Saturday, March 22, 2014

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...

20 comments:

  1. This is your blog and you can, of course, write about whatever subject you wish... but you did call it *UK* armed forces commentary...?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do write mostly about the UK, in fact. But since Italy's F-35 cuts misinformation is running in circles around the world, it is helpful to put some order.

      Massive italian cuts to the program wouldn't help the UK's own purchase, besides, even if they are highly unlikely to have the kind of "death spiral" effect dreamt of by some well known F-35 haters.

      Delete
    2. Again why does Italian need that many Stealth planes when its operations are many against weaker states. You people love war. Perhaps you should say that to the families of dead troops.

      Delete
    3. Stupid comments.

      Just because there is no war state on state now does not mean there might not be in the future.

      Nothing at all wrong with Italy having that many "Stealth" planes.

      Italians love war? That's a joke. In Great Britain the Italians are stereotyped as being the opposite.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous,
      Its better prepared in peaceful times than not be in war times. Learn from your past mistakes.

      Delete
  2. Being half Italian myself, I always knew Italy's politicians were nuts, my Dad would have them all shot.

    I'd like to chuck in some of ours while we are at it.

    I doubt many of these plans will come to pass.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And I thought that UK politicians knew feck all about defence. Your guys are even worse. Stupid fools.

    I secretly hope that Putin's disgraceful adventure in the Ukraine wakes them up but I'm not holding my breath.


    DaHedd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please go have war and die.See if you like that. If you think everything is solved by the barrel of a gun you are a fool.

      Delete
  4. Like politicians in the UK, it seems that their Italian counterparts structure defence around pure fantasy

    ReplyDelete
  5. Lots of aggressive comments on the blog lately?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have my bunch of haters. It's the internet. Nothing to be worried about.

      Delete
  6. Obviously some trolls about just stirring it up, best to ignore I think. It’s always good to make comparisons with other nations, sometimes I feel some people who reply to blogs have no real concept of what’s happening outside their blinkered view of their own nations military. I suppose in retrospect I was the same when I was in the military. You have this unfortunate view that all your equipment is rubbish and every other nation has better equipment when you tie in for a joint operation.
    In reality they are saying the same about their kit as well, a service person is never happy unless they are complaining about just about everything.
    I have recently come back from CBRN training for the navy at Taranto and at Rieti for the Army, great people, but comparing their kit and ability with some other nations leaves a lot to be desired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, i'm not surprised to hear it. Funding for training, exercises and maintenance of equipment has been cut back again and again in the past few years, and this has had big consequences. Wasn't for the additional funding provided for troops to train prior to deployment to Afghanistan and Lebanon, it would be even worse. Procurement is somewhat better, and we do have excellent kit in some areas, but deliveries are sloooow, and there are a lot of corners which are badly cut off. The army is spectacularly poor in recovery vehicles for the heavy armour fleets, for example. Smaller, less visible but still important kit is neclected in even worse ways. It is quite amazing that we are the third contingent in Afghanistan by size; that we are in Lebanon in force as well, and that the air force and navy did so much in Libya in 2011. There's good people indeed, working hard to make it go on.

      Delete
    2. Sir H seems to have attracted quite a following of trolls as well.
      The RAF have apparently retired the last 5 TriStars, it seems a stupid decision to me, as only 7 A330 Voyagers have been delivered so far, and I assume one will be/has been sent to the Falklands? Do you know the delivery schedule for the remaining 7 Voyagers?
      Thanks
      Waylander

      Delete
    3. I think the core fleet of 9 will be delivered by the end of this year, while the 5 "on call" reinforcements will follow during 2015 and into 2016. The RAF will always have 9 in full time service, of which one in the Falklands and one used as transport for personnel moving back and forth from South Atlantic, Cyprus and elsewhere. That leaves 7 tankers covering all the other tasks, and 5 two-point tankers as reinforcements on call when deliveries are completed.

      Delete
    4. 9 + sometimes 5 replace what were just a few years ago 25 + VC10 / Tristar.

