March 13, 2018 | International, Aerospace

Air Force orders freeze on public outreach

By: Valerie Insinna , David B. Larter , and Aaron Mehta

WASHINGTON — The Air Force is slashing access to media embeds, base visits and interviews as it seeks to put the entire public affairs apparatus through retraining — a move it says is necessary for operational security, but one which could lead to a broader freeze in how the service interacts with the public.

According to March 1 guidance obtained by Defense News, public affairs officials and commanders down to the wing level must go through new training on how to avoid divulging sensitive information before being allowed to interact with the press.

The effort, which represents the third major Defense Department entity to push out guidance restricting public communication over the past 18 months, creates a massive information bureaucracy in which even the most benign human-interest stories must be cleared at the four-star command level.

Before settling on retraining its public affairs corps and commanders, the service considered an even more drastic step: shutting down all engagement with the press for a 120-day period, a source with knowledge of the discussions said.

Instead, the service settled on the retraining plan, a temporary move which Brig. Gen. Ed Thomas, director of public affairs, said could be completed “in the coming weeks.”

“In today's challenging information environment marked by great power competition, we will continue to be as transparent with the American public as possible while protecting sensitive information on our operations and capabilities,” Thomas told Defense News. “We owe both to the public, and it is vitally important for the public to understand what we are doing on their behalf and with their tax dollars.”

But two former Air Force secretaries and an influential congressman all raise the same concern: that intentionally or not, this will send a message that engaging with the public simply isn't worth the risk.

Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., told Defense News the memo fits into a trend of recent moves inside the Defense Department towards less transparency, which could ultimately undermine DoD's efforts to address long-standing problems. Gallagher serves on the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, which oversees several key Air Force programs like the B-21 bomber.

“I fully support the National Defense Strategy's focus on great power competition,” Gallagher told Defense News, “but I think the department has it backwards; It is precisely because of the scale of the challenges before us that transparency is more important than ever. I worry that by failing to discuss problems, we will only ensure there is no public pressure to fix them.”

Shrinking Air Force access

The renewed focus on operational security stems from the Trump administration's recently released national defense strategy, according to the Air Force guidance. That document, which was marked as “for official use only,” was distributed to public affairs officials following a February 2018 memo on operational security signed by Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson and Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein.

“As we engage the public, we must avoid giving insights to our adversaries which could erode military advantage,” the March 2018 guidance read. “We must now adapt to the reemergence of great power competition and the reality that our adversaries are learning from what we say in public.”

Until wing-level spokesmen have been certified by their corresponding major command, responses to reporter queries that potentially could include details about “operations, training or exercises, readiness or other issues which may reveal operational information to potential adversaries” are subject to approval by the Air Force's public affairs headquarters at the Pentagon, known as Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs or SAF/PA. Exceptions can be made for human interest stories, community engagement pieces or other lighter, fluffier news, which can be approved by major command public officials.

What this means is that if public affairs officials at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas haven't received their training, a local story about military working dogs would need the approval of Air Education and Training Command before being allowed to proceed with an interview or any engagement.

Beyond limiting the Air Force's interactions with journalists, the new guidelines pose new restrictions on public appearances such as air show demonstrations, trade shows, industry conferences and think tank events, which can move forward if authorized by SAF/PA's engagement division.

And although Air Force band performances will be permitted to continue, all band members who interact with the media must receive training from public affairs.

Exactly what constitutes sensitive information is unclear. The Air Force's guidance lays out “potential engagement areas” alongside topics that could possibly pose “operational security risks.” Classified information and vulnerabilities are included in the latter area, but so are details about flag exercises, the number and location of operational assets, or information related to current readiness — some of which are routinely shared with the public.

The guidance notes that “neither list is all inclusive,” and that public affairs professionals “use sound discretion and exercise discretion when evaluating all engagement opportunities.”

Pausing a turnaround

The guidance comes as the Air Force was finally repairing a damaged public affairs reputation. The service infamously clamped down on talking after the 2008 firing of both its chief of staff and service secretary, which had a chilling effect across the service.

The situation culminated in a 2016 informal poll by Foreign Policy magazine, which found reporters ranking the Air Force as the worst service to deal with. That result resonated heavily within Air Force leadership, triggering promises of more open lines of communication.

