Battle Week is a welcome initiative. But some questions need answers.
On March 4, FMV T&E launched “From Innovation to Battlefield Demonstration Week” – Battle Week. The initiative is described as a structured process for rapidly identifying, testing, and demonstrating innovative solutions with military relevance, with an explicit focus on small and medium-sized enterprises outside the traditional defense industry. That is exactly the right ambition.
At Defilade, we work daily with precisely the companies Battle Week says it wants to reach – innovative SMEs in Sweden and Ukraine with technology that has real operational potential but that struggle to navigate the defense market. So when the program documents were published, we read them carefully.
We do so in a constructive spirit. Battle Week could become something important. But there are questions in the documentation that we think need answers – not to undermine the initiative, but to help it deliver on its promise.
1. How is the fee structure intended to work for the companies the program prioritizes?
The registration fee is set at 500,000–1,000,000 SEK per solution and is determined only after the company has gone through the assessment process and submitted technical information. That raises a natural question: how is an early-stage SME – perhaps with its first external funding just secured – supposed to plan for participation when the cost is unknown until late in the process?
Vinnova is mentioned as a potential funding source via infrastructure vouchers linked to the CMIP program, but the details won’t be published until March 17. For Ukrainian companies, who are explicitly named as a target group, no equivalent support mechanism appears to exist.
We’re genuinely curious how FMV is thinking about this, and whether there are solutions in the pipeline that aren’t yet reflected in the published documentation.
2. How does the scoring model balance innovation against delivery capability?
Of the weighted assessment criteria, 75 percent goes to military operational relevance (40%) and delivery time (35%). Innovation and potential are weighted at 15 percent.
The rationale is easy to understand – FMV needs solutions that can actually be delivered and used. But the question is whether this weighting risks systematically favoring mature, near-market products at the expense of solutions with higher innovation potential but a longer path to deployment.
Would it be possible to have parallel tracks – one for solutions ready for rapid deployment, and one for earlier-stage innovations with higher potential? This isn’t a criticism of the model but a genuine question about how the program is designed to work.
3. How is participants’ IP protected in the demonstration environment?
The NDA is, as far as we can read it, strictly bilateral – between FMV and each individual company. That means there appear to be no confidentiality obligations between companies participating in parallel during the demonstration week.
That’s a reasonable question to ask, particularly for a small company with novel technology: what applies when you demonstrate your solution in the presence of competitors, military observers, and international guests?
We understand this may be difficult to resolve in practice, but it would be valuable if FMV could clarify how they’re thinking about this.
4. How is evaluation data handled after Battle Week?
The framework describes Battle Week as generating data that will support future decisions and procurement. That’s a natural and important part of the initiative’s purpose.
But it also raises a question we think many SMEs will ask themselves: who owns the data generated when their solution is evaluated, and how can it be used in subsequent processes? For a small company with limited IP protection, this could be decisive in whether they choose to participate.
A clearer data governance framework – even a simple description of how evaluation outputs may and may not be used – would significantly lower the threshold for participation.
5. Is 52 weeks a realistic timeframe for the companies the program wants to reach?
FMV’s website states that solutions must be ready for operational use within 52 weeks of March 4, 2026. That is a requirement that raises a fundamental question about what Battle Week is actually designed to be.
52 weeks is a very short window for a company going from idea to finished product – with a working system, supply chain, and the capacity to deliver at scale. It is a timeframe that suits a company already close to market, but that in practice excludes many of the early-stage innovators the program says it wants to reach. Is that the intended boundary – and if so, are there plans to open up to earlier stages in future iterations?
We want Battle Week to succeed
The questions above are not intended as criticism of FMV or the initiative itself. They are questions we believe many of the companies Battle Week wants to reach will ask themselves — and that may determine whether they choose to participate or not.
Sweden needs more pathways for innovative companies to contribute to defense capability. Battle Week is a promising step in the right direction. We hope it sparks a dialogue — about design, about access, and about what it actually takes to get innovation into the field.
At Defilade, we work at the intersection of defense innovation and market access — helping SMEs navigate the barriers between a good idea and an operational capability. We've sat across the table from the companies Battle Week wants to reach. We know what stops them from engaging, and we know what would make them say yes.
Whether you're inside this process or watching from the outside — we want to hear from you. Drop us a note below.