Category: Military Capability

Posted on

613: INDIAN QUANDARY ABOUT PROCUREMENT OF FIFTH-GENERATION FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

 

My Article was Published in the Chanakya Diaries, Issue 2, Spring 2025.

 

The world of military aviation has witnessed a significant leap in technological advancements, particularly in developing fifth-generation fighter aircraft (5GFA). These next-generation fighter jets are equipped with stealth technology, advanced avionics, and superior weaponry, allowing them to operate in highly contested airspaces. As global military technologies advance, so does the need for air forces to adopt cutting-edge systems capable of responding to emerging threats. Acquisition of such advanced technologies is crucial for maintaining air superiority and securing national interests. However, India’s path to acquiring fifth-generation fighters has been filled with challenges, forcing the country into a quandary about securing these crucial assets for its Air Force. This article delves into India’s dilemma regarding 5th-gen fighter jets, exploring the complexities of the decision-making process, the challenges posed by current defence procurements, and the country’s broader defence and geopolitical considerations.

 

Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft

Fifth-generation fighter aircraft represent the pinnacle of modern military aviation, incorporating cutting-edge stealth, advanced avionics, superior manoeuvrability, and network-centric warfare capabilities. These aircraft are designed to achieve air superiority while minimising detection through radar-evading features such as internal weapons bays, composite materials, and aerodynamic shaping. Notable examples include the U.S. F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, China’s J-20, and Russia’s Su-57. Unlike previous generations, fifth-generation fighters rely on sensor fusion, artificial intelligence-assisted decision-making, and high-capacity data links to dominate the battle-space. Their integrated avionics provide pilots with unparalleled situational awareness, allowing seamless coordination with other forces and unmanned systems. High-thrust engines with supercruise capability enable sustained supersonic speeds without afterburners, enhancing operational range and fuel efficiency. Furthermore, their electronic warfare and cyber capabilities allow them to disrupt enemy communications and radar systems. While these aircraft offer unmatched lethality and survivability, their complexity and cost present production, maintenance, and procurement challenges. Nations investing in fifth-generation fighters seek battlefield dominance and strategic deterrence, as control of the skies remains a decisive factor in modern warfare. As military technology advances, these fighters continue to evolve, shaping the future of aerial combat.

 

IAF Challenges and Necessities

Prevailing Challenges. India is a major regional player, and due to its unique geographical location and geo-political environment, it faces a collusive threat (from its two nuclear-powered unfriendly neighbours) with significant chances of military conflict. This unique position dictates that the country be able to deter her hostile neighbours from any military misadventure singly or collusively. Besides land borders being the main reason for the dispute, the security of the IOR region would also be a major security necessity. IAF would be required to offer options to meet India’s domestic and regional security requirements.

Air Threat. For a considerable time, the IAF enjoyed an edge in modern combat aircraft over its rivals – the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) and the Pakistan Air Force (PAF). This situation is changing with the PLAAF transformation, China’s investment in aerospace research and development, and aircraft manufacturing. China has inducted its two home-grown stealth fighters (J-20 and J-31) in large numbers and has already flown sixth-generation prototypes. Pakistan continues to be in collusion with China. PAF has inducted Chinese J-10 and JF-17 aircraft and has desired to induct Chinese fifth-generation aircraft.

Urgent Necessity. The Indian Air Force’s current strength is significantly below its sanctioned level. Its indigenous development of fourth—and fifth-generation aircraft faces technological hurdles and time delays. In the face of prevailing challenges, India cannot afford to lag in its military capability. The impending air threat from China and Pakistan has made the acquisition of fifth-generation fighters an urgent and necessary priority to enhance the IAF’s deterrence value.

