The Gripen Sale to Hungary: A Look Back at the Results

10/11/2015

2015-10-08 By Zsolt Lazar

Since the Swedish defense firm SAAB and the Brazilian government have signed the financial contract of 36 Gripen NG multirole jets some weeks ago, time has come to take look on the first Gripen deal – which was conducted in Hungary between 2001 and 2008.

In September 2001, György Matolcsy (Hungary’s Minister for Economy) and János Szabó (Hungary’s Minister for Defense) of the Viktor Orbán-led cabinet announced the National Security Cabinet’s decision on the Hungarian fighter jet tender.

At the media event, the two department heads presented the decision, announcing the Swedish Saab JAS-39 Gripen as tender winner, ahead of other jets including the U.S.-made F-16 Falcon, F-18 Hornet and the French Mirage 2000.

The agreement contained offset and industrial cooperation commitments to Gripen International, in order to provide opportunities for expansion and development of the Hungarian economy in the coming 14 years.

The offset program’s total value was 110 % of the agreement value (roughly 789 million Euro) and a total of 14 companies, mostly Swedish firms owned by the Investor AB, are involved.

However only five are relevant in terms of capital allocation or export value.

Moreover, the Electrolux investment stands out, as their massive contribution to the program accounts for roughly 80% of the program’s total value.

Although, one of the main objective of the Hungarian offset was to stimulate the national SMEs and some less developed areas in the country, 90 % of the offset value was invested by Swedish companies, more specifically, by companies owned by the Swedish Investor AB and none of the investments were located in the prioritized geographical areas.

Which means, significant part of the offset volume was channeled back to the Swedish firms during the offset period and their interests prevailed the most.

Table 1 - Companies in the Hungarian Gripen offset programme. Blue bars indicate the investment/export ratio compared to the total investment/export value. Companies owned by the Investor AB are highlighted with light blue. Information is based on data from the Hungarian Ministry of National Development and Economy.
Table 1 – Companies in the Hungarian Gripen offset program. Blue bars indicate the investment/export ratio compared to the total investment/export value. Companies owned by the Investor AB are highlighted with light blue. Information is based on data from the Hungarian Ministry of National Development and Economy.

The Gripen purchase as a whole was not only a defense-related decision but also a political decision, made in order to deepen Hungary’s bilateral links with Sweden and to strengthen cooperation with the EU.

However, according to the WikiLeaks documents, Viktor Orbán privately admitted to American diplomats in 2008 that his reputation and his relationship to the U.S. had been damaged as a result of his decisions regarding the Gripen acquisition.

The circumstances surrounding Hungary’s fighter jet selection have been strange since the outset.

Although the tender had not yet been announced in 2000, and in fact the aircraft procurement was postponed in 1998 by the new right-wing government led by Viktor Orbán, the Independent Smallholders, Agrarian Workers and Civic Party-led Ministry of Defense had begun negotiations with German-American DaimlerChrysler (DASA).

Additionally, they had signed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding upgrading of the capabilities of the Russian MIG-29 Falcons that had recently been purchased by the Hungarian Air Force in order to comply with NATO requirements.

Later, however, the idea of modernization was removed from the agenda, primarily due to pressure from Peter Tufo, the U.S. Ambassador, who stated that the MIGs would be unable to operate in the NATO fleet, even with the implementation of technological improvements.

And Saab-BAE also pointed out that without a tender, investments in Hungary would remain unstimulated.

Nevertheless, many questions remained unanswered.

One of these is over the role of Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly in the background processes.

As a Saab-BAE / defense industry lobbyist, Mensdorff-Pouilly sought to influence the decision-makers from the very beginning.

In an interview (Magyar Narancs, 2013), Mensdorff-Pouilly mentions that the U.S. competitors for the fighter jet tender could not offer an offset because the regulations banned this kind of compensation.

This statement is highly questionable, since Poland, for example, was allowed to purchase F- 16s in 2003 with an offset package from the U.S. firm Lockheed Martin.

Hungarian Gripen involved in Baltic air patrol. http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Tags/Tag.aspx?TagId=13&Name=Hungarian+Air+Force
Hungarian Gripen involved in Baltic air patrol.
http://www.gripenblogs.com/Lists/Tags/Tag.aspx?TagId=13&Name=Hungarian+Air+Force

The Gripen offset program stretched across several government terms.

At the beginning, the decision was made by the right-wing cabinet (1998-2002).

The implementation was carried out by a socialist-liberal government, which was led by three different prime ministers between 2002 and 2010.

Since the decision-making process and the implementation were passed from one government to another and the judgment of the fighter jet tender and procurement differed according to each government’s political standpoint, the evaluation of the program is rather ambiguous – the official evaluation is still confidential.

Originally, according to the agreement, the offset should have been completed in 14 years and 50 % of the program should have been completed within the first eight years.

In contrast, the entire program was completed in seven years.

This is not particularly anomalous in the ‘world of offsets’, but is quite rapid compared to the initial plans, implying a very intensive compliance period.

Based on the offset results, several conclusions can be drawn.

Above all, it is worth mentioning that the implementation was completed before the deadline and there was not even a single report claiming that financial resources had been stolen.

Although the Hungarian economy benefited from the technology transfer (stemming primarily from Electrolux) and export opportunities originating from the Gripen offset, many of these initiatives were not sustainable.

According to the Hungarian company information service provider Ceginfo.hu, almost all the Hungarian-owned offset participant companies went bankrupt and/or were deleted from the company register without a legal successor between 2009 and 2014.

The final outcomes were a joint consequence of the political environment, the regulations and the implementation process.

Some goals were reached (such like the technology transfer and job creation), but the stimulation of the Hungarian SMEs and the investments into the less developed / prioritized geographical areas were neglected.

Since the decision itself had been made just before the election, the investment areas had been defined on the basis of current political issues.

The right-wing government subsequently lost power and thus did not have a chance to continue the program. The political mentality of a non-cooperative party system had serious impact on the offset implementation.

In fact, the new left-wing government treated the program as a stepchild.

It was not integrated into any wider economic development program and control was eventually transferred to the Swedish partners.

Moreover, neither the Hungarian economy as a whole nor the government bodies were able to handle these kinds of complex economic situations, in which technology transfers and economic development issues are at stake simultaneously.

Since there was no earlier experience of offsets, and most of the regime had been socialized before the political change of the 1990s, the government bodies possessed no know-how about the implementation of such business dealings.

This led to inefficient use of resources and project management that lacked vision.

It would be interesting to know what would have happened if the right-wing government had won the elections and managed the program, since other cases, such as the Czech Gripen offset, shows that such a situation can fundamentally determine the future of the counter-trade.

Equally interesting to know is what would have happened if the U.S. or French made jet fighters had won the tender.

Editor’s Note: Zsolt Lazar has published a new book entitled Impact of the Gripen Offset Agreement on the Hungarian Economy.

