Accelerating Indian Air Force modernisation to meet future challenges – Firstpost
Every major conflict since World War I has strengthened the primacy of air power, which transitioned into aerospace power after Gulf War I. The world has witnessed an increment in generational fighter technology every 15 years or so (first-generation jet fighters were introduced after World War I, and sixth-generation is likely to be operational in 2030). Recent conflicts in Ukraine and Israel highlight the changing character of war. Other services are strengthening their air arms. This reaffirms that air power will remain at the vanguard of the application of military power.
While a lot has been done over the last two decades to build aerospace capability in India, there has not been substantial generational change in technology, especially in fighter aircraft, weapons, and niche technology. When viewed in context with overall technological and capability growth and geo-strategic realities, the capability and capacity void is expanding, and the Indian aerospace power faces a challenging future.
Indian Aerospace Industry
Walchand Hirachand, in association with Krishna Raja Wadiyar IV of the Kingdom of Mysore, established Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) on December 23, 1940, displaying outstanding foresight. Since then, HAL has largely remained the sole aircraft manufacturer in India. It is only recently that Tatas, as a private player, have set up a manufacturing plant for C-295 aircraft in India.
HAL commenced its design and development journey with the HT-2 trainer aircraft in 1953 and since then has produced the HF-24 Marut and LCA fighters, HPT-32 and HJT-16 trainers, and ALH, LCH, and LUH helicopters. Additionally, it has produced many other aircraft and helicopters under license, with the latest being the SU-30 MKI. While the efforts in the design, development, and production of helicopters have been successful, the same cannot be said of fighters. The major impediment in fighter aircraft development and production has been the lack of indigenous engine and critical systems technologies.
Major players like Adani, Reliance, L&T, and Mahindra have also entered the aerospace sector in recent years. Some private players and HAL are manufacturing components and structural parts for defence majors from across the globe, but they are mostly manufacturing as per the design provided by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM).
Environmental Scan
Most developed nations across the world are developing sixth-generation fighter aircraft, with both the US and China having test-flown the initial prototypes. It is believed that the sixth-generation fighter aircraft will be operational by the early 2030s.
The US, with its defence budget of $1.3 trillion, feels the crunch in developing the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter. The US government allocated $1.66 billion as initial funding for the NGAD against an estimated project development cost of $20 billion till 2027. The research and development (R&D) cost of the F-22 programme was $30 billion, and that of the F-35 was $40 billion. China has seemingly leveraged low cost and high aerospace industry capacity in its fifth and sixth-generation fighters.
The Chinese stated defence budget is $231 billion for 2024; some analysts believe China could end up spending upwards of $400 billion. Overall defence spending of the US is likely to reach $1.3 trillion. India, with its defence budget of $73 billion, finds it difficult to meet its growing military requirements and bridge the voids that have expanded over the last two decades.
China started its fifth-generation fighter development programme in 2008. The J-20 first flew in 2011, and it entered service in 2017, nine years later. Since then, the Chinese air force, PLAAF, has inducted around 300 J-20s and unveiled the J-35, its second fifth-generation fighter. The Chinese developmental cycle is therefore half that of the USA; the F-35 programme commenced in 1995, and the aircraft entered service in 2015, twenty years. A recent report on the Global Combat Aircraft Programme (GCAP) of the UK, Italy, and Japan admits that meeting the timeline of 2035 will not be easy, and it is ambitious.
As the technology evolves, the character of war may change; however, the roles and tasks of the Indian Air Force will remain unchanged. IAF will continue to undertake roles and tasks as enunciated in its doctrine. It must have sufficient aircraft, platforms, and weapons to fight a full-spectrum conflict; the current shortfalls in capability and capacity are a cause for concern. Strategic urgency is necessary to ensure Indian aerospace power retains the edge.
Indian Aerospace Industry Challenges
The domestic aerospace industry in India, except the defence PSUs, is in its infancy. Private industry is manufacturing to design provided by foreign OEMs with hardly any domestic design and development capability. In fact, a large number of drone startups are cloning the already existing foreign drones and using imported components, especially from China.
The Government of India sanctioned $1.8 billion/Rs 15,000 crores for the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) project in 2024, with the first flight planned in 2028 and production in 2035, 11 years from project commencement. The US took almost twenty years to produce the F-35, armed with F-22 experience. China took 10 years with all the cyber espionage and CCP driving the agenda. Under this backdrop and the fact that the Indian aerospace industry is still evolving, the timelines for AMCA seem extremely optimistic.
Modern aircraft and UAVs involve complex technologies. AI and quantum computing are being integrated into these high-performance systems. Air, space, and cyber are interconnected. The systems are highly software dependent, and integrating these diverse systems in itself is a major challenge. Air power in the future would be applied as a “system of systems” by harnessing the capabilities of diverse systems and platforms into a single effect. A lot of the ingredients that go into producing such complex systems are presently imported.
The nation is yet to achieve self-reliance in aero engines, critical avionics, electronic warfare systems, stealth coatings, semiconductors, and payloads for UAVs, and so on. Integrating imported equipment with indigenous systems on a single platform is extremely challenging and expensive; this results in delays in development and production coupled with cost overruns, which has been the story of our aerial platform development and manufacturing.
