By M D NALAPAT
Defence should not be left to generalist administrators or to purely military users who may not factor in India’s overall geopolitical needs and vulnerabilities.
Not surprisingly
for an election season, there continues to be a rising crescendo of
comments and counter-comments about the agreement entered into with
Avions Dassault to get 36 Rafale fighter aircraft. Some explain the
difference in price as being the consequence of the 36 aircraft needing
to be configured to carry a nuclear payload on deep-strike missions in
enemy states. Technical experts could testify as to how much more it
would cost per aircraft to configure it to carry a nuclear rather than a
conventional payload in terms of the weapons loaded, and as there are
several such individuals in India, it is time that they revealed their
financial and technical calculations, so as to give greater clarity to
the debate. The per aircraft cost for 36 seems much more than for 126.
Can the argument be made that this was because the configuration needed
to carry on board non-conventional weapons required a much more
expensive refit than what is needed for aircraft carrying only
conventional weapon payloads ? We do not know. The unit costs being
substantially more for the specially-configured 36 aircraft than for the
126 may be the consequence of the French supplier needing additional
funds in order to finance an upgrade of the existing M 88 engine of the
Rafale. This is relatively underpowered when compared to other fourth
generation fighter aircraft. Also, the present model of the Rafale does
not have stealth capacities. Does the pricey variant supplied to India
include this additional feature? The reality is that any boosting of the
capability of the Rafale engine is an expensive process, and Dassault
has been in a parlous financial situation. It needs to be remembered
that in modern warfare, any air rather than missile attack by the IAF on
a major military power would run the risk of being exposed to the air
defence network of that country. Should the target country have systems
such as the Russian S-400 that India is also purchasing, the risk to
attacking Rafale fighter aircraft would be substantial. Even cruise
missiles can get intercepted by the Russian system. The S-400 is a
superb anti-aircraft system, especially if the country that is the
target of an IAF attack has been given a system that features the latest
Russian missiles. It is not clear that India too will get the latest
Russian missiles for its S-400s or will acquire only older models for
the air defence systems that are being purchased for an initial cost of
$5 billion. There was a time when Moscow and Delhi were as close as
Beijing has long been to Islamabad, but that era has long passed, which
is why the continued heavy reliance on Russia for critical defence needs
requires a relook.
The problem facing the defence
procurement system in India is that the users (i.e. the wings of the
military) seem not to be given financial parameters and limits while
designing their specifications for weapons systems. As a consequence,
they may configure specifications in such a manner that only the most
expensive models would be eligible, as took place in the MMRCA process.
This would be analogous to a motorist being asked to choose the vehicle
he wants, irrespective of cost. He would naturally choose a Ferrari or a
Maserati, rather than a Volvo or a Toyota. The MMRCA program is
designed to replace the MiG 21s, of which over 400 have been in service
for the IAF. In order to have both an effective defence as well as
credible attack capabilities, at least around 200 more aircraft are
needed to be acquired in the near future. A mere 36, no matter how
magnificent each fighter aircraft may be, is not sufficient. In such a
context, the offer by the US to transfer the entire F-16 assembly line
to India should be seriously considered. The F-16 variant being offered
to India is the latest, and contains weapons systems and avionics far
superior to the aircraft supplied to Pakistan. Locating assembly lines
in India would ensure that the IAF get the 200 additional fighter
aircraft it needs to be a potent strike force, while additional aircraft
could be sold to other countries so that such sales subsidise part of
the costs of making and equipping the F-16s destined for the IAF.
Without the offer to relocate production lines to India, the offer of
F-16s was rejected in the past, and correctly so. However, entering into
the manufacture of the airframes for such aircraft would open the way
for future manufacture (jointly with the US) within India of more
advanced models, thereby adding to both local jobs as well as skills. It
may also be possible to persuade corporations such as Northrop Grumman,
Raytheon and BAE to set up facilities in India to manufacture radar,
electronics and weaponry for the F-16s that are locally manufactured.
The airframe accounts for only around a third of the total cost of
production of a frontline fighter aircraft, and the rest comprises other
items, most of which can be made in India. Our country and the US need
to enter into a much closer defence and security relationship, which is
why it would make sense in geopolitical terms to acquire the THAAD
anti-missile system on the same terms as offered to South Korea, as well
as Patriot PAC 3 anti-aircraft systems. Hyper-reliance on a Russia that
is today closest to a China that is still much too cosy with Pakistan
seems a risk.
India’s defence is way too important to
be left to generalist administrators or to purely military users who may
not factor in the overall geopolitical needs and vulnerabilities of the
country. Just as China makes a necessary partner for India in commerce
and economics, so does the US in defence and security. The IAF needs a
minimum of 200 frontline aircraft to ensure sufficient attack and
defence capabilities. The transfer of F-16 production to India, followed
by the transfer of part or whole of production facilities for more
advanced fighter aircraft and subsequently their equipment, makes more
sense than looking at every critical defence need and corresponding
purchase in isolation.
No comments:
Post a Comment