Change search
Refine search result
1 - 12 of 12
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Rows per page
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sort
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
  • Standard (Relevance)
  • Author A-Ö
  • Author Ö-A
  • Title A-Ö
  • Title Ö-A
  • Publication type A-Ö
  • Publication type Ö-A
  • Issued (Oldest first)
  • Issued (Newest first)
  • Created (Oldest first)
  • Created (Newest first)
  • Last updated (Oldest first)
  • Last updated (Newest first)
  • Disputation date (earliest first)
  • Disputation date (latest first)
Select
The maximal number of hits you can export is 250. When you want to export more records please use the Create feeds function.
  • 1.
    Axelson, Mattias
    et al.
    FOI.
    Finn Khan, Malek
    FOI.
    Lundmark, Martin
    FOI.
    Olofsson, Mats
    FOI.
    Förmåga till snabb anpassning av försvarsmateriel2015Report (Other academic)
  • 2.
    Axelson, Mattias
    et al.
    FOI.
    Lundmark, Martin
    FOI.
    Industriella effekter av direkt militär offset vid försvarsmaterielexport2009Report (Other academic)
  • 3.
    Axelson, Mattias
    et al.
    FOI.
    Lundmark, Martin
    FOI.
    Internationaliserad materielförsörjning: Förutsättningar för försvarsmaterielsamarbeten mellan företag2010Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Denna studie har genomförts på uppdrag av Försvarsdepartementet. Internationellt samarbete har sedan mitten av 1990-talet har utgjort en allt viktigare del av det svenska försvarets materielförsörjning. Detta är en utveckling som sannolikt fortsätter. Som stöd för framtida beslut om internationellt materielsamarbete behövs en analys av hur internationella materielsamarbeten mellan företag i praktiken genomförs.

    Det specifika syftet med rapporten är därför att:

    • Identifiera faktorer som påverkar genomförandet av internationella försvarsmaterielsamarbeten mellan företag.

    Rapporten bygger på åtta fallstudier av internationella materielsamarbeten: Iris-T, Joint Strike Fighter, Meteor, MidCas, Neuron, NFR-90, Taurus, Viking.

    Centrala slutsatser avseende förutsättningar för genomförande av internationella försvarsmaterielsamarbeten mellan företag är att ett samarbetsprojekt har större förutsättning för framgång om: företagen ser samarbetet som strategiskt, företagen har tidigare erfarenheter av samarbete och ett enskilt företag är huvudansvarigt för samarbetet.

    Faktorer som skapar förutsättningar men som inte har en direkt påverkan på det operativa genomförandet är exempelvis: materielens innovationsgrad, antalet deltagande företag och antalet deltagande stater.

    Baserat på resultaten rekommenderar vi beslutsfattare inom Regeringskansliet och myndigheter att inför beslut om deltagande i internationella materielsamarbeten att fr.a.: analysera företagens motiv att samarbeta, utvärdera om företagen har gemensamma motiv med samarbetet, om företagen är på jämförbar teknologinivå, ställa krav på att ett företag är huvudleverantör.

  • 4.
    Axelson, Mattias
    et al.
    FOI.
    Lundmark, Martin
    FOI.
    Schröder, Karin
    FOI.
    Snabb anpassning av materielsystem - effektivt samarbete med leverantörer2017Report (Other academic)
  • 5.
    Belin, Jean
    et al.
    Chaire Economie de défense.
    Hartley, Keith
    University of York.
    Lefeez, Sophie
    IRIS.
    Linnenkamp, Hilmar
    SWP.
    Lundmark, Martin
    Swedish Defence University, Department of Military Studies, Science of Command and Control and Military Technology Division, Military Technology Systems Section.
    Masson, Hélène
    FRS.
    Maulny, Jean-Pierre
    IRIS.
    Ungaro, Alessandro
    IAI.
    Defence industrial links between EU and US2017Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [en]

    The European Commission’s initiatives in the field of armament should lead to a deeper integration of European DTIBs in the coming years. In parallel, the links between European and American DTIBs take the form of technological and armament cooperation, and of capital links between European or American companies. This report aims at analysing the links between the US DTIB and the EU DTIB, and the consequences these links carry on cooperation between European DTIBs.

    These links vary by country. France has strived to preserve its strategic autonomy when developing its DTIB. Its technological and capability-related reliance on the United States has thus remained limited. Nonetheless, cooperation is sought when it is mutually beneficial while French companies seek to invest in the US market, as do other European DTIBs.

    The German DTIB was rebuilt belatedly after World War II, partly on the basis of French-German cooperation. German industry is now privatised and the scope of the German DTIB’s partnerships has widened to other European countries and to the US. The German supply chain is now well established in American armament programmes.