 

Acquisition Efforts

Collaborative Effort. India’s journey toward acquiring fifth-generation fighter aircraft began with an ambitious collaboration with Russia. In 2007, India partnered with Russia to co-develop the Su-57, also known as the T-50 or PAK-FA. This project was expected to yield a fifth-generation fighter with advanced stealth capabilities and cutting-edge avionics, making it a crucial addition to India’s fleet. While India’s collaboration with Russia began with great optimism, several issues soon emerged related to cost overruns, development delays, and technological shortcomings, leading to re-evaluating the program. 2018, after years of joint research and development, India decided to pull out of the Su-57 program, marking a pivotal moment in its fifth-generation fighter aspirations. The decision left India searching for alternative solutions.

MRFA Acquisition. The history of India’s Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) acquisition effort is marked by ambitious plans and evolving defence strategies to modernise the IAF’s fighter fleet. The origins of the MRFA initiative can be traced back to the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender issued in 2007, which sought to acquire 126 fighter jets to replace the ageing MiG-21 fleet. After extensive evaluations and trials, the Dassault Rafale emerged as the preferred choice in 2012; however, contractual disagreements and cost escalations led to the eventual scrapping of the deal in 2015. In its place, the Indian government opted for a government-to-government deal to procure 36 Rafale jets in 2016 to meet urgent operational needs. The failure of the MMRCA tender to materialise in its original form highlighted the complexities involved in large-scale defence procurements, including cost considerations, technology transfer requirements, and offset agreements. In response to these challenges, the IAF redefined its requirements and reinitiated the procurement process under the MRFA program in 2019. The renewed effort sought to leverage lessons learned from the previous tender while emphasising indigenisation and the development of India’s defence manufacturing capabilities under the ‘Make in India’ initiative. Unlike its predecessor, the MRFA acquisition focuses more on domestic production, requiring foreign vendors to collaborate with Indian defence firms to establish local assembly lines and facilitate technology transfers.

Overview of the MRFA Acquisition Program. The MRFA acquisition program is a critical initiative by the Indian Air Force to acquire 114 advanced multi-role fighter jets to enhance its operational capabilities and replace its ageing fleet of legacy aircraft. Under MRFA, the IAF aims to procure state-of-the-art fighters that can undertake various combat roles, including air superiority, ground attack, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare, ensuring dominance in modern warfare scenarios. The MRFA acquisition process is structured under the ‘Make in India’ initiative, emphasising indigenous production and technology transfer to boost the domestic defence industry. The IAF issued a global Request for Information (RFI) in 2019, inviting proposals from major aircraft manufacturers worldwide. The procurement is expected under the Strategic Partnership (SP) model, which involves collaboration between foreign Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) and Indian defence firms. This collaboration required establishing production lines within the country and transferring critical technologies, reducing import dependency and promoting self-reliance in the defence sector.  One of the essential requirements outlined by the IAF in the MRFA tender is the transfer of technology (ToT), which will allow Indian defence companies to gain technical expertise in aircraft manufacturing, maintenance, and future upgrades. The current situation stresses the inclusion of fifth-generation aircraft in the acquisition plans.

Domestic Solution: AMCA. India has pursued an indigenous solution to its 5th-gen fighter needs through the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). The AMCA is being developed by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) under the Indian Ministry of Defence. It is intended to be a 5th-gen fighter with advanced stealth technology, super-cruise capabilities, and cutting-edge avionics. While the AMCA represents a step toward self-reliance and is seen as a critical component of India’s long-term military strategy, several challenges are associated with its development. The development of the AMCA has faced numerous delays. Initially slated for entry into service by the mid-2020s, it is now expected to enter service closer to the late 2030s. The project also faces significant technological challenges in developing a fighter of this sophistication. While progress is being made, achieving the same level of performance and stealth as the F-35 or Su-57 remains a formidable task.

Choices and Possibilities. Both the U.S. and Russia are aggressively pitching their fifth-generation aircraft. Besides outright purchase, India may explore collaboration and joint development programs or technology transfers (Stealth, Aero-engines and advanced avionics) that accelerate AMCA’s timeline.  Limited acquisitions of F-35s or Su-57s focusing on training and operational familiarity while ensuring that AMCA remains the primary focus are also possible options.

 

The Foreign Procurement Dilemma

Given the delays and challenges of Indigenous development, India has to explore foreign procurement options for fifth-generation fighter jets. The United States, with its F-35 Lightning II and the Russian SU-57, has emerged as a potential source of these advanced aircraft. However, several geopolitical, diplomatic, and technical barriers complicate purchasing these aircraft.

U.S. Signals: F-35 Lightning II. The U.S. has been subtly signalling a potential offer of the F-35 to India. The aircraft first appeared in the Indian skies in the previous aero India 2023. Although Washington has not officially proposed a deal, diplomatic engagements and increasing defence cooperation between the two nations suggest that such a move could be on the horizon. Some analysts believe the U.S. could propose the F-35 as a deterrent against China, leveraging India’s growing security concerns to break its traditional reluctance toward American fighter jets. The F-35, developed by Lockheed Martin, represents the epitome of 5th-gen fighter capabilities. It is a highly advanced stealth fighter, but its suitability for the Indian Air Force (IAF) is debatable due to operational, geopolitical, and logistical factors. While the F-35 offers cutting-edge stealth, sensor fusion, and electronic warfare capabilities, making it a formidable asset against threats, its integration into India’s diverse fleet (Su-30MKI, Rafale, Tejas) would be complex and costly. The aircraft’s high maintenance burden, reliance on U.S. software and spare parts support, and logistical challenges in high-altitude operations raise concerns. Additionally, India’s deep defence ties with Russia and its commitment to strategic autonomy could complicate an F-35 deal. The U.S. has been selective about F-35 exports, prioritising NATO allies and key Pacific partners, making approval for India uncertain. With unit costs exceeding $80 million and long-term sustainment expenses, the F-35 may not be the most cost-effective option compared to expanding Rafale squadrons or accelerating the indigenous AMCA program.

Russia’s Pitch: The Su-57 Felon. Russia is presenting the Su-57 Felon as a possible solution for India’s air power needs. The offer is sugar quoted with an offer to reduce price, Integration of hypersonic weapons, ToT and easy payment options. The Su-57, initially designated the PAK FA (Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation), began development in the early 2000s under the Russian Ministry of Defence. The aircraft was conceived as a multirole stealth fighter capable of air superiority and ground attack missions. Given India’s deep-rooted defence ties with Russia and its existing fleet of Su-30MKI fighters, Moscow sees this as a natural extension of its strategic partnership. However, India has been cautious about procuring the Su-57 due to previous setbacks in the Indo-Russian Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) project. While the Su-57 has promising features, the program has faced several challenges that have slowed its development and deployment. The aircraft has faced delays related to engine development and avionics integration.  Moreover, there have been questions about the production rate and the number of aircraft that will be built in the coming years. The Russian Air Force has been slow to field the aircraft, and it remains unclear how many Su-57s will ultimately be deployed, particularly as Russia faces significant budgetary constraints and competing priorities.

Comparative Analysis. The Su-57’s development and operational capabilities are often compared to the U.S. F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II, representing American stealth technology’s pinnacle. While the Su-57 has similar features, such as stealth and advanced avionics, it lags in some performance areas. For example, the F-22 is generally considered superior regarding stealth and overall aerodynamics, while the F-35 is unrivalled in sensor fusion and multirole capabilities. However, the Su-57 holds unique advantages that could make it a formidable platform in specific scenarios. Its super manoeuvrability and advanced sensor capabilities make it highly suited for air-to-air combat and could give it an edge over Western fighters in certain situations. Moreover, its weapons capacity and the potential future integration of hypersonic weapons give it a longer-range and more potent offensive capability than current Western fighters.

 

Indigenous Effort.

