quick. They try to take risk. And that is not the classical way, the French procurement agency act. It’s a pity, but it’s like that. But when you build up a submarine, you cannot take the same risks. So, each agency has its role, and it’s interesting to see the differences. So, take risk, try to be quick, try to manage the procurement law that impeaches you sometimes to go ahead as quick as you want to do. So, you have to change the law or adapt the law sometimes. And when you put an innovation stumple on a project, sometimes the law changes and you can do some things you are not able to do normally. So, it’s all that kind of stuff. And I will come again on my first idea on integration. Always think integration by design, because you never know where you will go in the end. The ancient way to procurement was to fix your desire, your need, and then to have an answer to your need. But now it goes so fast that when you give your instructions, then the response has already changed. So, you have to create that rapid loop between the procurement agency, the forces and the industry being able to act quicker.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
Yes, speaking of procurement, a lot of tensions between buy European versus buy the best available. It’s evident in decisions. Germany just chose the Arrow 3 over the FAD. And each country is dealing with challenges when it comes to that. Can you tell us, how do you balance the capability acquisition with political realities of supporting different national defense industries while still trying to maintain alliance unity? Any thoughts on that, Nikki?
Air Cdre. Nikki Thomas:
So, again, I would say best is a perspective, is probably how I’d say it. There is a real reality that, yes, we’d all want to be talking procurement just about pure military capability. But at the end of the day, it will always come down to defense industrial bases and political decision making as well. So, that’s just the reality of it. So, we all have different priorities. We all have different other capability sets that we’re looking to link in with. So, we maybe shouldn’t be looking to buy the same thing because also that gives the adversary something else to think about. But we just need to make sure that what we are going to get is coherent and interoperable. I don’t really mind who buys what. It’s just making sure it all works together.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
Thanks.
Brig. Gen. Alexis Rougier:
Well, to a French point of view in the procurement field, if we have French capacities on the subject, well, we try to focus on our capabilities. It’s good for resilience specifically and for our strength. And I mean, if I have a message to pass in an alliance, and we are in an alliance, I prefer having strong allies than weak ones. And I think that in that way, it’s more an opportunity for everyone that we develop that industry, that own industry. And when you don’t find any answer in your industry, well, you have the others. And that’s why we are an alliance. And the best example I have in mind is the AWACS. We’ve got American AWACS and we are very happy with that.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
Yeah, that’s a fantastic example. Ladies and gentlemen, that brings us to the end of today’s panel. I could talk about integrated air and missile defense with our NATO partners all afternoon, and I wish that I could.
Air Cdre. Nikki Thomas:
I couldn’t.
Brig. Gen. Houston Cantwell, USAF (Ret.):
But I want to thank both of you so much for bringing your expert opinions and sharing that with our audience this afternoon. On behalf of the Mitchell Institute, thank you so much for being a part of this afternoon’s conversation. We have some reports up front. If you want to learn more about some of the challenges that we face in northern tier domain awareness, that report was just published a couple of weeks ago. Please feel free to take a copy of that. And please stop by our booth at Mitchell Institute, where we have an entire history of our reports. And please stop by and engage us. We want to hear what’s on your mind. We want to talk about what your questions are. And on behalf of our dean, Lieutenant General Deptula, have a great Air and Space Power Day. Thank you so much.