    The Italian DTIB has consistently pursued a policy of active cooperation, whether with the US or with EU member states. Links with the US have notably been built in the context of NATO and through bilateral agreements. In parallel, Italy has developed partnerships with European countries. Rome’s cooperation policy is thus inclusive, and has considered diverse factors such as political links, capability requirements, the need to develop certain technologies and to preserve industrial capabilities and jobs in Italy.

    The British DTIB has historically enjoyed deeper links with US industry, as a result of the cultural closeness between the UK and the US, and of the strategic proximity that dates back to the end of World War II. The links between US and UK DTIBs thus follow a model of strategic partnership. Nevertheless, the UK’s industrial and defence policy is also pursued within a European framework. The missile manufacturer MBDA is nowadays considered as the deepest model of transnational industrial and defence integration in Europe.

    While Sweden seeks to preserve its industrial capabilities in two sectors – submarines and military aircraft – it appears to be most technologically reliant on the US among the surveyed countries. It is worth noting also that these links are long-standing, dating back to the cold war and the Soviet threat, despite Sweden not being a NATO member state.

    The links with the US are thus very different from one country to another, and carry varying implications. While the costs of acquiring American equipment can be low despite their high technological grade, there are often constraints on their use and restrictions on technologies that will not be transferred, or that will be unusable for other partnerships.

    These links are also formalised through bilateral agreements promoting armament cooperation, as is the case for UK-Italian cooperation. For its part, Sweden has signed interstate agreements with the US in the field of technological cooperation.

    DEFENCE INDUSTRIAL LINKS BETWEEN EU AND US / September 2017

    3

    Since the European Council meeting in December 2013 and in its 2016 Global Strategy, the EU has set itself the task of developing "a certain degree of strategic autonomy" supposed to encourage greater competitiveness of European DTIBs.

    In order to promote the development of this European defence industrial policy, we must seek to ensure that the links between US and EU DTIB are mutually beneficial. To do this, two conditions must be met:

    -That the rules governing relations between US and EU DTIB be based on the principle of reciprocity and on equal rules of regulation of respective DTIBs.

    -That the rules governing relations between US and EU DTIB be defined in the context of a dialogue between the European Union and the United States and not bilaterally between each European country and the United States.

    Today the multiplication of bilateral agreements between the United States and European Union member states are potential obstacles to the establishment of a level playing field governing the relations between European DTIBs;

    There is also a lack of reciprocity and equal regulation of EU and US DTIB. This concerns different areas: access to advanced capabilities, unrestricted use of exported armament, access to cooperated technologies, rules governing investment in US and European companies, rules governing property rights over technologies, rules governing export controls.

    Organizing the transatlantic relationship in the field of armaments in order to have a more balanced and profitable relationship, can be achieved in two complementary ways.

    At the European level, the European Defence Research Program (EDRP) will have strong implications for the relations between the companies of the US DTIB and the EDTIB. The rules governing access to finance and the ownership of intellectual property rights (IPR), which will be adopted for collaborative R&T projects involving European defence companies, will result in a common framework governing the relationship between these companies and the US EDTIB: the more Europeans will collaborate among themselves in the field of defence research, the more they will be able to set common and mutually beneficial rules in their relationship with the United States.

    It may also be considered that some EU States will decide to engage in enhanced cooperation in the industrial defence field which could include the following rules:

    -Obligation to achieve a level of 30% R&T in common among the members of the enhanced cooperation, which means 10% more than the target that was defined 10 years ago by the European Defence Agency and that is regularly reminded in the objectives of the European Union;

    -Obligation to inform members of enhanced cooperation of agreements on defence R&T cooperation concluded with the United States so as to ensure compatibility of these agreements with existing agreements between members of enhanced cooperation. The objective is to prevent agreements with the United States from subsequently restricting the scope of existing agreements between European countries;

    DEFENCE INDUSTRIAL LINKS BETWEEN EU AND US / September 2017

    4

     

    -Obligation to systematically consider the acquisition of military equipment manufactured by one of the member countries of enhanced cooperation. This should be accompanied by reinforced security of supply rules;

    -The need to bring the export policies of the member states of the enhanced cooperation closer together.

    These rules, complementary with, and not contradictory to, those which are being defined at European Union level, would accelerate industrial defence consolidation in Europe and make it possible to consider on a more balanced, mutually equally beneficial, basis relations between the United States and the European Union in the field of armaments. These rules would also be inspired by political principles: to strengthen the strategic autonomy of the European Union when necessary. Far from forbidding cooperation between the US and the EU DTIB, such enhanced cooperation would be facilitated because cooperation between US EDTIB and EU DTIB would not be a brake on European cooperation, as it is currently still too often the case.

