The Aachen Treaty and Great Power Competition

First of all, a due premise: if it wasn’t already clear, I will warn that I am a convinced Atlanticist. I literally have a NATO star mosaic in the alleyway leading to the door of my home, designed by me and built by my ever skilled father, who has worked so much and for so long in his life to pick up an amazing breadth of abilities.

This week, at my new job at Rivista Italiana Difesa (Italian Defence Magazine, if you want a tentative translation), arguably the best defence-themed periodic in Italy and one with a long tradition, I’ve been reviewing an important geopolitics article titled “The return of Charles the Great?”, authored by an Italian defence commentator with decades of experience. He is most clearly not an Atlanticist, so we cooperate but also regularly disagree, even quite vehemently, since his opinion of the United States is about as moderate of that of Vladimir Putin himself.

For once, though, we are in complete agreement on what is the current direction of travel in Europe. The title of his article should already have given you a clue, and I’ll give you another by telling you that the recent Aachen Treaty is the key element at the center of the reasoning.

Of course, while we read the implications of the event almost in the exact same way, we do completely disagree on whether it is a good or a bad development. He thinks it is a good thing in an anti-american optic; I am horrified.

Another thing we do essentially agree upon, however, is the fact that there has been way too little talk about the Aachen Treaty, what it says and moreover on what it implies without saying it aloud.

While at first glance the Aachen Treaty provisions might sound just like “more of the same”, reaffirming things that have been already said in the past, there is every reason to take it very seriously.

Germany and France are aligning their policies, with defence front and centre, in new and far more ambitious ways. The closeness envisaged by the Treaty in economics and defence and foreign policy matters approaches the terms of a Confederation, and effectively impresses a whole new dynamic and speed to the maturation of an European project. Note that I use “an” European project and not “the” European project because the direction of travel taken by France and Germany actually goes so far past the current EU integration that it might end up finding resistance coming exactly through current EU organizations.

If you have followed the political debate in the last while you will not have missed the repeated claims that an European army is coming. Claims that now come from the like of Merkel and Macron themselves, although some Remain-inspired media continues to approach the issue as if it was fantasy and conspiracy theorism from this or that association. It can no longer be denied that things are moving, and that they are indeed accellerating. 
It might not be EU-wide for many years still, but the Aachen Treaty sure goes a long way towards forming one military force composed of France and Germany. Joint decision-making, joint meetings of ministries, a new joint council, and joint deployments are all part of the Treaty.

You should moreover not have missed the part about France “loaning” its seat at the UN Security Council to Germany. The issue has been reported almost as badly as the “EU Army” one, which is caught between the two extremes of the “absorption by stealth” and “it’s not true at all!”.

France might or might not let Germany sit in its seat for a while, but what France has promised to do is to campaign within the Security Council to obtain the addition of a new and permanent seat specifically for Germany.

While this is unlikely to succeed, it is an unequivocal signal that Germany thinks that its period of repentance for the past is over, and France agrees. It is actually pretty easy to imagine the current hopelessly confused political class in Britain giving support to the initiative just as a way to show that they really still side with Europe. 

You might not have heard about the musings coming from the Munich Security Conference about the role that France’s nuclear deterrent “should” play in “Europe”. Or at least, I’ll correct, in the context of the Aachen Treaty. This aspect gained even less air time on the media, and most of the comments were quick attempts to once more hide the evidence. 
France already tried to get Germany to pay some of the costs of its 'Force de Frappe', but in 2007 there weren’t the conditions for such a move. Not yet.

Now, however, Aachen goes a long way towards opening the door for such a development.

While the European Union is a superpower on paper but not in fact due to its inner divisions, a combination of Germany’s economic might and France’s nuclear deterrent is a major world power from the day one. When you hear all the speeches and comments about the new age of inter-state competition, you’ll better start counting in the France-Germany combination. 

You might not have heard in the generalist news about the renewed and stronger than ever push in Germany against NATO Nuclear Sharing, and against the presence of dual-key American B61-12 nuclear bombs in the country. But it is highly likely that you will hear about this more and more frequently in the future.

Germany has already started landing blows on Nuclear Sharing by arbitrarily excluding the F-35 from the race for the replacement of its remaining Tornado bombers. The F-35A is the intended carrier (together with the F-15E, but that is relevant only to the US) of the B61-12 bomb, with an integration programme already ongoing and other NATO Nuclear Sharing partners already on board.

Germany, on the other hand, is restricting its choices for the replacement of the Tornado to the Typhoon and Super Hornet, both aircraft with no nuclear strike capability and no defined path towards ever acquiring it.

Keeping the Super Hornet as candidate effectively means, with 99.9% certainty, that the “race” is a complete farce, and Typhoon it is. Germany has literally forced the head of its Air Force and a few other high officers to leave post over their publicly stated preference for the F-35, and this tells you something. Considerable political pressure was applied on Belgium as well NOT to chose the F-35, although in this case Germany and France were eventually rebuffed.

The Tornado was European-built and carries the B61, so there is no definitive reason why Germany couldn’t simply add B61-12 integration to the cost of its new Typhoons, but I’d be very, very surprised if the attempt to do this didn’t lead to protests over the cost and, right afterwards, to accusations against the US of making it “more complex and more expensive” than it should be, as a punishment for not purchasing the F-35. It’s really, really easy to see coming.

Ghedi air base: american nuclear bomb, Italian Tornado bomber. NATO Nuclear Sharing is a key component of Europe's security. 

And while Germany has formally sided with the US on the withdrawal from the INF treaty, it has also made clear that new American missile systems in Europe are not welcome, which is kind of a contradictory position to take. 

