Tech-soevereiniteit — Open Architectures, Not Protectionism
Misinterpreting Strategic Autonomy
Common mistake: Strategic autonomy = "alles zelf maken"
Correct: Strategic autonomy = geen vendor lock-in, open ecosystems, supply chain resilience.
Strategic Autonomy ≠ Protectionism
What Strategic Autonomy IS
✅ Open interfaces — NATO STANAGs, open APIs, published standards ✅ Multi-vendor ecosystems — geen single supplier dependency ✅ Source transparency — critical code auditable ✅ Alternative suppliers — Tier-2 visibility, pre-qualified backups ✅ Interoperability — seamless integration across JEF
What Strategic Autonomy IS NOT
❌ "Nederlandse/Europese componenten verplicht" — creates vendor lock-in ❌ Protectionisme — smaller market, slower innovation ❌ Alles zelf ontwikkelen — inefficient, expensive ❌ Nationale kampioenen beschermen — prevents competition
Open Architectures
Example: Sensor Module
Modular Sensor Interface (MSI) — Open Standard
├─ Power: MIL-STD-1275 (28V DC)
├─ Data: Ethernet (IEEE 802.3) + STANAG 4677
├─ Mechanical: Standard gimbal mount (published CAD)
└─ Software API: OpenAPI 3.0 spec
Vendor Options:
├─ Vendor A (NL): EO/IR sensor €50K
├─ Vendor B (SE): Radar €70K
├─ Vendor C (UK): Hyperspectral €90K
└─ Buyer: Can switch vendors without platform redesign
Benefits:
- No vendor lock-in — switch suppliers without reengineering
- Competition — vendors compete on performance/price
- Innovation — new vendors can enter market
- JEF interop — sensors work across platforms/nations
Supply Chain Resilience
Traditional (black box):
Prime → Tier-1 → ??? → ???
No visibility beyond Tier-1
Single points of failure (SPOF)
Strategic Autonomy (transparent):
Prime → Tier-1 → Tier-2 → Tier-3
Full visibility, risk scoring
Alternative suppliers pre-qualified
Digital twin tracking
Example: Semiconductor
Component: Edge AI processor
├─ Primary: NXP (NL) → TSMC (TW fab) ⚠️ geopolitical risk
├─ Alternative: Intel (EU/US fabs) → lower risk
└─ Mitigation: Pre-qualified both, maintain relationships
Vendor Lock-in Avoidance
How Vendor Lock-in Happens
Traditional procurement:
- Buy platform from Vendor X
- Vendor X uses proprietary interfaces
- Upgrades/spares only from Vendor X
- Result: Captive customer, no competition
Example (hypothetical):
Buy 100 drones from VendorCorp
├─ Proprietary datalink (encrypted, no docs)
├─ Custom battery connector
├─ Closed-source autopilot
└─ Result: All future upgrades/spares from VendorCorp only
How to Prevent
Ecosysteem-SLA requirements:
- Open interfaces mandatory
- Published APIs (OpenAPI specs)
- Source code transparency (critical modules)
- Interoperability testing (multi-vendor certification)
Example (correct):
Buy ISR coverage (not platforms) via ecosysteem-SLA
├─ Prime integrator coordinates vendors
├─ All interfaces = open (STANAG, IEEE)
├─ Source code escrowed (critical modules)
└─ Result: Can switch vendors per module, no lock-in
JEF Interoperability
Goal: Seamless integration across JEF nations.
How:
- NATO STANAGs (4677, 7085, etc.)
- Open protocols (Ethernet, RF mesh)
- Common data formats (MIL-STD-2525, CoT)
- Multi-vendor certification (test interop before deploy)
Example: Tactical Mesh Network
UK drone ↔ NL ground station ↔ SE command post
├─ All use STANAG 4677 (Tactical Data Link)
├─ Interoperable RF waveforms
├─ Common data format (MIL-STD-2525 symbology)
└─ Result: Seamless info sharing across JEF
Kapitaalmarkt Implications
Why investors care:
✅ Larger TAM — not locked to single customer ✅ Less risk — no vendor lock-in dependency ✅ More growth — multi-vendor ecosystem scales faster
Example:
SensorTech BV (hypothetical):
├─ Open interface sensors
├─ Works with 5 platform vendors (NL, UK, SE, FI, NO)
├─ TAM: €500M (all JEF) vs €100M (NL only)
└─ Investor thesis: Larger market, strategic autonomy alignment
End of Deel II
Next: Bijlagen — Definities