  • 6.
    Castelacci, Fulvio
    et al.
    Department of International Economics, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI).
    Fevolden, Arne
    Department of International Economics, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI).
    Lundmark, Martin
    FOI.
    How are defence companies responding to EU defence and security market liberalization?: A comparative study of Norway and Sweden2014In: Journal of European Public Policy, ISSN 1350-1763, E-ISSN 1466-4429, Vol. 21, no 8, p. 1218-1235Article in journal (Refereed)
    Abstract [en]

    A new European Union Directive (Defence and Security Procurement Directive 2009/81/EC) intends to liberalize the European defence market. This article investigates whether this Directive leads to a more liberalized European defence market and how the defence companies respond to these changes, by carrying out a set of interviews with a selected sample of some of the most important defence contractors in Norway and Sweden. The article points out two main results. (1) The defence companies believe that the liberalization of the European defence market will at best be partial and fear that the new regulations might end up favouring the larger nations (e. g., Germany, the United Kingdom and France) at the expense of the smaller countries (e. g., Norway and Sweden). (2) The companies' scepticism and response to the Directive vary according to the defence industrial policy regime they are part of and their position in the defence industrial value-chain.

  • 7.
    Eriksson, E Anders
    et al.
    FOI.
    Lundmark, Martin
    FOI.
    Johansson, Mattias
    FOI.
    Civil-military synergies in research and technology: Comparison of Sweden to six European nations2014Report (Other academic)
  • 8. Lundmark, Martin
    Absorbing New Military Capabilities: Defense technology Acquisition and the Asia-Pacific2016In: Emerging Critical Technologies and Security in the Asia-Pacific / [ed] Richard A. Bitzinger, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016, p. 37-52Chapter in book (Other academic)
  • 9.
    Lundmark, Martin
    FOI.
    To be or not to be - The integration and the non-integration of the French defence industry2004Report (Other academic)
  • 10.
    Lundmark, Martin
    Handelshögskolan, Stockholm, Sweden..
    Transatlantic defence industry integration - Discourse and action in the organizational field of the defence market2011Doctoral thesis, monograph (Other academic)
  • 11.
    Lundmark, Martin
    et al.
    FOI.
    Oxenstierna, Susanne
    FOI.
    Koordinering och prioritering av internationella samarbeten inom materiel- och logistikområdet2016Report (Other academic)
  • 12.
    Schröder, Karin
    et al.
    FOI.
    Lundmark, Martin
    FOI.
    Lusua, Jens
    FOI.
    Försörjningstrygghet för mängdmateriel: En studie av förutsättningar vid fredstida grundberedskap och höjd beredskap2016Report (Other academic)
    Abstract [sv]

    Det poängteras i inriktningsbeslutet att enskilt viktigast under försvarsinriktningsperioden 2016 t.o.m. 2020 är att öka den operativa förmågan i krigsförbanden och att säkerställa den samlade förmågan i totalförsvaret.”1 Erfarenhetsmässigt vet vi att logistiken inte sällan har en gränssättande inverkan på operativ förmåga2 och med den nya styrningen ställs krav på försörjningstrygghet i såväl fredstida grundberedskap som vid höjd beredskap. Behovet av försörjningstrygghet för mängdmateriel och hur denna ska skapas är i dagsläget inte tydligt i fred och framförallt inte vid höjd beredskap vilket kan få konsekvenser för krigsförbandens operativa förmåga nu och framöver. I denna rapport beskrivs och analyseras en försörjningskedja för mängdmateriel översiktligt och de huvudsakliga utmaningar som försvarsmyndigheterna möter i arbetet med att uppnå en tillräcklig försörjningstrygghet i grundberedskap och vid höjd beredskap diskuteras.

    De huvudsakliga utmaningar som behöver adresseras för uppfyllande av målbilden handlar dels om det strategiska planeringsarbetet i omvandlingen av försörjningskedjan och dels om upphandling, ledtider och lagernivåer på mängdmateriel. Intervjuer, dokumentstudier samt studiebesök pekar på en hög grad av kompetens på området försörjningstrygghet i myndigheterna. Styrningen behöver dock stödja pågående arbete mot en fortsatt god utveckling för att uppnå en tillräcklig försörjningstrygghet. Förslag lämnas på riktade åtgärder och rekommendationer för att uppnå kostnadseffektiv försörjningstrygghet via exempelvis riskhantering och kategoristyrning för mängdmateriel.

    1 Försvarsdepartementet, Regeringsbeslut 7, Inriktning för Försvarsmaktens verksamhet för åren 2016 till och med 2020, Fö2015/00953/MFI, 2015-06-25

    2 Försvarsmakten t.ex. Grundsyn logistik, 09 833:67228, 2007-04-24 och Handbok Logistik vid insats 2016, FM2015-689:8, 2016-07-01

1 - 12 of 12
CiteExportLink to result list
Permanent link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard-cite-them-right
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf