Defense

research and technology are explicitly mentioned in any of the 14

North Atlantic Treaty articles, they are clearly implicit in Articles 2

and 3, which address “promoting conditions of stability and wellbeing” and achieving “the objectives of this Treaty

. . . by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid,

(to) maintain and develop . . . capacity to resist armed attack.”1 In

drawing the connection between promoting stability and providing

for mutual aid for defense, the NATO charter laid the foundation for

future cooperation among the alliance nations in defense science

and technology. This unique cooperation has been a key element in

establishing and maintaining the connection between the military

and technology. 

The first scientific and technical organization of the alliance

was the Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development

(AGARD), founded by Theodore von Karman in 1953. Von Karman

was a powerful, if quiet, voice in establishing the post-World War II

model of a military that was closely coupled with the scientific and

technical community. He contended that “scientific results cannot

be used efficiently by soldiers who have no understanding of them,

and scientists cannot produce results useful for warfare without an

understanding of operations.”2

The mission statement of the AGARD Charter actively sanctioned the free exchange of militarily relevant scientific information to

strengthen the NATO common defense posture and increase the scientific potential of member nations, thereby providing the essence of

international technical cooperation for NATO that continues today.3

Although commonly accepted now, this charter at the time represented significant new thinking for an international activity. Oversight

and management of AGARD evolved somewhat over the years but generally consisted of a Board of Delegates, which reported to the NATO

Military Committee, and various technical panels, which had oversight

in their own areas. The Board of Delegates provided guidance to the

technical panels and approved their program of work.4

A second scientific and technical organization within NATO,

the Defense Research Group (DRG), was formed in 1967, also based

on input from von Karman. DRG was created simultaneously with the

Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD). Unlike

Overview

The accord establishing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949 provided the framework for the greatest

international mechanism ever in defense science and technology.

From its earliest days, NATO involvement in science and technology has sought to build cooperation and promote security and

stability. Today, the central element of the NATO defense science

and technology program is the Research and Technology Organization (RTO), which provides the best basis for collaboration

among the most technologically advanced countries in the world.

Through this body, alliance nations plan and execute activities

that cover the full spectrum of technologies vital to current and

future security.

RTO and its two predecessors, the Advisory Group for

Aerospace Research and Development and the Defense

Research Group, have a history of fostering long-term relationships among senior executives, scientists, and engineers; sharing information and research; and enhancing military capabilities. There is no international activity that rivals RTO in scope,

magnitude, or potential. RTO can continue to build on these

successes by emphasizing longevity of its highly qualified members, prioritizing areas of opportunity, integrating the seven

newest NATO invitees, and building a closer relationship with

Russia. This paper examines the origins of NATO defense science and technology, provides an overview of the Research and

Technology Organization, and analyzes the elements that make

RTO successful. The paper concludes with recommendations for

enhancing RTO effectiveness in the 21st century.

Origins of NATO Science and Technology

Involvement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

in defense science and technology dates to the earliest days of the

alliance. It was founded on the principles of international cooperation and security. Although neither science and technology nor

NATO Defense Science and

Technology

by Donald C. Daniel and Leigh C. Caraher

A publication of the

Center for Technology and National Security Policy

National Defense University

MARCH 2003

Number 24

Horizons

March 2003 Defense Horizons 1
AGARD with its research focus, the primary purpose of DRG was to

foster technical cooperation among alliance nations that could lead

to the development of future defense equipment. Also, unlike

AGARD, which reported to the Military Committee, DRG reported to

the newly created CNAD. At the highest level, DRG was made up of

individuals from the alliance nations who had responsibility for

national defense research and development. DRG featured eight

panels and two special groups of experts.5

During the 1990s, senior leaders from the member nations and

NATO headquarters increasingly perceived that unnecessary duplication existed between DRG and AGARD. There was also some concern about the number of individuals involved, which had grown to

more than 1,000 scientists, engineers, and administrators. The consensus among several nations was that both the total number of

people and unnecessary duplication needed to be reduced. In an

effort to solve these problems, NATO Secretary General Javier

Solana formally disbanded DRG and AGARD in April 1997 as part of

a major restructuring of defense research and technology. The

Research and Technology Organization (RTO) was then created,

and it absorbed the duties of its predecessors.

