---

The soldier of the future: European initiatives

---

Document A/1990

5 December 2007

The soldier of the future: European initiatives

REPORT¹

submitted on behalf of the Technical and Aerospace Committee

by Elvira Cortajarena Iturrioz, Rapporteur (Spain, Socialist Group)

---

RECOMMENDATION 814²

1. Pursue their efforts to modernise and adapt their land forces in order to rise to the challenges facing European security and international peace;
2. Ensure that their land forces keep pace, in terms of calibre and numbers, with current and predicted future requirements, both to avoid forces overstretch and the better to share the burden of external operations among member states;
3. Consider how, in view of the rise in the number of women serving in the armed forces, they might be better integrated into combat units to help meet existing manpower shortfalls;
4. Pursue their future soldier programmes, whilst giving them a more European slant by seeking areas in common and ways of harmonising requirements and standards so as to achieve greater interoperability;
5. Envisage the convergent development and modernisation of current programmes having as their outcome a European future soldier interoperable with those of Europe's non-European NATO allies and partners;
6. Support the activities of the European Defence Agency and resolve the issue of pluriannual budgets for the EDA;
7. Keep the Assembly informed about the development of national future soldier programmes and NATO and EU initiatives in this area.

---

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. The huge armies of the 19^th and 20^th centuries have become a thing of the past in Europe. For all sorts of reasons - demographic, economic or to do with operational effectiveness and defence priorities (expeditionary forces and territorial defence, professional armies and compulsory military service for all) - the European armed forces have embarked on a joint effort to scale down personnel and restructure and modernise operational capabilities. To offset this gradual downsizing at a time when the demand for external operations is growing, the emphasis has been placed on the efficiency and "productivity" of the individual soldier. The process of transformation has been facilitated by technological progress in general, in the area of materials for example, and by the new information and communication technologies in particular.
2. The term "soldier of the future" has a modern ring to it but it is part of a continuous process of enhancing a foot soldier's capabilities that dates back to prehistoric times when the first systems to protect warriors made their appearance. Shields, armour, swords and other weaponry, as well as viewing, navigation and positioning systems (telescopes and compasses) have evolved over the centuries and in their modern form still equip the infantry of the 21^st century. The two fundamental objectives of these systems - protection and lethality - have not changed. These entail a capacity to see (situational awareness), protect oneself and strike. From that point of view, today's European "soldier of the future" is not very different from the hoplite of Ancient Greece, the Roman legionnaire or the medieval warrior.
3. The development of operational concepts and technologies has brought about huge qualitative changes in terms of mobility, situational awareness and coordination of movements and actions, always in a group context: individual champions who could decide the outcome of a battle are a thing of the past. The basic units are the section (squad), platoon and company (an organised and hierarchical specialist structure). It has always been necessary to adapt the role and equipment of infantrymen to advances in military technology and weapons systems. However, the situation we have today is the result of a veritable revolution prompted by the need to develop the capacity for combat in chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological (CBRN) environments (both in urban and open areas) and by a network-enabled approach to military operations.
4. These two factors combined are clearly reflected in the soldier of the future programmes that are currently underway in Europe and other countries such as Australia, the United States, Canada, Israel and Russia. As with other weapons programmes, the predominant rule is that of "every man for himself", with each state moving forward at its own pace and in accordance with its own national priorities and capacities. Among allies there are exchanges of experience and obvious points of convergence, particularly when there are interoperability requirements, but there is no cooperative programme aimed at producing equipment that is common to two or more countries. Such programmes are first and foremost a national investment and a demonstration of technological and operational know-how and any commercial outlets are generally for sub-systems.
5. In Europe - since this is the subject of this report - the fact that a number of different initiatives exist side by side has the positive effect of stimulating defence research and technological development and the European defence equipment market through competition. Nevertheless, it is important to innovate together to solve interoperability issues upstream rather than looking for solutions further down the line by means of software patches or more or less successful adjustments to the original programme. The armed forces of the European countries are always going to have to work together, in coalition or under NATO and EU auspices, in order to offset the effects of their relatively reduced size. It is therefore of the utmost urgency - which in practice means over the next three to five years - to ensure the highest possible degree of interoperability as systems in the research or development and assessment phase begin to come on stream.
6. In that regard it is encouraging to see a number of European countries coming together as part of a forces protection programme being conducted under the auspices of the European Defence Agency (EDA). The end result will not be a European "soldier of the future", at least not in the short term, but it is nonetheless an essential step towards more harmonised standards and the development of industrial and technological synergy.
7. The fact remains, however, that the soldiers of the future will first be put to the test in a national context. Any lessons learned from their deployment must be analysed in common in order, as far as possible, to Europeanise the development of systems with a view to integrating them in a European "system of systems" within NATO and the EU framework. It makes no sense to have two separate concepts and such integration will furthermore have the positive effect of boosting synergy between the two organisations in the area of defence R&T. Moreover, it will then be easier on that common basis to draw up interoperable Euro-Atlantic standards.

8. Most European member states of NATO and the EU have programmes underway for enhancing their infantries' capabilities. The experience gathered recently in Afghanistan and Iraq has brought home the need to protect soldiers, with the result that efforts in this area have been stepped up. The process had already begun during the cold war when forces had to be geared to combat in urban and CBRN environments. During the conflicts of the late 20^th century, in the former Yugoslavia in particular, foot soldiers had already proven themselves indispensable for guaranteeing the end of hostilities and a lasting peace on the ground.
9. Although air campaigns and technology also played a major part, it was the physical occupation of the terrain by soldiers on the ground that put an end to the fighting. This being said, that experience cannot be transposed in full to the context of the global war on terrorism. The security situation is far worse and much more volatile in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the NATO "protectorates" of Bosnia and Kosovo. Soldiers face much greater risks and the number of killed and wounded is much higher. Between 1992 and 2006, for example, 72 British soldiers were killed in the Balkans³. More than 75 have died in Afghanistan since 2001 and there have been 168 British fatalities in Iraq since 2003⁴.
10. It is true that these losses are not on the same scale as during the major conventional armed conflicts and anti-guerrilla warfare of the 20^th century. Nonetheless, with the degree of media attention military operations now attract and the need for transparency vis-à-vis public opinion, it has become urgent to keep human losses to an absolute minimum and to provide soldiers with better protection while enhancing their effectiveness. This is the two-fold challenge that must be met by the soldier of the future programmes currently underway in Europe.
11. In terms of their programmes and projects, the European countries have neither the same capabilities nor the same time constraints. Hence they tend to go it alone. Yet in view of the growing number of multinational missions and coalition operations, there is a need for greater harmonisation and better interoperability. Currently six major national programmes⁵ are underway in Europe: IdZ-ES (Germany), COMFUT (Spain), FELIN (France), Soldato Futuro (Italy), FIST (United Kingdom) and MARKUS (Sweden).

