atmanirbharta – Air Marshal's Perspective

April 13, 2025

646: PRECISION FROM AFAR: INDIA’S GLIDE BOMBS AND THE CHANGING FACE OF WARFARE

My Article was published on the EurasianTimes Website

on 13 April 25.

In early April 2025, India successfully tested two indigenously developed glide bombs. The first, Long-Range Glide Bomb (LRGB) named “Gaurav,” was tested between April 8 and 10, 2025, from a Sukhoi Su-30 MKI fighter jet of the Indian Air Force (IAF). This 1,000-kg class bomb, designed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in collaboration with Research Centre Imarat, Armament Research and Development Establishment, and Integrated Test Range, Chandipur, demonstrated a range close to 100 kilometers with pinpoint accuracy. The trials involved multiple warhead configurations and targeted a land-based site on an island, paving the way for its induction into the IAF. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and DRDO Chairman Dr. Samir V. Kamat praised the achievement, highlighting its role in enhancing India’s standoff strike capabilities and self-reliance in defence technology.

The second was the lightweight “Glide” bomb, called the SAAW (Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon), which the IAF and DRDO test-fired in Odisha. The SAAW is a lightweight, precision-guided bomb designed to target enemy airfields, runways, bunkers, and other reinforced structures at ranges up to 100 kilometers. Weighing approximately 125 kilograms, it features advanced guidance systems, including electro-optical sensors, for high accuracy. The weapon has been integrated with platforms like the Jaguar and Su-30 MKI, with plans to equip it on the Dassault Rafale and HAL Tejas MK1A. Three tests were carried out under varying release conditions and ranges, all successful. The DRDO Chairman announced that the SAAW is set for imminent induction into the armed forces, enhancing India’s precision-guided munitions arsenal.

These developments underscore India’s push toward indigenous defence solutions amid regional competition. Both bombs offer cost-effective, accurate, and standoff strike options to engage targets while keeping aircraft beyond enemy air defences. In the ever-evolving landscape of modern warfare, long-range glide bombs have emerged as a transformative technology, blending precision, affordability, and strategic flexibility. These munitions, designed to glide over extended distances to strike targets with pinpoint accuracy, have redefined how militaries project power, neutralise threats, and minimise risks to personnel and assets.

Long-Range Glide Bombs

Long-range glide bombs, sometimes called standoff glide munitions, are unpowered or minimally powered precision-guided weapons that rely on aerodynamic lift to travel extended distances after being released from an aircraft. Unlike traditional free-fall bombs, glide bombs have wings or fins that allow them to glide toward their target, often covering ranges from tens to hundreds of kilometers. They typically incorporate advanced guidance systems—such as GPS, inertial navigation, or laser homing—to ensure accuracy, even against moving or heavily defended targets.

The effectiveness of long-range glide bombs lies in their simplicity and adaptability. A typical glide bomb consists of several key components:-

- Warhead. The explosive payload can range from 100 kilograms to over a ton, depending on the target. Warheads may be high-explosive, bunker-busting, or fragmentation-based.

- Guidance System. Most glide bombs use a combination of GPS and inertial navigation for all-weather accuracy. Some advanced models incorporate laser or infrared seekers for terminal guidance, enabling strikes on moving targets.

- Aerodynamic Surfaces. Foldable wings or fins provide lift, allowing the bomb to glide efficiently. The glide ratio—distance travelled per unit of altitude lost—determines the weapon’s range.

- Control Unit. An onboard computer processes navigation data and adjusts control surfaces to keep the bomb on course.

When deployed, a glide bomb is released at a high altitude (typically 30,000–40,000 feet) and high speed. The launch aircraft’s momentum and altitude provide the initial energy, while the bomb’s wings extend to maximise the glide distance. As it descends, the guidance system corrects its trajectory, ensuring it hits within meters of the intended target. Some systems, like the U.S.’s Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) GBU-39, can achieve ranges exceeding 100 kilometers under optimal conditions.

These munitions bridge the gap between conventional bombs and cruise missiles. While cruise missiles are self-propelled and highly autonomous, they are expensive and complex. Glide bombs, by contrast, are more cost-effective.

Historical Context and Global Developments

The concept of glide bombs dates back to World War II, with early examples like Germany’s Fritz-X, a radio-guided bomb used to attack ships. However, these primitive weapons lacked the range and precision of modern systems. The development of long-range glide bombs gained momentum in the late 20th century as advancements in electronics, aerodynamics, and satellite navigation enabled greater accuracy and standoff capabilities.

The U.S. military’s Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) program, introduced in the 1990s, marked a significant milestone. JDAM kits transform unguided “dumb” bombs into precision-guided munitions by adding tail fins and GPS guidance. While early JDAMs had limited range, subsequent variants like the JDAM-ER (Extended Range) incorporated foldable wings, extending their reach to over 70 kilometers. Other nations, including Russia, China, and European powers, have since developed their glide bomb systems, such as Russia’s KAB-500 series and China’s LS-6 precision-guided bombs.

Recent conflicts, particularly in Ukraine and the Middle East, have showcased the growing prominence of glide bombs. For example, Russia has extensively used glide bombs like the FAB-500-M62 with UMPK kits, allowing Su-34 and Su-35 aircraft to strike targets from beyond the reach of short-range air defences. Similarly, Western-supplied glide bombs, such as France’s AASM Hammer, have been employed by Ukraine to target Russian positions with high precision.

Strategic Advantages

Long-range glide bombs offer several strategic benefits that make them indispensable in modern warfare:-

- Standoff Capability. Gliding bombs allow aircraft to strike from beyond the range of enemy air defences, reducing the risk to pilots and platforms. This is particularly valuable against adversaries with sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems.

- Cost-Effectiveness. Compared to cruise missiles, which can cost millions per unit, glide bombs are far cheaper. For example, a JDAM-ER kit costs around $20,000–$40,000, making it a budget-friendly option for precision strikes.

- Versatility. Glide bombs can be tailored to various targets, from fortified bunkers to mobile convoys. Modular warheads and guidance systems allow militaries to adapt them for specific missions.

- Mass Deployment. Because they are relatively inexpensive and easy to produce, glide bombs can be used in large numbers to overwhelm defences or saturate key targets.

- Reduced Collateral Damage. Precision guidance minimises unintended destruction, making glide bombs suitable for urban environments or near civilian infrastructure.

Challenges and Limitations

Despite their advantages, long-range glide bombs are not without drawbacks. Their unpowered nature makes them dependent on the launch platform’s altitude and speed, limiting their range compared to powered missiles. Additionally, while GPS guidance is efficient, it can be disrupted by electronic jamming or spoofing, as seen in conflicts like Ukraine, where Russian forces have employed electronic warfare to degrade GPS-dependent munitions. Glide bombs are also vulnerable to advanced air defences if launched within the interceptors’ range. For instance, systems like the Patriot or S-400 can engage glide bombs at certain altitudes and distances.

Global Proliferation and Future Trends

The proliferation of long-range glide bombs is reshaping global military dynamics. Countries like India, Turkey, and South Korea are investing heavily in indigenous glide bomb programs. At the same time, non-state actors and smaller nations seek access to these technologies through exports or reverse-engineering. This democratisation of precision strike capability could complicate future conflicts, enabling asymmetric actors to challenge stronger adversaries.

Future advancements in artificial intelligence and autonomous navigation will likely enhance glide bomb capabilities. AI-driven guidance could allow bombs to adapt to jamming or dynamically select targets in real time. Hypersonic glide bombs, which combine high speed with extended range and are also under development, promise to blur the line between bombs and missiles further.

Conclusion

Strategically, glide bombs shift the balance between offense and defence. By enabling standoff strikes, they challenge traditional air defence paradigms, forcing adversaries to invest in more advanced countermeasures. This arms race could drive up military spending and destabilise regions already prone to conflict.

Long-range glide bombs represent a pivotal evolution in precision warfare, offering militaries a cost-effective, versatile, and low-risk means of projecting power. Their ability to strike from a distance accurately has made them a cornerstone of modern arsenals, from superpowers to emerging nations. However, their proliferation and potential for misuse underscore the need to consider their ethical and strategic implications carefully. As technology advances, glide bombs will likely play an even more significant role in shaping the battlefields of tomorrow, balancing destructive power with the promise of precision.

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

Link to the article on the website:-

Bomb, Missile Or A Fusion? India Turns To Long-Range Glide Bombs That Proved “Effective” In Ukraine War

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

References:–

Press Information Bureau (PIB), Government of India. “Successful Flight-Test of Indigenous Glide Bombs ‘Gaurav’ and ‘SAAW'”. PIB, April 11, 2025.

Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), “DRDO Conducts Successful Trials of ‘Gaurav’ and ‘SAAW’ Glide Bombs”, DRDO, April 10, 2025.

The Hindu, “India Successfully Tests Indigenous Glide Bombs ‘Gaurav’ and ‘SAAW'”, The Hindu, April 12, 2025.

Hindustan Times, “DRDO’s ‘Gaurav’ and ‘SAAW’ Glide Bombs Set for Induction into IAF”, Hindustan Times, April 12, 2025.
Livefist Defence, “Inside India’s Glide Bomb Program: ‘Gaurav’ and ‘SAAW’ Take Flight”, Livefist Defence, April 11, 2025.