The disagreements on B61 and on the way ahead post INF are a perfect excuse for Germany and France to press on with their greater alignment. Germany might soon decide to pull out of Nuclear Sharing altogether, and that would be a huge blow to NATO and the obvious first step towards seeking refuge under France’s own nuclear umbrella. Which, naturally, the two countries will then try to present as Europe’s nuclear umbrella, seeking financial contributions from the other European countries as well.

It might take time, but this is the direction of travel. Whoever thinks that France has committed to giving Germany a seat at the UN Security Council virtually for free is either willfully blind or a complete fool.

The bilateral nature of Aachen means that it does not technically affect EU members, which on the other hand have no effective way to counter or influence it in any way. It is immediately clear, however, that this level of integration between Paris and Berlin is going to have immense consequences for the whole European Union. 

Italy, through Prime Minister Conte, has remarked that the new UN seat should, if ever created, go to the European Union as a whole and not to Germany, which is an eminently sensible observation to make, albeit complex to turn into reality. Naturally, his remark was played down, despite being arguably very pro-EU, because he is, of course, “the puppet of Salvini” and thus just another sovranist enemy.

Yes, the sovranists. The new enemy of the EU is Sovranism. Populism was an earlier phase, now the threat is sovranism. Because sovranism means that other countries will try to resist the de-facto instauration of an economic and military hegemony of France and Germany, united politically and economically and shielded by a credible, non-american nuclear umbrella. Sovranism is a reaction against external control and globalisation, and as such it is an obstacle. 

America, and not Russia, is the untrustworthy side for many in Europe. European and American media alike will tell you that it is because of president Trump, but this is, in good measure, a lie or, at best, an half-truth.

Trump is not the beginning of anti-american feelings in Europe, nor is he the end of them. He is a convenient figleaf, a perfect excuse to press on with the new global ambitions of Germany and France while throwing the blame on the Atlantic side.

It is not Trump that is abandoning Europe. He has actually reversed, at least partially, years of American drawdown in Europe, which Obama happily accelerated. He has been extremely tough on the INF breach. He has committed to more American troops in Europe and he keeps asking for a stronger NATO through investment from the European partners (he's been more vocal, but he is not the first to do so). He opposes the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, too, which is in the interests of Russia and damages those of Ukraine.

And that is exactly the problem. He is doing too much. The truth, I fear, is that there are very strong currents of thought in Europe which were far happier when American troops were traveling towards CONUS, rather than coming from CONUS to Europe.

We know which side is co-funding Nord Stream 2 and holding hands with Putin. And it is not Trump.

And then there is Brexit. Brexit is the "mother of all sovranisms", the greatest-ever form of resistance against the constant expansion of centralised european powers. This makes it the supreme evil. And yet, on the other hand, Brexit brings the UK away from Veto powers in Europe, which are now one of the greatest problems that Germany and France face. The truth? Brexit is a blessing for France and Germany. 
Their hegemonic project in Europe is now free from a heavy anchor which was holding it back. And they have pretty much said as much, haven’t they? The UK’s constant prudence on European initiatives, especially in the field of defence, has been remarked more than once, in most rude form in the last few weeks. The "british friends" rethoric is incredibly hollow, and one of the most amazing things about Brexit is how many britons helplessly drink from that poisoned spring. 
There have actually been remarkably unfriendly accusations coming from Europe, and the side which has tried to put up walls is not led by London. The amazingly long time it took for Europe to begin reciprocating the promise of rights for british citizens on EU soil is plenty noticeable, yet the Remain side is strangely willing to let it all pass. For some, the EU seems to have turned into some sort of divinity. 

I get the feeling that many in the UK and the US, including most if not all the media, do not realize how much hostility there is in some quarters against America’s perceived control over Europe. And against the UK, historically seen as America’s agent within the European Union. I am amazed to see the naivety with which the issue is debated in the USA and in the UK.

You would be shocked to see the ferocity of the arguments and words used by my illustrious colleague in the article I’ve mentioned. But what you especially don’t seem to realize is that his thoughts are shared by many. Too many, perhaps. Sadly, for many the UK is still the "Perfidius Albion" of fascist memory.  

The UK and US have not yet awakened to the truth. This is NOT a reaction to Trump and Brexit. Trump and Brexit are welcome excuses that are being used to camouflage a sharp acceleration in plans to truly make Europe, or at least the Paris-Berlin core, an increasingly antagonist side to the US. Alignment is over. Disagreements are going to be far more frequent in the future.

When I see American media and commentators wondering if the alliance with Europe “can survive Trump”, I bitterly remark that the alliance has been changing and dying from well before Trump.

Going back to my colleague, he openly talks of NATO as a novel  Delian League, with the US playing the part of Athens and exploiting the alliance to control the other cities / European countries. Do you remember how the Delian League ended?

It is a sorry state of affairs, years in the making. And it is not going to heal easily. If at all. 

Regardless of whoever will be elected after Trump, it is indeed unlikely that things will ever go back to the way they were, simply because it is not an issue of Trump or no-Trump to start with.

The same is true of Brexit. Regardless of who is prime minister, regardless of Customs Union or not and regardless of how much London promises to do against Russia in the Baltic and in Norway, relationships with the new center of Europe will stay tense.

Nothing is ever universal, of course, but let me remark that there is a political current, Europe-wide, which is all too happy to have London’s veto out of the way. The feeling is that America’s “undercover agent” is now out of the room.

