October 7, 2019 | International, Aerospace
Christopher Kojm
Finland is coming up on a key decision in 2021: the selection of combat aircraft to replace its existing squadrons of F-18s. The acquisition will be the largest government procurement in Finland's history. Cost will be one factor; capability will be even more important. Yet the most important consideration will be its overall contribution to Finland's security. The decision is not just about buying aircraft, it is also about building partnerships.
Last year Finland solicited aircraft bids, and this year it received them from five manufacturers. The proposed multirole fighters are the Dassault Rafale (France), Eurofighter Typhoon (Great Britain), Saab Gripen (Sweden) and the Lockheed Martin F-35 and Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet (both from the U.S.). As the Finnish Air Force makes clear, it will aim for “the best comprehensive solution” to meet Finland's needs. It will examine security of supply, life-cycle costs, industrial participation and military capability, and the defense ministry will conduct a security and defense policy assessment. Finland will spend the next year in detailed negotiations with the manufacturers before they submit their final tenders next summer.
Sophisticated companies in a competitive business will make every effort to meet Finland's requirements. It is highly likely that Finland will receive very good offers on excellent aircraft. So how should Finland choose? The country is making a decision about its security for decades to come. On this basis, it should give most careful attention to the offers from the U.S.
Why? For three reasons:
1. Past performance. Finland made a bold move after the collapse of the Soviet Union, deciding for the first time to acquire advanced aircraft from the U.S. This dramatic turn to the West came two years before its decision to join the European Union. Finland's adoption of the F-18 aircraft opened the door to many security partnerships—with the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. writ large and NATO. Finland has conducted numerous operations with NATO and U.S. counterparts, and its defense forces are world-class. As noted by the U.S. Air Force chief of staff after he flew with Finnish F-18 pilots: “Finland is as good as anybody we've flown with; just exceptional quality. . . . What does that equal when we're added together?”
2. Present partnerships. Finland participates in over 60 international military exercises and training events per year on land, at sea and in the air. The most important exercises involve the U.S. and NATO. Given Russia's seizure of Crimea and eastern Ukraine, these exercises send exactly the right message. As Defense Minister Jussi Niinisto notes: “Today, the Finnish Defense Forces are more capable and more interoperable than they have ever been. That makes us effective in looking after our own security and a solid partner for other EU member states and NATO countries.”
3. Future risks. No one can spell out in detail what security challenges Finland will face in the coming decades. Crises can erupt suddenly. But Finland's strategy for managing risk is sound: a rock-solid commitment to territorial defense and domestic resilience, paired with international partnerships. Decisions in support of that strategy should aim at deepening Finland's ties with its most consequential security partner, the U.S. Decisions that would diminish those ties undermine Finland's strategy.
Some will say you cannot trust U.S. President Donald Trump. His words offend. Yet look to America's actions: The previous administration signed a defense cooperation agreement with Finland, and the Trump administration is working with energy to implement it.
Some say U.S. attention will drift. Yet America's global power rests on its network of alliances and partners. The more Russia looms as a threat, the more the U.S. needs its partners. Mutual security interests are driving Finland and the U.S. closer together.
When the chips are down, Finland will provide for its own defense, as it always has. When it looks to partnerships to augment its self-defense and security, it should look first to the U.S.
May 2, 2024 | International, Security
Popular apps like Xiaomi File Manager and WPS Office are vulnerable to a path traversal flaw that could let hackers overwrite files and execute malici
June 5, 2020 | International, C4ISR, Security
Andrew Eversden A federal watchdog's review of 15 major information technology investments at the Department of Defense found that many programs were below cost estimates, though several had delays in their original timelines, shortfalls in cybersecurity testing and software development workforce challenges. The Government Accountability Office's 18th annual “Defense Acquisitions Annual Report," released June 3, evaluated 15 major business and non-business information technology programs, the first time the GAO evaluated IT programs as part of the review. The IT projects the GAO examined totaled $15.1 billion in spending. The report found that 11 of the 15 systems saw decreases in their in their life-cycle cost estimates. The biggest cost saver was the Army Contract Writing System, which decreased its cost estimate by $229 million. That system will replace several legacy platforms and serve as the Army's enterprise-wide contract management platform. Officials working on the systems with lower price tags said that the drops were due to contract cost revisions, program management efficiencies and lower costs than expected. Two of the remaining four programs that had higher costs experienced increases of over 20 percent, though the report doesn't note which programs. One program, not named in the report, experienced an increase of $315 million, or 151 percent. Officials from the unexpectedly expensive projects cited developmental challenges as a reason for the increases. Two-thirds of the projects experienced schedule delays, ranging from one month for the Marine Corps' Air Command and Control System Increment One, to five years for the Air Force's Defense Enterprise Accounting and Management System-Increment One. Officials for delayed programs told the GAO that slowdowns occurred because of cybersecurity gaps, performance issues and longer-than expected maintenance periods. The GAO also evaluated the use of software development by the systems, finding that 14 of the 15 programs were using various types of iterative software development, such as agile, incremental and waterfall, among others. Among the other findings: - All eight major business IT systems it evaluated were using commercial-off-the-shelf software, consistent with DoD guidance from 2017. COTS software is supposed to reduce cost, development time and increase delivery. - Six of the 15 systems were conducting cybersecurity testing during the developmental stages of the program, which allows the services to fix vulnerabilities early in the software life cycle before the program is used, saving money and reduce delays before systems are fully implemented. - Eleven of the 15 programs conducted operational cybersecurity testing, during which vulnerabilities and their effects are identified in a mission context, the GAO said. While Pentagon leaders push faster delivery times on software, many programs reported workforce challenges associated with rapid development. According to the GAO, nine of the 15 programs said it was “difficult to find staff with the requisite expertise.” Seven struggled to hire staff fast enough to complete development, while six reported not meeting software engineering staff plans to be a challenge. The watchdog evaluated five programs from the Air Force, four Navy projects, two Army investments and four programs from the office of the secretary of defense. The GAO report said that a companion report on other major Pentagon IT systems would be released later this year. https://www.c4isrnet.com/it-networks/2020/06/03/major-pentagon-it-programs-are-reducing-costs-but-development-challenges-remain/
January 7, 2022 | International, Aerospace
A new deployment model could be ready for primetime as soon as October 2022.