Saab Signs Contract to provide Belgium with a Combat Training Centre

On the same subject

• 

  December 17, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

  Finland’s defense minister: Continuity and change in Finnish defense policy

  By: Jussi Niinistö Today we are all adapting to a new security environment, both in Europe and globally. From the Finnish point of view, we can see some continuity and some new elements. After the Cold War ended, Finland did not initiate a massive defense transformation. Even though we started to build interoperability with our NATO partners and participated in crisis management operations, the main focus of the Finnish Defence Forces was always the defense of our own territory. Our consistent policy was to keep our defense strong. The upcoming investments — including four new corvettes for the Navy and replacement of the Finnish Air Force's F-18 fleet — and new defense-related legislation will further strengthen our readiness and national defense. What has changed in our current environment, however, is that other European Union and NATO countries have also started to focus on the defense of their own territory, and NATO's presence is the Baltic Sea region has increased. This has enhanced stability and security in the Baltic Sea region. At the same time, increased presence in our neighborhood has created more training opportunities. Increased cooperation and coordination is also needed because of our geography and a shared security environment, which creates some interdependency. This type of defense cooperation is based on a shared, common interest. Today, the Finnish Defence 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. For Finland, the European Union has always been a security provider. It is increasingly also a facilitator and enabler of defense cooperation. The union has tools that other organizations lack. The European Defence Fund or promoting military mobility in Europe are just a few examples, and only a beginning, as we are moving from out-of-area crisis management to a more strategic approach to protecting Europe and its citizens. Although all the EU member states have agreed on the direction we are heading, some want to move faster than others. The vision for the future must bring countries together instead of sowing divisions. The more the EU can do for defense, the better for NATO and the trans-Atlantic link. A more capable and integrated Europe is also a stronger trans-Atlantic partner. In this respect, more EU does not mean less NATO. EU and NATO must continue to coordinate their actions on both hard and soft security. I hope this illustrates why we, in Finland, do not see European strategic autonomy as an alternative to NATO or as an alternative to a strong trans-Atlantic link. It is also essential to mention the Nordic Defence Cooperation, which has also adapted to changes in our shared security environment. In November, the Nordic defense ministers adopted a new Vision 2025 for taking our cooperation forward. The vision states that we will improve our defense capability and cooperation in peace, crisis and conflict, and that we will ensure a close Nordic political and military dialogue on security and defense. This regional cooperation supports what we are doing in the EU and together with NATO. During my time as the minister of defense of Finland, we have taken other steps to strengthen the trans-Atlantic link. A prime example is our bilateral defense relationship with the United States. In October 2016, we signed our bilateral statement of intent on defense cooperation. This was later followed by a trilateral statement of intent between Finland, Sweden and the United States in May 2018. The statements of intent speak to both the depth and width of our cooperation, including joint exercises, policy dialogue and materiel cooperation. In the coming years, these links will be further strengthened. We must also keep our minds on the bigger picture. There is a dual challenge: to sustain the vital trans-Atlantic relationship and further strengthen European security. These goals can best be achieved by increasing European capabilities. Europe needs to finds its voice and speak, alongside the United States. Jussi Niinistö is Finland's defense minister. https://www.defensenews.com/outlook/2018/12/10/finlands-defense-minister-continuity-and-change-in-finnish-defense-policy/

• 

  April 29, 2020 | International, Aerospace

  Will commercial and military launch programs ever be truly complementary?

  By: Kirk Pysher In a few months, the U.S. Air Force will choose two of the four competing space companies to provide five years of launches in the National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program. One of the core objectives for this program is to increase affordability by leveraging the technologies and business models of the commercial launch industry. Is that a realistic expectation given the current commercial space market and historical precedents? Historically, the commercial launch market has seen significant variability. Launches of commercial communication satellite constellations began in the early 1970s with NASA serving as the launch provider. New launch providers began to emerge from the commercial world after the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 allowed the private sector to provide launch services. We then witnessed a remarkable growth in commercial space launches in the 1990s that peaked just before the turn of the century. Then, until about 2014, the commercial launch market stabilized at 20-25 commercial geostationary orbit satellites per year that were split essentially between three global launch suppliers. Since then, new entrants into the commercial launch market and pricing pressure from terrestrial-based communication systems have significantly impacted the viability of the commercial launch market, reducing profit margins and returns on investment across the board. The expected 20-25 commercial GEO missions is now in the range of 10-15 launches per year and is expected to remain at that level beyond the NSSL five-year period of performance. With new entrants into the commercial launch market, that 40-50 percent reduction in annual launch opportunities will now be competed among seven to eight global launch providers, putting further pressure on the viability of those launchers. Additionally, commercial launch revenue is also expected to decrease over that period by as much as 30 percent as satellite operators look to reduce their launch cost through shared launch, smaller spacecraft and reduced launch pricing. Given the projected commercial launch market and additional competition from new entrants, launch service providers will have difficultly building and maintaining viable commercial launch business plans, let alone having commercial launch-driven capital to invest in new technology. History has proven that no commercial launch service provider can succeed without having an anchor government customer. The commercial launch market simply has not been able to provide the stable, long-term demand needed to maintain affordable pricing, innovation and factory throughput for the Air Force to benefit from. History has also demonstrated that it is the Air Force with NSSL since 2003 that has provided the launch service providers with a stable number of launches. The defense and commercial launch markets have a fundamental difference. The former focuses strictly on satisfying national security mission requirements in space — needs that are driven by risk, strategy and geopolitical events regardless of vulnerabilities in commercial markets. The defense market began in the late 1950s with industry designing, developing and building launch vehicles for the U.S. government to place critical national security satellites into orbit. Early on, we saw a large number of launches in the beginning — peaking at more than 40 in 1966 — before activity levels decreased to level out by 1980. After more than 400 launches of defense-related satellites, the defense launch market finally settled into an average eight launches annually, whereas the commercial launch market is strictly tied to the ability of global satellite operators to close business plans and obtain institutional and/or private funding on new and replacement satellites. The global COVID-19 pandemic is a stark reminder of the vulnerability of all commercial markets. Airlines, aircraft manufacturers and commercial space companies are needing to seek tens of billions of dollars in government assistance; and private commercial space investors are also reassessing their risk postures, as is demonstrated by the recent OneWeb bankruptcy filing. Given the projected decline in commercial launch along with the historical precedents, there would be significant risk for the Air Force to expect to leverage benefit from commercial launch. In fact, I believe history has demonstrated that it is commercial launch that is able to leverage the benefits derived from the steady cadence of defense and civil government launches. The Air Force, in its role as anchor customer, needs to clearly understand commercial market dependencies and business cases of its key providers. With that understanding, the Air Force will mitigate any risk of critical national security missions being dependent on a finicky and fluctuating commercial market. Kirk Pysher is an aerospace executive with more than 20 years in the commercial launch market, serving most recently as the president of International Launch Services until October 2019. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/04/28/will-commercial-and-military-launch-programs-ever-be-truly-complementary/

• 

  September 7, 2022 | International, Aerospace

  Army’s testbed ISR business jets are opening doors to new mission possibilities

  With the prototypes, "we're able to launch from one area and very quickly get to another area that is much further away in distance. So it opens up the aperture from a mission perspective," a program leader said.