The recent moves made by Europe, following the decision by Great Britain to leave the grouping of 28, have been characterized by the relaunch of European defense. The topic dealt with at the Almo Collegio Borromeo di Pavia by illustrious scholars, in the context of an institutional conference, on the future of Europe and its industrial component for defense, has highlighted, among others, that: being a European defense without a European industry, the two concepts are linked to each other; there cannot be a united and federated Europe without a great project, the fruit of an idea about our future, where the goal to be reached is clear.
Integrated, federated Europe is the big project, negotiating among federal states is the process to follow based on everyone's convictions and convictions (is the conviction that creates conviction).
The defense industry needs to know three key elements of the European defense strategy:
- what is needed, ie the capability package, the European defense planning synchronized with the NATO and National ones,
- what are the assignable European and national financial resources and for which projects,
- what are the expected times.
Before leaving for any analysis, you need to ask what is Europe from a geopolitical point of view?
Two data are significant to better pinpoint this geopolitical analysis:
- The coins used for global trade (currency) are crucial for the economies of the countries;
- Investment in research and development, in the field of defense, under certain conditions, can be propulsive for maintaining the technological trajectory of a country.
In aggregate terms, Europe would be considered super power by the size of all power parameters.
Sometimes this concept escapes the understanding of our mind, the problem is the aggregation, the glue for Europe.
The Euro, for example, is the second global reference currency: it holds the 32,87% of the coin market, close to the dollar holding its 40,72%.
In 1999 some experts (Alan Greenspan) reported that in the 2015 the dollar would be replaced by the euro.
It was at that time considered that the German mark and the French franc and other coins then into the euro were, individually, very small to challenge the dollar as a reserve currency.
Already in the 2006 the euro represented the 25% of central bank reserves and 39% of liquid credit (66% and 43% respectively for the dollar).
At the moment, however, there is no currency that can replace the dollar on the international market, but the euro is not far from the dollar, but it lacks the "quid".
One of the important elements to strengthen the European economy and finance is the aerospace industry, which, with the research and development programs of new technologies, as well as the USA, can help Europe intercept the technological trajectory determined by the new industrial progress.
In this regard, the German frank announcement of launching a new generation hunting aircraft has been positive for the industrial sectors of the two countries, but has left all other countries out of the question because it is made outside the European home construction framework for federated Europe.
This announcement did not consider that France has never wanted to participate in previous programs for European fighter aircraft. Since its inception, 70 has been with the Tornado aircraft and with EF 2000, the development of this component has been made with industrial share between: Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Typhoon also of Spain.
France, in the past for combat aircraft, in disagreement with European and in particular British partners, has always opted for the national solution, with a large amount of financial resources due to the lack of economies of scale for the construction of aerospace platforms ( the Raphale aircraft was produced in very low quantity).
In this new project announced by the two countries (Fr-GB) it is noted: English absence after Brexit, which in the past was tempered by the demands of individual nations, and the launch of a program without a European sense of participation, seems to be have come back, at the time of the construction of the Transal air transport.
According to the Ambrosetti study, the space aerospace sector is one of the highest multipliers for the nation's economy, therefore aerospace investments are, in the presence of technology and economies of scale, the most profitable for the development of economies.
The launch of the new European fighter aircraft seems to be devoid of both the necessary technology (in Europe is not yet mature for the fifth generation technology) and of the economies of scale that, for projects of this bill, must be able to count on the thousands of aircraft .
In addition, combat aircraft command and control systems are prone to those intended for military ships whose cost of fighting naval combat equipment reaches 60 / 70% of the cost of the ship itself.
Therefore, the French nationalist activism that has emerged for the new combat aircraft does not, therefore, be disconnected from the activism already expressed for the French yards acquired by FINCANTIERI: France wants to conquer with pure nationalist spirit the future aerospace in Europe and has put pressure on not only FINCANTIERI but also LEONARDO (formerly FINMECCANICA), that is, most of the Italian manufacturing and manufacturing industry, wants to do so at our country's expense: it is a European-sense strategy for building an industry the European defense.
The chief of the French Air Force, André Lanata, a great expert and great aviator, told the French Parliamentary Assembly (formiche.net) the state of aviation in relation to the new challenges for maintaining French national security.
Among the various points treated emerge the following:
- it is necessary to take action to replace combat fleets with fifth generation aircraft;
- it is frustrating for France that not only the US has top-level operational capabilities for air combat but also European and extra European (Italy, Netherlands, South, Israel), and not France;
-F35 will be the reference standard of the world;
-F35 has two strengths, low radar observability and high management software connectivity.
The French Chief of Staff states, in other words, that fourth-generation aircraft are residual in terms of operational combat capability for new geopolitical confrontation scenarios and want to have the same capabilities as the most important and least important allies, for this it supports the initiative of the new German-speaking aircraft.
This French position, in fact, argues that the military planning of other countries has been more accurately and effectively than the French one that has not been able to give the right answer to the new challenges.
Convincingly, the launch of a new fifth generation fighter aircraft, with only two participating countries, appears to be frustrating in terms of financial and technology.
In view of the high cost of research and development of new technologies for the F35, the US demanded allies to be able to participate and finance (ie GB, NL did) the new aircraft from the start, this would also guarantee a more economical scale for production costs.
In addition, the United States has decided to focus on one-line airborne combat capabilities, assuming a production of about three thousand aircraft.
Europe in the 80s did not reach a good economy of scale for the construction of the EF2000, in fact, only four countries participated.
France dissociated and built Raphale while Swedes Grippen.
Europe missed the time for more aggregation by funding the three aircraft, with similar characteristics, with very high and uneconomic funding from individual countries.
Now France proposes to go the same way as the 80 years with the surprising surprise of Germany, which has had some disregard for the choice of the strategic UAV platform, then abandoned with important political repercussions.
Europe all needs a new fighter aircraft to replace those of the fourth generation now marginal for the new scenarios and it is necessary to generate capital for research and development investments that can not be inferior to those of the F35 ( 50 / 60 mld $).
The German-speaking German project, therefore, seems too big for the respectable economies of the two countries, seems to be a financially and economically viable project.
For Europe that wishes to relaunch itself after Brexit in the field of common defense, this is the last call to build a safer common home and to consolidate a European defense industry.
Running behind the mermaids of French nationalism means giving up on a federated industry and European defense, for lack of mutual trust, to endorse the feelings that led to Brexit.
Spain shows signs of impatience and looks to the west, the Visegrad group is waiting for European development funds but looks to the west for security.
We hope that the German elections can bring wisdom and clarity to the common defense sector.
Lastly, Gen Lanata stated that Germany must spend more on defense: I do not know that; if Germany (promised) would reach the 2% required by NATO standards, the defense appropriations would go from the current $ 40 $ to $ 80 $ bn but France is already at the 2% with 43,6 bn. $: It is therefore unclear why this statement is true, because with 80 billions, scenarios may change considerably even in the defense industry.
By Pasquale Preziosa