Deborah Lee James, Wilson's predecessor as Air Force secretary, told Defense News it was her belief the service needs to be more open, not less.

“I have not seen the memo. However, I am sorry to hear about this development. If true, it certainly runs against the grain for what I tried to do as secretary of the Air Force,” James said. “Sometimes there's positive news to talk about, and our airmen can be the best communicators. Sometimes there's negative news to talk about. But much better that we be the ones to describe that news and frame it for the American people.”

Whit Peters, who from 1997-2001 served as both Air Force secretary and undersecretary, acknowledged there are times when the military needs to keep information back for security reasons. He said the memo restrictions remind him of the way the service handled information during the conflict in Bosnia. But he also warned the memo may have a chilling effect far beyond its printed text.

“The penumbra of this memo is worse than the memo itself. If you're already an Air Force officer, who is disinclined to talk to the press, this just gives you one more reason to think it is not career enhancing to talk to the press,” Peters said. “And that is unfortunate because the Air Force at all levels needs to be talking to the American public about what a valuable service it provides.”

“I still think the Air Force does not do enough publicly to explain its mission and to explain why it needs to rejuvenate its whole fleet, both in air and space,” Peters continued. “So I would hope this doesn't get in the way of the Air Force telling its story on why it's important, and why it needs to be funded by the taxpayers.”

The Navy: A Case Study

A test case for the potential impact of the memo can be seen in the recent status of the Navy.

In March 2017, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson issued a memo that directed admirals to continue to engage with the media. But it also implored Navy officials not to give “too much” information — even unclassified information — in a public setting.

“When it comes to specific operational capabilities however, very often less is more,” he said in the memo. “Sharing information about future operations and capabilities, even at the unclassified level, makes it easier for potential adversaries to gain an advantage.”

The memo, which was broad and lacked specific guidance, created a persistent atmosphere of uncertainty throughout the Navy where leaders and program managers have been unsure about what they can talk about and what they can't.

And last October, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis released a memo calling for employees to be “vigilant” in preventing leaks.

“It is a violation of our oath to divulge, in any fashion, non-public DoD information, classified or unclassified, to anyone without the required security clearance as well as a specific need to know in the performance of their duties,” he said.

The information chill both inside the Navy and DoDwide has been noticed by lawmakers, who have called on the military to err on the side of transparency.

Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis., discusses the budget and transparency at the Surface Navy Association's annual symposium on Jan. 10, 2018.

At a Navy conference in January, Gallagher dismissed Richardson's concerns about giving away secrets in the press, arguing that if the Navy doesn't talk about what it's doing, members of Congress can't convince their fellow members not on defense committees, let alone their constituents, that more resources are necessary.

“Despite the old adage that ‘loose lips sink ships,' non-existent strategic communications can sink entire navies,” he continued. “If the bias is towards silence to prevent adversaries from finding out about unique capabilities or potential weaknesses: guess what, there will never be a public constituency for acquiring or mitigating them.

“And, oh by the way, our adversaries probably have a decent idea of what we're up to anyways.”

The powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), spoke out in January as well, saying that while secrecy is important, so is transparency, saying it makes a difference in DoD's bottom line.

“As we've talked before, some of the folks in DoD are reluctant to talk too openly about our shortfalls because you're broadcasting that to your potential adversaries,” Thornberry said. “And I admit, it's a fine balance. But if we're going to convince my colleagues who are not on this committee, as well as the American people, to fix these things, I think we do have to at least talk somewhat openly about what our problems are.”

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-news/2018/03/13/air-force-orders-freeze-on-public-outreach/

