Operational and defence industry sovereignty: from policy to capability

Abstract

The development and maintenance of the military force of a state reflects many inputs and constraints. Choices are made regarding whether to develop and manufacture military systems domestically, whether to simply procure such systems and support from a foreign supplier, or whether to adopt a path somewhere between these two extremes. Decisions taken by governments regarding military capability also involve consideration of the operational advantage with respect to a potential threat that the government may wish the force to have, and for the ability of the state to use its military force as, when, where, and for the period that may be required; that is, freedom of action. These decisions impact on the level of sovereignty that the state seeks to have in the operational utilisation of its military forces and, by extension, in the sovereignty within its domestic defence industry. This thesis has addressed these issues through investigation of the following question: How well do states translate notions of sovereignty in defence policy into sovereignty outcomes at the capability level? The thesis has investigated the question through consideration of seven issues that develop from a decomposition of the question, namely sovereignty, policy, capability, sovereignty outcomes, mechanism for translation, measurement of translation, and wellness. Capability has been considered in terms of a major military system, the submarine, with the mechanism for the translation of sovereignty notions to sovereignty outcomes considered as the defence industry that develops and supports that submarine. The importance of the ability to exercise control over industrial activities, and the components that impact upon the ability to control, is identified, together with the relationships between those components. Frameworks that categorise the ability to exercise control, and which link sovereignty in policy to sovereignty over capability are developed. Innovative circumplex diagrams, a Sovereignty Diagnostic, are used to depict the ability to control, and the level of operational and defence industry sovereignty that develops from that control. The final issue, wellness, is determined from the comparison of the desired and realised levels of sovereignty from the Sovereignty Diagnostic. Case studies in Australia, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have been developed to investigate the thesis question. The case studies cover the time leading up to the end of the Cold War to contemporary events. The focus of the case studies is on the policy intent for the state's submarine capability over that period, and the ability of the state to control the industrial processes associated with the acquisition and sustainment. The thesis has shown that the Sovereignty Diagnostic is a valid means through which to consider sovereignty ambition as expressed in defence policy and that manifested at the capability level. The thesis will also show that access to intellectual property, and the capability and capacity within both defence industry and the government client are critical elements in the ability to exercise control, and hence in having operational and defence industry sovereignty. The research has shown that states largely achieve what they aim to do with respect to translating policy into capability but, in some cases, this can be a result of having relatively low policy ambitions for operational and defence industry sovereignty. The thesis has also highlighted that the ability to design is a key point of difference in both aspirations for operational and defence industry sovereignty, and for the realisation of sovereignty at the capability level. The Swedish and the United Kingdom cases are examples where these factors correlate. The Australian case study, in contrast, where the ability to design does not exist, shows stark differences in policy ambition and in sovereignty at the capability level.