Zsolt Lazar – Bio

Table 2 - Companies in the offset and their current status in 2014. Data marked with * are from Céginfo.hu. The company data indicated with 1 went through various transformations and their authenticity is questionable because of the large number of similarly named corporations.
Table 2 – Companies in the offset and their current status in 2014. Data marked with * are from Céginfo.hu. The company data indicated with 1 went through various transformations and their authenticity is questionable because of the large number of similarly named corporations.

Facing the Migration Challenge: An Italian Perspective

2015-10-11 By Robbin Laird

Europe is facing a significant migration outpouring from the current Middle Eastern dynamics.

Illegal smugglers are finding a variety of ways to assist migrants to get to Europe.

And the European convention that the government on whose territory where migrants come must handle the problem is also challenging European unity.

Agreements are coming into place to find a more equitable way to shape the question of how best to handle the distribution of refugees.

And the European Union is toughening up its standards on migration at the same time.

This is clearly both a European and a national problem, as one can look at the political landscape of Europe and see how the migration issue has become one of most contested issues in internal European politics.

This is not an issue that can be micro-managed alone behind closed doors by European technocrats in Brussels.

In a BBC story published on October 8, 2015, the toughening of EU policy on migration was highlighted.

The EU has agreed to beef up its border force Frontex in order to speed up deportations of failed asylum seekers.

 The EU interior ministers also called for more effective re-admission deals with countries of origin outside the EU, so that more migrants go home.

 The conclusions from their talks said EU states should detain migrants who may abscond before they are deported.

 More than 550,000 migrants have reached the EU this year, many of them war refugees. Germany is hosting the most.

 Most refugees qualify for asylum under international law. EU countries generally grant asylum to Syrians, Iraqis and Eritreans, but not to the many economic migrants from Africa and Asia.

 Last year more than half a million non-EU migrants were found to be “illegally present” in the 28-nation bloc. Most were ordered to leave, but EU countries deported only about 40% of those listed for removal.

 “Frontex should be allocated adequate resources to enable it to scale up substantially its support on return [of migrants],” EU ministers agreed.

 European governments are talking a lot about increasing the rate of deportations – or returns, as they like to call them. But talking about it and doing it are rather different things.

 Part of the problem is that returns policy is really the responsibility of individual member states. And some are better at it than others. Many countries find it easier to allow failed asylum seekers to travel elsewhere in the Schengen area, where they then live illegally.

 That’s why this ministerial meeting is insisting that everyone needs to work together far more effectively.

During my visit to Italy at the end of September, I had a chance to discuss the migration crisis with two members of the foreign policy think tank Centro Studie Internazionali (Ce.S.I.) in Rome.

A handout picture released on August 15, 2015 by the Italian navy press office Marina Militare, show a Italian Navy rescuing migrants crowded onto a fishing boat off the coast of Libya. (AFP)
A handout picture released on August 15, 2015 by the Italian navy press office Marina Militare, show a Italian Navy rescuing migrants crowded onto a fishing boat off the coast of Libya. (AFP)

Francesco Tosato is a senior researcher responsible within the Institute to analyze military affairs; and Miguel Taufer works with Tosato in providing assessment of military developments.

We focused primarily on the military response to the challenge, but broadened the discussion to the broader issues involved in shaping a comprehensive policy as well.

The analysts highlighted that European naval forces had been mobilized to deal with the illegal boat migrations with the clear objective of trying to break the effectiveness of the business model of the smugglers.

“In 2013, Italy launched Operation Mare Nostrum to deal with search, rescue and enforcement efforts with regard to sea-borne migration.

Italy sought from the outset to set in motion a broader European operation.

And this has happened as Mare Nostrum led to the engagement of Frontex which is the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union.

But the limits of Frontex is that it operates only within national boundaries.”

Question: Italy has spearheaded as well a broader European naval effort.

Could you discuss that effort?

Answer: Italy has worked for a broader European naval effort with EUNAVFOR MED in operation Sophia.

This is an operation that is organized by the European Union that uses military vessels that are more capable and are operating in the off of Libyan coast.

The command post for the operation is onboard the Italian aircraft carrier, the Cavour.

The British have recently sent a frigate to the operation and more air assets are now involved to enhance the situational awareness picture.

The purpose of the operation in part is to deter smugglers from operating their illegal practice.

The aim is to break the business model of the smugglers.

There are currently two main routes reaching Libya as a launch point into Europe. One comes from West Africa.

The other is an Eastern route from the heart of Africa, especially from Eritrea.

In addition, Syrian refugees are coming via an eastern route through the Balkans as well.

And they are coming via Turkey and then to Greece as well.

HMS Richmond sent by Royal Navy to board and seize vessels in the southern Mediterranean, said the Ministry of Defence. Photograph: Andrew Matthews/PA
HMS Richmond sent by Royal Navy to board and seize vessels in the southern Mediterranean, said the Ministry of Defence. Photograph: Andrew Matthews/PA

Question: This then poses the fundamental challenge of European states dealing with migrants at their borders and then entering national territory.

How will Europe as a whole deal with this challenge?

Answer: One task is to change the Dublin treaty whereby migrants ask for asylunm to remain in the country where they first enter. This obviously is a problem for the Border States in Europe, who want Europe as a whole to deal with the challenge.

A European solution will be required to distribute in some equitable manner those who are allowed to stay as how to deal with those declared as economic migrants rather than as legitimate refugees.

We cannot have 28 states with 28 different sets of rules for this challenge.

We expect that migration policy will be treated as a European wide political issue, not just as a national one.

And for those migrants who are not considered refugees, there is the challenge of shaping common rules to repatriate them as well.

Mare Nostrum Operation

Operation Mare Nostrum (OMN) was established by the Italian Government last October 18, 2013 to tackle the dramatic increase of migratory flows during the second half of the year and consequent tragic ship wreckages off the island of Lampedusa.

OMN consisted of an empowerment of the Migration Flows Control (CFM) activities carried out within the Italian Navy operation Constant Vigilance, according to a 2004 national law.

The naval and air units deployed to Mare Nostrum was necessary to improve maritime security, patrol sea lanes, combat illegal activities, especially human trafficking, and tackle the Mediterranean humanitarian emergency in the Sicily Straits, averaging 5 Italian Navy ships and their air units at any given time.

The Italian Navy’s Operations Command, by means of the Operations Center, headquartered at the Command in Chief of the Naval Squadron (CINCNAV) in Santa Rosa base, Rome, controls all units deployed to Mare Nostrum. Also, in Santa Rosa was the Inter-ministry Maritime Surveillance Integrated Office which coordinates activities with the control rooms of other Public Agencies, Ministries, and Armed Forces.

The Italian Navy ships’ commanding officers intervened to seize mother ships and to stop human traffickers in accordance with the law enforcement on the high seas regulations.