On the same subject

August 7, 2019 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/1927732/
NAVY Lockheed Martin Space, Littleton, Colorado, is awarded a maximum amount $405,770,000 un-priced letter contract modification PH0006 to a previously awarded and announced un-priced letter contract (N00030-19-C-0025) for the design, development, build and integration of large diameter rocket motors, associated missile body flight articles, and related support equipment for Army Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike Weapon System flight test demonstrations. Work will be performed at Littleton, Colorado, with an expected completion date of Jan. 1, 2024. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test, and evaluation funds in the amount of $33,000,000 are being obligated on this award, which will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Strategic Systems Programs, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. Brantley Construction Co. LLC,* Charleston, South Carolina (N69450-19-D-0916); CCI Group LLC,* Shalimar, Florida (N69450-19-D-0917); The Clement Group,* Montgomery, Alabama (N69450-19-D-0918); EG Designbuild LLC,* Germantown, Maryland (N69450-19-D-0919); GCB JV1,* Pensacola, Florida (N69450-19-D-0920); U-SMC DeMaria JV1 LLC,* Jacksonville, Florida (N69450-19-D-0921); and Windamir Development Inc.,* McDonough, Georgia (N69450-19-D-0922), are each awarded an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, multiple award, design-build and design-bid-build construction contract for construction projects located within the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southeast area of operations in north Florida/south Georgia. The maximum dollar value for the five-year ordering period for all seven contracts combined is $195,000,000. The work to be performed provides for, but is not limited to, general building type projects (new construction, renovation, alteration, demolition and repair work) including aviation and aircraft facilities; marine facilities; barracks and personnel housing facilities; administrative facilities; warehouses and supply facilities; training facilities; personnel support and service facilities, and security level facilities. These seven contractors may compete for task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contract. Windamir Development Inc. is awarded the initial task order at $10,576,432 for P643 Reserve Training Building at Fort Benning. Work for this task order is expected to be completed by September 2021. All work on this contract will be performed in Florida (50%); and Georgia (50%). The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months, with an expected completion date of August 2024. Fiscal 2019 military construction (MILCON); and fiscal 2019 operations and maintenance (Navy) contract funds in the amount of $10,582,432 are obligated on this award and will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Future task orders will be primarily funded by MILCON (Navy); operations and maintenance (Navy); and Navy working capital funds. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online website with 40 proposals received. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southeast, Jacksonville, Florida, is the contracting activity. Lockheed Martin Corp., Marietta, Georgia, is awarded $16,465,887 for modification P00005 to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract (N00019-19-D-0014). This modification increases the ceiling of the contract to procure consumable parts and material, technical publications and engineering services in support of the C/KC-130J aircraft. Work will be performed in Marietta, Georgia (84.5%); Miramar, California (2.5%); Cherry Point, North Carolina (2.5%); Elizabeth City, North Carolina (2.5%); Fort Worth, Texas (2.5%); Abdullah Al-Mubarak Air Base, Kuwait (2.5%); Iwakuni, Japan (2.5%); and Greenville, South Carolina (0.5%), and is expected to be completed in December 2019. No funds are being obligated at time of award; funds will be obligated on individual orders as they are issued. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity. Hydroid Inc., Pocasset, Massachusetts, is awarded a $15,826,493 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for engineering support and training services for the MK 18 Family of Systems– Unmanned Underwater Vehicle systems. This contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $84,024,996. Work will be performed in Pocasset, Massachusetts, and is expected to be complete by August 2020. If options are exercised, work will continue through August 2024. No funds are being obligated at this time. This contract is awarded on a sole-source basis in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1(a)(2) – only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division, Indian Head, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00174-19-D-0010). King Nutronics Corp.,* Woodland Hills, California, is awarded an $11,865,150 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for precision pressure standard systems to support the Naval Air Systems Command, Metrology and Calibration Program. The Naval Air Systems Command, Metrology and Calibration Program provides support to Navy depot level and intermediate calibration laboratories. The precision pressure standards systems provide the Naval Air Systems Command, Metrology and Calibration Program with the capability of providing inter-service calibration workload for the Air Force and Marine Corps. The precision pressure standards systems are used at intermediate level calibration laboratories afloat and ashore, as well as the depot level calibration laboratories to verify the accuracy and precision of test instruments such as dial pressure gauges and digital pressure measurement devices. Work will be performed in Woodland Hills, California, and is expected to be completed by August 2024. Fiscal 2019 aircraft procurement (Navy) funding in the amount of $263,670 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1) - only one source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements as implemented by Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. The Naval Surface Warfare Center, Corona Division, Corona, California, is the contracting activity (N64267-19-D-0003). Raytheon Co., Keyport, Washington, is awarded $11,738,000 for firm-fixed-priced undefinitized delivery order N00024-19-F-6308 under indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract N61331-17-D-0001for deploy and retrieve systems in support of the AN/AQS-20 program. The highly specialized equipment under this contract will deploy, tow and retrieve the AN/AQS-20 sonar in support of mine hunting operations. The AN/AQS-20 is an advanced mine hunting sonar for the Littoral Combat Ship's Mine Countermeasures Mission package. Work will be performed in Keyport, Washington (90%); and Portsmouth, Rhode Island (10%), and is expected to be complete by October 2020. Fiscal 2019 other-procurement (Navy) funds in the amount of $5,751,620 will be obligated at time of award and will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured in accordance with 10 U.S. Code 2304(c)(1): only one responsible source and no other supplies or services will satisfy agency requirements. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, District of Columbia, is the contracting activity. ARMY ECS Federal LLC, Fairfax, Virginia, was awarded a $78,725,114 modification (P00003) to contract W911QX-18-C-0037 for machine learning and computer vision engineering. Work will be performed in Fairfax, Virginia, with an estimated completion date of July 16, 2022. Fiscal 2018 and 2019 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $35,847,000 were obligated at the time of the award. U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, is the contracting activity. DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY Hyman Brickle & Son,* doing business as Northwest Woolen Mills, Woonsocket, Rhode Island, has been awarded a maximum of $8,198,835 firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for trousers. This was a competitive acquisition with two responses received. This is a one-year base contract with two one-year option periods. Locations of performance are Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and North Carolina, with an Aug. 5, 2020, performance completion date. Using military services are Army and Air Force. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 through 2020 defense working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (SPE1C1-19-D-1180). Raytheon Co., Marlborough, Massachusetts, has been awarded a maximum $7,756,450 firm-fixed-price contract for multiple radio equipment components. This was a sole-source acquisition using justification 10 U.S. Code 2304 (c)(1), as stated in Federal Acquisition Regulation 6.302-1. This is a one-time procurement contract with no option periods. Locations of performance are Virginia and Massachusetts, with a Nov. 17, 2021, performance completion date. Using military service is Navy. Type of appropriation is fiscal 2019 Navy working capital funds. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency, Land and Maritime, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania (SPRMM1-19-F-DK0Q). CORRECTION: The $49,019,871 contract announced on Aug. 1, 2019, for Sysco Raleigh LLC, Selma, North Carolina (SPE300-19-D-3230), included an incorrect award date. The correct award date is Aug. 2, 2019. *Small Business https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/1927732/
August 12, 2019 | International, Aerospace