Observer Research Foundation (ORF), “India’s Glide Bomb Advancements: Strategic Implications and Regional Dynamics”, ORF, April 2025.

Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), “Enhancing Precision Strike Capabilities: The Role of ‘Gaurav’ and ‘SAAW'”, IDSA, April 2025.

Jane’s Defence Weekly. “DRDO’s Gaurav and Gautham: India’s Smart Glide Bombs Take Shape.” Janes.com, August 2023.

IISS. “India’s Precision Strike Capabilities: Strategy and Deployment.” Strategic Dossier, International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2023.

Defence Decode. “Gaurav vs Gautham: Decoding India’s New Air-Launched Precision Bombs.” YouTube / Defence Decode Channel, March 2024.

RAND Corporation. “Emerging Military Technologies in South Asia: Glide Bombs and Beyond.” RAND Brief, 2023.

April 3, 2025April 2, 2025

637: THE GEOPOLITICS OF FIGHTER EXPORTS AND JOINT VENTURES

My Article was published on the Indus International Research Foundation Website on 02 April 25.

Fighter aircraft exports and development are more than commercial transactions or technological endeavours. Fighter exports and joint ventures serve as key instruments of statecraft, influencing alliances, shaping military doctrines, and reinforcing spheres of influence. Beyond economic interests, fighter exports often signal political alignment, with buyers and sellers engaging in long-term defence cooperation that extends beyond individual transactions. Complex negotiations usually accompany the sale of advanced fighter jets, offset agreements, and technology transfer arrangements, which carry significant diplomatic and security implications. The United States, Russia, China, and European powers dominate this space, but emerging players like India, South Korea, and Turkey increasingly assert themselves. There is a need to explore the multifaceted dimensions of fighter exports and joint ventures, analysing their impact on global security, economic interests, and diplomatic manoeuvring.

The Strategic Significance of Fighter Aircraft Development Programs

Fighter aircraft represent the apex of military aviation, integrating state-of-the-art engineering, advanced technology, and substantial financial investment. These platforms are key instruments in modern warfare, providing air superiority, precision ground attack capabilities, and deterrence. The strategic significance of fighter jets extends well beyond their battlefield utility, influencing geopolitical alignments, economic landscapes, and technological advancements.

Power Projection. The export and co-development of fighter aircraft significantly enhance a nation’s ability to project power beyond its borders. Supplying fighter jets to allies, an exporting nation extends its strategic reach, ensuring its influence in key regions. Nations with advanced fighter capabilities can assert dominance over contested airspace, deter potential adversaries, and support allied operations with force projection.

Alliance Building. Defence agreements involving fighter jets are instrumental in solidifying alliances. The procurement of these aircraft often necessitates long-term agreements that go beyond a simple arms transaction. Training programs, maintenance support, and logistical cooperation ensure sustained engagement between supplier and recipient nations. For instance, the U.S. sale of F-35 fighters to NATO allies strengthens collective defence, while India’s collaboration with France on the Rafale program deepens bilateral ties.

Economic Impact. Fighter aircraft programs play a crucial role in economic development for exporting and recipient nations. Manufacturing these sophisticated platforms generates high-skilled jobs, fosters technological innovation, and stimulates the defence industry. For importing nations, participation in joint ventures or localised production can help build a domestic aerospace sector, reducing long-term dependence on foreign suppliers and fostering economic self-reliance.

Technological Sharing. Collaborative fighter programs provide an avenue for technological transfer, enabling recipient nations to develop indigenous capabilities. By engaging in co-development projects, such as India’s involvement with Russia on the Su-30MKI or Japan’s partnership with the U.K. and Italy on the next-generation fighter program, nations acquire critical knowledge in avionics, stealth technology, and aerospace engineering. This reduces reliance on foreign manufacturers and strengthens national security.

Geopolitical Dimensions of Fighter Exports

Fighter aircraft exports are deeply intertwined with the geopolitical strategies of major military powers. Beyond economic gains, these transactions serve as instruments of influence, shaping alliances, regional security dynamics, and global power structures. Exporting fighters enables nations to strengthen partnerships, enforce strategic conditions, and maintain regional balances of power.