The use of inflammatory language over Gibraltar and many other controversies will remain in the long term, regardless of what the UK might do or say. The US and UK should both stop being so penitent about Trump and Brexit and realize that a new phase has begun. Great power competition it is, but China is not the only rival to be worried about. 

Germany-France are a rival. And the EU as a whole will be, if the new center can win over the resistences of the periphery.

The EU is a Superpower, economically. It isn’t a great power politically and militarily because it is still divided. But the new France – Germany alignment, on its own, and particularly if the nuclear deterrent situation goes as we imagine it, will generate a voice that will more often than not become the de-facto “european” position. Exactly as is happening with the new FCAS fighter jet, France and Germany are trying to “define the project” and then have “partners” tag along. In front of an essential "fait accompli", the Union will follow the hegemons. 

And as a major power with a major voice, it will increasingly speak against America and the UK. The sooner the anglosphere realizes this, the better.

If you can’t see what is happening, you are pretty blind. You can either be happy with it, like my colleague, or be worried by it, like me. But please, don’t pretend it isn’t happening! 

The next phase of the struggle internal to Europe is now officially between Germany-France and the periphery of Europe.

The periphery means Poland and in lesser measure the rest of East Europe, which are great NATO supporters as they do not trust (for very good reasons, if you ask me) France and Germany to be able and willing to defend them from Russia.

Poland has already said that it will gladly take those US troops, missiles and nukes that Germany would really like to be gone. Poland has even dared voicing support for the UK, too. Poland is sovranist. Poland is an obstacle.

The next few years might end up seeing Germany and France increasingly in disagreement with the US, increasingly hostile on the economic front, increasingly calling for European “autonomy” from the US, while still effectively defended by US troops, based in Poland. While still blaming the US for the fracture, in fact. Regardless of  what the president’s name will be. Just like now: shame Trump, but demand he does not leave Syria. Protest his every plan and request, but do not contemplate the option of using European soldiers to secure what is, in words at least, seen as a key security crisis right on Europe’s threshold.

Hegemony is an addicting thing: it is not likely that we will see a climbdown from Aachen. There will be disagreements and difficulties between Paris and Berlin (defence export is just one of many potential thorns on this rose), but the axis will hold because it is clearly advantageous for both countries.

The periphery also means Italy. It is not a case that the new “public enemy number 1” is now Sovranism. The greatest danger, specifically, is represented by sovranists with veto powers within the EU. Sovranists which might soon fill a great number of seats in the EU parliament after the elections of May. Sovranists that might turn the EU into a brake, rather than a tool in the hands of Paris and Berlin. 

Salvini is a sovranist: he does not quite advocate leaving the EU (not anymore, or perhaps not yet depending on how you look at it…), but he is certainly a source of resistance and opposition. And he is popular. He, and Italy, are the next big obstacle. Italy either has to be won over (and already years ago Paris tried by proposing a treaty to Italy which would have looked a bit like Aachen) or silenced in some ways. And make no mistake: the international media campaign against Salvini will keep getting more virulent. And Spread attacks against Italy will continue, too. They worked in 2011, after all, when the last Berlusconi government was effectively forced to resign and was replaced by unelected, appointed Mario Monti and the semi-elected leftist, europeist governments that followed.

The same left that went into the 2018 elections under “+ Europa” and “United States of Europe” banners, only to be savagely punished by the electorate.
Italy is in the Eurozone. It has joined the currency that was custom-tailored over Germany's needs. And because of it is greatly vulnerable. 
In the political battle for Italy, even Berlusconi has now resumed usefulness in the eyes of the EU: babysitted by Antonio Tajani, president of the EU Parliament, he is (so far unsuccessfully) trying to simultaneously ride on Salvini’s wake by formally siding with him in regional elections, while savagely opposing the government and sticking to an Europeist agenda. Berlusconi and the candidates of the Left all aspire to being the Italian Macron, defeating the evil sovranism / populism and climbing on a stage with blue flags waving and Europe's anthem blaring in place of the national anthem.

Don’t undervalue the role that Italy has to play, even unknowingly, in the next chapter of Europe’s history.

Regardless of what your misguided media like to tell you, Salvini is probably your most important ally in the next few years.

But you have to awaken from your self-defeatist, absurdly repentant “it’s all our fault” slumber.

Italy and the F-35: the PD document that backs the cuts - UPDATE

Current status of the program: the defence ministry has agreed to freeze the negotiations for further aircraft, while the defence white paper is produced, for publishing by December according to the current plan.
The freeze in the payments, according to italian defence analysts, actually applies only to the early long lead orders for the LRIP 10 production lot, for which negotiation began in february this year. The firm order for the production of these aircraft would come in 2016.
In the meanwhile, the acquisition of the 3 F-35A of LRIP 6, the 3 F-35A of LRIP 7 is going ahead. These are the only aircraft that Italy has signed definitive contracts for. In this summer, Italy will also sign the production contract for LRIP 8, with two F-35A, while next year there will be the order for LRIP 9. See the previous article for details of the production schedule for Italy, which was restructured in 2013.

Important news have come from Israeli officers, which, after voicing their intention to open a MRO line for their F-35s in Israel are now opening up to the idea of sending their aircraft to the single MRO facility for the European and Mediterranean area, which is supposed to eventually be located in the Cameri FACO, in Italy. The best chance for Italy to get a long term economic and technical return is to be selected as location for the single MRO facility: that would mean maintaining USAFE, Israeli, dutch, british and norwegian F-35s over the coming decades, assuming that negotiations with all these countries go ahead.
Italy has held preliminary talks with other F-35 partners, and the Cameri FACO is going to assemble the F-35s for the Netherlands. Italy, in exchange, will send its F-135 engines in the Netherlands for depot maintenance. It is widely expected that Netherlands will continue to lean on the Italian FACO for the regular depot maintenance of its jets.
United Kingdom and Norway have, in recent times, concluded preliminary collaboration agreements over the F-35: the scenario that is taking shape sees the brits standing up an Integrated Training Centre in the UK, which norwegian pilot could use to avoid the costs of sending their personnel all the way to Luke AFB, in the USA. The British would reciprocate by sending their F-135 engines to Norway for maintenance. None of the two countries will have a MRO depot, so for deep maintenance they are faced by the choice between Cameri or the US.
While Italy is currently planning to have its pilots trained in the US, it can be reasonably assumed that negotiations will be made to have italian pilots trained in the UK's ITC instead, in exchange for a depot maintenance agreement. Negotiations should also eventually resume with Norway, with which Italy had held successful preliminary talks in the early 2000s.
One of the greatest critiques moved to the F-35 program is the industrial and workshare returns aren't satisfactory: the biggest source of work, the depot maintenance, is a promise currently not guaranteed by firm contracts. Forging firm agreements in this area would be a major boost to the popularity of the F-35 program in Italy, so the Israeli opening is particularly important.

It is evident that these industrial plans, and the international agreements already signed or hoped for will have to be considered as part of the White Paper. While workshare returns as of now appear uncertain and mostly based on the conclusion of future collaboration deals, excessive cutbacks to Italy's committment to the program could be the death blow to the hopes of making of Cameri a winning investment.
There are at least two requisites for which Italy absolutely needs the F-35, and in both the A and B variants: the F-35A, at the bare minimum, is needed to replace the Tornado IDS in the NATO tactical nuclear bomber role. At least a squadron of F-35A, eventually to receive integration with the B61-12 nuclear bomb, is planned to replace the current "nuclear" squadron on Tornado on the Ghedi air base.
Another group is needed, with F-35B this time, to equip the aircraft carrier Cavour.
Current plans include further F-35A to replace Tornado IDS in the strike role and AMX aircraft in CAS role, in up to three other squadrons.  One air force group on F-35B as CAS asset is also planned.

While a reduction from 90 aircraft is almost certain, halving the order would have a dramatic effect on the future of the air force, and defence chiefs are unsurprisingly already pushing back with their full force against the misinformed attacks.

Attacks which are misinformed for real. Let's see what the document produced by the PD members in the defence committee says.


The document that backs the cuts 

The internal document produced by Partito Democratico (PD) members that have taken part, over the past months, to multiple hearins with the armed forces chiefs and industry representatives has been revealed to the press. The document is born out of the initiative of Gian Piero Scanu, head of the PD group in the Defence Committee and a well known enemy of defence spending, which never fails to show his very lacking understanding of defence matters. As was to be expected, the document looks like the product of an hour of the attention of an 8-year old boy.

On the F-35 story, which is the one which caught the international attention the most, the document reaches its top levels. The document says it is necessary to explore other solutions for the renewal of the Navy's fighter fleet, made up of STOVL aircraft, the only ones which can take off from the relatively small aircraft carrier Cavour. It will be a short exploration, since there isn't any alternative to the F-35B in this specific area.
The document also says that the air force is wrong in saying that the Typhoon has little to no air to ground capabilities and won't have them for several more years, even with big investments on the way. The Typhoon is "fully operational", the politicians say they have discovered in the hearings.
Of course it is. In the air defence role, since 2005. Big discovery. The real discovery, and this one truly does amaze everyone, is that there is a fully multirole Typhoon in production: it is called RAPHALE and it is the "french variant of Typhoon".
Well, i'm sure Eurofighter and Dassault will both be delighted of finding this out.

A big advantage of throwing more money into Typhoon by producing this "french variant" is that the "works-shearing" arrangements are more favorable than those of the F-35 program.
Fantastic.

Il caccia multiruolo Typhoon, nella versione di attacco al suolo, non solo sarà prodotto, ma risulterà competitivo con il JSF della Lockheed. Questa versione dell'Eurofighter sarà messa a disposizione delle missioni UE, NATO e ONU da numerosi alleati europei (Austria, Spagna, Germania e Inghilterra, mentre la Francia utilizzerà la versione “Raphale”).

E' necessario quindi che il nostro Paese mantenga e rafforzi con convinzione la partecipazione delle aziende italiane a questo programma, tenendone sotto controllo i costi, ma anche avendo presente che il sistema di works-shearing, che tiene insieme tutti i programmi di cooperazione europea, garantisce ad ogni paese ritorni in nessun caso inferiori alle proprie quote di investimento.

Sorry France, we should have told you earlier: you are apparently building a Typhoon variant named RAPHALE...

Yes, the Rafale is a multi-role aircraft with air to ground capabilities much more developed than the Typhoon's, and with an AESA radar already in production.
But, sorry Scanu, it is not in any way a Typhoon variant named Raphale...

The "Raphale" is not the only priceless discovery of this document. The terrible english isn't, either. Not even the terrible italian used in some passages, even if it is rape on Dante's language.