1. Germany: IdZ-ES (Infanterist der Zukunft⁶ - Expanded System)

12. Germany's future soldier programme was launched at the end of the 1990s and entered into its pre-deployment phase in 2006. Having tested a first version (IdZ⁷) from 2002 onwards in Kosovo, the German Defence Ministry on 1 September 2006 signed a contract reputedly worth several million euros with the company Rheinmetall⁸ for the development of an enhanced or "expanded" version known as IdZ-ES. The company has undertaken to supply two system demonstrators in 2008 and mass production is scheduled to begin in 2009.
13. IdZ-ES, like its European and international counterparts, is composed of three major elements - protection, situational awareness (SA) and a communications and weapons system:
14. These features are common to all programmes of this type. In the words of Rheinmetall⁹:

15. A complete IdZ-ES set comprises a "H&K [Heckler and Koch, Germany] G36 assault rifle, weapon-mounted laser system, command, control, communications, computers and information system (C4I) integrated in the load-carrying vest, eye and ear protection subsystem, NBC protection subsystem, ballistic and stab protection subsystem and night vision subsystem". A major sub-system is the navigation and NavICom C4I communications assistant manufactured by the European company Thales10. This system gives the position of the soldier and his comrades and the location of minefields (pre-identified by other sensors) and other danger zones, as well as identifying targets together with their coordinates and trajectory and the presence of enemy, friendly or neutral forces. NavICom also provides secure communications and enables data to be exchanged between the soldier and the various command and control levels to the rear.

2. Spain: COMFUT (COMbatiente FUTuro)

16. On 18 September 2006, the Spanish Ministry of Defence signed a contract with EADS-CASA for the development and initial production of the Spanish future soldier system, COMFUT. The contract, worth 24.5 million euros over three years, includes the design, development and production of 36 sets to equip three squads of twelve soldiers. At the end of this first phase, and after probable deployment in an operation (as for Germany), EADS-CASA plans an initial first order of at least 7 000 units¹¹ between 2009 and 2012/13.
17. The Spanish future soldier system features a "real-time command and control (C2) system provided to every squad member" and consists of "a portable computer; helmet and firearm connectivity; helmet-mounted camera; night sensors; a new bulletproof vest equipped with hi-tech elements, such as radios, batteries or telemeters and endurance modules; a backpack integrated in the vest; a high comfort suit featuring reduced infrared signature; and thermal stability. The C2 system will provide key capabilities such as situational awareness, squad members and target position"¹². The COMFUT system is also "integrated" into its armoured transport vehicle (Pizarro and VAMTAC ¹³).

18. The C2 system is being designed and developed by the aerospace and defence branch of the Spanish private industrial holding company GMV (Grupo Mecanica de Vuelo). COMFUT is armed with the H&K G36 assault rifle, the same as for the German IdZ-ES but co-produced with General Dynamics - Santa Barbara Systems (Spain).

3. France: FELIN (Fantassin à Equipements et Liaisons Intégrées)

19. The French FELIN is one of the most successful European programmes of its kind. It was launched in 2001 and the French Armaments Procurement Agency (DGA) awarded the FELIN contract to the French company SAGEM (of the SAFRAN group, created in 2006) on 1 March 2004. This contract is very different to those in other participating states, as it includes "the development, industrialisation and mass production of 31 445¹⁴ individual FELIN systems, as well as operational maintenance for two years". It is the size of the contract that makes the difference, as well as the amount of funds committed, over 800 million euros (or over a billion euros should there be an overrun) for the period 2004 to 2007/2008.
20. The first sets of equipment were fielded for eight weeks of trials from January to March 2007. The DGA plans to introduce FELIN into army units from 2008 and hopes to equip at least two thirds of infantry units by the end of 2008. An improved FELIN system is also being studied (FELIN V2) for the medium term, from 2010 to 2015 and beyond¹⁵. The FELIN system is part of a system of systems known as Bulle Opérationnelle Aéroterrestre (BOA, Air/land Operational Bubble), a network-enabled warfare system which includes network-integrated C2 land and air components. Like its European counterparts, FELIN is also integrated into the land vehicles that will form part of the BOA (in particular the infantry combat vehicle, VBCI, of which the first models, produced by GIAT Industries in cooperation with the Renault car company, are being tested¹⁶).

21. FELIN comprises three main systems:

4. Italy: Soldato Futuro

22. The Italian Soldato Futuro programme began at the end of the 20^th century. The programme was initially envisaged as a joint project with Germany, but because of differences in conception and timing this was not the case. Soldato Futuro is currently being deployed for trials, with a pre-order for 92 kits for 2007. The research and development phase ran from 2001 to 2006 and cost 18 million euros (with a unit price estimated at 30 000 euros per individual, which is on a par with other European programmes of this kind). Development and production of the system were entrusted to an Italian industrial consortium led by Selex Communications (part of the Finmeccanica group). Full-scale production and fielding are scheduled for 2007/2008 with a first upgrade planned between 2010 and 2012¹⁷.
23. The aim of the Italian Soldato Futuro programme is to produce "a soldier system which should be open, modular, flexible and prone to be rapidly reconfigured to fit the future technological implementations and the operative readiness' necessities of every situation, and to be compatible with the systems of other allied countries"¹⁸. There are three versions of the system - platoon commander, rifleman and grenadier - with a common base and elements that are specific to each one. The command and control (C2) system, developed by Marconi-Selenia Communications, Galileo Avionica and Larimart, is common to all three versions, with the standard navigation, positioning and data exchange (communications) features. The communications sub-system also provides the unit commander or high command with physiological data about the "wearer".

