What’s sacrosanct about “42 Squadrons”? Or, is it a Cover for Importing More Foreign Fighter Aircraft?

Posted inUSA
[IAF Chief, ACM AP Singh, taking COAS, Gen. Upendra Dwivedi, up for a Tejas spin] The 42-squadron strength the IAF has flogged as its desired combat fleet size was originally spun out of the 50 squadron fleet recommended by the Committee chaired by JRD Tata in the wake of the 1962 War — fully 63 years ago, when ordnance was delivered by manned bombers. The 50 became 35 for want of resources before getting jacked up to 42 in the 1980s. A 2-front wartime deployment plus reserve in the context of the PLAAF and PAF may have been the basis for settling on the 42 number. In reality though, it is just a number that’s gone up and down and up again — a function of the country’s finances, where it has been stuck for the last 35-odd years. But it is treated by the IAF as some kind of divine revelation, not to be trifled with. So, everytime any Chief of the Air Staff opens his mouth, it is to complain, issue dire warnings, about the “capability gap” attributed to the strength of the combat aircraft fleet declining to 30 squadrons, what with the phasing out of all MiG-21s from service by this year end, and the other fast obsolescing aircraft — Jaguars, Mirage 2000s and MiG-29s, that will need, the IAF brass claim, replacing inside of a decade, etc. The all-purpose panacea? 42 squadrons! Sure enough, the recently elevated Air Chief Marshal AP Singh mouthed the same words. With print and television media faithfully relaying the CAS’ concerns and the talking heads on TV screens and press commentators echoing this oft-repeated nonsense — and this view, as intended, as always got a multiplier boost. The IAF has been very effective in getting what it wants by repeating this “procurement” spiel over the years, and pressuring the government into making ill-advised buys. It led to the deal for 36 4.5 generation Rafales that Prime Minister Narendra Modi signed for during his April 2015 trip to France despite the by then deposed defence minister Manohar Parrikar’s well known doubts about this aircraft owing to the escalating unit cost, up from Rs 526 crores negotiated during the UPA government’s time, according to the Congress party, to Rs 1,670 crores, or over three-fold increase. Further, the 36 Rafales in the Indian air orbat have nowhere met the the 70%-75% availability standard agreed on vide the Inter-Governmental Agreement of 23 September 2016, or 27 of the 36 Rafales being available at all times. This standard was demanded of Dassault because the frontline Su-30 MKI has serviceability rates of 55%-60% — the reason why Parrikar, by far the best defence minister the republic has ever had, suggested indigenously producing the Su-30MKI to meet IAF’s needs, and as the only imported component in the future fleet, with the Tejas (1A, 2, AMCA) as the bulk force aircraft. No wonder Parrikar was a bane, and pain in the you know what, for the IAF! Whatever the Rafale deal has not done for India and the IAF, it did for the French aerospace industry — rescued it from insolvency. I had warned then — read my posts 2012 onwards! — that the initial 36 aircraft would be the wedge for additional 114 Rafales to fill IAF’s requirement of medium role fighter aircraft (MRFA). And also for the 26 Rafale Marine to equip the Indian aircraft carriers. The pitch for the naval version revolved around the commonality of spares and service support with the IAF Rafales. The flyoff of sorts then is pro forma, because now the IAF will argue it already has the servicing infrastructure for Rafale aircraft, and the Service would like very much to be less diversified to ease the logistics nightmare it has all along nursed! In the event, there will be a “competition” for the MRFA deal — featuring versions of some of the same aircraft that have been in the running in the last 30 years — Lockheed F-21 — a differently designated F-16 Super Viper configuration, the Swedish Gripen, Russian MiG-35/57, and the Boeing Super Hornet F-18, that will be staged mostly for show. Unless… Unless, the Modi government — like the preceding Congress and BJP regimes, again bends to Washington’s will. Except, Trump now will impose his terms, arm-twist Modi as he did on the tariffs issue getting New Delhi scrambling to accommodate. The question is which aircraft choice will he impose? Who knows why he publicly pushed Modi on the F-35 Lightning. May be he has bought stock in Lockheed! No US President has been so brazen in profiting from his office — it is almost refreshing! But he could go, equally, with the Viper or the Hornet. Whatever, India stands to be struck by Lightning or stung by the Viper/Hornet, and guess what gets hurt? Yep, the indigenous Tejas Mk 1A, Mk 2, and the advanced medium combat aircraft. The country cannot afford to buy yet another lot of foreign aircraft and, at the same time, develop and fly the Indian-designed, home-made Tejas family of fighter aircraft that could be the backbone of the country’s defence