Finland’s Air Force chief tackles recruiting challenges and its quest for a future fighter
By: Valerie Insinna TIKKAKOSKI, Finland — The Finnish Air Force is changing. In a matter of years, it will decide on its future fighter — a €7-€10 billion (U.S. $7.8-$11.2 billion) program that could tie Finland more closely to the country that wins the competition. It's revamping its command-and-control infrastructure. And like other international air forces, it's putting increased pressure on itself to boost readiness. Maj. Gen. Pasi Jokinen, who became the commander of Finland's Air Force in April, oversees the transformation. The job has its perks: During U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Dave Goldfein's trip to Finland in July — his first visit to the nation — the two officers took a break from meetings and sat backseat in two Finnish F/A-18 Hornets for a training mission. Goldfein later said the flight signified the growing trust between the two air forces. Jokinen spoke on July 21 with Defense News, which traveled to Finland with Goldfein, about the service's readiness challenges and its modernization priorities. Tell me about your conversation here today with Gen. Goldfein. Well, we talked about a lot of interesting topics. We talked about the operation environment and the Finnish Air Force and what we do here, and the cooperation with the U.S. and all that. He obviously was aware of a lot of things, but we went into very good detail about everything like that. We know what's happening here, we are strongly here, we are committed here and everything is running smoothly. You said you talked about the operational environment for Finland right now. Can you characterize that, and is it changing? Well, I think we have been using that word “new normal” after Crimea and after 2014, so activity in the Baltic region and in this region is in a little bit elevated level — let's put it that way. And of course our eastern neighbor is actively doing things in Syria and eastern Ukraine. It has had some effects. It seems that they have this big exercise cycle, [in] running the Zapad [exercise] and how they rotate the different regions. In 2017 we saw again this western Russia exercise, and it was noted. It was at peak activity level. Activity-wise, 2017 was the highlight, and now we are calmed down a little bit, but still we are above the level before 2014. Is it fair to say that the number of intercepts peaked in 2017? Yeah, well, when their activity is high, our activity is high. And of course the Gulf of Finland, which is the international airspace nearby our border, that's one of the areas of interest. You used the word “intercepts,” though; that activity is there. I mean, of course then they are operating also in the other, the northeast and eastern border, but that's a solid border. I mean, obviously they are on their side and we are on our side. Then the international airspace where we meet, OK. The Gulf of Finland is mainly transit for mainland Russia to Kaliningrad and back, and in the southern Baltic Sea, or the Baltic sea down more south, there's more room to maneuver, do stuff like that. Here is the very narrow — long but narrow — corridor that normally there is no operational type of maneuvers, neither side, but it's a transit. But we like to know who is going where and all that. Then obviously one the things are that they do not always use transponders or flight plans. There are no flight plans, so we need to find out who is there. That has improved a bit over the years. The equipment is newer and they have the western transponders and they use them, so it's a little bit better situation that we had a few years back, but it's not 100 percent covered with the flight plans or transponders. As you look across the entire Air Force, what's your No. 1 concern? Is it budget? Is it what you're seeing threat-wise from potential adversaries? Well, I'm not concerned about the adversary. Things are relatively stable. We have good relations in all the directions, all directions there. Defense forces in general has been resourced relatively well. The readiness, of course, requires some money. And of course the Army has had a bigger transition the last few years out of the services, from a training organization into a readiness organization. There's of course a need for more money, for operating money also. And the government has been giving quite good money in the last few years. Now the future is not that bright. I mean, there's some dark clouds there. I'm concerned. Of course, the main procurement program, like the HX [fighter replacement program], seems to be well on track, and I'm very happy about that, and that is their main priority, of course, to keep that in schedule and in budget for the procurement side of the house. People have been — I don't know if “stressed” is the right word — but they have been under pressure for the readiness, and we've also gotten more vacant jobs. We are recruiting people, people on the field and into the practical work— so the aircraft maintenance, the surveillance tasks. It's very important that the recruitment works. Aside from HX, are there other modernization efforts that you're trying to keep on track? Well, we are, before the HX selection, before the HX comes in. Right now we are working on our C4I system. But we have had quite a lot of new pieces there and they are IOC [initial operational capability], becoming FOC [full operational capability]. Then whatever solution or whatever HX candidate is chosen, there is a requirement to be able to