Exporting Influence. Fighter aircraft exports are often tied to the exporting nation’s broader geopolitical objectives. The U.S. dominates global fighter exports, offering aircraft such as the F-16, F-15, and F-35. These sales typically include conditions that align recipient nations with U.S. strategic goals, such as interoperability with NATO forces and adherence to U.S.-led arms control policies. For example, selling F-35 fighters to NATO allies and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states strengthens collective security frameworks and reinforces U.S. influence in these regions. On the other hand, Russian fighter exports, including the Su-30, Su-35, and MiG-29, play a crucial role in Moscow’s foreign policy. Russia leverages these sales to sustain its geopolitical clout in South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. India’s long-standing acquisition of Su-30MKI fighters exemplifies this strategic relationship, ensuring continued defence cooperation between the two nations. China is emerging as a formidable player in the fighter export market. The JF-17 Thunder, co-developed with Pakistan, exemplifies Beijing’s ambitions to challenge U.S. and Russian dominance. With its affordability and modularity, the JF-17 has gained traction among developing nations seeking capable yet cost-effective fighter platforms.

Export Restrictions and Conditionality. Exporting nations often impose restrictions to safeguard their strategic interests and limit the recipient’s operational autonomy. Exporting nations usually restrict access to critical fighter technologies to prevent potential adversaries from gaining sensitive capabilities. This limitation affects recipient nations that seek to develop indigenous aerospace industries but must navigate restrictions on advanced avionics, stealth technology, and weapon systems. The U.S. enforces strict end-user agreements to regulate how exported fighters are used and resold. For instance, Turkey’s removal from the F-35 program following its purchase of Russia’s S-400 air defence system underscores the geopolitical stakes of such agreements.

Regional Balance of Power. Fighter aircraft exports significantly influence regional security landscapes. Exporting nations frequently calibrate their sales to maintain a delicate balance and prevent regional destabilisation. The U.S. sells advanced fighters like the F-15 and F-35 to Saudi Arabia and Israel. While supporting GCC states against Iran, Washington ensures that Israel retains a qualitative military edge through exclusive access to superior variants and additional defence systems. Russia’s fighter sales to India and China highlight its efforts to balance relationships with two regional powers with a complex strategic rivalry. By equipping both nations with advanced aircraft, Moscow maintains leverage while preventing either from becoming overly dependent on Western defence suppliers.

Joint Ventures: A Collaborative Approach.

Joint ventures in fighter aircraft development represent a strategic approach to balancing technological advancement, economic efficiency, and national security interests. Participating nations can foster technological independence by sharing costs, risks, and expertise while strengthening geopolitical alliances. These collaborations play a crucial role in shaping the global defence landscape.

Technology Sharing and Sovereignty. Joint fighter development programs enable nations to develop cutting-edge aircraft while enhancing domestic aerospace capabilities. Notable examples include. A collaboration between Germany, the UK, Italy, and Spain, the Eurofighter Typhoon exemplifies how nations can pool resources to produce a world-class multirole fighter. The program has enhanced European defence capabilities and reinforced industrial cooperation among partner nations. A joint project between Pakistan and China, the JF-17 Thunder allowed Pakistan to develop an affordable and capable fighter while gaining valuable experience in aircraft manufacturing. This partnership has strengthened Pakistan’s aerospace industry, reducing reliance on Western suppliers.

Geopolitical Complications. Despite their advantages, joint ventures are often complex and fraught with challenges. Competing interests among partner nations can lead to inefficiencies, delays, and disputes over work share. For instance, the Eurofighter program experienced significant delays due to disagreements over each partner’s production priorities and technological contributions. Nations involved in joint ventures may have differing operational requirements or export policies, leading to complications in decision-making. Varying national security interests can hinder smooth cooperation and affect the program’s long-term success.

Emerging Collaborations. New joint ventures reflect the evolving nature of global defence partnerships and the push for technological superiority. A Franco-German-Spanish initiative aimed at developing a 6th-generation fighter, FCAS underscores Europe’s desire for strategic autonomy in military aviation. The program will integrate next-generation technologies such as AI, stealth, and advanced networking capabilities. Led by the UK in collaboration with Italy and Japan, the Tempest program highlights the growing trend of non-U.S. defence collaborations. This initiative aims to develop a highly advanced fighter with state-of-the-art avionics, weaponry, and data fusion technologies, demonstrating a shift in defence cooperation beyond traditional alliances.

Challenges in Fighter Exports and Joint Ventures

Exporting fighter aircraft and international joint ventures in military aviation face significant challenges. These range from economic constraints and technological dependencies to political risks and intense competition. Each of these factors shapes the global fighter aircraft market and influences the success of such programs.

Economic Constraints. Modern fighter jets are prohibitively expensive, limiting their affordability for many nations. A single advanced multirole fighter can cost tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, not including operational and maintenance expenses. Exporters often offer financing options, leasing arrangements, or government-backed subsidies to mitigate this. However, these financial mechanisms can strain national budgets and face domestic political scrutiny. For instance, India’s procurement of Dassault Rafale jets from France was marred by alleged controversy over pricing, alleged favouritism, and offset agreements. Such economic considerations can delay or cancel deals, affecting both export and importers.

Technological Dependencies. Fighter aircraft exports often create long-term dependencies on the supplying nation for maintenance, spare parts, and upgrades. This dependence extends to software updates, weapons integration, and operational training. The geopolitical implications of such dependencies can be significant, as the exporter retains leverage over the recipient. For example, many nations operating American-made fighters must seek U.S. approval for upgrades or modifications, restricting their operational autonomy. Similarly, India’s reliance on Russian aircraft like the Su-30MKI has led to logistical challenges due to The Russia-Ukraine war and Western sanctions on Russia, disrupting the supply of critical components.

Political Risks. Defence cooperation and fighter exports are susceptible to shifts in political leadership and international alliances. Changes in foreign policy or diplomatic disputes can abruptly halt ongoing programs. The United States’ decision to exclude Turkey from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program after Ankara purchased the Russian S-400 missile system exemplifies how political disagreements impact military collaboration. Such disruptions affect the purchasing nation and have economic and strategic consequences for the supplier.

Export Competition. The global fighter jet market is fiercely competitive, with the U.S., Russia, China, and France among the key players. Nations engage in aggressive marketing, offering attractive offset deals, technology transfers, and financing packages to secure contracts. The competition is further intensified by geopolitical alignments, with countries often choosing suppliers based on broader strategic partnerships rather than purely technical or economic factors. Fighter exports are highly competitive, with nations like the U.S., Russia, China, and France vying for market dominance. This competition can lead to aggressive marketing tactics and the provision of offset deals to sweeten contracts.

The Future of Fighter Exports and Joint Ventures

The landscape of fighter exports and joint ventures is set to evolve significantly, driven by technological advancements, the rise of new defence players, and shifting geopolitical dynamics.

Sixth-Generation Fighters. The development of sixth-generation fighters will reshape the geopolitics of fighter exports. Nations investing in advanced capabilities such as artificial intelligence, stealth, and directed-energy weapons will dominate future markets. Programs like NGAD (U.S.), FCAS (Europe), Tempest (UK-Japan-Italy), and the HAL CATS Program highlight the race to define the next generation of air power. These aircraft will demand extensive collaboration and significant financial investments, potentially altering traditional supplier-recipient relationships.

Regional Players. Emerging defence producers like South Korea (KF-21 Boramae) and India (Tejas MK2, AMCA) are entering the global market, challenging established exporters. These nations aim to reduce reliance on imports while expanding their geopolitical influence through exports. Their ability to offer cost-effective alternatives and localised production incentives could shift market dynamics and disrupt the dominance of traditional suppliers like the U.S., Russia, and France.

Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs). The growing adoption of UCAVs presents a parallel trend in fighter exports. Nations like Turkey (Bayraktar TB2) and Israel (Heron, Harop) have already established themselves as leaders in this field, with significant geopolitical implications. As unmanned systems become more capable and cost-effective, they may replace or complement traditional manned fighters, leading to a worldwide shift in defence procurement strategies.

Realignments. As global power shifts, fighter exports and joint ventures reflect new alliances and rivalries. The U.S.-China competition, the rise of multipolarity, and regional conflicts will shape the market’s future dynamics. Countries will increasingly seek defence partnerships that align with their strategic interests, making flexibility and technology-sharing critical for successful export programs.

Conclusion

The geopolitics of fighter exports and joint ventures is a multifaceted domain where technology, economics, and strategy converge. As nations pursue advanced capabilities and seek to bolster their influence, fighter programs will continue to serve as instruments of diplomacy, deterrence, and power projection. The interplay of competition and collaboration in this field will shape the future of airpower and the broader contours of international relations.

Please Do Comment.

Link to the article on the website:-

The Geopolitics of Fighter Exports and Joint Ventures

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

References:-

Bitzinger, R. A. (2008). “The Global Arms Trade: The Shifting Strategic Landscape.” Survival, 50(2), 55-68.

Eriksson, M. (2021). “The Mirage of European Defence Autonomy: Fighter Jet Collaboration and Transatlantic Tensions.” Journal of Strategic Studies, 44(5), 767-789.

Gilli, A., & Gilli, M. (2019). “Why China Has Not Caught Up Yet: Military-Technological Superiority and the Limits of Imitation, Reverse Engineering, and Cyber Espionage.” International Security, 43(3), 141-189.

Taylor, T. (2013). “Offsets, Technology Transfer, and Defense Industrialization: The Case of India’s Fighter Jet Programs.” Defense & Peace Economics, 24(5), 453-472.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). (2024). Trends in International Arms Transfers.

European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS). (2023). The Future of European Fighter Jet Collaboration: FCAS vs. Tempest.

