Our recent answer to a reader about the recent case of breaking the sound wall (v.articolo) has caused some demonstrations of dissent and letters to the editors of Difesa Online to complain about an unwelcome response for the most various reasons.
There are those who complain that they have been too "buttoned up", those who have defined themselves sarcastically "entranced" by politically correct alignment and those who call themselves dismay that our conclusion was an invitation to trust when the defense of space national aircraft would be comparable to a "colander".
I remember writing, from the first lines, that our response would not have been appreciated neither to the kind reader who asked the questions, nor probably to many others. But as Richard Bach wrote, "being unwelcome does not prevent the truth from being true".
We are sorry, however, that the tone of our response prevented us from also grasping the technical answers given. Among these, the rapid analysis of the evolution of the aircrafts in relation to today's defense needs of the national airspace, whose effectiveness has been precisely demonstrated by the event that made headlines.
With regard to this, we then also made a consideration of the economic benefit for the tax payer.
Without wanting to go back into the subject, I recognize that perhaps we have not adequately highlighted the fact that the civil aircraft that led to the intervention of our fighters had not previously had any abnormal behavior for almost the whole of its route in Italian airspace.
The moment he had it, thanks to the performances ofEuro Fighter it has been possible to intercept on the sky of the Valle d'Aosta, even coming from Istrana, thus demonstrating the effectiveness of the current defense model, which reduces the number of bases, but does not leave uncovered areas of territory.
Obviously if the deviation from the standard compared to a normal scheduled flight had happened before, the interception would have taken place with similar timeliness and outcome from other bases present along our beloved "boot".
You have read our articles1 on how today our Air Force excels at world level in the training of fighter pilots and what means it has at its disposal? In order not to be self-referential, look on the RAI website for a service of the "TG2 Stories" broadcast no later than last Saturday, so that those who want to hear another source will find in the video what we wrote in the details already previously.
Having said that, I would like, however, to draw attention to the fact that the theme of how the air defense of a country is organized and the analysis of its work are matters of different weight from that of the strategy held by AC Milan against Inter in last derby of San Siro.
Today there is the conviction that it is enough to be practicing "soft air" to have the conviction of being a military and to be able to speak (or worse yet to judge) arguments concerning the Defense. In order to do so, it must have been in the Defense, and not even at any level. In fact there are various levels of the military: troops, non-commissioned officers, officers and even the latter (who are the only ones entitled to analysis, as involved at managerial level) are divided into lower officers, senior officers and generals.
Given that we do not even have certain information (and this is also a guarantee of national security, because if they were uncontrolled would constitute a threat), in the face of such a subject the press has a duty to provide information, but not to meet all the curiosity.
In this case we did not have such elements to doubt the official sources and we limited ourselves to giving details of what we can talk about, that is, what we know.
Among these there is the certainty that the air protection of our beloved "boot" is more comparable (if we really want to lead back to examples from "Master Chef", which is now school) to a pressure cooker rather than a colander.
For this reason we renew the invitation to be calm because we are really in good hands.
Andrea Troncone