process and handle all that [information]. So we are working that before so when selection is done and it's actually coming in, the infrastructure is prepared for that. Obviously we need to then fine-tune it, depending on the selection, at the end of the day, but right now we are working on the basic infrastructure. What has Finland already fielded? What is coming up that is still in the planning stages or in the competitive stages? For the C4 side of house? Well, OK, we've got our sensors, relative new sensors for the surveillance sensors. And our networks and the infrastructure and the servers, kind of like the infrastructure there, both the networks and for the servers. They are relatively new. So it's there, and we are getting that into use as we speak or in the near future. Then it's all about the processes and methods and how to handle the data and how to use the data. So that's something that people in organizations need to learn. Not the hardware, but the people need to learn, so that's something that we are working on. Then, when we get the HX here and we know what it is, then we do the necessary adjustments. And it's obviously platform-specific and [dependent on] the requirements there. In all cases, we need to be able to be better in joint warfare inside Finland with data services and of course maintain the international interoperability portion, whether it's about tactical data links or whether it's other things. Did you discuss interoperability with the U.S. Air Force with Gen. Goldfein? Well, yeah, sure. Technology is one thing. You are interoperable and you can use the data and all that. But the processes [of] how you do it is one thing, but then there's this policy side of the house, that if you don't have the policy or to actually be there — interoperable all the time — then you just need to be prepared for that. We are an independent nation. We are not a NATO member, and we are not doing common planning. We are operating as neighbors here. Our AOR [area of responsibility] and the EUCOM [U.S. European Command] AOR and NATO AOR, they are all overlapping or next to each other. Coordination and deconfliction [are] some things that we need to be ready to do. The policy is important and the SOPs [standard operating procedures] and all that. The U.S. is interested in rapidly generating air power in times of crisis. How can the U.S. better defend its bases or set up new expeditionary air bases if needed? From what I understand, that's something that Finland has the capability to do. Did that come up in conversation, and do you think that there are things that the U.S. can learn from Finland in that area? In Finland, we have our main base. But yes, we can deploy and we can swarm, distribute our assets, and then have them under the command and control, and make centralized effects out of those distributed things. So yeah, that was talked about. Of course, it requires the ability to move and begin to move [your resources from the base]. It requires a good situational awareness and plans [for] how to do it, and then the timely execution of that. We've talked about the general concept, and yes, it was mentioned by Gen. Goldfein that they are looking for a more expeditionary mindset, that huge massive bases that you can generate the air power may not be the thing that you want to stick. Finland is not that small [of an] area. There are smaller nations than us, but still in the global or the U.S. scale, it's still a small area. The thing is to look for the agility and mobility and know what's happening and do the right things from there, either move or disperse. Is that a capability in which Finland continues to invest? Yeah, it's part of the HX program. So now the question is how much. It's good for that fight that you distribute, but the main operation is get out there and do the job, then come back and you can go out again. That is the important thing — that you get the effect in the air, what you're doing from the air or in the air. Then it's nice for the survivability part and all that to be distributed. That's what we are still looking [at]. But then, to what extent? That is to be determined. We will find it out when the HX goes forward. On HX, I understand Finland is looking for some industrial incentives. Has it become clear yet what each company might be willing to offer? We are in the middle of the process. I don't know whether the offers are final. We have the ideas that we are discussing. There is a requirement that we need to be able to do certain stuff in Finland, with the Finnish resources and [people with] Finnish passports. That is a requirement [that] is still there. How do you think Finland will have to balance the cost of this project with the capability it wants? That equation needs to be solved, but we have two years of time to solve it. We have the money — €7 billion to €10 billion. And we need to maximize the capability on that money. Are you making additional investments in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities? There is a desire to have the proper amount of ISR. Obviously the HX is going bring something into it, and we also have a recent area there that we are investigating. Probably when there's better visibility, when we are actually selecting and getting through HX, then we [will] know where the gaps are, and then we are going to fill them in [with] other programs. https://www.defensenews.com/2019/08/09/finlands-air-force-chief-tackles-recruiting-challenges-and-its-quest-for-a-future-fighter/
September 10, 2019 | International, Aerospace