24. The weapons system comprises a new model of the Beretta assault rifle, an upgrade of the existing models, AR-70/90 and CX4-Storm. The new rifle is lighter, with an adjustable telescopic butt and includes a 40 mm grenade launcher (for the grenadier version of the Soldato Futuro). It has an "optronic aiming system"¹⁹ which "will allow the soldier to discover, identify and engage targets over distances far beyond the capabilities of the enemy in all weather and light conditions, both by night and by day". This sub-system has a wireless link²⁰ to the C2 system and the images it captures can thus be accessed by the unit commander and the command post behind the front lines. The grenade launcher also has an innovative fire control system with a laser rangefinder and ballistic computer. The unit commander is also equipped with a "binocular target acquisition unit (UAB)²¹, with a day channel and night-time thermal channel, a laser rangefinder and built-in compass".
25. Protection and clothing underwent extensive research and development, carried out by the firm Sistema Compositi. The combat jacket is combined with a "universal support module" to be used with the different existing and future sub-systems the Soldato Futuro will be equipped with. The main aim is to achieve "the lowest possible visibility, this both exploiting the camouflage with the surrounding environment or the use of anti-detection fibers; the suits will also have a high NBC protection factor, this will be achieved by using fibers soaked in activated carbon". As regards the power supply "the battery pack will be powered by an exceptionally light group of methanol-based fuel packs; all the systems can be recharged either from the battery pack or from any direct main power source as there are many available on every military vehicle, ship or plane".

5. The United Kingdom: FIST (Future Integrated Soldier Technology)

26. The British Future Integrated Soldier Technology programme is the longest-running and most expensive of the ongoing European programmes. The design phase started in 1994 and fielding is scheduled for between 2009-2010 and 2015 (with 2020 the target date for full operating capability). With a unit price of over £70 000 sterling (103 000 euros), including all the options, the FIST kit is at least three times more expensive than its European counterparts. The quantity target is to equip 30 000-35 000 soldiers by 2015/20. The contract has been awarded to the firms Qinetic and Thales UK. FIST is a tri-service project currently undergoing the trial phase after which a decision will be made on when production will start.
27. The first technology demonstrator was designed and developed through a partnership between the Ministry of Defence and a group of private companies (British or established in the United Kingdom, in particular Thales and BAE Systems). This phase was completed in 2001. In 2003, Thales UK won a contract worth 30 million euros to assess the initial version, FIST V1.0 (2003 to 2005), and the improved version, FIST V2.0 (2005 to 2007), though not to produce an operational prototype.
28. At the same time, in 2003, however, the United Kingdom joined the war in Iraq and began to substantially increase its presence and step up operations in Afghanistan (from 2006). The initial trial programme was delayed at least three months, as the units selected to take part in the tests had been deployed in Iraq, and a major trial which took place in autumn 2005 gave somewhat inconclusive results. This resulted in a cost overrun of £7 million - the budget earmarked for the assessment phase went from £26 million to £33 million (48.5 million euros). The decision to launch the production phase has been postponed (to the end of 2007?) and initial operating capability is now expected by the end of 2010 (instead of 2009)²².
29. The FIST concept covers five main areas: C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence), lethality, mobility, survivability and sustainability²³. The programme "aims to integrate both current and emerging key technologies that British dismounted soldiers require for them to maintain their position in the forefront of capability. The programme will ensure the future soldier has equipment that optimises effectiveness, reduces physical and psychological load, and minimises the effects of combat stress and the risks of human error. (...) FIST will consider the dismounted soldier as a system and the eight-man section as the platform".

30. A soldier equipped with a FIST kit is an integrated system in a system of systems, in the wider concept of network-enabled operations. The communications sub-system is one of the central features of the British future soldier:

31. The weapons system comprises an SA80 assault rifle and, depending on needs, an M203 grenade launcher (fielded with the US army). Other weapons available to the soldier equipped with FIST are the MBT LAW (light anti-tank weapon), the Javelin system (anti-tank missile) and High Explosive Fragmentation Grenade (HEFG) launchers. Sighting, observation and target acquisition sub-systems, linked to the above-mentioned weapons, are also planned to increase the soldier's lethality. Particular attention is also being given to combat gear and protection, in terms of comfort, resistance, camouflage and mobility. These elements also include the electronic systems, the wires connecting the sub-systems and the power supply (batteries). Qinetic has been given the task of finding a satisfactory solution to the power supply problem, which is common to all the European and international future soldier programmes25.

6. Sweden: MARKUS (Markstridsutrustad soldat)

32. MARKUS is an example of Swedish know-how and technological capability in the area of defence. Sweden has a modestly sized and highly efficient "military-industrial complex", one of the best examples of which is the JAS-39 Gripen fighter aircraft. It is also one of the most advanced European countries in terms of network-enabled defence solutions. The MARKUS programme, which has been under development since 2002²⁶, is an integral part of this approach aiming at building a Swedish network-based defence (NBD).
33. MARKUS has completed its concept demonstration phase and on 1 February 2007 the Swedish armed forces received a report prepared by the Swedish defence research agency (FOI, Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut) that is responsible for assessing and researching the MARKUS programme. The decision on whether to continue the programme and on the operational and technological options to be retained is expected by the end of 2007/beginning of 2008. Development and full-scale production could well fall to the SAAB company (SAAB Warrior), which is already involved in studying the concept. MARKUS is due to be fielded in 2010.

34. MARKUS is being developed with other European programmes in mind. In November 2006, there were exchanges between the Swedish and German military personnel in charge of the MARKUS and IdZ programmes. A demonstration of the German system was held in Sweden and the results were compared with those from the MARKUS trials. One of the aims was to study the impact of these systems on the capabilities of the (individual) soldier and of the group (platoon). The same exchange of experiences with the French FELIN system is scheduled for the end of 2007.
35. Sweden, which is not a member of NATO, also keeps abreast of the Atlantic Organisation's research into standardising the "transatlantic" future soldiers. MARKUS meets the five basic criteria of all such programmes: C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence), lethality, mobility, survivability and sustainability.
36. The MARKUS system, in its current phase, includes the following sub-systems: "command and control devices (Poseidon), short-range radio, AK 5 assault rifle, orientation and navigation devices including IR-camera, HDTV and video tracker, integrated weapons and sensor systems, orientation and navigation devices including GPS and electronic compass, battledress for protection against wind, water, cold, heat, CBRN protection and eye protection against laser"²⁷. Like its counterparts, the MARKUS architecture is based on the principle of modularity and adaptability to technological developments and operational needs.

7. Other European programmes: the Netherlands and Norway

37. Among the completed programmes in the pre-deployment phase and projects that are purely at the conceptual stage, there are almost 20 European future soldier initiatives²⁸. In practice, all the European states that are members of the EU and/or NATO have such programmes underway and at various stages of development depending on the available funding and their research and technology (R&T) and industrial capabilities. Among these, two states stand out as being close to the most advanced countries in this field: the Netherlands and Norway.

