May 9, 2025
This year marks the third anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. To support the Ukrainian military’s defense against the Russian military, many European countries have supplied a substantial amount of material to the Ukrainian military. Non-European countries, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and South Korea, have also provided military aid to Ukraine. Ukrainian units have been able to integrate these new pieces of equipment into their military operations. The successful deployment of various equipment, such as tanks and howitzers, has enabled Ukraine to effectively utilize the equipment against a conventional standing army in modern times.
Despite the various weapon systems provided by supporting nations, an issue has arisen regarding the ease of use and interoperability among the different types of equipment. One country’s howitzer systems may have different fire control mechanisms than others. The training needed to operate one system is already time-consuming and resource-intensive- something that Ukraine may not be able to afford as political and geographical dynamics shift and casualties continue to rise. Much of Ukraine’s arsenal consists of a significant amount of Soviet-era weaponry, which significantly differs from the equipment and systems donated by NATO nations. All these factors underscore a prominent issue in the European Defense Industrial Base (EDIB): a lack of standardization. Numerous intergovernmental organizations exist to promote general industry standardization, but this remains a contentious issue. Therefore, regardless of whether the organization takes the initiative, the European Union must increase measures to increase standardization for military equipment manufacturers.
The limited standardization guideline is deeply rooted in the broader structural fragmentation of the EDIB, which experts would classify as fragmented, with equipment manufacturers distributed across various countries and companies, leading to duplicated efforts. This fragmentation has depleted critical resources that otherwise could be utilized to develop and manufacture additional limited military equipment. Another issue with the fragmented sector is the limited number and high cost of manufacturing specific equipment and components. Given the manufacturing limitations and the associated fee, governments must commit to more extended procurement contracts. For instance, the U.S. has two variations of howitzer systems, while Europe has 27 different howitzer variations. The distinct differences among howitzer systems comprise a significant portion of the overall EDIB, particularly in EU member states.
To facilitate standardization procedures, the European Defense Agency (EDA), under the EU’s purview, developed and suggested guidelines for arms manufacturers to follow under the European Defence Standards Reference System (EDSTAR). EDSTAR provides “best practices” for equipment standardization in the defense sector. The EDA, however, does not implement standardization procedures; instead, it works in conjunction with other organizations, such as NATO, to advise member nations to adopt these measures. Hence, this means that a majority of policies regarding standardization are non-binding and voluntary. Many European NATO members have adopted some guidelines, such as the 155mm artillery shell capability in most European-designed howitzer systems. Recently, 10 NATO member states, such as Germany and the United Kingdom, signed a letter of intent to strengthen joint standards. While the EDA does not have a binding effect, it does play a crucial role in providing areas of standardization for specific components in weapon systems that the EU can further expand upon.
While such initiatives provide some solutions, the broader issue of equipment standardization remains unresolved. It continues to be a problem for European defense policymakers and companies manufacturing said equipment. There have been attempts to introduce standardization in critical equipment areas, such as aircraft development with the Eurofighter Typhoon. Developed in a joint venture among Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom, it is considered Europe’s most extensive joint program for military equipment development. These joint venture projects are an aspect that the EU can encourage more member states to pursue. European countries have also engaged in other initiatives; however, the fragmented system remains a significant issue despite the current measures. For example, calls to standardize main battle tanks (MBTs) have been hindered by the high number of multiple models with different variations, which affects interoperability.
Particular political concerns and resistance by industry would be more likely to oppose increasing standardization measures. Equipment manufacturers may view standardization as a restriction or limitation on innovation. Many argue that the current standardization policies are sufficient, suggesting that additional guidelines impede the development of new technologies. EU member states may also perceive this as overreaching and creating questions about sovereignty. However, those utilizing the equipment in the field, such as the Ukrainians, have observed it differently.
The fragmentation of the EDIB has been a pressing issue among EU leaders. New and emerging threats in the 21st century have pushed EU leaders to create mechanisms that encourage the standardization of military equipment to enhance interoperability and maximize efficiency. However, despite initiatives to establish guidelines, some EU member states have not fully embraced voluntary integration as the basis for standardization. Instead, only certain key aspects of standardization have been adopted. Consequently, not all equipment, particularly those likely to be used in joint operations, has vastly different usage requirements. The EU must encourage its member states to adopt more standardization measures through incentives or joint venture projects to increase interoperability, especially with the current state of affairs.
Dharma Bhatt is an MA student in the International Security program at George Mason University. He currently holds a BS in Psychology from the University of Maryland – Baltimore County. While his focus is primarily on security matters in Europe and the Indo-Pacific, he has also taken an interest in intelligence, counter-terrorism, and military strategy. He also maintains a personal blog site known as “isecthoughts,” where he shares his opinions on matters about international relations. After graduation, Dharma hopes to pursue a career in national security and foreign affairs.
Photo can be found here.