3 questions with the EU defense chief on Europe’s future fighters
By: Sebastian Sprenger PARIS — Underway in Europe are two high-profile sixth-generation aircraft efforts: the Franco-German-Spanish Future Combat Air System, and Britain's Tempest fighter. But will they converge? Defense News asked the chief executive of the European Defence Agency, Jorge Domecq, for his take on the future of these programs. It's quite possible the FCAS program by Spain, Germany and France and the British Tempest program will lead to a situation of two fighters. What's your assessment? We'll have to see, but FCAS is not going to be just one platform. It's going to be a system of systems. It will be a very complex program; it will take many years. It will be very important for it to be sustainable, that it has the economies of scale that are necessary. And at the same time, as we have these three initial member states signing up, I do not exclude this would bring on other member states as we go long. What will happen with the Tempest project, I cannot say. But as the person that oversees FCAS, you would like to see some convergence, right? Europe would probably have to see convergence toward having a single system of systems, but as I underlined, it's not an issue of platform. As always, thinking of the competitiveness of the European defense industry, we have to think of program sustainability. Is the next generation of combat aircraft sustainable with several systems of systems in Europe? I have my doubts. Speaking of consolidation, there have been calls to consolidate the defense industry. What is the level of urgency for that? I think the urgency is there. In the next five to 10 years, the defense industry is going to know a real evolution of technology; disruptive technologies are going to change how we do business in defense. That is going to have an impact on the defense industry. The only way forward for defense in general is cooperation. Cooperation is the only way Europe will remain a credible partner in operational terms but also in technology-related industrial terms. That requires we pull together to do as many defense cooperation projects in the future. And the consolidation of the industry will happen around those cooperative endeavors. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/2019/09/08/3-questions-with-the-eu-defense-chief-on-europes-future-fighters/

All news