The units the Italian Navy deployed to the Operation was:

  • One amphibious vessel with specific command and control features, medical and shelter facilities for the would-be migrants;
  • One/two frigates and two second line high seas units – either patrollers or corvettes – with wide range and medical care capabilities;
  • Helicopters onboard (to be readily deployed to Lampedusa or Catania);
  • A SAN MARCO Marine Brigate team in charge of vessels inspections and the safety of migrants onboard;
  • A Coastal radar network and Italian Navy AIS (Automatic Identification System) shore stations;
  • One ATLANTIC 1 Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA) based in Sigonella for maritime patrol;
  • One Air Force PREDATOR A+ based in Sigonella for maritime patrol;
  • One MM P180 aircraft equipped with Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR), based in Catania;
  • Two Camcopter S-100 unmanned aerial vehicles onboard ITS San Giusto;
  • One Forward Logistic Site (FLS) in Lampedusa for logistics support to the units deployed to Mare Nostrum.

The Air Force also contributed until last June 23 with unmanned aerial vehicles; and the Carabinieri Corps with a helicopter. Submarines have been used to gather evidence of the criminal activities. 

Operation Mare Nostrum covered a wide area in the Straits of Sicily: about 70,000 sq. Km, three times Region Sicily. 

330 smugglers have been brought to justice, thanks to the investigative bodies and their rapid and efficient investigations, but also thanks to the cooperation provided by the commanding officers, the 29th Naval Group Command, CINCNAV, the Interforces Team against Illegal Migration (G.I.C.I.C.), and the competent prosecutors. The Italian Public Security Bureau provided a task force of 14 operators and 2 cultural mediators based onboard ITS San Giorgio. 

The Fondazione Rava, the emergency services Corps of the Order of Malta, the Italian Red Cross military Corps and Nurses, all contributed to provide medical and hygienic care to the migrants onboard our units. 

As a matter of fact, last June 13 a cooperation agreement had signed with Ministry of Health – Prevention Department, (USMAF) – to embark medical doctors from the Sea, Air and Borders department, specialized in communicable diseases. 

An agreement with Save the Children has provided for the presence of professionals onboard the units for information, support, legal counseling and cultural mediation for the children and teen-agers rescued at sea.

All people rescued underwent medical triage, to assess their health conditions and necessary treatments. The USMAF doctors onboard allowed early prevention from the risks of possible infections spread ashore. 

During the last 364 days of relentless activity in all weather conditions, the units of the Italian Navy have engaged in 421 operations and rescued 150.810 migrants; 5 mother ships have been seized and 330 alleged smugglers have been brought to justice. These results have been achieved by 900 military engaged any single day day, 32 naval units and 2 submarines taking shifts in over 45,000 hours of active operations.

EUNAVFOR MED Operation Sophia

On 23 April 2015, the European Council stressed that the Union will mobilize all efforts to prevent further loss of life at sea, tackle the root causes of the human emergency in the Mediterranean – in cooperation with the countries of origin and transit – and fight human smugglers and traffickers. 

On 18 May 2015, the Council approved the Crisis Management Concept for a military CSDP operation to disrupt the business model of human smuggling and trafficking networks in the Southern Central Mediterranean (Council Decision 2015/778 dated 18 May 2015).

 As a result, and as part of the European Union’s Comprehensive Approach, on 22 June 2015 the EU launched a European Union military operation in the Southern Central Mediterranean (EUNAVFOR MED).

The aim of this military operation is to undertake systematic efforts to identify, capture and dispose of vessels as well as enabling assets used or suspected of being used by migrant smugglers or traffickers.

The Dublin Regulation (Regulation No. 604/2013)

Sometimes the Dublin III Regulation; previously the Dublin II Regulation and Dublin Convention) is a European Union (EU) law that determines the EU Member State responsible to examine an application for asylum seekers seeking international protection under the Geneva Convention and the EU Qualification Directive, within the European Union.

It is the cornerstone of the Dublin System, which consists of the Dublin Regulation and the EURODAC Regulation, which establishes a Europe-wide fingerprinting database for unauthorized entrants to the EU.

The Dublin Regulation aims to “determine rapidly the Member State responsible [for an asylum claim]”and provides for the transfer of an asylum seeker to that Member State.

Usually, the responsible Member State will be the state through which the asylum seeker first entered the EU.

 

 

Italian Airpower Modernization: A Discussion with the Editor of Rivista Italiana Difesa

10/09/2015

2015-10-07  By Robbin Laird

During my recent trip to Italy, I had a chance to discuss with senior Italian Air Force officers the way ahead with regard to Italian airpower.

The Italians, like the British, are undergoing a double transition, whereby the Eurofighter is being modernized in two ways: namely, subsuming air-to-ground missions and facilitating the transition in the replacement of the Tornado by adding a new AESA radar to the airplane, and introducing the F-35 to help shape joint force transformation.

For Lt. General Preziosa, the close relationship with the RAF was important in working through the way ahead with regard both to Eurofighter modernization and working with the F-35.

“There is no point in having to repeat lessons which have been learned by one Air Force or the other.”

In the Italian case, the new Cameri facility is a key element for the Italian Air Force, Located on an Italian Air Force base used for logistics, the Italian government under the management of Alenia Aermacchi (AAeM) has built a 22 building facility to support the F-35 program.

The support comes in three parts.

First, there is a Final Check Out and Assembly facility, where there is the possibility for assembling Italy’s As and Bs, as well as other European F-35 partners, initially the Netherlands.

Second, there is a wing construction facility with Italy building a minimum of 835 full wings for the F-35 global program. The first wing has already been installed on a USAF F-35.

Third, with the 22 buildings of more than a million square feet of covered work space comes significant space to build out support for F-35s operated by the US and allies in Europe.

Pietro Batacchi onboard an Osprey in transit to the USS Wasp for the F-35B ship integration trials, May 2015. Credit: Second Line of Defense
Pietro Batacchi onboard an Osprey in transit to the USS Wasp for the F-35B ship integration trials, May 2015. Credit: Second Line of Defense

With the Mediterranean and the Middle East as a busy operational area, the Cameri facility can provide significant operational support to the F-35 fleet operating in the area.

In fact, Italian industry is well positioned as a member of the Eurofighter consortium, the F-35 global enterprise, and the builder of a new trainer aircraft and related training facilities.

The industrial base is well positioned to support 21st century air operations.

During my time in Italy, RID, a strategic partner of Second Line of Defense, published a significant overview on the F-35 and its capabilities and contributions to 21st century airpower.

It is one of the most comprehensive and constructive looks at the airplane, notably as a fleet, which exists in any language.

Question: You are the editor of RID

Could you describe the focus of your magazine and your background as well?

Pietro Batacchi: Rivista Italiana Difesa is the leading Defense magazine in Italy and one of the most important in Europe.

It deals with the full spectrum of Defense issues and is well established in Italian Defense community after 33 years of editorial activity.

