Rather than Rafale, think of drones

Wg Cdr SS Randhawa (Retd)

There has been a lot of reporting about the Rafale deal in the media. Rafale is a fourth-generation, twin-engine, delta-wing, high-altitude, high-speed jet fighter produced by Dassault, a French company. The prototype took to air in 1986. The combat version joined the French air force in 2001. It is also a part of the Egyptian air force. It is beautiful to look at. Performance wise, it could be the best in the world. Our government has struck a deal for 36 aircraft.

This fighter, undoubtedly, has served NATO well. The question is: have we got NATO-like commitments? If 'yes', then 36 is too small a number. If 'no', then there are issues that need careful examination. These are technological vibrancies. Technology neither stagnates nor hibernates. It is in motion all the time. Rafale's technology is 30 years old. The vibrancy does not allow an innovation to reign for long. There has been much advancement in aeronautics since World War 2. The people at the helm must have taken into account the developments taken place in ground-to-air, air-to-air and stealth technology.

In World War I, the aeroplane emerged as a weapon of war and dogfight its user technique. The technocrats improved the weapon; the pilots bettered the technique. In the ensuing war, the combination became the game-changer. Thousands of pilots, in pursuit of perfection, lost their lives. By the end of the war, technology got the better of the technique. In the last stage of the war, the jetfighters appeared. They crashed through the sound barrier and sped to Mack-2: two times the speed of sound. Manoeuvring with such a speed became difficult and dogfight, by and large, called it a day. Individual valour of pilots like Nirmaljit Singh Sekhon falls under exception.

Concerning this, the technologists rushed to the drawing boards and brought out air-to-air missiles. These were introduced in the Vietnam War. The laboratories, world over, including those in China, are in the race to excel. At present, the Swedish Meteor seems to be lethal. The Russian claim of Novator KS-172 with range of 400 km is impressive, too. If we believe these claims, then a doubt is natural. What is the status of the jetfighter as a war machine? A flying platform. If so, what is wrong with Tejas? Hopefully, the experts would have looked into these things. Besides, there are ground-to-air missiles with en route course correction. We can ignore them at our own peril.

Since 1999, barring NATO vs Serbia, there has been no major confrontation. Thus, the war-worthiness of the fourth generation jetfighter is theoretical. Serbia, probably, fielded the old version of MiGs: five of them were knocked out in one day. There is no end. The US has produced sixth generation stealth bombers having pilotless aeroplanes, drones, on board. They are in action these days. The operation of the drones is controlled by a pilot sitting in a fighter bomber 60,000 ft high in the sky. The drones raid in swarms. We must think differently and do differently; the drone is there in the offing.

Tejas deserves to be in the reckoning

We need introspection. Germany, devastated in WW1, was the first to make the jet engine in 1939 and also the first to put in action the jetfighter during the WW2. During war, they produced 75,000 aircraft and so did Japan, England and the US.

Happily, Air Chief Marshal BS Dhanoa has bracketed Tejas with Sukhai and Rafale. Tejas deserves to be there in the reckoning. 

In fact, with high quality ground-to-air missiles with en-route course-correction facilities, low-level visual strafing and bombing has become risky. Even the air-to-air missiles have mindboggling ranges. With 2 to 3 Mach speed dogfight is humanly impossible. How far the jetfighters remain in action is anyone's guess. Stealth aircraft with swarms of drones are already in the offing. Pilotless aircraft and LASER canons are on the drawing boards.

The Air Chief Marshal has rightly avoided his comments on the price controversy. He has not commented on the performance part of the jetfighter. It is very professional of him: combat performance is not only flying, but also something more. There are many things on ground that make the aircraft fly for combat. It is the time between scramble and Chocks off, in between flight turn-around time, arming time, servicing schedule and spares availability. Most of these are the engineering officer's headache. An air force pilot cannot overlook these constraints. 

The following instance shall clear this point.

I and some of my course mates assembled around a senior Squadron Leader for a briefing on the Mystere aircraft. 

As he was briefing, one of us went off the track and said, "Sir, you know my so and so (named relative) was the first to fly this aircraft from Paris to India." "Yes, I know and since then we have lived with this junk; now concentrate on what I say," retorted the Squadron Leader. 

The CAS seems to be well aware of these things. During our days, there used to be four servicing. First and second line servicing were done at the station level. Third and fourth line servicing were done at the offset agency, like BRD or HAL. These are confidence-building agencies. Like superspeciality hospitals, when you will need them you don't know. Besides scheduled servicing, the squadrons may need them for attending to emergencies like manufacturers' fault rectification and modifications. 

We can overlook the offset agency at our own peril.