The programs of the Navy are seen favorably by the politicians (the new defence minister Roberta Pinotti, born in Genova, has her electoral base in the area of the shipyards which would build the new ships, so for this and other reasons it is not surprising) but even here, of course, they call for some sacrifices. They say that Italy can't afford two aircraft carriers: well, they are a bit late with this discovery, since Italy already has only one aircraft carrier, the Cavour, and no plans to operate another. The older Garibaldi is tied up in port, receiving limited maintenance in the hope of being used for a few more years, but as an helicopter ship in support of amphibious operations, due to the very limited (if not non-existant) helicopter hangarage and maintenance facilities available on the tiny LPDs of the "Santi" class. Garibaldi is meant to be a gap filler on the way to the construction of a 20.000 tons LHD which would replace both her and one of the three Santi ships.
The savings from removing Garibaldi, due to her no longer having an air group and aircraft carrier ambitions, would actually be modest. The Navy has long been considering the option of doing away with the ship, and politicians would want to see Garibaldi sold.
The navy would be fine with selling her, but the problem is that the market isn't really big for ships of this kind: old, manpower-intensive and without air group (Harriers these days are rare and precious, and with the british GR9s sold as spare parts to the US Marines, there really isn't any Harrier on sale anywhere). Any buyer would only be able to put helicopters on her, and even in this role Garibaldi would have to beat the rivalry of the spanish Principe de Asturias, which Spain would also gladly sell off.

The document also makes a mess of the italian army's plans, all of them apparently collectively grouped up under the heading "Forza NEC" and under a notional, impressive and almost certainly wildly speculative pricetag of "20 billions", which obviously should be re-thought. How? Who knows. They seem to be putting in the same basket things such as the future soldier system (Soldato Futuro), the Iveco Lince 4x4 vehicle, the Orso VTMM in all its variants, the modernization of the Ariete MBT, the purchase of the Freccia 8x8 armored vehicle family for the medium weight brigades and many other programs.
The PD politicians are somehow convinced that Forza NEC is not able to operate alongside similar NATO network enabled system of systems, and want european standardization. In part, this might be true, and it would indeed be desirable to achieve better synergies in European defence programs, but sorry Scanu: France, Germany and UK and others aren't exactly going to listen to what you have to say, i fear, and readily follow your orders. 

Finally, Scanu sneaks in another big plan of his: getting rid of the army training grounds in italy, particularly the most important and strategic of them, like Capo Teulada and the weapons training range of Salto di Quirra, in his native Sardinia.
Scanu hates the army's range on the island, it is not a new thing. He has recently stated that the italian army should close all its ranges, in favor of using a "multinational training range" which should be developed in Europe. Somewhere. Anywhere but not in Italy.
Of course, mr. Scanu. I can already see nations rushing forth with money and will to build a mega training range which can fullfil your dream of allowing all european armies to train in the same place.
The document is, thankfully, not so direct as Scanu was in interviews, but it still calls for rationalization of training areas at European level to build common ranges. It also calls for standardization on a single type of rifle, tactical vest, helmet, grenade etcetera. Which, mind you, does have its sense. But, again, it is wishful thinking. Especially since, of course, the unspoken bit of thought in Scanu's mind is that the european rifle should be italian, made by Beretta, as well as probably every other bit of kit the document quotes.

Good luck with getting the rest of Europe to agree.

Is this document serious, well researched, belieavable? No. It is junk. Even worse than i expected it to be.
Is it dangerous for the future of the italian armed forces and the F-35? Yes. Politicians of this kind, with this spectacular level of ignorance even after months of hearings and explanations by the defence chiefs (it is clear that lawmakers have listened to very little of what was said in the hearings), are dangerous for any and everything.
Will this document be torn apart in the next phase of studies and decision-making when it is brought before government? Yes. I very much hope and think so.

It is such a piece of garbage that it wouldn't surprise me if it was cancelled from the web to hide the stupidity of it, while a patched up variant is thrown together. Download it and preserve the memory of it: the Eurofighter RAPHALE asks you to do so! 

Download link (in italian) 


UPDATE: trade union that was reported as being happy with cuts to F-35 already starts backing off as it understands that a cut to F-35 will not mean more Typhoons. Says (with some reason) that Italy was unable to negotiate a truly advantageous deal in terms of technology and work sharing, but that it looks forwards to talking about a serious policy for defence and for investments in the defence field. Asks for a "rethink" on the F-35 program, not for cuts anymore. Better to seek better terms on the F-35 than hope in more Typhoons that were never going to come.

Trade union statement

How surprising.

Oh, and of course, nevermind that Forza NEC (Force NEC, from Network Enabled Capabilities) in the statement becomes NEK, an italian singer...

Italy and the F-35: what is actually happening?

Press in Italy and abroad has gone into a frenzy over the news that Italy "will further cut its F-35 order, even halving it". But reality is a bit different. 

Big cuts might be coming. Or might not. 

Prime minister Renzi has announced that he is seeking 2.5 to 3 billion euro savings in defence spending in the next 3 years of parliament. The new defence minister, Roberta Pinotti, has underlined the need for a strategic review that sets the requirements and decides the future of the italian armed forces, and both PM and defence minister have confirmed that a review of the F-35 program will be part of these operations. It is also true that there is strong opposition against the F-35 in many parties and groups, including Renzi’s own party. It is a part of Renzi's own Democratic Party which has called to halve the purchase of the F-35, down to 45. But to report of this call as what is going to actually happen to the program is a very wild call, at the moment. It is obvious that cuts to defence are going to happen and something will go for sure. The F-35 program will contribute to achieving these savings, but there is actually little that can actually be cut off the F-35 program in the next three years, and there are a lot of factors to consider in order to understand what is going on. 

 
F-35 development money is spent and gone. 800 million for the FACO have also already been spent. This money can’t be affected in any way. Italy has actually already slowed down the planned rhythm of its purchases, putting together a different plan already back in July 2013. So far, firm contracts have been signed only for 6 F-35A, spread 3 in LRIP 6 and 3 in LRIP 7.