Regarding myself, I have a degree in political science. After the University I attended a Strategic Study Advanced Course at the Defense High Studies Center in Rome and then I got a PHD in International Relations.

Question: From your vantage point, you are in a good position to describe Italian, European and global military aerospace trends. 

I would now like to talk about some of those trends and your take on them. I note that your magazine has just published a Special Report on the F-35.

And we met while flying on an Osprey to observe the F-35 trials aboard the USS Wasp last May.

What are the major findings and conclusions of your Special Report?

Pietro Batacchi: The main finding of my study on the F-35 was very simple.

The F-35 provides the Italian military with a strategic instrument/aircraft able to penetrate not only permissive but disputed airspace thanks to its low observability or to ensure greater operational flexibility allowed by its “net-centric” and open architecture.

In addition we can talk about the great internal fuel capability that offers to the aircraft an enormous autonomy and operation persistence, much greater than the ones normally experienced by a fighter aircraft.

Due to all these reasons the aircraft manufactured by Lockheed Martin gives to the political leaders the opportunity to join a conflict from the very early stages, with a clear political and strategic return, and to increase their diplomatic options.

Question: For both the UK and Italy, the shaping of a 21st century air combat force is being built around the introduction of the F-35 twined with the modernization of the Eurofighter and both the RAF and the IAF are working with each other to shape a path forward.

 How would describe the role of Eurofighter modernization and its interaction with the coming of the F-35 fleet?

Pietro Batacchi: The modernization of the Eurofighter can be considered incremental.

The aircraft was born as a pure air superiority fighter designed to deal with the threats of the Russian aircraft during the Cold War.

Over the years the requirements have been changed and today, thanks, for example, to the Phase 1 Enhancement Program (P1E), the Eurofighter Typhoon has evolved in a modern swing role aircraft able to find and attack ground targets.

This evolution process will continue with P2E, including the integration of the Meteor and Storm Shadow missiles, and with the integration of the CAPTOR-E AESA radar in the next years that will definitively complete the growth of the aircraft.

Ultimately, the two aircraft can be considered highly complementary and perfectly tailored to a military more and more expeditionary and projection oriented as the Italian one.

After all, when the Italian Defence White Paper talks about a “Regional Full Spectrum” military, it means a military able to intervene in all the Mediterranean scenario also in high intensity conflicts under which both F-35 and Eurofighter Typhoon are best suited if employed together.

Question: And the Eurofighter recently has seen a success in the sale of aircraft to Kuwait. 

The agreement was negotiated by the Italian government. 

The Italian Air Force has operated frequently from Kuwait.

What role do you see the IAF’s impact on Kuwait might have had on the Kuwaiti decision?

Pietro Batacchi: The Italian Air Force and Ministry of Defense in general had a great role during the bargaining bringing to the successful outcome of the Kuwait’s campaign.

As Italian Defense industry can confirm the Italian Defense was very important in providing it with a great support and exploiting the channels with Kuwait opened since the first Gulf War in 1991 joined also by the Italian military and Air Force.

Question: From an industrial point of view, the modernization of a legacy asset like Eurofighter along with the innovations driven by shaping a fifth generation warfare capability associated with the F-35 fleet will provide a rich area to shape new approaches to capabilities going forward. 

How do you see this interactive combat modernization space shaping up going forward?

Pietro Batacchi: Also regarding the industrial point of view, the two aircraft can be considered fully complementary.

The Eurofighter provided the Italian and the European industry more in general with a high quality involvement as the program allowed Italy to develop new technologies that before were not available in Europe.

At the same time, the industrial participation in the F-35 program brought in Italy an advanced industrial process in which all the components and parts have to be perfectly produced and in which the tolerances must be more than narrow.

This aspect was fundamental for the Italian industry, which now can replicate this process in the future aeronautical programs starting, for example, from a new fighter aircraft that could be manned or unmanned.

Notably this is true with regard to missiles.  Indeed, the first new fifth generation missile is Meteor which is clearly the first of several new missiles to follow drawing off the fifth generation warfare transition. 

How do you see the future of the evolution of missiles driven by the evolving concepts of operations?

Pietro Batacchi: The Meteor missile will provide Eurofighter with Beyond Visual Range capability that is crucial in the modern air-to-air combat scenarios where the probability of the so called dog fight are more and more lower.

In addition we have to consider the importance of the advanced data link that together with new open architecture of an air-to-air missile can allow to change mission and target during the flight and get in this way greater flexibility in the engagement.

Question: Finally, Italy is well positioned in terms of building and supporting 21st century combat forces. 

At Cameri you are building the new generation aircraft. Italy is also building some additional Eurofighters but over the next decade the effort will focus on MRO or sustainment and modernization of the Eurofighter fleet.

And Italy has a 21st century fighter, the Aeromachi M-346.

 How do you see the Italian industrial position and its advantages moving forward?

Pietro Batacchi: The Italian aerospace industry is well positioned for the future challenges.

It gained a great experience during the past with important program such as the Tornado, the Eurofighter and now wit the F-35.

In addition the Italian defense industry has a long standing tradition in some excellence sectors as, for example, in the trainer sector as you mentioned or in the missile sector or in the electronic warfare systems field.

So the Italian industry has all the competencies needed to see to the future with optimism and to continue to play a key role in Europe.

The photos in the slideshow of the Italian operation in the Baltic Air Policing mission from earlier this year have been provided by the Italian Air Force.

The Aussies Shape a Path of Combat Innovation: A New Special Report

10/08/2015

2015-10-03 By Robbin Laird

I recently returned from Australia where the Royal Australian Air Force is put in motion what they call Plan Jericho.

In effect, the RAAF is providing the Australian Defense Force with an approach to transform jointness, or how the various elements of the ADF can work together to enhance combat effect.

The Aussies have a modern air fleet, with Super Hornets, KC-30A tankers, the Wedgetail E-7 battle management system Heron UAVs, and C-17s, recently in service and are seeing Growlers, the Triton UAV, the P-8 and the F-35 coming into the fleet shortly.

But no platform fights alone, and the Aussies are looking at how to rework their forces to shape a more interactive and enabled force.

The F-35 is seen as not a replacement aircraft, but one which takes the integrated enablement of the force to the next level, but that will not happen without the transformation of the RAAF and with it of the ADF.

The Williams Foundation of Canberra, Australia held a one day seminar/workshop on Plan Jericho on August 6, 2015 which featured presentations from the RAAF and industry as well as from the USAF looking at the way ahead. The morning session was open but the afternoon session featured a presentation by the RAAF officers co-chairing the effort with participation by many RAAF officers from all levels within the force.

In addition to attending the seminar/workshop, I had the opportunity to interview several senior officers in Canberra and on airbases in New South Wales as well to build out a comprehensive look at how they are addressing innovation.

Former Air Vice Marshal John Blackburn, one of the key stalwarts of the Plan Jericho effort, introduced the session. Blackburn hammered home really the most significant and challenging point – it is about design driven innovation, not simply R and D, technology or mini-experiments driven.