      Nice work HMG.

      More capable, but too few, and the RAF do not even own them.

      Shame Shame Shame.

      Delete
    5. In partial justification for that, some of the older tankers were only transports, and couldn't actually refuel anything. Besides, there are far less combat aircraft to refuel, as well, these days. Fewer receivers means less givers.

      I'm more annoyed by the fact that key assets such as C-17, Sentinel and Rivet Joint can't be refueled by RAF tankers (well, the Sentinel can't refuel in the air at all, actually).

      Delete
    6. Very true. If I have read things correctly it would appear that even France is purchasing the boom equipped version of the KA330. If that is true it would appear that the UK is the only nation not to have picked that variant.... Seem amazing to me that the UK, the nation always banging on about how important supporting coalition operations with the US, is the only one who hasn't invested in a capability which would actually be useful to the Airforce of our "closest ally" (not to mention our own aircraft - which in the future may also include the boom using include Poseidon and whatever replaces the Sentry).
      Frankly when it comes to procurements I am hard pressed to think of a more ill conceived, penny rich / pound poor procurement. It was clearly run by accounts with the primary task of avoiding large capital spending and hence increase in national debt, but the RAF hasn't exactly covered itself in glory in not insisting on what they actually needed. One suspects that they would have more utility from fully owning only 10 airframes but ones with booms and a proper cargo hatch..... and then a seperate PFI contract to provide tanking and transport services out to the South Atlantic and Cyprus with whomever and whatever the market decided was appropriate....
      Ah well - it is done now and lets face it, nothing is going to change!

      Delete
  7. Hi Gabriele,
    It has been a month or so since I've contributed, but really interesting set of articles on the Italian F-35 purchase. I've a couple of questions / comments which I'd appreciate you commenting on -
    1. I've always questioned the Italian facility as being a pure FACO - smacks of make work project rather than anything else. However it would appear that the real strategy is actually around MRO for Europe - would you agree?
    2. If MRO is the strategy, it would appear that the UK would be key to making this work, both in terms numbers of aircraft, but also in providing legitimacy to others using it
    3. Given 2/ above - an obvious question is "why would the UK use it" - either the Italian's need to offer a really great price (competitive with a US line dealing with 1,000s!) or there needs to be a some other "exchange". Thoughts?

    Nigel

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cameri's success as investment has effectively been always dependent on becoming the MRO depot for the European area. Assembly of the jets, and even the production of wing sets as second-source provider isn't quite going to be rewarding, especially since the Dutch have massively reduced their planned order (from 85 to 37) and the italian order has reduced as well (from 131 to 90, very possibly to shrink further). If the americans confirm Cameri as MRO for the Mediterranean area, Italy will become a real alternative to the US facilities.
      The USAF-Europe aircraft would be maintained in Cameri, along hopefully with the F-35s of all other users in the area.

      What can Italy offer back? To the Dutch, it gives engine maintenance. With the UK, a possible deal could see maintenance in Italy being reciprocated by training of italian personnel in the Uk instead of in the US, as well as joint funding of things such as Meteor missile integration on the F-35. Much depends on how the italian government will decide to act.

      It is obvious that Cameri has to ensure competitive prices. It already has to do so with the production of wing sets, which have to come at LM-approved price, as the wings produced in Italy end up on aircraft for other customers as well, and those won't be willing to pay more just to give jobs to Italy.
      Keep in mind that Cameri will work as part of LM, and cost control will have to work in consequence. No one says it will be easy, and that is exactly why the work-sharing arrangement is causing so much protests here: it comes with a lot of risk and with limited margins for making money on the work.

      It would be indeed important to have UK and Norway sending their aircraft to Cameri.

      Delete

Everybody can comment on this blog without needing a Blogger account. It is meant to keep the discussion free and open to everyone. Unfortunately, anonymous accounts keep the door open for spammers and trolls, so i'm forced to moderate comments and approve them before they appear. Apologies for the inconvenience.