industry into the future. It can have one or the other. Oh, yes, we have all heard IAF Chiefs crying crocodile tears over Tejas and how it is so dear to the service’s heart, how much it is committed to it, etc, etc. But, how, only for the nonce, the option of buying an imported combat aircraft off the shelf and assembling the balance of the requirement in India — preferably by private sector companies, will strenghten the Indian defence industry that, regretfully, cannot be avoided! It is a practised line that has been dutifully voiced by all CASs after PC Lal in the early 1970s. It was Lal who offered this explanation for choosing to kill off the advanced successor — the HF-71/72 to the HF-24 Marut, just so he could buy the British Jaguar. The Marut was created by the legendary World War Two Focke-Wulfe designer of the main Luftwaffe fighter FW109, Dr. Kurt Tank. The HF-71/72 was the product of the uber-talented Dr. Raj Mahindra, who resigned from HAL after IAF chose Jaguar, and with him into oblivion went the last purely Indian designed combat aircraft until the Tejas. The irony was IAF pilots flying the Jaguar vouched for the HF-24 as the better, more stable, low level strike aircraft! That tragedy is endlessly repeated by the institutionalised shortsightedness of the IAF. The current chief, AP Singh, the former chief test pilot in the Tejas programme, and his successors, may end up doing to the Tejas 1A, 2, AMCA what Lal did to the HF-71, except it will be death by a thousand cuts. Meanwhile, the usual kind of defence minister — a military-wise illiterate, will read from whatever script is given him, and from one end of his mouth praise Tejas and, from the other end of his mouth, talk of meeting the “urgent” need of the IAF with imports. Jai Ho, Atm Nirbhar Bharat!!

Russia and the US made “three steps forward” after two days of consultations in Washington

Posted inRussia
Russian president’s Special Representative on investment and economic cooperation Kirill Dmitriev had two days of consultations with US administration officials, Washington, DC, April 3, 2025 The visit by the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund and special representative of the Russian president for investment and economic cooperation Kirill Dmitriev to Washington on April 2-3, the first such visit by a senior Kremlin official since 2022, appears to have been a modest achievement whose productive outcome will be crucial in the rest of US-Russia relations.  If President Vladimir Putin’s choice fell on Dmitriev for such a hugely important pathbreaking mission, that has been for sound reasons. An enduring settlement in Ukraine hinges on the stabilisation of the Russian-American ties which is deeply flawed due to the meagre content of it in substance.  Putin and US President Donald Trump share a conviction that the latter’s MAGA project offers a rare window of opportunity to couple Russia’s vast resources with the regeneration of the American economy in a new order where geopolitics will no longer be the pivot.  In a historical perspective, this involves a formidable challenge insofar as it is nothing short of the rollback of a century of adversarial mindset, on both sides, that began in the period 1918-1920 when the US, Britain, France, and Japan sent thousands of troops from the Baltics to northern Russia to Siberia to Crimea—and despatched massive millions of financial aid and military supplies to the anti-communist White Russians—in an abortive attempt to strangle Bolshevism in its crib.  The Biden administration had already sanctioned Dmitriev after spotting him as “a known Putin ally.” But Trump sees that fatal flaw in Dmitriev’s DNA as actually qualifying him to be an excellent counterpart to his own special envoy Steve Witkoff, the billionaire businessman and close friend of the US president. Dmitriev is a former banker who studied at Stanford and Harvard and worked at McKinsey and Goldman and is familiar with the ways of Wall Street where he has old friends and associates. White House appreciated Dmitriev’s role in the release of the American prisoner Marc Fogel in February in a deal negotiated by Witkoff.  Unsurprisingly, “key members of the US administration” received Dmitriev, including Witkoff. Dmitriev’s posts in the social media have been in an upbeat tone, signalling that at the very least, the nascent US-Russian dialogue is on track. The Russian reports mentioned that Dmitriev’s agenda included the possibility of resumption of direct flights between the two countries, the stalled ceasefire in Ukraine, and, importantly, cooperation in the Arctic as well as in rare earths.  Meanwhile, in a significant gesture, even as Dmitriev hit the ground in DC, Trump left out Russia from the list of countries against which new tariffs were announced on “Liberation Day” (April 2).  Equally, it transpires that American companies have applied for participation in the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) due to be held in St. Petersburg on May 19-20. Traditionally, Putin personally interacts with the foreign participants in the SPIEF event.  Dmitriev took stock of all this probably when he told reporters in DC  that his meetings with administration officials constituted a step forward. “I would say that today and yesterday we made three steps forward on a large number of issues,” Dmitriev pointed out. He acknowledged that issues have been piling up for three years, as there was virtually no communication between Russia and the US. “Therefore, the process of dialogue, the process of resolution will take some time, but it is definitely positive and constructive,” he said.  Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov hinted on Friday that the forthcoming second round of discussions between the Russian and US delegations will focus on simplifying the visa process, improving the mechanisms of mutual travel and resolving issues of financial transfers for diplomatic missions. To be sure, the elephant in the room is the West’s “sanctions from hell” against Russia. Even an affectionate  tweak of sanctions for Russia’s exports of agricultural products and fertiliser meets with resistance from the European Union.          The Russian-American dialogue continues to face attempts at sabotage by Ukraine and the EU as well as certain groups within the US who simply do not want any normalisation with Russia, including  influential lawmakers such as Senator Lindsey Graham who is otherwise a staunch political supporter of Trump.   While in DC, Dmitriev remarked that “numerous forces interested in maintaining tension” stand in the way of restoring dialogue. He said they deliberately distort Russia’s position and try to disrupt any steps towards US-Russia cooperation, “sparing neither money nor resources for this.” (See a vicious attack on Dmitriev’s visit by the CNN here.)  The Ukrainian leadership sees the US-Russia negotiations as posing an existential threat. Their belligerence and attempts to sabotage the negotiation process are directly linked to their main agenda of willy-nilly retaining the levers of power in Kiev.  Against such heavy odds, it is appreciable that Washington and Moscow are still on the ball in regard of the full restoration of the functioning of diplomatic missions — although the negotiations on the Black Sea Initiative at the recent Riyadh meeting are on hold.  On the other hand, at the last summit of European leaders a week ago, rare calls were heard for the EU to reach out to Russia for dialogue. The Finnish President Alexander Stubb suggested that France or Britain should enter into negotiations with Putin. Slovakia and Hungary have traditionally advocated such a pathway.  This kite-flying is an important enough signal that the matrix may no longer be seen in binary terms — as confrontation between the West and Russia — but creeping toward a modus operandi of  “every man for himself.” If Europe sees that sanctions continue to harm the EU itself, it is possible that they will reconsider old positions. The point is, the ice may break any moment.  In the final analysis, the US remains a significant economic player in the transatlantic grid and the western system including the EU, functions as Washington’s creation, and the Trump administration is capable of exerting pressure on Brussels.  Therefore, the question narrows down to how far Trump’s team shares the president’s vision of friendship and camaraderie with Putin at a personal level and a constructive engagement by the erstwhile rivals in a spirit of cooperation. To a keen observer, Secretary of State Marco Rubio  who harbours presidential ambitions, already seems the odd man out.  Indeed, despite the change of administration, some US government officials, even from the Republican Party, are still opposed to dialogue. Maybe their tone has softened a bit but there’s no sign yet of ‘new thinking’. All these are disturbing signs that a full-fledged Russian-American détente remains a long haul.  Above all, as if the Russia policy shift is not complicated enough, Trump has also got to grapple with the Iran question where a deadline is expected by October and a spectre of confrontation haunts both Washington and Iran unless a deal appears in the next 3-4 months.  But then, “Sweet are the uses of adversity, which, like the toad, ugly and venomous, wears yet a precious jewel in his head.” Adversity, as Shakespeare suggested, often conceals valuable lessons and opportunities for growth. Even in challenging times, there is wisdom to be gained and strength to be found.  The ‘known known’ is that Putin commands immense respect in Tehran. And the ‘known unknown’ is, how far Russia can help in a mediatory mission to wrap up a US-Iran deal. Put differently, the ‘unknown unknown’ is, will Trump seek Putin’s helping hand?  Anything is possible in Trump’s revolutionary mind. After all, the administration has stopped demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria. This tendentious item is missing from Washington’s new list of conditions for the authorities in Damascus.