Rather than piecemeal, bits and pieces of applications of technologies to platform modernization or patchwork modernization, Plan Jericho aimed at a different goal – design driven innovation.

(For an example from RAF preparation for World War II of design driven innovation, see the article on Air Marshal Dowding).

Blackburn contrasted the network-centric efforts of the 1990s with what Plan Jericho had in mind.

In the network centric effort, stove pipes were linked; it was about filling gaps, linking disparate systems and getting as much connectivity as possible, with the basic operational mantra of the diverse platform drivers largely unchanged, namely to drive ahead with the diverse cultures, but no better connected.

In contrast, Plan Jericho looked to design innovation and a way ahead where connectivity could be built in from the design to the delivery of capability and whereby the operators would look at the effect which the force could deliver, not just their own platform set.

What results do you want to achieve?

Not what upgrade do you want to add to your platform?

The focus is upon adaptive capabilities to shape future ways of warfighting?

To emphasize the perspective of a key innovator was introduced into the discussion, which captured a key way ahead:

Steve Jobs underscored what he believed was crucial to shaping innovation.

“Innovation has nothing to do with how many R&D dollars you have.

When Apple came up with the Mac, IBM was spending at least 100 times more on R&D.

It’s not about money. It’s about the people you have, how you’re led, and how much you get it.”

The new head of the RAAF, Air Marshal Leo Davies, made the opening presentation.

Davies focused on the central role of the human element making an across the board transformation effort possible.

Through sound force planning and sustained support from successive Australian Governments, we are in the process of modernizing our fleet. By 2025 the RAAF will be one of the most potent and balanced Air Forces in the world.

 Jericho is designed to ensure that we achieve the synergies offered by that sophisticated array of platforms. But if we are to match the rhetoric about being a ‘force by design’ and a ‘system of systems’ then we really must be innovative and adaptive in key areas.

 We need to truly empower our work force. Real innovation depends on people. And I mean airmen and women – not just industry research and development partners and DSTO scientists. We must encourage ‘bottom up’ innovation.

The co-heads of Plan Jericho, Group Captain Rob Chipman and Group Captain Jake Campbell then briefed the group on key elements of what they saw as necessary for Plan Jericho success and focused particularly on the industrial partnering part of the effort.

They asked sequentially four questions, which the various subgroups then discussed, and were then reported back to the full working group.

  1. What do you think Australia does really well when it comes to innovation? Where should defense industries and academics focus their innovation efforts?
  2. Where and when can we bring defend together with industry and academics to innovate?
  3. What would a “first principles” system fostering innovation into defense capability look like?
  4. How do we change behavior between defense, industry and science and academia to enable best practices?

In short, the workshop took some hard looks at how to maximize success in shaping a more capable integrated and better-enabled 21st century combat force.

And the public side of discussing the way ahead is a key piece for shaping change.

One can shape in secret new technologies and step changes in technologies; but to get the kind of changes in mental furniture, training and co-ops necessary for the RAAF and the Australian Defense Force it was crucial to engage in a broader public discussion, to inform, to engage, and to open up the aperture of the hierarchical nature of military organizations.

And if the military breaks the code of innovation, but the politicians, bureaucracies and public continued to think in the old way, the kind of change in con-ops envisaged by Plan Jericho will not easily happen.

Here the Williams Foundation has played a unique role among organizations in industrial democracies.

Australia is demonstrating thought leadership, evidenced at the Williams Foundation seminars and workshops, a core element for change, otherwise the Greek chorus of critics of airpower or those living in the Platonic cave interpreting the shadows of 20th century air operations as if they were guiding principles to light the path to 21st century concepts of operations will continue to dominate the debate.

The Williams Foundation hosted a seminar early in 2014, which focused on air combat operations through 2025 and identified key impacts which the new platforms of the RAAF and the coming of the F-35 would enable in transforming the force.

Then earlier this year, the Williams Foundation co-sponsored a seminar in Denmark to discuss the evolution of airpower. This was not US-led, but Australian-led which is a statement all by itself.

The latest workshop continued the public discussion and the focus on the need for design-led innovation.

In conclusion, it is important to underscore the impact informed discussion of combat innovation can have on informing the way ahead.

I remember well a long discussion I had with Herman Kahn when I was a graduate student about his relationship with the USAF in thinking about the way ahead, and the challenges to innovate but the importance of leadership in the USAF to break glass to shape a way ahead.

This piece was first published by Front Line Defence:

http://frontline-defence.online/blog-oped/Robbin%20Laird/2288

The Williams Foundation has just released the a report on the August workshop as well as interviews with senior RAAF officers discussing Plan Jericho and the way ahead for the RAAF and the transformation process and effort.

We are now publishing the report as well as a Special Report.

The slideshow highlights the speakers at the August 6, 2015 workshop in the sequence in which they presented.

The program of work for Plan Jericho can be found below:

Program of Work

 

Hijack for Profit: The Evolving South East Asian Piracy Model

2015-10-07 By Karsten von Hoesslin,Manager of Special Projects, Risk Intelligence

Strategic Insights

There are 18 networks accounted for within South East Asia and 65 upper-tier players have been identified in the author’s network analysis.

Upper-tier players consist of fixers (middlemen), boarding team leaders, recruiters, forgers, so-called ‘big bosses’, and buyers.

Boarding team ‘foot soldiers’ as well as the insiders that supply information are not included in this list as it would triple if not quadruple it.

Additionally, ten phantom tankers have been identified within the region that are used for hijacking operations as well as three pirate mother ships, five suspected phantom ships and two go-fast boats.

The following is a break down of the network hierarchy from lowest to highest.

Phantom tankers, mother ships and go-fast boats are also discussed.

Foot soldiers

Foot soldiers are the boarding team members who are recruited through friendships, former working relationships, and family connections.

Many are former seafarers or are loosely connected to the criminal network on land and move to maritime operations through family.

Screen Shot 2015-09-25 at 9.00.40 AM

The boarding team members, although partially expendable, have a strict code whereby they never share information; if arrested, they never sell out their fellow teammates or those farther up the chain.

Convicted pirates in Indonesia have claimed that if they stick to the code, they will serve approximately 10 per cent of their jail term.

As directed by the boarding team leader and the fixer, any suspect arrested and convicted will be cared for so long as they do not disclose details of the top-tier members. If convicted, their sentences will be cut short, which is facilitated by bribing the public prosecutor and judge, which costs approximately USD1, 500 in ‘facilitation fees’.

Many foot soldiers are repeat offenders, but their expedited jail sentences allow them to continue operations rather quickly after release. The primary recruiting grounds for foot soldiers are Batam, Pontianak, and Medan.

Boarding team leaders

The boarding team leader often doubles as the recruiter, although they are generally well established and financially secure.

They have a long history of operations and access to the network of fixers and there is a relatively strong degree of trust formed between them.

They also have direct communication with the forgers and the insiders.

In the current network structure, there are fewer big bosses and more boarding team leaders who act as freelancers liaising directly with the fixers and connecting with the buyers.

This is one of the major changes that has taken place in 2014 in that boarding team leaders have created considerably more leverage for themselves in the market….

Fixers

Fixers are the crucial link between the boarding team leaders and the buyers, and to a lesser extent within the network structure the big bosses.

Fixers are generally businessmen (and women) who in their daily routine conduct legal business but also moonlight in the blackmarket.

Fixers will know the markets extremely well and are well connected. They generally operate transnationally, connecting the boarding team leader (if a freelancer) or the big boss to the buyers who generally are based in another country…..

Forgers

Forgers are vital within the network in order to ensure that stolen product can be certified and signed off as legitimate.

This is most common within the crude palm oil (CPO) hijackings where both the product and the vessel required a forger to change the paperwork…..

Insiders

There are countless examples of insiders.

They can be shop keepers within the port area, cargo loading officers, bunkering agents, crew on board the bunkering barges (currently the most common), employees within the shipping company itself, law enforcement personnel (including customs officers or port authority representatives), and the crews of vessels.

Depending on the size of the operation, the insiders will receive a set amount for their involvement…..

Big Bosses

The era of the big boss is declining, although there are still examples of a singular leader controlling the boarding teams and, at least historically, multiple cells placed throughout the region.

These are most apparent on Bintan, Belakang Padang, and Batam.

In these cases, the big bosses will be separate from the pirate group….

Big bosses mapped within the network analysis reside in Singapore, Johor, and Songkhla.

Investors

The investors remain slightly elusive but their role is essential to a hijacking operation.

Although go-fast boats are already accounted for, there must be upfront finances to pay for the forger and informants.

The foot soldiers and the boarding team leader are only paid after a successful operation, but up-front costs remain…..

Buyers

The buyers are the final upstream connection in the hijacking for product theft network.

Within the network analysis, buyers identified are those who knowingly purchase product that has been hijacked or stolen. Depending on the buyer and the size of their company, they generally blend it with legitimate product and sell onwards.

If a smaller buyer, they are likely to sell downstream illicitly to fishing companies and low-end local tug companies

Buyers have been identified in Kuching, Jakarta, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Singapore, and Manila and from South Korea (using Indonesian brass plate companies). Although unconfirmed, there are suspected buyers from Vietnam and Cambodia listed within the network analysis that requires verification.

It is important to disclaim that this network analysis is far from complete; however, it covers the bulk of activity within the southern Malacca Strait, Singapore Strait, Bangka Strait and Java Sea, as well as the South China Sea, including the Sabah and Sarawak coasts and off Pulau Tioman.

Generally speaking, there are network strongholds in Miri, Kuching, Pontianak, Ketapang, Jakarta, Bomboru (Palembang), Berakit, Batam (with friendly spotter kampongs in Tanjung Sedilli, Bengkalis, and Batu Phahat), Medan, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Johor Bahru, and Songkhla.

Phantom tankers

Phantom tankers are another crucial piece of the puzzle as they are required to lift the stolen product from the hijacked vessel…..

Phantom tankers are relatively flexible and go under multiple names, although they seldom change their flag. They have dubious paper trails and their ownership is often difficult to ascertain. Diesel related products and base oils are the most practical cargos to steal, as all of the confirmed phantom tankers are capable of carrying the cargo in their tanks…..

This is, simply put, a highly functional business model that in the lower tiers of hierarchy also outperforms (in terms of net earnings) similar business models in other piracy hotspots.

Corruption, compliance and facilitation

With respect to the government and law enforcement response, hijackings for product theft are also an ideal business model with limited risk exposure.

Short of the MMEA, which is the sole agency whose efforts have led to arrests, convictions, and prisoners serving more than half of their sentences, there is a void at sea with respect to the rule of law.

Networks are fully aware, however, of the limitations of the MMEA and particularly the 1984 law inhibiting any Malaysian agency the right to hot pursuit in another littoral state’s territorial waters.

Screen Shot 2015-09-25 at 9.06.48 AM

This is why, although the bulk of hijackings occur in or near Malaysian territorial waters, once under pirate control, the victim ship will sail to safe areas such as the Anambas Islands where STS operations can take place without interdiction from Indonesian law enforcement.

The Indonesian navy, which is alleged to receive pay offs from networks for acting as an informer but for also turning a blind eye, intimidates the weaker Indonesian marine police within the Riau archipelago and particularly with respect to patrols around the Anambas Islands.

The Indonesian navy’s relationship with piracy has always been a dubious one, as new evidence suggests that many of the Aceh-focused hijackings that occurred between the late 1990s and mid 2005 were in fact carried out by rogue elements of the navy, who held captives for ransom on Pulau Telaga Tujöh…..

Conclusion

The hijacking for product theft business model is likely to remain viable due to the following: the structure of the networks and their ability to remain fluid and diversify; the nature of the shipping industry in South East Asia and particularly with respect to the ease in forging documents and blending liquid product; the acceptable risk and high reward benefits at all levels of activity; and, the levels of corruption in select agencies as well as disinterest on behalf of others to target criminal organizations on land and those abusing the region’s banking sector.

Although the Orkim Harmony case may result in a slight pause in operations against product tankers, hijackings will not cease but rather focus on lower risk targets such as CPO barges.

On 28 January 2015, the Malaysian-flagged Sun Birdie was hijacked and the pirates consequently arrested (as well as recently convicted). But after a mere fortnight, the Thai-flagged Lapin was targeted by a linked network.

This only demonstrates that, despite arrests, networks can continue to operate. So long as the demand for black market product exists, and the aforementioned variables are in play, hijackings for product theft are likely to continue to be the preferred business model for maritime-orientated criminal operations in South East Asia.

Reprinted with the permission of Risk Intelligence.

The complete article can be found in Strategic Insights, No. 59, September 2015.

Screen Shot 2015-09-25 at 9.00.28 AM

2015 SACT Change of Command: The Transformation Command Faces a Transformed Strategic Environment

2015-10-08 by Murielle Delaporte

On September 30th, 2015, a change of command ceremony took place in Norfolk, Virginia, during which NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg presided over the official handover of the post of Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT) from General Jean-Paul Paloméros to General Denis Mercier and awarded the former with NATO Meritorious Medal.

IMG_1294 (1)

Abstract from Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s Speech: (…) General, yours has been a long and distinguished career.

Your bravery under fire was exceptional.

Your reputation as a leader – both within the French Air Force, and within NATO – is exemplary.

It was NATO’s privilege that you were appointed as Supreme Allied Commander Transformation.

And thanks to your leadership, the Alliance is now in a better position to face the future.

Jean-Paul, here at Norfolk, as at every stage of your career, you have embodied the fine traditions of the French Air Force.

You have acted with dedication, determination and the utmost professionalism.

I will leave you with the words of one of your most treasured authors, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry:

“It is in the compelling zest of high adventure and of victory, and in creative action, that man finds his supreme joys.”

On behalf of all Allies and all NATO staffs, I would like to thank you for your outstanding contribution to our Alliance.

And it is now my honor to present you with the NATO Meritorious Service Medal.

IMG_1314 (2)

Two former French Mirage pilots with some 3,000 + flight hours, two former Chief of Staff of the French Air Force, both General Paloméros and General Mercier share the same vision about their role as SACT.

This vision is based on the deeply-anchored belief about the crucial role played by NATO in keeping peace and stability in Europe since the end of World War II, the need to preserve and enhance the ability to work together as an alliance, and the willingness to tackle current innovative thinking to face short and long-term threats and challenges.

In his very first public statement to the media a few minutes after he officially became SACT, General Mercier stressed that conviction as he reminisced his career in his introductory remarks:

If I recall my career, there are two points I would like to highlight:

First, when I was a young officer, a young pilot, I had the opportunity to participate in many exercises during the Cold War, as well as various NATO operations.

The lesson I learned from this time is the certainty that NATO has provided us with all the tools for interoperability, training, concepts, doctrine and the capability to work together as an Alliance.

I have always kept that in mind… NATO is an organization that in its 66 years of excellence have very much contributed to peace and security in Europe: our challenge is to continue to do that.

During the second part of my career in France, I was involved with transformation : because we face an unpredictable and uncertain world in which we continue to face surprises, we have to continue our transformation.

We have to continuously transform ourselves, not for the sake of transformation.

We have to ask ourselves “transformation for what project?” in order to be sure that in the short term, and in the long term – which is ACT’s challenge.

We can foresee some of the security challenges and ensure that all countries and partners will be able to face any of them in the context of the Alliance strategic concept, which is three fold: collective defense, crisis management and cooperative security. (…)

I shall follow what my predecessor has done and there will be no interruption. 

A Very Different Kind of Environment

The first Russian strikes in Syria that very morning of SACT Change of Command symbolized however how much has changed over the past three years, when General Paloméros was being the one assuming command from General Abrial.

As General Paloméros wrote in the introduction of ACT’s Special Edition publication “Transformation: Enabling the Future”:

Three years ago, when I took over the post, NATO was preparing to disengage its forces from Afghanistan.

Some observers were already questioning the Alliance’s raison d’être, hastily overlooking the essential role this unique political and military organization have played in maintaining peace and stability in Europe over the last 60 years.

Aware of the economic, financial and capability, challenges facing every one of the 28 Nations of the Alliance, I set five main lines of effort for my Command:

  • Strengthen our strategic foresight efforts ;
  • Refocus operational training on high-intensity conflicts, while preserving the lessons learned from two decades of operations ;
  • Rationalize and optimize the Alliance’s current and future capabilities ;
  • Work with our Partners more closely and more actively, in particular the European Union (EU) with which NATO shares 22 member states ;
  • And finally seek an ever stronger Transatlantic Link, which is at the heart of the Alliance. »

IMG_1352 (1)

In the press conference he gave right before the Change of Command ceremony, Secretary General Stoltenberg gave high marks to the Norfolk-based NATO Allied Transformation Command for providing the advice on which “NATO is based “:

“NATO is based on advice done in Norfolk (…) adapting and transforming into an agile forward-leaning alliance “, he said, also pointing out at the exercises being organized by ACT.

In the past two years, the number of major exercises indeed went from one to six leading towards Trident Juncture 2015, which is to be the highest level NATO exercise since 1998 in terms of size and scope. But even exercises are not static and must reflect the real world and incoming real life threats.

That is why, as explained General Mercier, TJ15’s scenarios have been adjusted in order to take into account among other things hybrid warfare (” we have to prepare the Alliance for any kinds of crisis in the future”), cyber events (“we have to increasingly work on connectivity in the future and cyber is a big part of it. Cyber concerns everything (…) and could lead to other domains of warfare, i.e. resilience.

What we do in that domain applies to other areas as well.”), and communication (“we have to continue to work on STRATCOM: how can we better use our means of communication to counter the threats to our communication channels?

This is a key question for us and it will be for Trident Juncture’s participants.”).

As NATO was disengaging from Afghanistan, General Paloméros led the Alliance’s transformation with the constant preoccupation to preserve a decade of learning to work together as a coalition in such complex theaters.

This is paying off in the current environment, as pointed out by Secretary General Stoltenberg who stressed last Wednesday that, although the effort against ISIL is not NATO-led, “all NATO allies are participating” one way or another, while “the skills used in the US-led coalition to fight ISIL” came from the Afghan experience.

Intertwined Threats To Face

The Crimea crisis froze the NATO-Russian Partnership For Peace and all follow on cooperation which had been enhanced under the NRC (NATO Russian Council) established in 2002.

The new twist on Syria illustrates the complicated cluster between traditional Cold War practices and the new XXIst Century battlefield and has all the ingredients of the  “perfect storm”: disinformation in the internet/social media era is a game the Russians are very good at and NATO has to find ways to counter it the best way possible.

The current debate about who the Russians hit in Syria and their lack of effort to deconflict their airstrikes with ongoing coalition activities is very typical of more to come.

Jens Stoltenberg, when asked a question about “counter-propaganda” had a very brave and noble answer: “we shall never counter propaganda with counter-propaganda, but with the Truth”.

But the challenge is enormous, especially as other NATO adversaries, such as terrorist organizations, play that game of disinformation rather well too.

Countering turmoil and terrorism on the Southern flank of NATO follows the same logic of working with regional partners (“we work with Afghanistan and Iraq, but also countries such as Jordan and Tunisia”, he said) and assisting them to take responsibility for their security and stabilize the region The General Secretary acknowledged that, as far as Afghanistan was concerned and in light of the recent Kunduz situation, “we never thought it would be easy.”

He did however demonstrated hope in the courage and motivation shown by the Afghan troops over the last months, while on the Ukrainian front, he highlighted the fact that for the first-time the current ceasefire seems to be holding with an agreement to remove heavy weaponry.

Easy, it will not be for the new SACT as he pursues NATO’s Transformation among 28 members.

For General Mercier, one of the key is to keep enhancing the links between the European Union and NATO and avoid duplication.

Past commitments to rebalance the burdensharing between the United States – who supports 70% of the cost – seem to slowly alleviate what was a major concern three years ago following the three-step process described by the Secretary General : “1) stop the budget cuts ; 2) increase the budgets ; 3) reach the 2% of GDP goal within a decade.”

Credit: SACT
Credit: SACT

General Mercier just ended a major transformation of the French Air Force (FAF) as Chief of Staff based on a strategic plan, which one could translate in English by the famous saying “United We Stand.”

He sees some similarities with the mission awaiting him:

What is more complicated in my job today is that we have to deal with 28 nations to pursue transformation, but some of the key points I had in mind for the FAF will still be relevant.

IMG_1355 (1)

If we want to continue to prepare our Alliance to operate in future challenges, I have identified five areas of priority:

  1. The first is Command and Control and ISR (Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance): C4ISR is crucial for the future; it has always been the main strength of NATO, which has been able to face the challenges of a very changing world, precisely because it relies on a strong C2 structure. But, as we deal with this aspect, we have to keep in mind the fact that more and more nations will be connected, not only among themselves, but to a robust C4ISR. We have to work on that step by step;
  2. the second is logistics, which is essential to our current capabilities;
  3. the third is training, all the more important when you work with 28 nations;
  4. then there is manpower: how do we get from all these countries the appropriate people with the right skills and readiness to act together;
  5. and, fifth, the development of capacities.

This is pretty much what I did in the FAF.

I intend to use the same recipe at NATO, which could be more complicated, but an exciting challenge…”

Indeed, in light of the current international developments, General Mercier’s main challenge might be to protect the Alliance from renewed forms of Cold War-type decoupling strategies coming “tous azimuts”, since, as we all know, « United We Stand, Divided We Fall »….

Photos©Murielle Delaporte

 

 

Plan Jericho: The RAAF Shapes a Transformation Strategy

10/07/2015

This report looks at the RAAF approach to the transformation of jointness as they prepare to introduce the F-35 into the force.

The Aussies have a modern air fleet, with Super Hornets, KC-30A tankers, the Wedgetail E-7 battle management system Heron UAVs, and C-17s, recently in service and are seeing Growlers, the Triton UAV, the P-8 and the F-35 coming into the fleet shortly.

But no platform fights alone, and the Aussies are looking at how to rework their forces to shape a more interactive and enabled force. The F-35 is seen as not a replacement aircraft, but one which takes the integrated enablement of the force to the next level, but that will not happen without the transformation of the RAAF and with it of the ADF.

The Williams Foundation of Canberra, Australia held a one day seminar/workshop on Plan Jericho on 6 August 2015, which featured presentations from the RAAF and industry as well as from the USAF looking at the way ahead.

Former Air Vice Marshal John Blackburn, one of the key stalwarts of the Plan Jericho effort, introduced the session. Blackburn hammered home really the most significant and challenging point – it is about design driven innovation, not simply R and D, technology or mini-experiments driven.

Rather than piece-meal, bits and pieces of applications of technologies to platform modernization or patchwork modernization, Plan Jericho aimed at a different goal – design driven innovation.

Blackburn contrasted the network-centric efforts of the 1990s with what Plan Jericho had in mind.  In the network centric effort, stove pipes were linked; it was about filling gaps, linking disparate systems, and getting as much connectivity as possible – with the basic operational mantra of the diverse platform drivers largely unchanged, namely to drive ahead with the diverse cultures, but better connected.

In contrast, Plan Jericho looked to design innovation and a way ahead, where connectivity could be built-in from the design to the delivery of capability, and whereby the operators would look at the effect which the force could deliver, not just their own platform set.

 

An Update on the Indian Rafale Contract By India Strategic

2015-10-07 By Gulshan Luthra

http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories4097_Rafale_Contract_by_end_2015_says_Air_Chief_Arup_Raha.htm

Dateline New Delhi and Paris

In an interview with India Strategic and at remarks at his annual pre-Air Force Day briefing here October 3, Chief of the Air Staff Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha observed that the Indian Air Force (IAF) was “terribly short” of modern aircraft, and that the Government was alive to this.

“The contract negotiations with the French are in process… Our intent is to conclude the agreement at the earliest,” he said.

Reliable sources told India Strategic that there were some difficulties in signing the Inter Governmental Agreement (IGA) even after discussions between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his host President Francois Hollande during the Indian leader’s visit to Paris in April, particularly over offsets and some Transfer of Technology (ToT).

And as the process was getting stuck again, Mr. Modi went out of the way to telephonically call Mr Hollande in September to address the difficulties from the Indian side, and the French leader showed tremendous goodwill and understanding in helping resolve the situation.

Thanks to the good relations Mr. Modi has built with Mr. Hollande, Dassault has agreed to 50 per cent offsets, and the discussions are now on fast-track, sources said.

Head of Indian Air Force

A smiling Air Chief Marshal Raha said that he hoped to get the first squadron of Rafales in two to three years.

Notably, the Indian side deputed IAF’s Deputy Chief, Air Marshal SBP Sinha while the French, Air Marshal Stephane Reb, Director of the International Directorate of the DGA (General Directorate for Armament) of the French Ministry of Defence to conduct and conclude the negotiations. Both have exchanged visits, and the stipulated agreement – the enabler to move forward – will be signed any time, perhaps well before December 2015.

Air Chief Marshal Raha said that the IAF needs at least six squadrons – 126 aircraft – of Rafales or equivalent aircraft in the Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) category for frontline operations, and it is to be seen if IAF gets more Rafales or other aircraft. He was asked if there was an option to go in for another machine.

He said he favored Government-to-Government contracts as they are speedy and devoid of competitive politics, and future acquisitions should go on the same lines.

As for more Rafales, he said “the need is there, and if Costs, Transfer of Technology and Make in India requirements are good, we may get more.”

Asked if there was a choice for the US, Swedish or other aircraft manufacturers to be back in fray, he indicated a possibility but described the Rafale as “a very good aircraft.”

Egypt and Qatar have bought the Rafale while the UAE is considering it, he pointed out.

About the overall deficiency of combat aircraft, Air Chief Marshal Raha said that “50 per cent offset is being sought from the French industrial suppliers as part of the procurement of 36 Rafale aircraft.

“Greater visibility (however) would emerge only after the Indian negotiating team completes the negotiations.”

Air Chief Marshal Raha underlined the importance of Make in India, and pointed out that “the offset implementation under the Rafale project will support” this, adding that some other similar initiatives are also underway in the aviation sector.

It may be recalled that IAF had issued a tender for 126 MMRCAs in 2007, and Rafale emerged as the winner in 2012 in the six-corner contest.

But negotiations were bogged down over offsets and responsibility over the quality of production at the state-run HAL, the prime integrator for the aircraft in India. India finally scrapped the deal and Mr Modi personally sought 36 aircraft to meet IAF’s immediate requirements.

Further acquisitions are possible, depending upon the conclusion of the current deal.

French sources told this writer during a recent visit to Paris that Dassault’s partners in the Rafale program, primarily Thales and Safran, were already gearing up their production lines for the Indian order.

Significantly, the French Government has asked Dassault, the designer and integrator of Rafale, to divert requirements of the French Air Force (Armée de l’Air) to Egypt, Qatar and India.

India is likely to conclude an agreement for 36 Rafale combat jets with France “soon, latest by end 2015” for delivery in two to three years

Republished with permission of our strategic partner, India Strategic