Four more F-35A were planned to be ordered in LRIP 8, but the plan has already been reviewed downwards to just 2. The LRIP 9 was expected to include the first F-35B for the Navy and three more F-35A, but the plan has been reviewed and from four aircraft we are now down to 3 (1 F-35B, 2 F-35A).

The LRIP 10, in the latest projections, is described as including 4 aircraft (2 F-35A and 2 F-35B for the Navy), against 6 planned earlier (2 F-35A, 3 F-35B for the Navy and the first F-35A for the air force).

The first F-35B for the air force is now not due for delivery before 2021 (was to be 2018, originally). By the same date, the Navy will have received 10 F-35B.

The LRIP 11 appears to have been cut back from 6 to 5 jets: it was to include 2 F-35A, 2 F-35B navy, 2 F-35B air force while now it will include 3 F-35A and 2 F-35B for the Navy.

However, these changes are, as of now, a revised delivery schedule, not a net cut, as the totals remain, for delivery by 2027: 90 aircraft in total, made up of 60 F-35A, 15 F-35B for the Air Force and 15 F-35B for the Navy.

The LRIP 8 order is expected to be placed within the summer, while the LRIP 9 order would be placed next year. The lots 8, 9, 10 and 11 are those realistically most affected by the reduction in spending announced for the next three years. Delaying the purchase of several aircraft is obviously going to result in a short term saving; the question is whether this delay will be enough to achieve the current spending cut targets, or if the plan will be changed once more. 

The modified delivery schedule for Italy's F-35s, as has been coming together since summer 2013, as reported by Italy's Analisi Difesa (analisidifesa.it). Several aircraft are delayed from early LRIPs to later multi-year purchases. This will ensure savings in the next three years: will they be enough?

It is possible that a complete, temporary stop to orders could be chosen. The LRIPs allocations over the next three years could be reviewed downwards again. But it might also not happen. It is too early to say.

Cutting the order to 45 however, appears unlikely. First of all, the savings coming from such a decision would not be available in the short term, unless the program is frozen entirely and orders resume only a few years into the future. The scope for savings in the short term is very small, and changing the long term totals, considering that the purchase is spread over more than a decade, will only bring results in the long term. Renzi mostly cares about saving money now, as it needs funds to re-direct on his own spending priorities and, hopefully, on much needed tax cuts to help the economy. 

Stil, a complete freeze to the purchases is unlikely, i'd think, considering that Renzi openly said he remains committed to the program and to the collaboration with Washington: freezing the orders entirely wouldn’t go down very well with the partners. The chiefs of Air Force and Navy are also arguing with all their voice to ensure that they receive their F-35s relatively soon. The AMX and Tornado IDS are aging and the air force fears capability gaps opening as early as 2018, and while the navy's AV-8B+ Harriers are still relatively young, the Navy is just as eager to move onwards sticking to schedule. The Harrier fleet is tiny, and the airframes being worked have been pretty much always the same: they might be young in terms of years, but they have fatigue on their airframes.

The only way to achieve big savings would be to review the whole requirements in the White Paper, set even smaller aircraft and manpower targets for the Air Force, and likely remove from the ORBAT some squadrons of AMX and Tornado IDS, early and without replacement. Cutting orders of new aircraft which would not actually happen for years and keep spending big money on the aging platforms meant to be replaced by those would have little sense and very much limit the extent of the savings in the near future. Of course such decisions could well be made, but it is all to be seen.

Some press suggests that buying more Typhoons in place of part of the F-35s might be an option. Everything is possible in theory, of course, but it should be noted that this is definitely not what the defence chiefs want. Nor is it a realistic or a financially advantageous proposal.

Building more Typhoons is a wish of Finmeccanica, NOT of the air force. Finmeccanica would get greater gains from building more Typhoons rather than from building F-35, due to how the two programs work. However, the Air Force chief definitely does not wishes to take over more Typhoons: the plan is actually to soon withdraw from service up to 24 Tranche 1 aircraft (the indecision on numbers is due to a decision to be made on the fate of the 2-seat aircraft used for training) leaving 72 or 75 Typhoons out of the 96 being purchased. The Italian Air Force has been the first to start using Typhoon for QRA, but it has also been probably the less supportive partner, in recent years at least.

An (unlikely) order placed for the Tranche 3B Typhoons also risks having political implications in the international arena. The four Typhoon partners (UK, Germany, Spain and Italy) have all expressed their intention not to purchase the Tranche 3B: if one partner was to rethink on the issue, the Eurofighter consortium would probably try even harder to obtain penalty payments from the other countries: UK, Germany and Spain do not want to spend more money on more Typhoons, and most certainly don’t want to pay big penalties either. The matter could end up proving very complex. It is highly unlikely that the proposal could ever gain the willing support of the defence chiefs to start with: the Italian Air Force does not actually believe in the air to ground capabilities of the Typhoon. The service isn’t even quite exploiting the capabilities introduced by the P1E program, and considers the Typhoon a solution for the sole air dominance requirement and, possibly, for the launch of Storm Shadow cruise missiles in the future. And the Italian Typhoons are being delivered missing some capabilities altogether: even the Tranche 3As, differently from those built for the UK, do not have the full predisposition for conformal fuel tanks, nor the fuel dump system. All signals of the enduring unwillingness to invest on a truly multi-role Typhoon which is not seen as the solution for the needs of the service in terms of Strike and CAS.

Even if more Typhoons were forced down the throat of the air force, the total would not be 121, as the 20 or so Tranche 1 are due to be removed from service as they are going to age badly unless a lot of money is forked out to upgrade them to standards closer to those of the Tranche 2 and 3 examples. They would have, again, to force the air force to do something that is against all planning. Possible, but unlikely that the government will go this far.

Finally, halving the F-35 order would only mostly damage Italy itself, which will have spent a lot of money on the FACO, only to destroy its return with its own hands. Already, the massive reductions already experienced (131 to 90 for Italy, and 85 to just 37 for Netherlands) have reduced, to say the least, the cost-effectiveness of the assembly line, which now pins its hopes of becoming a source of financial and technical returns almost exclusively on being chosen as the Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) facility for all F-35 users in Europe and in the Mediterranean area. Alenia's role as  second-source provider of wings for the F-35 has already been hurt by the cut from 131 to 90 aircraft, which has resulted in Lochkeed Martin cutting back its minimum promise of work from 1215 to 835 wing sets, and the deal would only worsen with a new reduction. 

The biggest risk to Italy's industry and financial returns is that some other european F-35 partner could exploit the chance and make a big return in the race for the MRO site and get the contracts and decades of maintenance work, leaving Cameri as an expensive cathedral in the desert. That would be a true disaster. 

All these reasons make further big cuts to the F-35 order relatively unlikely. Possible, of course, but before announcing dramatic changes are coming to the program, i’d be very careful. The review of the program might actually deliver relatively mild changes to the plan.

The effects of the "review" of the F-35 program in Italy could go in many ways: it could cut the (arguably useless) 15 F-35B for the Air Force, hopefully growing the Navy's order from 15 to 20 or so, as for original plan. 

The purchase of F-35B for land use by the Air Force remains arguably the most controversial part of the italian F-35 program.

The 15 / 15 F-35B was a political deal forced on the Air Force and Navy when the 131 F-35 were cut to 90 (original 131 aircraft plan called for : 69 F-35A, 40 F-35B air force, 22 F-35B Navy). Experts generally agree that the F-35B for the air force, officially meant to cover the requirement to operate from “austere” air facilities in expeditionary operations, are a waste of money. There is also bitter consent on the hypothesis that what the Air Force really wants with its purchase of F-35B is to follow the RAF’s example and get rid of the uncomfortable presence of an independent deployable air power capability wearing Navy colours, by absorbing it.

The Navy has been severely hampered in its plans by the cut from 22 to just 15 F-35B, which aren’t quite sufficient to cover training, attrition, back up and frontline requirements, forcing a downsizing of the realistic, routine air group for the Cavour aircraft carrier. 22 jets were meant to support a training fleet of 3 based in the US, 5 aircraft unavailable / in maintenance and a forward available fleet routinely reaching the total of 14 jets.

A fleet of 15 jets, maintaining the training fleet of 3, would support at most 9 deployable aircraft.

The air force’s own F-35B will be based alongside the Navy’s ones on the navy base in Grottaglie, to concentrate the B logistics on the same base. However, the Navy has fought to the end (and successfully) to keep the two squadrons well and truly separated. The carrier deployments are meant to be covered by the sole Navy squadron. The result, as it is, is that the dangerous mess of a “fusion” Joint Force Harrier-style is avoided, but what’s left is two pitifully small groups, with the Air Force’s one lacking a convincing reason of existence. 

The FACO in Cameri has required a huge investment. Getting back the money will become next to impossible if wrong decisions are taken.

Most, if not all experts, agree that if the 90 F-35s are to be cut further, it is the 15 F-35B for the air force that should be at the top of the list of candidate victims.

A reduction from 90 to 80, with a 60 / 20 split between A and B, air force and Navy, would be seen with favour by many, including myself. A better option still would be to keep the order for 90 aircraft, but still reduce the number of Bs to no more than 22, all destined to the Navy. The air force would get 8 more F-35A instead of F-35Bs. The overall cost would shrink (the B is more expensive to both buy and operate / maintain) and, arguably, better overall capability would be delivered. 

The aircraft carrier Cavour, sailing for an exercise in 2012, carrying AV-8B+ Harrier of the "Wolves" group

We’ll see what comes out of the review and of the White Paper. Talking of halving the F-35 order, at this time at least, seems a very wild call. The reality is likely to be quite different. At least if defence chiefs get to say a word in the planning. 

Lapland test for the thermal optics of the FRES Scout

"The best images i've ever seen"

Comments are very positive from the extreme-climate trials of the FRES Scout thermal sights. The images shown are indeed impressive for their quality.

A report is contained in the April 2012 edition of DESIDER.

It also reports that March 12 saw a meeting of the secretary of state for defence with the colleagues from the other Typhoon partner nations. The meeting was about setting the new schedule for weapons integration on the fighter jet, a process that the UK would like to speed up. The Telegraph reported in the past months that Planning Round 12 would contain progress and confirmation of the Brimstone and Storm Shadow integration.
Unfortunately, DESIDER steps short of telling what the results of the meeting were.

Financial issues are slowing down the decision making, and Italy's air force, for example, is in difficulties at finding funds for Typhoon work and does not really want to move forwards with the plan, selling to the italian government the vision that Typhoon is about air-to-air, mostly to protect from further cuts the existing Tornado and AMX component and to preserve the already downsized F35 order.

This friday should see Admiral Di Paola, minister for defence, present to the italian parliament the plan for defence reform and downsizing. Details are eagerly awaited re: F35 (how many A and how many B in the 90-strong order?), FREMM (no hope of getting the last four?), LHD programme (is it confirmed?), reduction of the Army from 11 to 9 maneuver brigades and other matters.  