Achieving true atma nirbharta requires tremendous investments in R&D and budget allocation for specific projects. Another factor is broadening R&D and manufacturing bases, which promotes competition. Presently, the private industry is not confident of orders from the military and hence is hesitant to invest in R&D; this has resulted in a monopoly of HAL and defence PSUs.
Way Forward
Raksha Mantri has declared the year 2025 as the year of reforms for MoD. It should also be the year of accountability for all stakeholders. A roadmap on funding for different projects and R&D needs to be developed. Many analysts point out that a budget should not be a factor in issues pertaining to national security. It is pertinent to highlight that present shortfalls in Air Force capability necessitate enormous funding, which may not be practically possible. It is in this context that all stakeholders need to review and prioritise requirements for specific capability development.
The Defence Secretary during the recent seminar hosted by CAPS stated that there is no shortage of funds, and we are unable to spend the allotted funds. He also remarked that the procurement system is broken. The processes that lead to delays in decision-making must be reviewed and fixed in a time-bound manner. Accountability is of the essence since we have very well-written rules, regulations, and processes. The procurement procedure must be refined for faster procurement.
Chairman DRDO, during his address at the Subroto Mukherjee seminar hosted by CAPS, stated that India invests only 5 per cent of its defence budget on R&D; this should increase to 10 to 15 per cent to meet the developmental requirements. Increasing the budget for R&D is imperative to keep pace with the technological changes. We need to set up a task force to identify technologies required for the next five, ten, and twenty years and recommend agencies and entities that will undertake development with clear competition and accountability.
Collaboration on aero engine development must be fast-tracked, and a task force comprising reps from IAF, DRDO, and academia with clearly spelt-out timelines must be established. Set up an independent body to audit the HAL engine division with an aim to harmonise it for future engine production. Adequate funding for the project may be earmarked.
Create a single entity to exercise oversight to coordinate and supervise functioning and synergy between ADA and HAL for the development and production of LCA Mk2 and AMCA with the high-level IAF participation. The budgetary support needs to be sustained, and risks need to be factored into the project, including lessons from all the failures in the LCA Mk1 and 2 programmes.
Review procurement procedures to fast-track MRFA with significant transfer of technology to facilitate faster AMCA development and production. This project should go to private industry to expand manufacturing capacity.
Review IDEX, ADITI, and TDF funding for specific technologies required for warfighting. The incremental approach has not yielded requisite outcomes. The government, on October 25, 2024, approved the establishment of a Rs 1000 Crores VC fund dedicated to supporting India’s space sector. On similar lines, the government could consider a VC fund for the aerospace sector aimed at the development of critical technologies and export.
The private industry is presently constrained to invest funds into R&D due to a lack of clarity on orders. This needs to be remedied by suitably amending procurement procedures. R&D by private industry should be incentivised. Additionally, selected private players based on competition could be funded for specific R&D projects with assistance as required from DRDO in terms of facility support for development, testing, and certification.
HALE and tactical UAV development should be assigned to private industry with a joint venture as required with foreign OEMs under the Make in India programme. DRDO should focus on HALE and stealth UCAVs and future autonomous drones under MUM-T.
A joint IAF and DRDO team must be assigned the responsibility to fast-track the development and production of long-range precision weapons like Rudram air-to-ground missiles and air-to-air missiles like Astra Mk2 and 3. The production of such weapons needs to be diversified.
DRDO has done well on the radar development front for both the fighters and AEW&C platforms. Integration with the Airbus 321 and additional Embraer platforms needs to be prioritised.
Enhance the maintainability, reliability, and product support for platforms designed and produced indigenously, like the ALH and LCA, for favourable export conditions.
Both our neighbours have inducted long-range precision weapons and are inducting UAVs and munitions that can strike our assets parked in soft hangars and in the open. Hardened aircraft shelters need to be funded in a timebound manner.
Most importantly, we must free DRDO and PSUs from bureaucratic oversight and bring them under a group of technocrats and scholars like those in the nuclear and space domains. This will ensure oversight with domain expertise, which is presently lacking.
Conclusion
IAF must transform both qualitatively and quantitatively to deter and win. While competing with China may not be realistic, credible aerospace deterrence is imperative in view of the rapid growth of PLAAF. China has shown a tendency of creating a situation on the LAC with alarming regularity.
India faces a unique geo-strategic environment. The IAF faces significant challenges in the foreseeable future due to delays in the development and induction of modern platforms and systems. Both Chinese and Pakistani air forces are rapidly modernising, and the technological evolution in the neighbourhood should not create large capability and capacity disparities for the IAF. Instituting a committee under the Defence Secretary is a positive development; however, this needs to be complemented with suitable urgent measures to mitigate the challenging future IAF faces based on the current trajectory.
Budget and R&D constraints emerge as major challenges. The nation must leverage the low cost of human capital in this endeavour (Tejas development cost just $1.2 billion). Measures recommended above may be studied at an appropriate level to chart out future development, production, collaboration, and induction road maps to ensure that Indian aerospace retains its strategic advantage.
The author is a retired Air Marshal of the Indian Air Force. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.
Post Comment