Push for Indigenous Development: The AMCA Program. India’s exit from the Su-57 program signalled a renewed focus on indigenous development. Under pressure to modernise and enhance its capabilities, India pushed to develop its fifth-generation fighter. The Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) program was born out of this necessity. The AMCA was conceived as India’s first fully indigenous fifth-generation fighter. The project envisions incorporating stealth, advanced avionics, supercruise and multi-role capabilities. While the AMCA represents a significant leap forward for India’s indigenous defence capabilities, its development has not been without challenges. The program has faced technological hurdles, financial constraints, and inordinate delays. The prototype of the AMCA is expected to take flight in the late 2020s, with full-scale production not anticipated until the early 2040s. The AMCA is crucial to India’s long-term defence strategy. Its delayed timeline and high costs mean the country must consider alternatives soon to fill the capability gap.

Effect on the AMCA Development. India’s procurement of foreign fifth-generation fighter aircraft could positively or negatively affect the development of its Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) program. On the one hand, it could gain valuable insights into the design and technology of a fifth-generation fighter aircraft, including stealth capabilities, advanced avionics, and engine performance. This could accelerate the learning curve for Indian engineers and help improve AMCA’s design.​ On the other hand, foreign procurement could divert attention and resources from the AMCA project, as both programs require significant investment and focus. This could delay AMCA’s development as funding and manpower may be reallocated. While foreign procurement might provide a short-term solution, procuring it would reinforce India’s dependency on foreign technology, which contradicts the AMCA’s goal of achieving greater self-reliance in defence technology. It might also delay the domestic innovation necessary to produce the AMCA independently.

 

Procurement Considerations: A Tight Rope Walk.

 India’s pursuit of fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) is a complex balancing act, requiring careful evaluation of strategic, operational, and geopolitical factors. Despite the aggressive pitches from Russia and the U.S., India remains steadfast in its commitment to self-reliance. The country has several valid concerns about acquiring stealth fighters from external sources. The procurement decision must balance national security imperatives with long-term self-reliance goals.

Financial Constraints. While the need for advanced fighter aircraft is pressing, India’s defence budget remains constrained. The costs of acquiring 5th-gen fighters—whether through foreign procurement or domestic development—are substantial.

Strategic Autonomy. India has historically maintained strategic autonomy in defence procurement.  Outright procurement of fifth-generation fighters would increase dependency on foreign suppliers for maintenance, spares, and software updates. However, developing an indigenous FGFA is time-intensive and costly, necessitating interim solutions such as collaborations or selective acquisitions. Balancing these factors ensures India can act independently in future conflicts without external constraints.

Operational Sovereignty. Fifth-generation fighters rely heavily on integrated software, sensor fusion, and artificial intelligence, requiring continuous updates and security oversight. Procuring an FGFA from the U.S. or Russia may come with software black boxes, limiting India’s ability to modify or customise the aircraft to suit its operational needs. In contrast, an indigenous program like the AMCA would ensure complete control over mission configurations, electronic warfare systems, and weapons integration.  India risks operational constraints without complete control in scenarios where its strategic interests diverge from supplier nations.

Transfer of Technology (ToT). India has consistently demanded significant technology transfer as part of its defence procurements. One of the most crucial considerations in FGFA procurement is access to critical technologies such as stealth coatings, advanced radar systems, and aero engines. Nations that export fifth-generation fighters typically impose strict restrictions on technology transfers to protect proprietary designs and maintain their competitive edge. India must negotiate deals that ensure meaningful technology absorption, aiding AMCA’s long-term development.

Interoperability Issues. India operates a diverse fleet comprising Russian, French, Israeli, and indigenous aircraft, leading to interoperability challenges. Integrating an FGFA with existing platforms is critical, especially for network-centric warfare. American platforms, such as the F-35, rely on proprietary Link 16 data-sharing protocols, which may not be compatible with India’s indigenous combat management systems. On the other hand, Russian fighters align with existing IAF infrastructure but lack the networking capabilities of Western aircraft. Any FGFA procurement must ensure seamless integration with India’s Integrated Air Command and Control System (IACCS) while avoiding security vulnerabilities tied to foreign command structures.

