New Delhi: US President Donald Trump appears to be strong-arming India into acquiring hugely expensive F-35 Lightning II 5th generation stealth fighters, despite his closest adviser having recently trashed the combat platform by labeling it a “shit design”.
“The F-35 design was broken at the requirements level because it was required to be too many things to too many people” Elon Musk declared on X last November. This made it an expensive and complex Jack of all trades, master of none, he stated. Furthermore, success, he added, was never in the set of possible outcomes (for the F-35).
Using a trash can emoji in his post, Musk went on to savage Lockheed Martin, responsible for designing and building the single-engine F-35, dubbing its creators “idiots” for continuing to build these fighters that entered US Marine Corps service in 2015, and the US Air Force a year later. He further claimed that fighters like the F-35 were an “outdated” concept in warfare as they endangered pilot’s lives, compared with cost-effective drones, that were capable of performing analogous tasks without endangering humans.
Trump’s announcement about increasing military sales to India
During Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s day-long visit to Washington earlier this week, Trump had flamboyantly declared that starting this year, the US would be increasing military sales to India by many billions of dollars.
“We’re also paving the way to ultimately provide India with F-35 stealth fighters,” he said at the joint press conference with the Indian PM after their meeting.
It is, however, unclear for now whether the F-35s would be part of the long-pending Indian Air Force (IAF) requirement for 114 Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA), or an entirely separate deal to supplement the former acquisition. News reports from Washington too said that neither the White House nor Lockheed Martin had elaborated on Trump’s announcement to sell F-35s to the IAF.
But, increasing military supplies to India worth “billions”, as Trump had stated, strongly suggests Lockheed Martin supplying a “substantial” number of F-35s to the IAF, in all likelihood via the US’s government-to-government Foreign Military Sales (FMS) route.
Furthermore, licence-building F-35s locally via a transfer of technology, as part of the NDA government’s atmanirbhar policy of indigenously sourcing defence equipment, too, appears remote, considering the high levels of secrecy surrounding the combat platform and its advanced systems.
The only one, however, to attempt a feeble response to the queries prompted by Trump’s announcement was Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, who told reporters in Washington that the F-35 sale was only at a “proposal stage”, but did not clarify whether it too had come as a surprise to the Indian delegation accompanying Modi.
He went on to add that there was a process through which military platforms were acquired, which included issuing a request for proposal or RFP, but that no such process concerning the F-35s had so far begun.
‘F-35 simply does not fit into the IAFs overall operational requirements and profile’
Meanwhile, Trump’s seemingly out-of-the-blue declaration regarding F-35s has prompted caution and wariness amongst senior IAF personnel, concerned over whether the putative US fighter purchase could end up being more a “political” buy rather than an operationally and financially practical one.
“The F-35 simply does not fit into the IAFs overall operational requirements and profile,” said military analyst Air Marshal V K “Jimmy” Bhatia (retired).
Besides, there were numerous conditionalities and protocols with regard to deploying and operating US defence equipment, especially combat aircraft, he added.
But rather than acquiring F-35s, with its variants priced between $80-$115 million each, India desperately needed to indigenously develop its fifth-generation fighter swiftly, with the in-built provision of upgrading it later, the IAF’s celebrated and highly decorated fighter pilot added.
Other IAF personnel, who declined to be named, were of the view that the Trump administration was leveraging the planned F-35 sale in exchange for “overlooking” sticky issues such as New Delhi’s alleged involvement in Sikh separatist Gurpatwant Pannun’s planned assassination in New York last year and more recently, criminal proceedings in a US federal court against businessman Gautam Adani on multiple charges of bribery and fraud.
“F-35s are not the best buy for the IAF despite their lethality, versatility and stealth, as they are hugely costly to procure in times of shrinking budgets and extremely pricey to operate,” said a two-star officer who preferred anonymity. Each fighter costs around $36,000 per hour to operate, which would automatically curtail its deployment as such an astronomical expense would “seriously corrode” the IAF’s already frugal revenue budget.
Besides, even if India opted to buy F-35s, said a two-star officer, platform deliveries would not begin for several years thereafter. It would not only take time for both sides to negotiate such a massive deal, he declared, but delays would further ensue as the US, in all probability, would opt to supply the fighters first to its NATO allies, before it did so to the IAF.
Acquiring F-35s, as with all other US equipment, comes with a further inherent handicap for the IAF: it would definitively foreclose the possibility of the IAF pursuing its long-established and hugely accomplished, and at times essential, resort to jugaad or innovation, an option it exercises upon almost all its platforms and equipment.
End Use Monitoring Agreement proscribe India from retrofitting US military equipment
US protocols like the End Use Monitoring Agreement (EUMA), agreed with Delhi in 2009 after much wrangling and extended negotiation, proscribe India from retrofitting and adapting US military equipment to its needs without the Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) consent and participation for the entire duration of its service. In the US’s case, this jugaad route has rarely ever been permitted.
“Such cradle-to-grave restrictions provide Washington continuing leverage over the equipment recipient country,” said a one-star IAF officer. Such leverage, he added, which was not the case with equipment from other countries, has the inherent possibility of ensuring that the recipient country cooperated with Washington on US-centric strategic, political and diplomatic goals.
With the 80-odd countries with which Washington has concluded an EUMA, it has reportedly made an exception only a handful of times, once by allowing the Israel Air Force to incorporate locally developed sensors and weapons onto Lockheed Martin F-16s supplied to Tel Aviv and subsequently concerning some systems aboard some F-35’s supplied recently to the Israel Air Force.
Besides, all US military purchases by India under the FMS programme have been concluded under the stricter “Golden Sentry” EUMA, which governs physical verification of the equipment and its eventual disposal. This protocol is far stricter than the less stringent “Blue Lantern” EUMA which directs the direct commercial sale of US materiel worldwide.
And though the Congress party-led United Progressive Alliance government had then obliquely claimed success in concluding the EUMA on Indian terms, by securing the concession that the time and location of the US equipment’s verification process would be determined by Delhi, it had deftly avoided all mention of life-long and costly reliance on OEMs to keep US equipment in service.
Be that as it may, military officers said such foreclosures on US defence gear supplied to India prohibited “amazing and efficient implementation of jugaad” that, over decades, had been elevated to sophisticated levels.
Generations of military officers concede that jugaad not only ensured that imported weapon systems performed well above their declared operational potential, but also rendered a range of platforms like fighter aircraft and ordnance not only highly serviceable and effective but in some instances even supremely deadly.
Entirely feasible on Soviet/Russian and French fighters platforms and at times even welcomed and with no restrictions whatsoever, jugaad has not only provided India’s military flexibility in operating its kit but also ably rendered foreign equipment wholly serviceable in climatic extremes and assorted terrain and for varied operational deployments.
The F-35 fighter aircraft family, all capable of deployment for air superiority and strike missions, comprises three variants: the conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) F-35A, the short take-off and vertical-landing (STOVL) F-35B, and the aircraft carrier variant (CV) catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) F-35C. All three variants also have electronic warfare and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities
Powered by Pratt & Whitney F135-PW-100 turbofan engines, the F-35’s cockpit is unlike other fighters, as it has neither gauges nor screens, but large touch screens instead, complemented by a helmet-mounted display system that allows the pilot to access real-time information. The helmet also provides the pilot with the capability to look directly through the aircraft via the platform’s Distributed Aperture System (DAS) and a suite of six infrared cameras mounted strategically around the aircraft. The fighter also features a 6,000-8,100kg weapons payload.
In conclusion, it remains to be seen over the next few months whether the F-35 deal will progress, or whether this too was “transactional” Trump’s negotiating ploy to leverage other concessions from India.