Indian Ministry of Defence. (2023). Defence Production and Export Policy 2023.

China’s State Administration for Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense (SASTIND). (2023). China’s Defense Industrial Reforms and Export Strategies.

The Diplomat. (2023). “China’s Fighter Jet Exports: How JF-17 and FC-31 Are Changing the Market.”

Hartley, K. (2014). The Economics of Defence Policy: A New Perspective. Routledge.

Bitzinger, R. A. (2017). Arming Asia: Technonationalism and the Dynamics of Defence Industrialization. Routledge.

Sapolsky, H. M., Gholz, E., & Kaufman, A. (2009). US Defense Politics: The Origins of Security Policy. Routledge.

March 24, 2025March 24, 2025

627: INVOLVEMENT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN INDIAN FIGHTER JET PRODUCTION

My Article published on the Chanakya Forum Website

on 24 Mar 25.

A recent Indian defence committee has recommended increasing private sector participation in military aircraft manufacturing to enhance the Indian Air Force’s capabilities. The committee, led by the defence ministry’s top bureaucrat, submitted its report to Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, who has directed that the recommendations be implemented promptly. The report emphasises the need for private companies to work alongside Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs) and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to achieve self-reliance in aerospace manufacturing. It suggests implementing short-, medium–, and long-term measures to expedite the production of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) variants, including Mk-1, Mk-1A, and Mk-2, to address delays and strengthen the IAF’s operational readiness.

India’s aerospace and defence sector has undergone significant transformation in recent decades, evolving from a predominantly state-controlled domain to increasingly embracing private sector participation. Fighter jet production, a critical component of national defence, has traditionally been the preserve of public sector undertakings (PSUs) like Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, with the government’s push for indigenisation, self-reliance, and modernisation under initiatives like “Make in India,” the private sector is emerging as a vital player in this high-stakes industry. This article examines the intricacies of how private companies contribute to India’s defence capabilities and what lies ahead for this evolving partnership.

Historical Context

India’s journey into fighter jet production began in the mid-20th century, heavily reliant on foreign technology and licensing agreements. The 1960s saw HAL commence production of the Soviet-designed MiG-21 under license, marking the start of India’s aircraft manufacturing journey. Over the years, HAL expanded its portfolio, producing aircraft like the Jaguar, Mirage 2000, and Su-30 MKI, all under similar arrangements with foreign OEMs. These efforts established HAL as the cornerstone of India’s defence aviation industry, supported by other PSUs and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).

The push for Indigenous fighter jet development gained momentum with the HF-24 Marut, designed by German engineer Kurt Tank in the 1960s. However, the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas program, initiated in the 1980s by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) with HAL as the production partner, represented a significant leap towards self-reliance. The Tejas, inducted into the Indian Air Force (IAF) in 2016, showcased India’s ability to design and build a modern fighter jet, albeit with substantial reliance on imported components.

Historically, private sector involvement in fighter jet production was minimal. The defence sector’s strategic importance, high capital requirements and restricted access to advanced technology confined manufacturing to PSUs. While effective in establishing a foundational aerospace industry, this PSU-centric model faced limitations in scalability, innovation, and meeting the IAF’s growing demands, setting the stage for private sector inclusion.

Policy Changes Enabling Private Sector Participation

A series of progressive policy reforms have driven the shift towards private sector involvement in defence manufacturing, including fighter jets. Launched in 2014, the “Make in India” initiative sought to bolster domestic manufacturing and reduce import dependency, with defence identified as a priority sector. This program encouraged private companies to participate in defence production by fostering a conducive business environment and promoting collaborations with global players.

A pivotal policy change was the liberalisation of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in defence. Previously capped at 26%, the FDI limit was raised to 74% under the automatic route in 2020, with provisions for up to 100% on a case-by-case basis for critical technologies. This opened doors for foreign OEMs to invest in India, often in partnership with private Indian firms, facilitating technology transfer and capacity building.

The Strategic Partnership (SP) Model, introduced in the 2017 Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP), marked another milestone. Designed to foster long-term collaborations between private Indian companies and foreign OEMs, the SP Model identifies private firms as Strategic Partners in manufacturing major defence platforms, including fighter aircraft. The selection process emphasises financial stability, technical expertise, and manufacturing capabilities to create a robust domestic defence industrial base.

Revisions to the DPP further supported this shift. The DPP 2016 introduced the “Buy (Indian-IDDM)” category—Indigenously Designed, Developed, and Manufactured—prioritising equipment with at least 40% Indigenous content. Offset clauses in defence contracts, mandating foreign vendors to invest a percentage of the contract value in India, have also incentivised partnerships with private companies. These policies collectively signal a departure from the PSU monopoly, inviting private sector innovation and investment.