38. On 14 February 2007, the Organisation for Applied Scientific Research in the Netherlands (TNO), an independent public body established by law in 1932, presented a Dutch prototype of the soldier of the future. The Dutch model was developed in close cooperation with the Netherlands Defence Ministry and is scheduled to be fielded in 2009. A total of 7 000 individual kits is planned for this initial phase. The cost of each kit is estimated at 35 000 euros which could possibly be reduced to 20 000 euros if an export market is opened. The first kits would be reserved for frontline troops dedicated to external operations as a priority. The remainder of the forces (approximately 65 000 soldiers) will be given downscaled modular kits (for financial reasons).
39. Among the companies approached for the development and production phases, the frontrunners are Thales (Netherlands) and Stork Product Engineering (SPE). Thales would be entrusted with production of the C2 communication systems and SPE would produce the batteries, a central part of any future soldier programme. The Dutch future soldier, like its European counterparts, incorporates the idea of modularity, C2 communication systems, weapons systems and protection and clothing adapted to different operations. According to the programme manager at TNO, Mr Wouter Lotens: "We've looked at a wide range of issues including information processing, command and control, mobility, lethality, sustainability and survivability against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear as well as ballistic threats"²⁹.

40. The Dutch future soldier will be equipped with a (Colt Canada) C7/C8 assault rifle with the NATO standard 5.56 mm calibre. The rifle will be equipped with integrated sighting and target-acquisition sub-systems and different modules depending on the needs of the mission (supports for other sub-systems and handgrips, for example). The final choice of sub-systems and technologies to be included in the finished model must be made by the end of 2007 with a view to starting the development and trial phase which will run from 2008 to 2009.

41. Another national programme underway since 2000 is the Norwegian future soldier NORMANS (NORwegian Modular Arctic Network Soldier), the design and technological specifications of which were defined by the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI) and Defence Ministry. Several companies are involved in this project, in particular Thales Norway, Simrad Electronics, Vinghøg and Techni (helmet). NORMANS meets the criteria established by NATO for the soldiers of the future: C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence), lethality, mobility, survivability and sustainability.
42. The protection, clothing and helmet are being tested in Afghanistan. NORMANS will have protective ceramic plates and composite-fibre armour. The back plates will be lined with a material capable of withstanding direct hits. Another survival sub-system is "a 2 to 2.5-litre plastic drinking bladder worn in the small of a soldier's back, under or over the new ceramic-based combat vests. As a soldier sips from its long tube, the sack empties of air for better hygiene and battlefields free of strewn water bottles"³⁰. The Norwegian future soldier will also have Norwegian-made night-vision equipment (Simrad Electronics' GN is very compact and weighs 390 grams with batteries) and "laser rangefinders for direct-firing weapons" as standard issue.

43. The NORMANS system also integrates the notion of interoperability with other European systems under development and data-transmission tests between the sensors of NORMANS and the British FIST system have proved successful. Part of these sub-systems is integrated into the assault rifle (NATO standard calibre 5.56 mm) and can "control the SMS and MMS applications, the voice radio and other sensors linked to the system and read messages and GIS [Geographic Information System] information". The assault rifle can also be fitted with a 40 mm grenade-launcher (like the Italian Soldato Futuro).
44. One of the main sub-systems is the Vingsight sighting system developed by the Norwegian firm Vinghøg. The Vingsight sees and communicates "via USB2 - transferring pictures, charts, video, messages and input from external GPS"³¹. The first NORMANS kits will be tested from 2008 to 2009 by the elite Norwegian Telemark battalion.

45. Future soldier programmes are a logical extension of the process of armed forces transformation to include human beings. There is nothing new about this process of technological development and adaptation of the national defence apparatus, which has gone by various names in the past. In the 1980s and 1990s in particular, it was known as the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), which in turn gave rise to the concepts of network-enabled warfare or operations and network-enabled capabilities. This is the result of information and communications technology (ICT), at one time referred to as "new" (NICT), entering the world of defence.
46. Information networks, an example of which is the Internet, provide the strategic backbone for international economic activity and the functioning of countries, governments and peoples' daily lives. They use a range of support media, from communications satellites to simple telephone sockets, from optical fibres to traditional copper wire. Data networks are everywhere and the defence sector is no exception to that rule. The Internet was in fact originally developed in response to a defence requirement, that of ensuring the survival of political and military chains of command following a limited nuclear war.
47. At the end of the 20^th century, the United States, at the instigation of Admiral Arthur Cebrowski, the first Director of the Pentagon Office of Transformation (of the armed forces), launched the movement towards adapting the country's defence apparatus to deal with the new threats it faced in the future, in the light of worldwide technological developments and the advent of the concept of network-enabled warfare. It became a vast programme for modernising the concepts, doctrines and technologies of the American armed forces, with a view to guaranteeing their technological superiority and hence also the military (but also political and economic) supremacy of the United States with regard to a known or potential enemy. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, although not originally foreseen by the theorists, provided an opportunity to test, validate or on the contrary invalidate certain American ideas and concepts in the field of network-enabled operations³².
48. The movement spread, via NATO, to Europe. Since the European countries' armed forces are also made available to the European Union, the latter's political, military and R&T bodies have also become involved in the definition and development of a possible European concept for network-enabled operations. For political and practical reasons, NATO is at the centre of the European transformation effort, in particular through the activities of its Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk, the United States, which was set up in 2002³³. Since the mid-nineties, NATO has also established a number of working groups with a view to harmonising and standardising the different programmes or sub-programmes concerned with the modernisation of the member states, armed forces, their infantry in particular.
49. However, NATO no longer has a monopoly of those activities. The European Union is in the process of developing and reinforcing its own military capabilities, under the cover of its civil and military crisis-management activities, but also with a view to giving it the possibility for global intervention, if necessary independently of the Atlantic Alliance. A major protagonist in the development of European military capabilities is the European Defence Agency. The EDA was set up at the end of 2004 and is now in charge of managing an ambitious European forces protection programme. The programme is funded by the participating states and is directly linked with existing and future soldier of the future programmes.
50. The national programmes will of course continue to develop at their own pace, but cooperation among the European countries will develop synergy and points of convergence (including with the relevant NATO working groups) which will have a major positive impact on European forces' interoperability. This in turn will make it possible to rationalise European countries' R&T efforts and make them more profitable. Moreover, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers needing to be equipped, mass production could produce economies of scale. Industry stands to gain as well, because a harmonised European market in this field could break the cycle of small-scale individual production series destined for 20 or 30 client countries, in favour of a much larger market and greater international export opportunities.
51. What remains to be clarified is the added operational value offered by future soldier programmes. Today's soldiers already benefit from the latest advances in the civilian, defence and security sectors. Battlefield digitisation, advanced communications and information systems supported by satellites and UAVs, C4ISTAR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance) architectures, wireless and over-the-horizon communication networks already form part of national inventories. Much remains to be done in order to effectively integrate existing and future systems and sub-systems into the armed forces, not just for the individual services but also in a joint services context (the latter being the rule for network-enabled operations), or, even more difficult, in a multinational environment.
52. The future soldier is a system in its own right, and this is what is new about it. It is a single node within a vast network, and acts both as a sensor or a communications node, as well as the decision-making agent on the ground. It is a sub-system within a system which itself is part of a bigger "system of systems". Until it has been deployed in one of the current theatres of operation (Afghanistan for the Europeans, Iraq for the Americans), the system's value will have been measured only by means of tests, simulations and exchanges of experience. Whichever country's programme we look at, the end result is enhanced efficiency of the individual soldier, as measured in terms of response times and speed of adaptation to tactical changes.
53. The soldier can see better and further, can communicate at all times and in real time, has almost direct access to support systems such as UAVs and in certain circumstances can even coordinate and direct air strikes. He has sophisticated weapons systems with enhanced reliability and precision. His permanent integration within a network, whether at squad, platoon or company level, enables him to stay in contact and more easily identify allies, friends or "neutral" parties, helping to reduce losses and friendly fire incidents, as well as collateral damage. However, the future soldier is neither a robot nor a cyborg, but remains a human being and as such able to adapt and modify the systems with which he is equipped. That process in turn will determine future technological developments.

1. NATO and the standardised future soldier

54. The NATO future soldier's career began between 1993 and 1994 with the launch of a pre-feasibility study on the modernisation of the (allied) soldier. Following this, NATO's Land Group No 3 on Close Combat - Infantry, a major division of the NATO Army Armaments Group (NAAG), set up its Working Group of Experts (No 3) on the Soldier Modernisation Plan³⁴. In 2000, in step with the launch of various national programmes by the European states, the United States and Canada, the Working Group was transformed into Topical Group (TG1) on Soldier System Interoperability under the direct responsibility of the NAAG.
55. TG1 had a five-year mandate in order to define common criteria for the different national programmes of the member states, with a view to harmonising systems and defining common technical standards for the purpose of allied interoperability. TG1 was also open to participation by third states, members of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC, set up in 1997), some of which have since joined NATO. Among the non-member states are four EU nations: Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden. Azerbaijan, Croatia, Switzerland, Ukraine and Australia also participate in the Group. In 2005 TG1 and various sub-groups of the NAAG Land Group No 3 were merged to form Land Group No 1 (LG/1) on Dismounted Soldier Systems. That land group is to become a Land Capability Group (LCG)³⁵.
56. The main aim of TG1 was to seek interoperability among the different national future soldier systems. It also developed ties with industry through the NATO Industrial Advisory Group, with the setting-up of the Soldier System Standardisation Industrial Working Group in 2003. This Group brought together representatives of the American and European companies and research centres directly involved in the national future soldier programmes: EADS, Marconi Selenia Communications/SELEX, Thales, General Dynamics, TNO and SAGEM-SAFRAN. NATO's Research and Technology Organisation (RTO) was also involved in the Group's activities, for example in the area of the interoperability and integration of infantry weapons systems.
57. In 2007 LG/1 on Dismounted Soldier Systems comprised five sub-groups and two ad hoc teams:

58. NATO's work on soldier systems led it to identify five major capability areas: C4I (command, control, communications, computers and intelligence), lethality, mobility, survivability and sustainability. To these must be added education and training. The transatlantic soldier of the future must fully master the sub-systems with which he is integrated, in particular those relating to command and control (C2), communications and navigation. Weapons systems, in addition to their basic fire function, are also sensors and transmitters of information.
59. Training in the use of these sub-systems cannot be designed on a purely individual basis. The future soldier is network-enabled and functions as part of a group. He is a node within a network, itself part of a larger network; he is, in fact, the basic unit in a system of systems. Training must also be conducted on a multinational basis, as the forces of the NATO countries work side by side. It is therefore important to have interoperability at the level of all future soldier sub-systems. The national C4Is must, as far as possible, communicate and exchange data among themselves in a way that is understandable to every single soldier irrespective of nationality.
60. The national, transatlantic or European future soldier must be a perfected form of the soldier of today. But this also means, depending on the configuration, that he must carry a load of 25 to 30 kilos (average weight of the equipment currently being developed) composed of connection cables, terminal information and electronic systems, a fairly limited independent power source (batteries). The American soldier today (and not yet the Land Warrior) uses up to 20 kilos of batteries for four days of autonomy³⁶. In addition there are the sighting systems, sensors and transmitters that have to be added to the weapons systems and which also affect their functionality (in terms of their weight, range and ease of handling, for example).
61. The sub-systems must also be easy to repair or replace, as software errors can be fatal in real-life combat situations. The systems are also vulnerable to weather conditions, the magnetic and chemical environment (corrosion), deliberate or spurious interference (saturation of communications and transmission networks, management of the frequencies used by the various air, land and naval systems, for example). It is the job of the NATO working groups to come up with solutions and answers to all these questions in the five abovementioned areas.
62. The results of their work are translated into NATO standards, or NATO Standardisation Agreements (STANAG) on the interoperability of data exchanges, exchanges of batteries among deployed forces, the identification of friend or foe (blue tracking), the modular nature and integration of connectors (which includes the possibility of plugging into vehicles for energy or connecting with onboard data systems) and the electrical signals from electronic sub-systems, interoperability of arms systems and munitions, the clothing and protection of the soldier, among many other things.
63. The NATO future soldier is a highly complex system. The difficulty stems essentially from having to go from systems developed at national level to ones capable of functioning in the combined joint environment of NATO operations. The process is made even more complicated by the fact that the countries involved in these programmes are each progressing at a different pace and that their timetables, priorities and technological/industrial capacities are neither synchronised nor harmonised.
64. NATO, moreover, does not have control over the development and production of these systems which are the responsibility of the national or European companies concerned. They are funded from national budgets and efforts to standardise often run up against the problem of conflicting American and European technological/industrial interests. Furthermore, NATO is no longer alone in terms of defence programmes, the definition of requirements, harmonisation and standardisation. It must also reckon in these areas with the European Union which has a unique federating structure (above and beyond specific and limited European cooperation under the Letter of Intent/Framework Agreement and OCCAR, the joint armaments cooperation organisation), namely the European Defence Agency (EDA).

