Indian Defence Review

ToT:  It is a grey area -something that can be negotiated or worked upon. It was one of the show stoppers during the Rafale deal. No country will like to do 100% ToT, doing it would mean losing their customer with a big fat valet, forever. Delaying India’s technological advancement in critical components like engine, AESA radar, weaponry, DVI (Direct Voice Input – the plane will obey to pilots verbal commands) etc is in the best interest of the selling country – It will help retaining their customer (India) for maximum possible time.

Our ToT negotiation thus should be hard, focused and little flexible as well. We need to get as much technology transferred as possible, while getting a local Public-Private base ready to absorb the incoming technology. Local absorption of the technology is a very crucial part and needs to be monitored closely so that the absorbing body (Public or Private entity) can build the base for future development. Else ToT will lose its sole purpose. Permanent job creation would also depend on this factor. We must learn from PSU’s experience. HCL will deliver all the Su-30 MKIs to the IAF by March 2020 and its skilled work force will then be waiting for overhaul orders of the Sukhoi fleet. Had HAL used its skills, energy, technology transfer and opportunities properly, it would not have been struggling with FOC of Tejas, Tejas Mk1A, AMCA etc.

If direct ToT becomes show-stopper, we should use ToT/Offset clause to fix/upgrade our indigenous projects – like the French assistance to fix the Kaveri engine.

Geopolitics: Geopolitics will play a major role in finalizing the contract. Every country will try their best to grab the deal, especially the United States. Following Donald Trump’s America First policy, to balance the trade deficit ($22 billion in 2017), US is already mounting pressure by imposing duties, tightening visa regulations, moving to WTO on subsidy matter etc. The US will not leave any stone unturned to grab the contract. But we must finalize the plane considering our national interests. If we succumb to the US pressure, it will not only encourage the US to arm twist us again but will also increase our dependence on Uncle Sam, which will ultimately affect our foreign and defence policy.

On the other hand, we can also use such deal (s) to our gains like membership to NSG etc. The US has a great international influence that we can utilize but it should not be at the cost of IAF’s current and future needs. In comparison, French is not as influential as the US but far better than the Swedes.

Cost – Starting with MMRCA, MoD has been asking for a proposal that would cover total life cycle cost of the weapon platform. Considering the rapid decommissioning rate of IAF in the near future, we must give preference to the IAF’s operational readiness and domestic industry’s interest over the cost factor. This will better serve our short and long term national interests. But in total contrast, the MoD will most likely give maximum weightage to the cost factor.

Options available:

IAF needs an aircraft in substantial number that is capable of achieving its military objectives and can qualitatively balance the outgoing Aircraft in the next decade, while retaining the technological edge for next 3-4 decades. From operational stand point, any of the six Aircraft would serve IAF’s purpose. The objective here is not to compare their potential in terms of weapons and sensor but to see beyond that. Evaluating each contestant on the four factors stated above will help us find best options for the IAF.

•  Eurofighter typhoon is comparatively new aircraft, was developed in the late 80s and flew for the first time in 1994. It is least likely to make it to the negotiation table because it is a hi-tech and costly machine. Because we have already placed an order of 36 Rafales, getting Typhoons in IAF’s ranks will make no operational or business sense. It has nothing in common with what IAF is currently using. Typhoon comes with EUROJET EJ200 series engines, Euroradar CAPTOR, avionics and weaponry. It will add one more type of Aircraft in IAF’s inventory and will increase IAF’s maintenance load. Getting more Rafales instead, will make more sense.

•  Mig-35 is based on the successful Mig-29 aircraft. During MMRCA, Mikhoyan reportedly did not send Mig-35 to India for testing. Looks like Russia got upset when its primary customer started looking elsewhere for fighter Aircraft. In any case, Mig-35 does not provide any noticeable technological advancement. Comparing it with Mig-29 UPG, its engines (RD-33 MKB) offer 7% more thrust, can come with Zhuk-MA AESA radar and a simple cockpit fitted with three LCD screens. All these noticeable changes can be incorporated in the Mig-29s. Considering IAF’s successful history of integrating weaponry and sensors from different partsof the world into one aircraft, the task is not that difficult. And Mikhoyan poor after sales service, spares availability and serviceability record of Mig series Aircraft will go against it.

American Aircraft:

•  Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet– Super Hornet first flew in 1995 and most likely, Boeing will field its most advanced version – F/A-18 Block III Super Hornet. IAF is not operating any fighter of US origin. Hence any plane from the United States will come with a new set of logistic, maintenance and operational challenges. Both F18 and F16 have nothing in common with what IAF is currently using. F/A-18 Block III will come with GE’s F414 engine, Raytheon’s AESA radar, Block II IRST sensor, AN/ALQ-214 Integrated Defensive Electronic Countermeasures (IDECM) Block IV suite suits, Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) data link and weaponry. All this will create unimaginable maintenance load on over stretched maintenance command of the IAF. But F/A -18 is also a contestant in Indian Navy’s plan to procure 57 carrier based fighters. Boeing will try its best to exploit it.

•  Lockheed Martin F-16 is the oldest among all the contestants. It is a legendary aircraft, more than 4500 are being flown by 28 nations, it has won many battles and has reserved its place in history as one of the best fighter aircraft ever produced. Its development started in 1972 and it first flew on 2nd fen 1972. Though its latest version (Block 70) will be on offer but would it be wise to induct an airframe that was designed and developed 50 years ago? And IAF will operate it for next 40 years! Just like F/A-18, it will come with a new set of GE or Pratt and Whitney engine, AESA Radar, data link, weaponry etc. creating a maintenance nightmare for the IAF.F-16 Block 70 uses MIL-STD-1773 and can be integrated with French/Israeli systems but it is unclear how willing Lockheed Martin will be to integrate systems from different countries in its plane.