Current Involvement of the Private Sector

The private sector’s role in Indian fighter jet production is multifaceted, spanning manufacturing, supply chain contributions, and support services. While HAL remains the primary assembler of fighter jets like the Tejas, private companies are increasingly integrated into the production ecosystem.

Supply Chain Contributions. In the Tejas program, private firms supply critical components and sub-systems. Dynamatic Technologies, for instance, manufactures the front fuselage of the Tejas, demonstrating the precision and reliability private players can offer. Larsen & Toubro (L&T) contributes to various aerospace projects, leveraging its engineering expertise, while Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) participates in component manufacturing and assembly processes. These collaborations reduce HAL’s burden and enhance production efficiency, paving the way for a more robust and agile production ecosystem.

Offset Obligations. Major defence deals have catalysed private sector involvement. The 2016 Rafale deal with France’s Dassault Aviation, involving 36 fighter jets, included offsets worth billions. Reliance Defence and Engineering partnered with Dassault to fulfil these obligations, producing components and establishing a manufacturing facility in Nagpur. Such partnerships generate business for private firms, facilitating skill development and technology absorption.

Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO). Beyond production, private companies are making inroads into MRO services, which are essential for maintaining fighter jet fleets. TASL has established advanced MRO facilities that service military and civilian aircraft, while Mahindra Defence Systems supports aerospace equipment. These services ensure operational readiness, a critical factor given the IAF’s ageing fleet.

Emerging Technologies. Some private firms are exploring adjacent fields like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Companies like TASL and Adani Defence & Aerospace are developing drones and building aerospace expertise that could eventually support fighter jet programs. While UAVs differ from manned fighters, the technological overlap strengthens the private sector’s aerospace capabilities.

Technology Transfer and Innovation. Technology transfer remains a cornerstone of private sector growth. Collaborations with foreign OEMs provide access to advanced systems, such as radar and propulsion technologies, while joint ventures encourage co-development. Private firms also invest in innovation, exploring additive manufacturing (3D printing) and artificial intelligence to streamline production and reduce costs. Over time, these efforts could lead to fully indigenous fighter jet designs.

Role of MSMEs. Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) are the backbone of the aerospace supply chain. These firms produce smaller components—fasteners, wiring harnesses, and sub-assemblies—supporting larger private companies and PSUs. By integrating MSMEs, the industry can enhance efficiency and scalability, fostering a broader industrial ecosystem and providing opportunities for growth and innovation.

Key Defence Production Private Companies. Several private companies have shown interest in participating in fighter jet manufacturing, either independently or in collaboration with HAL and foreign OEMs.

- Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) has emerged as a leader in India’s private aerospace sector. Its joint venture with Lockheed Martin to produce aero structures, including wings for the C-130J Super Hercules, showcases its manufacturing prowess. Although the F-16 production proposal did not materialise, TASL’s capabilities position it for future fighter jet projects.

- Mahindra Defence Systems. Mahindra has leveraged its automotive expertise to enter defence manufacturing, supplying aircraft components and expressing interest in the SP Model. Its partnership with Airbus for helicopter components reflects its ambition to expand into fighter jet production.

- Larsen & Toubro (L&T). L&T’s decades-long experience in defence engineering includes contributions to the Tejas and other platforms. Its advanced manufacturing facilities and focus on precision engineering make it a strong contender in aerospace production.

- Adani Defence & Aerospace. It aims to enhance India’s self-reliance in defence manufacturing. While active in UAVs, avionics, and MRO, it seeks partnerships for fighter jet production but lacks an indigenous fighter aircraft program.

Challenges Faced by Private Companies

Private companies face significant hurdles in entering fighter jet production despite growing involvement.

- High Capital Investment. Aerospace manufacturing demands substantial upfront investment in infrastructure, technology, and skilled manpower. The long gestation periods before returns materialise deter many firms, particularly more minor players.

- Technological Barriers. Fighter jet production requires mastery of complex technologies—avionics, propulsion, and materials science—that PSUs like HAL have developed over decades. Private companies often lack this expertise, relying on foreign partnerships that may limit technology transfer.

- Bureaucratic Procurement Processes. The defence procurement system is notoriously complex, with lengthy tendering, evaluation, and approval stages. This can discourage private firms accustomed to faster commercial cycles.

- Competition with PSUs. HAL’s entrenched position and government backing create an uneven playing field. Private companies must compete with HAL’s economies of scale and establish relationships with the IAF.

- Quality and Certification. Fighter jets demand uncompromising quality and safety standards. Private firms must navigate rigorous certification processes, such as those mandated by the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC), adding time and cost.

Future Prospects

The private sector’s role in Indian fighter jet production is set for significant expansion, driven by policy continuity, market demand, and technological advancements. Government initiatives such as Atmanirbhar Bharat and the Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) foster a stable investment climate, encouraging private firms to engage in aerospace manufacturing. Policy measures like strategic partnerships and increased foreign direct investment (FDI) limits further enhance private sector participation.

Market demand is another key driver. The Indian Air Force (IAF) is undergoing rapid modernisation, with plans to replace ageing aircraft and induct advanced fighters. Additionally, India’s ambition to become a defence exporter presents lucrative opportunities for private companies. Countries in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa could become potential buyers, bolstering the case for increased private production.

Technological advancements are also reshaping the industry. Additive manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and advanced materials reduce entry barriers and enable new players to contribute. Collaborations with global aerospace firms can further accelerate technology absorption.

However, for private firms to succeed, key enablers must be addressed. Streamlining procurement processes, enhancing R&D funding, and developing a skilled workforce are critical. Bureaucratic hurdles and financial constraints have historically hindered private participation, but targeted reforms could unlock their full potential. If these challenges are managed effectively, private companies could be pivotal in next-generation fighter projects like the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). This would strengthen India’s defence manufacturing ecosystem and enhance its strategic autonomy in aerospace technology.

Conclusion

The involvement of the private sector in Indian fighter jet production marks a paradigm shift from a PSU-dominated landscape to a collaborative ecosystem. While challenges like capital intensity and technological gaps persist, the opportunities—driven by policy reforms, IAF requirements, and global partnerships—are immense. Companies like TASL, Mahindra, and L&T exemplify the potential of private enterprises to enhance India’s defence capabilities. As the nation strives for self-reliance, the private sector’s role will be pivotal in shaping a robust, innovative, and competitive aerospace industry, ensuring that India’s fighter jets soar not just in the skies but also as symbols of industrial prowess and strategic autonomy.

Link to the article on the website:-

INVOLVEMENT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN INDIAN FIGHTER JET PRODUCTION

Please Do Comment.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

References:-

Singh, Abhijit. “Public-Private Partnership in Indian Defence Manufacturing: A Strategic Perspective.” Journal of Defence Studies, vol. 16, no. 2 (2023): 51-78.

Raghavan, Ramesh. “The Role of Private Companies in Defence Production: Lessons from Global Models.” Strategic Analysis, vol. 45, no. 1 (2022): 29-50.

Mehta, Sameer. “India’s Quest for Fighter Jet Autonomy: Challenges and Opportunities for the Private Sector.” Air Power Journal, vol. 17, no. 3 (2022): 12-35.

Sharma, Arvind. “HAL and the Evolving Role of Indian Private Defence Firms.” Journal of Defence Research and Development, vol. 19, no. 4 (2023): 88-105.

Kapoor, Deepak. India’s Defence Industry: Evolution, Challenges, and Prospects. Pentagon Press, 2021.

Chakrabarti, Rajesh. Defence Economics in India: The Transition to a Military-Industrial Complex. Oxford University Press, 2020.

Sinha, Rakesh. Privatisation and Defence Manufacturing in India: The Road Ahead. Routledge, 2019.

Pandit, Rajat. “HAL and the Private Sector: A New Era in Indian Fighter Jet Production.” The Times of India, March 10, 2023.

Peri, Dinakar. “Adani and Tata’s Role in India’s Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) Project.” The Hindu, August 12, 2023.

Unnithan, Sandeep. “How Private Players Are Transforming Indian Defence Manufacturing.” India Today, November 15, 2022.

Singh, Rahul. “India’s LCA Tejas and the Private Sector: The Growing Role of Private Industry in Aerospace.” Hindustan Times, July 20, 2023.

Mitra, Joydeep. “The Rafale Offset Deal: How Private Companies are Gaining from India’s Fighter Jet Deals.” Business Standard, September 25, 2023.

Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS). The Future of India’s Indigenous Fighter Jet Development: Role of Private Sector. CAPS Report No. 231, 2023.

Observer Research Foundation (ORF). Public-Private Collaboration in Indian Defence: Global Lessons and Local Challenges. ORF Special Report, 2022.

Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA). Self-Reliance in Indian Defence: Evaluating the Private Sector’s Role. IDSA Monograph No. 82, 2023.

Carnegie India. India’s Fighter Jet Ecosystem: Bridging the Capability Gap through Private Sector Involvement. New Delhi: Carnegie India, 2023.

Kumar, Rohit. “The Evolution of the Tejas Fighter Jet: Indigenous Capability and the Role of Private Sector.” Defence and Security Review, vol. 24, no. 3 (2022): 15-37.