2. The European Defence Agency and the European future soldier

65. The EDA, which was set up in 2004, is now entering its fourth year of activities on a note of optimism and confidence. It has a new Chief Executive (Alexander Weis from Germany) and has renewed part of its management staff (the people in charge of the EDA's main directorates). Under the direction of Dr Nick Witney (United Kingdom), the EDA asserted its role as one of the EU's strategic tools for the development and strengthening of the EU's military crisis-management capabilities.
66. It has a number of major initiatives to its credit, such as³⁷:

67. The JIP-FP, a European initiative, was launched in November 2006 and brings together 19 EU member states³⁸ plus Norway. The participants are making a substantial contribution to this programme (to the tune of 54.93 million euros), a point worth highlighting given the general context of underfunding of European and transatlantic programmes. It is a small sum in relation to the costs of the national programmes for the modernisation of forces which cost hundreds of millions, or even billions of euros over extended periods. Nevertheless, it is an undeniable indication of a common commitment to resolving a problem which affects all forces in Europe.
68. Forces protection is a major subject of concern, particularly in light of the experience in Afghanistan and above all Iraq. During the operations in the former Yugoslavia, with the exception of some minor clashes and the air campaign in 1999, the European forces were deployed in theatres which had been more or less secured and stabilised. It is true that during the first phase of that conflict, when UNPROFOR was deployed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, there were some losses due to hostile action. Generally speaking, however, the European forces present in the theatre did not directly engage with the local parties to the conflict.
69. In the operations in Africa in 1994 (Operation Turquoise in Rwanda) and 2003 (Operation Artemis in the Democratic Republic of Congo), the risks were greater but the local combatants chose to avoid direct confrontation. It is a different situation altogether in Afghanistan and Iraq where armed groups loyal to different factions and supported by part of the local population are actively opposed to the foreign presence or occupation. Suicide attacks, attacks using improvised explosive devices (IEDs) which in some cases are highly sophisticated and can penetrate the armour of military vehicles, urban combat situations, sniper or rocket and mortar attacks occur on a daily basis leading to constant attrition of the European and American forces.
70. Those attacks are also directed at local groups of forces and the civilian population and are hampering efforts to achieve stabilisation and political, economic and social reconstruction, as well as increasing the cost of those efforts and of the military operations. The better the protection of the European and American forces, the better they will be able to act as a deterrent to armed opponents (and their supporters among the civilian population) who will be less likely to continue the attacks if they bring no tangible results. At the same time the military effectiveness of the troops will be increased, since they will more easily be able to establish a presence in the areas to be brought under control. The national future soldier programmes and the JIP-FP are also designed to address these problems.
71. The research programme is managed by the participating states themselves, while the Agency, led by its Steering Board, plays a coordinating and to some extent guiding role. The EDA's Research and Technology Directorate, headed by Bertrand de Cordoue of France, is in charge of the JIP-FP. The programme objectives cover 18 research topics in five capability areas:

72. On 2 March 2007, the EDA issued a first call for proposals in order to identify potential contractors. The call was addressed to companies, universities and laboratories with a request for co-financing of the various projects of up to 50%. The call for proposals concerned two capability areas and four R&T goals in particular:

73. This first call for proposals was sent to 270 potential contractors designated by the contributing states (each country ensures that its contribution comes back to it in the form of contracts for the national entities involved in the force protection programme). A total of 30 proposals have been selected for consideration before a final decision on the contracts is made by the end of 2007. A second call was issued on 1 September 2007 and is open until 15 November 2007. This call covers two capability areas "individual protection" and "secured tactical wireless communication systems in urban environment" and three R&T goals:

74. The JIP-FP goes beyond the framework of purely national European future soldier programmes. If it is associated with the Agency's activities in the area of UAVs, software radio, C4I architecture and other areas related to network-enabled operations, it is in fact an entire European network-enabled capability that is being developed. The European Union, through its member states that also belong to or are associated with NATO, also benefits from the work of the Alliance in the area of standardisation and harmonisation.
75. The JIP-FP does not replace ongoing national programmes and research into force protection and the soldier of the future, but rather complements them and encourages the search for common solutions for problems that are common to all the states committed to these programmes. The EDA's work, supported by the member states participating in and contributing to these high-technology projects, could eventually lead to the definition of common needs in equipment and capabilities for European soldiers, which would be useful for improving existing programmes and for future modernisation.
76. This will make a significant contribution to the interoperability of existing systems until such time as the European future soldier exists. For now it is still not possible for there to be a single prototype for all. All the current national projects have a potential for export and adaptation to the needs of other states. The actual results of JIP-FP will only be seen in the medium or long term (5 to 10 years). This programme and other related programmes help strengthen and gradually build on shared European technological defence capabilities, to the benefit of all the participating and contributing member states and ultimately Europe's defence industrial and technological base (DITB).
77. However, at the present time none of these programmes is ready to be implemented on a European scale. Some European states are more drawn to the idea of transatlantic interoperability with the United States. Other states put forward arguments based on national sovereignty (including in the area of research and technological development) and a return on national investment. This is the case with the United Kingdom which is not participating in the JIP-FP.
78. At a hearing before the members of a subcommittee of the UK House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union, Lord Drayson, Minister of State for Defence Equipment and Support, explained why Britain was not participating in the JIP-FP:

79. This position of principle is, however, not that widespread. This is due to the fact that the majority of European countries are aware of the limits of any approach to the issue of armed forces modernisation geared to national resources and capabilities alone. It is true that there are as many future soldier programmes as there are states with large or medium-size capacities in this area, and there will be client countries that will buy equipment adapted to their needs. Eventually, however, through bilateral cooperation projects, NATO and the European Defence Agency will define the contours of a European future soldier harmonised and interoperable with his American and Canadian counterparts.
80. It is not just operational effectiveness and future prowess in combat that are at stake with future soldier programmes - because all the conflicts we have ever known teach us that sooner or later our potential adversaries will adapt and discover the weak spots in our armour, breast-plate or network-enabled composite-fibre protection - but also the opportunity to demonstrate Europe's national technological capacities. The future soldier programme is just one aspect of the process of transformation of the armed forces in general and the infantry in particular, and will evolve in line with needs on the ground, adapting to different missions - combat, security and stability operations - and the changing composition of the armed forces which include more and more women.
81. The fact that the equipment is modular is a major asset in meeting the different demands arising from the three above-mentioned factors. It is clear that the complete kits will be reserved for special forces and troops on combat missions as a priority. Soldiers on humanitarian missions and women soldiers do not need to put on all the equipment and carry round weights of between 25 to 30 kg, in particular the batteries needed to supply all the planned systems. The clothing and protection will also reflect the fact that tasks will be shared out and will be adaptable to changing situations in the theatre of operations.
82. Innovations in the area of textiles, camouflage (for example, the so-called fractal camouflage that allows soldiers to "blend" into the surroundings) and protection (where lighter materials and specially treated plastics are being researched) also go some way to meeting the different needs in years to come. These technologies have important civilian applications as well: in the area of textiles, for example, they ensure that Europe maintains skills and capacities in a sector which is largely disappearing due to the process of economic globalisation.
83. The soldier of the future is thus a source of technological innovation and a stimulus for scientific research. In the area of military medicine, one of the challenges is to design individual kits and patches so that the future soldier can heal himself of, among other things, superficial gun or shrapnel wounds. Nano- and biotechnologies will have an important role to play in this area in years to come. Some systems will increase physical abilities: for example, the use of exoskeletons would allow an individual to carry heavy loads that would otherwise require several soldiers or vehicles to transport them.
84. By way of example, one could cite the project developed in the United States by a team of researchers at the University of California, Berkeley. This team is working on two prototype exoskeletons, the ExoHiker for walking and the ExoClimber for climbing, which would allow the wearer to carry loads of up to 70 kg over a distance of 65 km at a speed of 4 km/h (battery life) or make an ascent of 185 metres bearing the same load, with a battery weighing 600 grams. According to the designers, if the system is powered by a solar panel the only limitation would be the physical stamina of the actual wearer⁴¹. The American Defense Department is interested in this project.
85. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), with funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), is researching a prototype exoskeleton for load bearing and replacement limbs for amputees. This system comprises a pair of "boots attached to a series of tubes that run up the leg to a backpack. (...) The device fits parallel to the legs, transferring payload forces from the back of the wearer to the ground"⁴². The current prototype weighs 11.7 kg, is powered by a 600-gram lithium polymer battery and uses 2 watts of electrical power during loaded walking.
86. These examples and forecasts help measure the potential of future soldier programmes for research and technological development, as well as for civilian applications. Over and above the debate on priorities and the fact that soldiers are still far from having all the equipment they need for current missions, that Europe is continuing with these programmes is a clear demonstration of European technological and industrial capabilities. It is a sign that in the field of network-enabled operations and capacities the European states are in the process of closing the technological gap with the United States, a gap that is in fact more than anything structural and political. If Europe expresses clear resolve and gives itself the means to attain its objectives, it will remain a centre of doctrinal, technological and operational innovation that can develop the national defence bases in the interests of a common - European and transatlantic - defence.

---

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Chairman
Mr	O'HARA Edward		British
Vice-Chairmen
MM	EVANS Nigel		British
	FISCHER Axel		German
Members of the Committee				Alternates
Mrs	ABURTO BASELGA Fatima		Spanish	MM	ARIAS CAÑETE Miguel
MM	AZZOLINI Claudio		Italian		MORSELLI Stefano
	BARBATO Tommaso		Italian		MELE Giorgio
	BODEWIG Kurt		German	Mrs	BARNETT Doris
Mrs	DE MELO Manuela		Portuguese	Mrs	DE BELEM ROSEIRA Maria
MM	COUSIN Alain		French	MM	BRANGER Jean-Guy
	ETHERINGTON Bill		British		VIS Rudolf
	EVANS Nigel		British		BOSWELL Tim
Mrs	FERNÁNDEZ CAPEL Blanca		Spanish		PUCHE RODRÍGUEZ Gabino
MM	FISCHER Axel		German		FRANKENHAUSER Herbert
	HAUPERT Norbert		Luxembourg		HUSS Jean
	HÖRSTER Joachim		German		DEITTERT Hubert
Mrs	KATSELI Eleonora		Greek		ALEVRAS Athanassios
MM	KUCHEIDA Jean-Pierre		French	Mrs	DURRIEU Josette
	LE GRAND Jean-François		French	MM	POZZO DI BORGO Yves
	LINTNER Eduard		German		HEYNEMANN Bernd
	MARONI Roberto		Italian		VALENTINO Giuseppe
	MEALE Alan		British		MARSHALL David
	MENDES BOTA José		Portuguese		MACHADO Jorge
	MONFILS Philippe		Belgian		LAMBERT Geert
	O'HARA Eward		British		ROWEN Paul
	PEIRO Germinal		French	Mrs	GREFF Claude
Mrs	QUESADA BRAVO Adoración		Spanish	Mrs	CORTAJARENA Elvira
MM	REYMANN Marc		French	MM	BRANGER Jean-Guy
	SINISI Giannicola		Italian		LIVI BACCI Massimo
	SKANDALAKIS Panagiotis		Greek		DENDIAS Nikolaos
	VAN DEN BRANDT Luc		Belgian		...
	WAALKENS Harm-Evert		Dutch		KOX Tiny
To be nominated: Netherlands, (1)
Affiliate Members				Alternates
MM	BALGARINOV Borislav		Bulgarian	MM	IVANOV Ivan
	BRAUN Marton		Hungarian	...	...
	CZINEGE Imre		Hungarian	...	...
	HOJDA Pavel		Czech		PADERA Milos
	KASAL Jan		Czech		KOCHAN Jozef
	KRACZKOWSKI Maks		Polish		WIKINSKI Marek
	MIKUS Tibor		Slovak		LIPSIC Daniel
	PETAN Rudolf		Slovenian	...	...
	PIKORSKI Matheuz		Polish		WOJCIK Michal
Mrs	SENYSZYN Joanna		Polish		GALAZEWSKI Andrzej
MM	SOOÄÄR Imre		Estonian		...
	STRAZDINS Janis		Latvian		...
	SZABÓ Károly		Romanian		SZEKELY Levente Csaba
	TILVAR Angel		Romanian		CHELARU Ioan
Mrs	VERTELIENÈ Vilija		Latvian		SUBACIUS Mindaugas
To be nominated: Bulgaria (1)
Associate Members				Alternates
MM		CEBECI Erol Aslan	Turkish		...
		COSKUNOGLU Osman	Turkish		...
Mrs		KRISTOFFERSEN Gerd Janne	Norwegian		...
		...	Turkish	Mr	ÖZCAN Zekai
To be nominated: Iceland (1), Norway (1), Turkey (1)
Permanent Observer members				Alternates
MM		LAAKSO Jaakko	Finnish	... ...
		O'KEEFFE Ned	Irish	Mr WALL Jack
To be nominated: Finland (1), Sweden (2), Denmark (2), Austria (2)
Affiliate Permanent Observer Members				Alternates
To be nominated: Cyprus (1), Malta (1)
Affiliate Associate Partners				Alternates
Mr		ALITI Rafis	Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	Mrs	SEKULOVSKA Mirjana
Mr		KOVACEVIC Pero	Croatian	Mrs	PESIC BUKOVAC Dorotea
Secretary to the Committee: Mr José Manuel PEDREGOSA
Committee assistant: Mrs Carmela ROBERT

---

¹ Adopted unanimously by the Committee on 8 November 2007.

² Adopted by the Assembly on 5 December 2007 at the 9^th sitting.

³ For all causes, including accidents, United Kingdom Ministry of Defence. www.mod.uk

⁴ More than two thirds of whom were killed in action. www.mod.uk

⁵ Out of a total of 17 known systems in Europe (2006), including that of Russia. The six programmes mentioned are the most complete and the most far advanced in their development. "Future Soldier Programs", C4ISR Journal (United States), 11 September 2006. www.isrjournal.com

⁶ "Infantryman of the Future".

⁷ The basic model and the IdZv1 enhanced version were developed by EADS (Germany) Defence Electronics at a cost of 10 million euros for 150 individual sets. These systems were tested in Kosovo (2002) and in Germany (at the Hammelburg Infantry School), with a view to equipping the German special forces in Afghanistan from 2007-2008 onwards, German Ministry of Defence. www.bundeswehr.de

⁸ Rheinmetall is also a contributor to France's FELIN programme and Canada's ISSP (Integrated Soldier System Project).

⁹ "Future Soldier System", Rheinmetall. www.rheinmetall.com

¹⁰ Civilian variants of the NavICom system exist for use in the area of land and maritime transport.

¹¹ "EADS obtains contract for the design and development of Spanish Future Soldier (COMFUT)", EADS, 18 September 2006. www.eads.com

¹² EADS and the Spanish Ministry of Defence. www.eads.com www.mde.es

¹³ "Pizarro" is a tracked, armoured infantry fighting vehicle, produced by General Dynamics - Santa Barbara Systems; VAMTAC is a wheeled light armoured vehicle (multipurpose), produced by the company UROVESA (Spain).

¹⁴ More than 22 500 of which are for the infantry and the remainder for the dismounted soldiers of the armoured cavalry, artillery and engineer corps.

¹⁵ SAFRAN/SAGEM Defence Systems and French Ministry of Defence. www.sagem-ds.com and www.ixarm.com

¹⁶ Its entry into service is scheduled for 2008.

¹⁷ "Progetto Forza NEC [Network Enabled Capability]", Italian Ministry of Defence, 2007. www.difesa.it

¹⁸ Italian Ministry of Defence, Italian army and SELEX Communications. www.difesa.it www.esercito.difesa.it www.selex-comms.com

¹⁹ Developed by Beretta and Galileo Avionica, the system is also known by the acronym ICWS for "Individual Combat Weapon System".

²⁰ The wireless link is specific to the Italian Soldato Futuro system. The corresponding sub-systems of the other European future soldiers are wired.

²¹ "Unita Acquisizione Bersagli", Galileo Avionica.

²² National Audit Office (NAO, United Kingdom) Ministry of Defence, Major Projects Report 2005 and 2006, Project Summary Sheets, 21 November 2005 and 24 November 2006. www.nao.org.uk

²³ These areas of capability are part of the specifications developed within the NATO group responsible for monitoring the transatlantic future soldier programmes, NATO Army Armaments Group, Topical Group 1 on Soldier System Interoperability.

²⁴ "FIST - Future Infantry Soldier Technology, United Kingdom", Army Technology. www.army-technology.com

²⁵ This research is also being developed in collaboration with other companies such as Black and Decker, Ineos Chlor, Intelligent Energy and ABSL Power Solutions Limited.

²⁶ The first feasibility studies started in 1999.

²⁷ "MARKUS - Presentation", Swedish Armed Forces. www.mss.mil.se

²⁸ The specialist publication C4ISR - The Journal of Net-Centric Warfare (United States) counts 16 ongoing European infantry modernisation programmes (including Russia), "Future Soldier Programmes", C4ISR, 11 September 2006. www.isrjournal.com

²⁹ "Dutch unveil high-tech soldier system", Aviation Week, 27 April 2007. www.aviationweek.com

³⁰ "Facing the future", Nortrade (The Official Norwegian Trade Portal), 30 August 2007. www.nordtrade.com

³¹ "Vingsight", Vinghøg. www.vinghog.com

³² In June 2005, the Assembly adopted a report on "Network-centric operations: European capabilities", submitted on behalf of the Defence Committee by Klaus Werner Jonas, Rapporteur (Germany, Socialist Group), Recommendation 762, 14 June 2005. www.assembly-weu.eu

³³ Close to the Joint Forces Command. www.act.nato.int, www.jfcom.mil

³⁴ NAAG is one of the three major Armaments Groups under the responsibility of the Conference of NATO Armaments Directors (CNAD). The two other Groups are concerned respectively with naval and air forces. www.nato.int

³⁵ Vernon E. Shisler, Chairman NATO LG/1 Dismounted Soldier Systems, "Small Arms in NATO Transformation", May 2006. www.dtic.mil

³⁶ "Can anyone win the wearable power prize?", Aviation Week Ares Defense Technology Blog, 26 July 2006. www.aviationweek.com The US Department of Defense recently organised a competition for the development of batteries capable of lasting 4 days and weighing less than 5 kilos. The prize was one million dollars. The contest was open to American nationals or companies or to foreigners working in partnership with American entities.

³⁷ In June 2007, the Assembly adopted a report on the EDA which gives a detailed description of its activities and programmes: "The European Defence Agency two years on". The report was submitted on behalf of the Technological and Aerospace Committee by Yves Pozzo di Borgo, Rapporteur (France, Socialist Group), Recommendation 803, 6 June 2007. www.assembly-weu.eu

³⁸ Germany, Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Spain, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden.

³⁹ "Second Call for Proposals Under the JIP-FP - Registration of Potential Contractors", European Defence Agency, 1 September 2007. www.eda.eu

⁴⁰ Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the European Union (Sub-Committee C), House of Lords, 12 July 2007. www.parliament.uk

⁴¹ "The future of exoskeletons: lighter loads, limbs and more", Scientific American, 21 September 2007; www.sciam.com

⁴² Idem.