ToT from either Boeing or LM will be a tough nut to crack. First they will not be willing to transfer key technologies like the engine, AESA radar, avionics etc. If it gets negotiated, US Congressional approval would become a showstopper. Obtaining necessary approvals will be used as a tool to arm twist India in other deals.

•  SAAB Gripen JAS-39  Gripen was developed in the 80s, it first flew in Dec 1988 and entered service with Swedish Air Force in 1993. It is an excellent machine with an American GE 414 engine (same engine that HAL will use in Tejas Mk II), Italian Selex Raven ES-05 AESA radar and American/French weaponry. Though its avionics are designed using MIL-STD-1553B and it can be integrated with French and Israeli weaponry, targeting pods, electronic warfare suites etc. IAF is already using French/Israeli systems and/or weaponry in Mirage, Jaguar, Su-30 and Tejas. SAAB is willing to make any changes required and will integrate French/Israeli systems, which will reduce the maintenance load of IAF considerably.

It is clear that SAAB has not much to transfer under ToT. Two main component (engine and radar) are not of Sweden. But considering the scale of the order, SAAB is willing to transfer technology, manufacturing and further joint development.

•  Dassault Rafale was developed in the 1980s and joined service in 2001. It is a costly machine but technologically superior to other 6 contestants. Dassault already has an order of 36 Aircraft for €7.87 billion. This will go in its favour, if French spice up their offer with ToT, co-development, Technological assistance programs, discount etc. It is important to note that Indian navy is hunting for 57 carrier based Aircraft and Rafale is one of the contestants there.

Gripen or F/16:

If MoD has added twin engine aircraft in the RFI just to avoid non-existent future corruption allegations, then MoD will pick either F16 or Gripen. Considering the cost, Gripen is the least expensive aircraft among the six fighters. F16 will be the next in line. But Geopolitics will be the deciding factor in such case, which is hugely in the favour of the USA. If F16 is shoved down IAF’s throat, then the IAF will be the real loser in that geopolitical game. Instead of a professional air force, it will become more of a museum that would be operating Aircraft originated from all corners of the globe.

In comparison, Gripen is far better aircraft than F-16 and Swedes will be more cooperative in ToT and future R&D. Though SAAB Gripenis currently using an American engine and an Italian AESA radar, once we have Kaveri engine fixed and it starts producing the desired thrust, SAAB can be asked to use Kaveri engine and Israeli Elta’s AESA radar (same radar that IAF used to upgrade Jaguar last year). This will address a major concern of two main component of foreign origin in Gripen and also help in standardization of engine and AESA radar in IAF’s inventory. What guarantees do we have that the Americans will transfer engine and radar tech to us. With Swedes, we will be on the negotiation table with a position of strength and will be able to negotiate the whole package in our best interest.  Americans on the other hand (if F16 is selected) will start un-ending arm twisting.

Better Choice:

But the best option is still Rafale. Let me explain how?

Cost/Benefit Ratio: Rafale is the most advanced and potent machine of all six contestants and it EW capabilities are outstanding. But just 36 aircraft will not make any operational or business sense. We have already earmarked two airbases (one for each Squadron) that would be prepared under the original deal of 2016. Those two bases can handle at least 2-3 more squadron. This way we will pay just for the aircraft, their customization and the weaponry. A total 90 Rafales will give a great qualitative edge to the IAF along with a decent number (with 75% serviceability).

And it will not be wise if we see IAF’s 110 aircraft and IN need of 57 aircraft in isolation. There are just two contestants of Navy’s 57 fighters contest – F/A- 18 and Rafale. If we select Rafale for the Indian Navy as well, then combined potential of the IAF and the IN will be a force to reckon with. This will improve inter-operational cooperation and reduce maintenance load. The total cost of operating the combined fleet of Rafale will be less than the cost of operating 36 Rafales, the IAF’s 110 fighters and the IN’s 57 fighters. Dealing with one foreign vendor will be far easier to get timely deliveries, after sale service, ToT, local production etc.

ToT and Make-in-India:  A combined bigger order will allow MoD to negotiate the deal from a position of strength. We would be able to either get the technology transferred or to get French assistance to get an improved version of our indigenous AESA radar (Uttam), DVI (Direct Voice Input), sensors, EW suits etc. Once we have Kaveri engine (with better output) and Uttam radar fixed/upgraded, the IAF can start working on standardizing these two key components in its inventory. This will also pave way for the early development of the AMCA.

Just like Kaveri engine, we can get French assistance regarding FOC of Tejas and to setup its parallel production line with a private partner (which will be run totally by Indian private company). This is the need of the hour to boost the numerical strength and speed up development of its Mk1A and Mk2 versions. So far, HAL could deliver just half the promised LCAs. A private production line will not only increase the number of LCAs joining the IAF but will give a much needed sense of competition to the HAL.

Such approach will streamline the type of fighters operated by the IAF in next 1-2 decades. By 2030s IAF will have LCA Tejas (Mk1A/Mk2), AMCA, Rafales and Sukhoi 30-MKI. Just four types of fighters!

We need to understand that no country will help us in developing an advance fighter and we just don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We can use a huge order to get expert assistance to fix/upgrade indigenous projects of key components. If we have a high power parliamentary/bureaucratic committee or an autonomous body overlooking coordination with just one foreign vendor, domestic public and private entities and the end users (IAF and IN) and ruthlessly make each party accountable, we will have huge chances of successfully achieve all the goals envisaged – a bright future for domestic aviation industry and the IAF. It is a gigantic task but there are no simple solutions to complex problems.