{{item.videoDuration}}
{{item.title}}
{{item.text}}
{{item.videoDuration}}
{{item.text}}
How Europe can turn rising defense expenditure into shared defense capabilities
Europe is investing heavily in defense again. But higher budgets alone do not produce operational military capabilities. While European NATO Allies deter and defend together, their armed forces still plan and procure equipment largely along national lines. Divergent requirements, parallel development programmes and fragmented supply chains cost time, money and military effectiveness.
PwC DSI’s study “Forging Ahead – Practical paths for European defense cooperation” examines why multinational armaments programmes so often fall short of their potential – and what makes cooperation work. Drawing on European case studies, it develops the European Capability Coalition Model (ECCM), a practical approach to joint capability delivery: align military requirements and planning, settle political and industrial trade-offs early, and choose the right cooperation pathway for each capability.
“European defense cooperation is successful when it translates into genuine defense capability. What matters is ensuring that joint defense projects contribute quickly and effectively to our security.”
Turning cooperation into military capability
Cooperation starts before the contract
The decisive choices are made well before a contract is signed. The study compares the NH90, Eurofighter, Boxer, Eurodrone, CAVS, MMCM and the multinational MRTT fleet. Its central finding is that cooperation is not automatically better or worse than national procurement. What matters is a sufficiently aligned military requirement, robust decision-making rules and an implementation approach suited to the capability.
Boxer illustrates how a common technical core can accommodate national variants. CAVS pairs a shared platform with domestic industrial participation. The MRTT fleet shows how states can secure access to capabilities without individually owning aircraft. Experiences with the NH90, Eurodrone and FCAS, by contrast, expose the risks of diverging requirements and unresolved industrial responsibilities.
From political ambition to binding decisions
In response, the study proposes the European Capability Coalition Model (ECCM). Rather than creating another European procurement agency, it establishes a repeatable decision-making process. States first define the military effect they need and assess whether cooperation offers demonstrable added value over national procurement, imports or other alternatives. A viable coalition of partners with compatible requirements then takes shape.
Before substantial investment, the partners adopt binding rules for common core requirements, governance, financing, risk sharing, industrial responsibilities, data and intellectual property rights, exports, and through-life support. Only then do they choose among four pathways: joint procurement, joint development, pooling and sharing, or a rapid capability ecosystem. The pathways may also be combined.
Two pilots to put the model to the test
The study outlines two practical applications. For A400M strategic airlift, partners could initially coordinate maintenance, spare parts, training and reliable access arrangements instead of immediately creating a new joint fleet. Drone defense calls for a different model: countries agree on shared operational scenarios, test competing solutions across national sites and procure successful systems incrementally. Startups and established manufacturers can contribute alongside one another.
The next step is a binding, multi-year capability portfolio developed by a small coalition of willing states. Success would be measured not by the number of agreements signed, but by whether forces receive the right capabilities on time, in sufficient quantities and with sustained operational availability.
Four cooperation pathways for different military capability needs
- Path 1: Joint procurement
- Path 2: Joint development
- Path 3: Pooling and sharing
- Path 4: Rapid Capability Ecosystem
Path 1: Joint procurement
Where military systems are mature and already available, states can pool demand and procure them together. Shared core requirements and coordinated support can strengthen interoperability and supply resilience. The Common Armoured Vehicle System (CAVS), based on the Patria 6×6, shows how a shared platform can coexist with national manufacturing and limited variants without multiplying fundamentally different systems.
Path 2: Joint development
When no suitable market-ready solution exists, joint development may make sense for complex systems. Partners share development costs and risks, but must agree early on requirements, funding, industrial roles and decision-making authority. Phased reviews of technical maturity help identify problems before series production. Eurofighter and the Maritime Mine Counter Measures (MMCM) programme illustrate different ways to organise multinational development.
Path 3: Pooling and sharing
Not every military capability has to be owned by each country. Pooling brings resources together, while sharing lets partners provide capabilities or services to one another. Reliable access rights, priority rules and joint arrangements for operations and maintenance are essential. The multinational MRTT fleet illustrates this approach: participating countries purchase flight-hour entitlements rather than owning aircraft individually.
Path 4: Rapid Capability Ecosystem
Drones, software and AI often evolve faster than traditional procurement cycles. A coalition therefore defines a common operational problem and tests competing solutions through short development and evaluation rounds. Open or controlled interfaces support integration, while incremental procurement enables rapid adaptation. Startups, established manufacturers and specialist suppliers can collaborate in flexible project teams.
Download now
Study “Forging Ahead: Practical paths for European defence cooperation”
Interested in finding out more?
Get in touch with our experts.
Methodology
The study uses a qualitative, mechanism-oriented comparison of European armaments programmes. Its main cases include the NH90, Eurofighter, Boxer, Eurodrone, CAVS, MMCM and the multinational MRTT fleet; other programmes provide context. The analysis draws on publicly documented programme histories, academic literature and supplementary background discussions with key stakeholders.
It examines requirements, governance, industrial workshare and life-cycle management, with attention to timely delivery, costs, interoperability, operational availability and adaptability. Limited comparable public data rule out a robust statistical ranking. The ECCM is a proposed framework derived from these findings, not an empirically validated universal formula.
{{filterContent.facetedTitle}}
{{contentList.loadingText}}
{{contentList.loadingText}}
Follow us