The Research and Technology Organization

Formed in 1998 by the merger of AGARD and DRG, the

Research and Technology Organization is the primary NATO organization for defense science and technology. RTO reports to both CNAD

and the Military Committee; it has both a board and technical panels; and it blends the research and technical missions of its predecessors. RTO promotes and conducts cooperative research and information exchange, develops and maintains a long-term NATO

research and technology strategy, and provides advice to all elements of NATO on research and technology issues. In pursuit of this

mission, RTO operates at three levels: the Research and Technology

Board, technical panels, and technical teams. A Research and Technology Agency provides staff support to RTO

The Research and Technology Board (RTB) constitutes the highest authority in RTO. It is the policy body tasked by the North Atlantic

Council through the Conference of National Armaments Directors and

the Military Committee to serve as the single integrating body within

NATO for the direction and/or coordination of defense research and

technology. RTB consists of up to three members per NATO nation.

The members are chosen by the nations and may be from government,

academia, or industry, although the majority of members are from government. Board members are typically senior science and technology

executives at the deputy under secretary, deputy assistant secretary,

or deputy administrator level. RTB elects a chairman for a 3-year term

from nominations submitted by the nations.

Technical panels are composed of senior-level technical

experts appointed by member nations. Panels have considerable

autonomy and are charged with initiating, planning, and managing

technical activities, subject to RTB approval, within their areas of

responsibility. Each technical panel consists of up to three national

members from each NATO nation. These members are chosen by the

nations, with the majority coming from government. In addition,

members-at-large, who may be required for a specific technical

expertise, may also be appointed based on a panel request or recommendation. The total membership of a panel is limited to 60, however. National panel members typically have been government senior

executive personnel with extensive science and technology responsibility and authority. Panel members-at-large most often have been

internationally recognized experts of high technical stature from

government, academia, or industry.

Technical teams are formed by the technical panels to perform

specific tasks, which include organizing and hosting symposia, specialist meetings, workshops, lecture series, technical courses, and

other activities. Technical team activities have clearly defined products and are limited in scope as well as duration, with 3 years being

the maximum time a team may be in existence unless specifically

extended by the board. Panel or board members appoint technical

team members. Any significant change in activities or team membership requires board approval. At any given time, dozens of technical

teams exist. Each team typically has multiple representatives from the

nations coming from a variety of backgrounds and experience levels.

The Research and Technology Agency (RTA) provides RTO

staff support. The multinational RTA staff numbers approximately

50 people. It consists of formal NATO positions and a larger number

of positions that member nations voluntarily provide in an ad hoc

manner. The assigned personnel may be civilian or military and

either technical or administrative. RTA is led by a director whom

RTB selects subject to approval by CNAD and the Military Committee in consultation with the Secretary General. The director is a

full-time NATO employee.

Benefits to RTO Nations

The RTO structure provides the framework for the greatest

international scientific and technical cooperative mechanism for

sharing of defense-related information of its kind. These research

results lead, in turn, to significantly enhanced military capabilities

of benefit to the entire alliance. As the NATO Standing Group communiqué to the AGARD Second General Assembly in 1952 declared:

The research and development potential of the North Atlantic Treaty

Nations is one of the greatest resources of the West. Any feasible pooling of these resources should achieve a greater rate of technical

progress than would each nation working alone. It is self-evident that

any contribution to this rate of progress is a contribution of fundamental importance to NATO defence objectives.6

Long-Term Relationships

Progress in science and technology frequently is made with a

long-term investment; often a decade or two passes before results

appear outside the immediate technical community in the form of

products or processes. Perseverance and steady advancement are

key elements in the success of science and technology and lend

2 Defense Horizons March 2003

Donald C. Daniel is a distinguished research professor in the Center for

Technology and National Security Policy at the National Defense University.

He is also chairman-elect of the NATO Research and Technology Board.

Dr. Daniel may be contacted at danield@ndu.edu. Leigh C. Caraher is a

research associate in the Center for Technology and National Security

Policy. She may be contacted at caraherl@ndu.edu.
themselves to long-term international relationships that provide

both new approaches to difficult problems and the scientific feedback necessary for progress.

RTO provides an exceptional opportunity for member nation

senior executives, scientists, and engineers to establish long-term

professional relationships. Regularly scheduled meetings in various

nations over the years give participants the opportunity for repeated

dialogue and exchange of ideas. Professional relationships and

strong ties evolve based initially on common technical interests, but

with continued contact, the relationships evolve further based on indepth, personal knowledge of individuals and institutions. These

solid relationships significantly enhance the prospects for resolving

technical, or even political, issues.

Multiple Approaches to Technical Problems

Difficult technical problems can most often be solved by having

top-quality people take different approaches. Because schools of

thought develop within institutions, the approach a senior specialist

takes toward a technical problem can vary widely by geographic

area, institution, or culture. For example, scientists and research

engineers in some nations (especially those with limited funding)

spend considerable amounts of time analyzing problems, whereas

other scientists and research engineers with greater funding may

move quickly to experimentation or even rudimentary concept

development. Either approach may be the one that provides the

timely breakthrough or ultimately provides a key element for the

other’s research program. With the participation of 19 nations and a

combined membership possessing the highest technical capability in

the world, RTO inherently provides superior access to various

schools of thought and multiple technical approaches to many of the

most difficult military problems.

Leveraged Resources

Leveraging resources has always been at the heart of NATO. In

1945, von Karman concluded, “progress in technology was so swift

that only a pool of nations could properly utilize scientific advances

for mutual protection.” This statement has as much validity today as

it did over 50 years ago, and it continues to underscore NATO scientific and technical cooperation. By combining the financial and

human resources as well as technical capacities of its members,

NATO can make greater advances in defense science and technology

March 2003 Defense Horizons 3

North Atlantic

Council

Research and

Technology Board

Information

Systems

Technology

Symposia

Workshops

Lecture Series

Other

Symposia

Workshops

Lecture Series

Other

Symposia

Workshops

Lecture Series

Other

Symposia

Workshops

Lecture Series

Other

Symposia

Workshops

Lecture Series

Other

Symposia

Workshops

Lecture Series

Other

Sensors and

Electronics

Technology

Systems

Concepts and

Integration

Studies,

Analysis, and

Simulation

Applied

Vehicle

Technology

Human

Factors and

Medicine

Modeling and

Simulation

Group

Research and

Technology Agency

Military

Committee

Conference of National

Armaments Directors

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATION Technical Panels Technical Teams

NATO Defense Research and Technology Structure
than any one nation working alone. As the NATO Standing Committee communiqué indicated to the Second AGARD General Assembly

in 1952, “the research and development potential of the North

Atlantic Treaty nations is one of the greatest resources of the West.”

7

Documented Results

The foundation of any technology is the archival literature.

Documenting the results of research conducted by thousands of its

scientists and engineers is an essential element of the RTO mission.

RTO (including its predecessors) is one of the largest scientific and

technical publishers in the world, with well over 3,000 publications

issued since 1952. These publications include focused volumes on

defense-related technologies, extensive collections of symposia

papers, and numerous workshop reports. Recent examples of the

subjects of some of these publications include Multisensor Image

Exploitation, Active Control of Engine Dynamics, Future Modeling

and Simulation Challenges and Integrated Mission System Concepts, and Technologies for Future Unmanned Combat Applications. NATO members have access to all publications through RTA.

Many are also available via the RTO Web site.

Issues and Recommendations

Built on a foundation of international scientific and technical

cooperation, the NATO Research and Technology Organization has

achieved many successes in defense science and technology that

have contributed significantly to NATO military capabilities. Since

the November 2002 NATO Summit in Prague, even more opportunities exist to build on these past successes. Not only were seven new

nations invited to join in accession talks for future membership in

the alliance, but the North Atlantic Council also announced new

NATO efforts at transformation—from streamlining its command

structure to creating a NATO Response Force. RTO can and must

play an integral role in working with the new strategic command for

transformation and the NATO Response Force, the integration of the

new members, and building relations with Russia.

Increased Defense Spending

Proportionate leveraging of financial resources in defense science and technology is one of the most fundamental and important

tasks for RTO. The gross domestic products of the United States and

Europe are almost equal, at approximately $10 trillion. However, the

United States outspends Europe almost 4 to 1 in defense research and

technology. With a defense science and technology budget that

approaches $10 billion per year, a multibillion-dollar laboratory infrastructure, and over 20,000 people employed in the laboratories, the

U.S. investment is a formidable one. An already exceptional leveraging

opportunity can clearly be enhanced by an increase in European

defense budgets.

It is gratifying to see that, concerned by the growing capabilities gap between Europe and the United States, many European

leaders have already taken steps to increase their defense budgets.

France, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom have submitted

budgets with a boost in defense spending, ranging from 1.2 percent

in the United Kingdom to 8.2 percent in France. The Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary have also announced plans to increase

their budgets. France’s $13.3 billion proposed 2003 defense budget

is especially significant since it includes an increase in research

and development to $3.7 billion.8

Prioritization of Technical Areas

RTO must achieve a balance of its activities across the spectrum of land, air, sea, space, and command, control, communications, computers, and information technologies. Because of its

AGARD heritage, RTO activities perhaps continue to be too aeronautics-centric, and RTB must be more proactive in providing policy

guidance to its panels to improve this situation. Perhaps the two

major technical areas of opportunity are information technology and

communications, which are also the two most dominant emerging

areas demanding increased interoperability. These should be a top

priority. Information technology is particularly appealing since it

does not require large infrastructure investments. As Ann Miller,

chair of the Information Systems Technology Panel, recently pointed

out, “The playing field is more level between Europe and the U.S.

industry when it comes to information technology.”

9

In setting research priorities, RTB must continue to listen carefully to its primary customers: the two strategic commands, the Military Committee, and the Conference of National Armaments Directors. These customers will become increasingly important as NATO

transforms its forces and stands up the NATO Response Force. The

new strategic command for transformation, announced at the

Prague Summit, will be responsible for the continuing transformation of military capabilities and for the promotion of interoperability

of alliance forces.10 The formation of this command provides a

unique opportunity to rapidly transition the right technologies with

the highest impacts.

Interoperability

One of the most critical issues that NATO has faced over the

last 50 years has been improving military interoperability. RTO has

excellent potential to increase interoperability from the research

beginnings of a given technology. With appropriate RTB policy guidance, the technical panels can perhaps derive solutions to interoperability problems early in a technology’s research and development

cycle. Information technology and communications are two areas

where interoperability is not only critical but also where technical

opportunities may be highest. More opportunities for enhanced

interoperability may also evolve as the defense industry becomes

more multinational over time; RTO must stay in touch with this evolution through the NATO Industrial Advisory Group and foster cooperation within the framework of growing interoperability.

Integration of New Members

At the NATO Summit in Prague, seven nations11 were invited to

begin accession talks to join NATO by May 2004. With their membership so close, RTO must formulate and implement plans to integrate

these new members into a broad spectrum of technical activities.

Their technical capabilities and desires must be considered equally,

and proactive plans that are mutually beneficial to NATO and the new

members must be put in place. The new members must understand

from the beginning that their active participation in RTO is welcome

and that their scientific and technical contributions are expected.

4 Defense Horizons March 2003
Outreach to Russia

A major, proactive initiative by the RTO to Russia is perhaps

overdue and could contribute significantly to security and stability in

Europe and the world. Although RTO activities have been open to

Russia for some time, the organization has yet to formulate and

implement a proactive plan. With the eastward enlargement of

NATO, increasing commonality in our national security interests,

and the continuing excellent ability of Russian defense research and

technology, now is the time.

Increased Longevity in Membership

The key to establishing and maintaining the long-term relationships that are essential for the NATO defense science and technology

program to flourish rests with the Research and Technology Board

and technical panels. Because RTB formulates and directs NATO

strategy for research and technology, RTB members must continue to

come from the ranks of the most senior defense research and development organizations in the member nations. These board members

must commit to the time and travel required to participate in semiannual board meetings, and they must be active participants.

Nations must also strive for the stability and longevity of their

board members. For example, U.S. members have served on average

only 2 years, with no current member having served continuously

since the board’s inception. Given the desirability of establishing longterm relationships within the scientific and technical community of

the alliance nations, this matter requires increased attention.

Technical Panel Membership

Membership on RTO technical panels also requires increased

attention. Nations must appoint members who are prominent in their

research and technology organizations and command appropriate

resources to execute the programs put in place by their panels. Also,

member nations must strive for continuity and appropriate longevity

in panel membership. The average length of service for all U.S. members on technical panels, for example, is only 2 years. Nations individually and the alliance at large will benefit from longer terms.

Conclusion

Allied cooperation in defense science and technology through

the NATO Research and Technology Organization remains critical to

the promotion of peace, stability, and security throughout the world.

By encouraging international scientific and technical cooperation

and by conducting research to maintain a technological lead in

defense capabilities, NATO assures its active engagement and continued viability in the new strategic environment.

No international defense research and technology activity

rivals RTO in scope, magnitude, or potential. As NATO enlarges and

takes on new missions, the common language of scientists and engineers will offer a mechanism for exchange and growth in a world that

will continue to be dominated by technology. It is imperative that the

technical arm of NATO grasps this opportunity and remains a key

ingredient in our collective security.

Notes1 Article 2 of the NATO Charter states, “The Parties will contribute toward the

further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening

their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon

which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and

well-being.” Article 3 adds, “In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this

Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective selfhelp and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” 2 Theodore von Karman with Lee Edson, The Wind and Beyond: Theodore von

Karman, Pioneer in Aviation and Pathfinder in Space (Boston: Little, Brown and

Company, 1967). 3 Jan Van der Bliek, ed., AGARD, The History 1952–1997 (Essex, UK: SPS Communications, 1999). The elements of the AGARD Charter were to:

• recommend effective ways for member nations to use research and development capabilities for the common benefit of the NATO community

• provide scientific and technical advice and assistance to the Military Committee in the field of aerospace research and development (with particular regard

to its military application)

• continuously stimulate advances in the aerospace sciences relevant to

strengthening the common defense posture

• improve the cooperation among member nations in aerospace research and

development

• exchange scientific and technical information

• provide assistance to member nations for the purpose of increasing scientific

and technical potential

• render scientific and technical assistance, as requested, to other NATO bodies

and to member nations in connection with research and development problems in the aerospace field.

4 The number and titles of the AGARD technical panels varied over the years,

but, for the most part, seven were organized around the following areas: aerospace

medicine, flight vehicle integration, fluid dynamics, mission systems, propulsion and

energetics, sensors and propagation, and structures and materials. The technical panels were made up of experts in the various fields from most member nations. Total

membership varied, but by the late 1990s was approximately 500 people. The technical panels had considerable autonomy subject to board approval in the formulation

and execution of their programs. 5 The DRG panels, made up of senior laboratory directors and administrators,

were long-term scientific studies; physics and electronics; optics and infrared; operational research; human and biomedical sciences; electronic warfare; air defense; and

information processing technology. The two special groups of experts were concealment, camouflage, and deception; and combat engineering technology. Total membership varied, but by the late 1990s was approximately 500 people. 6 Van der Bliek. Emphasis added.

7 Ibid.

8 “France Increases Defense Spending Through 2008,” Defense Daily, September 12, 2002. 9 G. Ratman and A. Svitak, “How Europe Can Close the Gap,” Defense News,

August 5–11, 2002. 10 Prague Summit Declaration, issued by the heads of state and government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council, Prague, November 21, 2002. 11 Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

March 2003 Defense Horizons 5

Defense Horizons is published by the Center for Technology and National Security Policy through the

Publication Directorate of the Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University.

Defense Horizons and other National Defense University publications are available online at

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/press/nduphp.html.

The opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are those of the

contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Defense or any other

department or agency of the Federal Government.

Center for Technology and National Security Policy

Hans Binnendijk

Director
6 Defense Horizons March 2003

Number 22, December 2002

The Emergence of Mini UAVs for Military

Applications

Timothy Coffey and John A. Montgomery

Number 21, January 2003

The Silence of the Labs

Don J. DeYoung

Number 20, October 2002

From Petro to Agro: Seeds of a 

New Economy

Robert E. Armstrong

Number 19, October 2002

Effects-Based Operations: Building the

Analytic Tools

Desmond Saunders-Newton and Aaron B. Frank

Number 18, October 2002

High-Energy Lasers: Technical,

Operational, and Policy Issues

Elihu Zimet

Number 17, October 2002

Computer Simulation and the

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

Peter D. Zimmerman and David W. Dorn

Number 16, August 2002

The Virtual Border: Countering Seaborne

Container Terrorism

Hans Binnendijk, Leigh C. Caraher, Timothy Coffey,

and H. Scott Wynfield

Number 15, July 2002

Biological Weapons: Toward a Threat

Reduction Strategy

Brad Roberts and Michael Moodie

The DefenseHorizons Series

Number 14, June 2002

Toward Missile Defenses from the Sea

Hans Binnendijk and George Stewart

Number 13, May 2002

Relevancy and Risk: The U.S. Army and

Future Combat Systems

Joseph N. Mait and Jon G. Grossman

Number 12, April 2002

The Airborne Laser from Theory to

Reality: An Insider’s Account

Hans Mark

Number 11, April 2002

Computer Games and the Military: 

Two Views

J.C. Herz and Michael R. Macedonia

Number 10, March 2002

Rediscovering the Infantry in a Time 

of Transformation

Bing West

Number 9, March 2002

Nonlethal Capabilities: Realizing 

the Opportunities

E.R. Bedard

Number 8, March 2002

Small Security Nanotechnology and 

Future Defense

John L. Petersen and Dennis M. Egan

Number 7, February 2002

Global Trade: America’s Achilles’ Heel

James M. Loy and Robert G. Ross