PAAMS progresses

The PAAMS, the famous tri-national missile program a variant of which is the Sea Viper used on the Royal Navy's Type 45, is still progressing and evolving to this day. Lately, three news in particular have caught my eye: 

Anti-Ballistic SAMPSON - BAE Systems has started testing activity on an ABM variant of the SAMPSON (Type 1054 for the RN) radar used by Sea Viper. The activity is carried out at the Cowes center, on the island of Wight, and is the follow-on to a previous Design Definition Phase concluded in March last year, and to a first series of tests carried out with the Advanced Radar Technology Test Bed. 

The study is part of a series of activities carried out under direction of the Missile Defence Centre (MDC), an alliance between MOD and industry that started in 2003. Scope of this body is to research, develop and monitor the evolution of threats and solutions in the Ballistic Missile field. For the moment, the MOD does not plan to acquire a missile-shield or an anti-ballistic capability for the Type 45, but the door is being kept open, and studies are being done to enable a smooth change of policy anytime in the future. 

The current tests at Cowes will eventually conclude with trials of detection and tracking of satellites in high orbit. 

The SAMPSON is only installed on the six Type 45 destroyers, which also mount the Thales S-1850M long-range radar (Type 1046 for the Navy). The S-1850M is a variant of the SMART-L radar from Thales Nederland, also used on the french and italian Horizons, on the German F124 air defence frigates and on the De Zeven Provinciën frigates of the Netherlands navy. The SMART-L itself has anti-ballistic tracking capability, with tests ongoing ever since 2006. For the SMART-L series of radars, General Dynamics last year released a self-funded X-band radar datalink that enables the existing radar to guide an american SM-3 anti-ballistic missile, making 10 warships in Europe (three German F124 frigates, three Danish patrol vessels and four Dutch ADCF frigates) practically "ABM-ready". 

So far none has funded purchase of the SM-3 missile, but the possibility exists. 

The Type 45 and Horizon destroyers of UK, France and Italy could also get an ABM role, they would need to be touched up more consistently: the Sylver A50 cells are too short for SM-3, and the missile is currently not integrated into Sylver launchers, so even adoption of the A70 cells would not solve the problem. 

The Type 45 could however in any moment embark 16 additional missile cells, of the MK41 type, and in "Strike Lenght" (7 meters deep, in other words) in order to fit SM-3 and Tomahawk missiles. 

For now, the dutch will only upgrade the radars. In the meanwhile, 4 US Arleigh Burke destroyers with ABM capability and SM-3 missiles are being forward-based in Europe, in the port of Rota, Spain, to provide initial missile defence. 

By 2015, semi-mobile launcher towers and radars derived from the naval system ("Aegis Ashore") are planned to be deployed on land in Romania, and by 2018 a second site should go online in Poland.

SAMP-T demonstrates capability - The SAMP-T is the land variant of PAAMS. It is an air defence missile system employing the Arabel radar and the Aster 30 missile (no Aster 15 is employed on land). It is being acquired by Italy and France, and is competing for exports in several countries, including Turkey. 

On 1st December 2011, a SAMP-T trial saw the successful interception by an Aster 30 missile of a Black Sparrow target. The Black Sparrow is an israeli target missile built to simulate SCUD-like short range ballistic threats. The target was hit at an altitude of around 10 km, as it simulated the descent phase of a ballistic missile. 

The Blue Sparrow is suitable to represent more performant ballistic threats, and Israel is developing the Silver Sparrow, which will simulate missiles in the 1500 to 3000 km range-class, such as Iranian Shihab 3 weapons. Israel is using the Sparrow targets to test and validate the Harrow anti-ballistic system. 

The missile is the same, so the test should be very much valid and reassuring for the naval PAAMS as well. It also confirms that the Aster missile has a huge growth margin, and gives new credibility to MBDA's offer to develop an "Aster Block 2" or even an Aster 45 anti-ballistic missile. 

This ambition, however, is largely a french one. The UK for the moment is not really hot on ballistic defence, Italy has other priorities and very little money, and France itself has other destinations for its own defence budget. The rest of Europe went AEGIS/MK41 (Germany, Spain, Dutch) and their eventual choice is very straightforward with the SM-3.

Personally, i find the MBDA anti-ballistic missile a fascinating idea, but one with very little hopes to see the light, but as always, time will tell. 

Supersonic, Sea-Skimming trial ahead - In the next future, PAAMS will face a very important test. France has confirmed that they will soon trial the Aster 30 missile against a supersonic, sea-skimming target representing a russian ship-killer missile (such as SS-N22 Sunburn or the Yakhont acquired recently by Syria). 

The target will be an american-built GQM-163 Coyote, an incredibly effective (but horrendously expensive) target drone developed by the US Navy and used for Aegis missile trials since 2006. 

The single Coyote was ordered by France in 2007, at a cost of 9.2 million dollars (!). Ever since, nothing had been heard about it, and i was fearing that we would continue to be feed the assuration that PAAMS can shoot down "multiple supersonic sea-skimming missiles approaching simultaneously by different directions" without the system ever having been tested against anything more challenging than a subsonic Exocet. 

France is reassuring everyone that this is not the case  and we can only be glad of it. Shooting down the Coyote as it flies at mach 2.5 just a few meters above the waves will be a good test for the PAAMS, and will do much to improve confidence in the system, all the way to the Type 45's Sea Viper. 

Let's hope it all goes according to plan.