Reliance and Reliability Concerns. Fifth-generation fighters require a robust supply chain for spare parts, software updates, and maintenance. India’s experience with Russian platforms, such as the Su-30MKI, has shown that supply bottlenecks can impact fleet availability. Similarly, reliance on the U.S. for F-35 components could expose India to geopolitical leverage, where supply disruptions may occur due to policy shifts. An indigenous FGFA would mitigate these risks. However, India must bridge the gap in manufacturing critical components, such as high-thrust jet engines and low-observable coatings, to ensure long-term sustainability.

Geopolitical Pressures. India’s FGFA decision is deeply entangled in global power dynamics. Acquiring an American fighter would enhance ties with QUAD allies (U.S., Japan, Australia) but could strain India’s strategic partnership with Russia. Conversely, a Russian FGFA might provoke U.S. sanctions under CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act), complicating India’s defence cooperation with Western nations. Thus, any procurement choice must navigate these external influences without compromising national security.

 

Way Ahead

India’s quest for fifth-generation fighter aircraft is emblematic of the broader challenges emerging powers face in the 21st century. While the country has made significant strides in developing Indigenous defence capabilities, the path to acquiring fifth-generation fighters remains fraught with challenges. The choices India makes in the coming years will shape its defence posture and air superiority in the decades ahead.  While the AMCA holds promise for India’s long-term goals, the immediate need for advanced fighter aircraft means that foreign options, including the F-35 or SU-57, will likely remain in play despite the geopolitical and financial challenges they present.

India’s success in this endeavour will depend on its ability to integrate technology, manage its defence budget, and forge strategic partnerships that advance its security interests in a rapidly evolving global landscape. Given the complexity of fifth-generation fighter procurement, India must focus on accelerating the AMCA program while exploring selective technology partnerships. A dedicated task force with a top-down approach could ensure timely execution. Increased funding, private sector involvement, and strategic technology acquisitions could further bolster the program.

India must balance Indigenous development with the need for foreign procurement while navigating a complex geopolitical landscape. While India will likely continue seeking a combination of foreign procurements and domestic development, the path forward will require careful navigation of technological and strategic challenges. Ultimately, India’s ability to field a fleet of 5th-gen fighters will depend on its ability to balance these competing demands while securing the necessary resources and partnerships to maintain its regional and global standing.

 

Conclusion

The stealth fighter war is not just about aircraft but about India’s position in the global defence landscape. The choices made in the coming years will define India’s air power for decades. While Aero India 2025 will serve as a grand stage for the U.S. and Russia to showcase their best fighters, India must navigate this battle carefully. Whether it chooses a limited acquisition, a joint development initiative, or a complete rejection of external options, one thing is clear: India’s future in stealth aviation will be determined by its ability to balance strategic autonomy with practical air power needs.

 

Please Do Comment.

 

1315
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

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:-

  1. Dyer, G. (2017). India’s Role in Global Security: An Assessment of Its Military and Strategic Options. Oxford University Press. Covers India’s military strategies and defence procurement policies, giving context to its fifth-generation fighter aircraft decisions.
  1. Tiwari, R. (2020). India’s Aviation Power: The Development of India’s Military Aviation. Routledge. This book focuses on India’s aviation capabilities, history, and future trajectory, including the fifth-generation fighter aircraft.
  1. Sarma, B. (2021). Fifth-Generation Aircraft and the Changing Nature of Air Combat: A Global Perspective. Springer. This book analyses the technologies and capabilities defining fifth-generation aircraft and how different countries adopt them.
  1. Pant, H. V. (2018). India’s Strategic Culture and Military Modernisation: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach. Routledge. Offers insight into India’s military modernisation strategies and how they affect decisions about future aircraft acquisitions.
  1. Bansal, S. (2022). “Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft: The India Dilemma”, Strategic Affairs Journal, 14(3), pp. 245-268. This article addresses India’s balancing act between domestic capabilities, foreign partnerships, and defence priorities regarding fifth-generation fighters.
  1. Chaudhury, S. (2020). “India’s Ambitious Fighter Program and the Quest for the AMCA”, The Military Review, 102(4), pp. 60-75. A detailed analysis of India’s AMCA project and the prospects of its success in the context of competing international options.
  1. