IAF wanted to replace MiG-21s with light fighters. But now it will have heavy and enormously expensive Rafale
Ajai Shukla / Feb 07, 2012, 00:15 IST
Kudos to the government for selecting a fighter aircraft for a depleted Indian Air Force (IAF), which currently fields barely 34 fighter squadrons (21 aircraft per squadron) against an assessed requirement of 45. While zeroing in on the French Rafale, New Delhi has said “no thanks” to arms supply heavyweights whose political and technological clout often bludgeons procurement decisions in their favour. This was helped, admittedly, by India’s ability to soothe the losers with alternative largesse — Washington with contracts for transport and maritime aircraft; Moscow with deals for helicopters, fighters and warships; London with trainer jets; and Stockholm with the hope of mammoth deals for artillery guns and conventional submarines. But that should not detract from the IAF’s credit for running a fair, transparent and relatively quick contest in which, for the first time in India, a detailed “life cycle” evaluation looked beyond the fighter’s ticker price to the cost of operating it through a service life of four decades.
The difficulty in conducting such an exercise is illustrated in Brazil, where competing pulls and pressures have stymied a simpler decision between the Boeing F/A-18, the Rafale and the Gripen NG fighters.
India’s decision stemmed from Defence Minister A K Antony’s insistence on letting the IAF determine which aircraft best met its needs. But, sadly, this unwise reliance on the views of fighter pilots alone has twisted the rationale for buying a fighter. Instead of the cheap, single-engine, light fighter that the IAF set out to buy in the 1990s to replace India’s ageing MiG-21 fleet, the IAF will have 126 heavy, twin-engine and enormously expensive Rafales.
These six squadrons of Rafales could go up to nine squadrons through a follow-on order, say IAF planners. Add to those 12 squadrons of the Sukhoi-30MKI and another 12 squadrons of the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) that India is co-developing with Russia, and the IAF will field 33 squadrons of heavy, high-performance fighters by 2022 — 75 per cent of its 45-squadron fighter fleet. This might gladden the heart of a young fighter pilot, just as a fleet of Ferraris would gladden the heart of a college-going youngster, even if his commute were two kilometres through crowded traffic. But it is worrisome to a defence planner who seeks a balanced force for performing a multitude of tasks economically.
Light fighters are affordable, and cheaper to buy and to fly. Being smaller, they are inherently more stealthy, less observable on enemy radars. A top-class light fighter is one-third the cost of a Rafale. Even though the Rafale is a powerful, high-quality brute of a combat machine, it will almost always lose in a contest with three modern light fighters. “Quality is fine,” said Stalin, always the pragmatist; “but quantity has a quality of its own.”
That is why the USAF and the Israeli air forces have large fleets of single-engine F-16 fighters. That is also the logic for India’s MiG-21 fleet and for the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) that will replace it. In the late 1990s, whilst justifying the procurement of fighters from abroad, the IAF cited delays in the Tejas programme and suggested that the Mirage-2000 production line be bought from Dassault, and the single-engine fighter be built in India. But when the ministry of defence (MoD), still smarting from the Tehelka exposes, insisted on a multi-vendor global tender, the IAF reframed its requirements. The term became MMRCA (medium multi-role combat aircraft) and the specifications favoured a twin-engine, heavy fighter. Astonishingly, nobody in the MoD seemed to notice the turnabout or object to the contradiction.
Today, India’s light fighter hangars are emptying fast with replacements lagging. By 2013-14, seven squadrons of MiG-21s must retire; another six squadrons will be phased out by 2017, as will four squadrons of MiG-27s. It is vital, therefore, to drive home the indigenous Tejas programme, committing the money, resources and organisational effort needed for developing and manufacturing at least 10-12 squadrons of progressively improved Tejas light fighters.
Compared to the estimated Rs 75,000 crore for just 126 Rafale, the Tejas’ budget has been a pittance. Since 1983, Rs 9,690 crore has gone into aerospace infrastructure – R&D laboratories, defence factories, private industry, academic institutions, and a world-class test facility, the National Flight Testing Centre (NFTC) – and into building and flight-testing some 20 Tejas prototypes. An additional Rs 4,353 crore are earmarked for the Tejas Mark II. Boosted allocations must now expand R&D facilities and up-skill the manpower that drives the Tejas programme.
Simultaneously, a world-class Tejas assembly facility must be built, incorporating the manufacturing practices and quality control measures that characterise aircraft production worldwide. Currently, Tejas manufacture is the responsibility of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), which has been without a CEO since Ashok Nayak retired last October. With HAL’s focus on ongoing production lines like the Sukhoi-30MKI, Tejas assembly is hardly a priority. Nor is there emphasis on reducing manufacturing cost, which is currently too high at Rs 180-200 crore ($36-40 million) per Tejas Mark I. That must be brought down to Rs 125-150 crore ($25-30 million) to make the LCA a compelling buy on the international market. Export orders would allow scale manufacturing, driving down prices further.
Paying Rs 75,000 crore for the Rafale will indeed boost national defence. But a far smaller expenditure on the Indian aerospace establishment, and the squeezing of key technologies from Dassault and Thales during contract negotiations, will ensure that the Rafale is the last fighter that India buys abroad.
Ajay,
1. The Rafale and Eurofighter both have a lower Radar Cross Section than a range of lighter fighter aircraft including the F-16 and Mirage 2000. Being heavier or larger in dimensions does not mean an aircraft is naturally more visible on radar. An extreme example is the B-2, a bomber.
2. What data do you have to support your argument that the Rafale will almost certainly lose in aerial combat to fighters of lower mass? Eurofighter Typhoons and Su-27/30s have demonstrated exactly the opposite on several match-ups against f-16s and Mirage 2000s.
Ajai, spoken like a true ex-pongo!!! Why can't you leave the nations' air power requirements to be decided by its fighter pilots? You have shown pretty poor understanding of the subject in your article. No wonder you haven't figured out yet that after the F-22 has been shelved, the F-35 has been the next biggest blunder that poor Unca' Sam is stuck with! "Quantity over Quality"??? Cripes!!! Give our stretched out & battle hardened flyboys a break! The complexities of air combat are way different from getting boots up a hill! We've agreed to disagree before but this piece is way outa line boss!!!
@ Sakariya, Ajai Shukla has not promoted the F-35 case through any back channels. He has written quite openly in this newspaper that the F-35 is the best choice for the IAF. People like you who see a conspiracy in everything don't seem to understand that an analyst voicing his opinion is perfectly legitimate. This allows defense procurement decisions to be debated openly, something that takes place in every evolved democracy except for India. Shukla has a perfectly legitimate viewpoint: throw money and brains into developing the LCA in India and meanwhile bridge the defence capability gap with the F-35. Is this too difficult for you to understand?
This is perhaps one right strategic procurement decision India made since independence. A selection borne exclusively out of through professional rigour. The usual busy bodies have been ruthlessly kept out so were certain countries used to patronising attitude towards India while aiding her adversaries. Keep it up Antony. You deserve every credit for laying foundation for strategic transformation of Indian air power.
While everybody is rejoicing this selection, Shukla Sahab seems to be dead against Rafale'. He seems to be a die hard fan of JSF whose very futute existance is in doubt even today. His comments on NDTV (program conducted by Vishnu Som) actually tend to indicate that he was, in a way, promoting the case of F-35 through back channels. His comment that we need Tejas is right but for IAF who has been awaiting Tejas for so long now, the maxim,"one bird in hand is better than two in the bush" is far more suitable. At least, we will have Rafale'(one bird in hand) rather than two in the bush (Tejas and F-35).
From a strategic and cost perspective, Rafael deal at this time doesnot make any sense, given the fact that we are collaborating with Russia for FGFA and threat perceptions for next 10-15 years are not very adverse and we have enough alternate deterrents available.
The point about comparatively minor cost outlay for Tejas is eye opener and we should commit more resources to Tejas, as it ia project of national importance.
However, by itself, Rafael is a good deal and hopefully, in future, we follow similar procedure for defence procurements. However, absorption of technology and development of private enterprise in defence production are important strategic issues which need urgant policy attention.
The problem with the LCA has been that ADA has,from the start, been completely unreliable in terms of dates and achievements. Underestimation of the task can not be accepted as a complete explanation which it is not. Increasing the budget as suggested is always a good excuse,but would solve nothing because DRDO would not be able to spend it-it is not structured to take rapid decisions on investments and it will permit no competition on its turf.In any case critical issues like weight reduction did not rely on budgets-it required knowledgeable leadership which was evidently lacking. ADA has succeeded where the PAF has failed-it has decimated the IAF. But NO question of LCA being stopped.ADA must run the Gauntlet it has set up.
Posted by: Abhishek
February 08 , 2012, 13:23 IST
I disagree with you. The IAF is squarely to blame for delays in the LCA programme. They kept changing the goalposts of the LCA many times, which forced the ADA to go back to the drawing board each time. IAF must Freeze every requirement early on and wait for development to complete. If you ask a cook to keep changing the dish DURING his cooking, you will never get food. Similarly, IAF must learn that it cannot keep asking ADA to revise specifications mid-way otherwise it must accept delays and keep its mouth shut.
Content Guide
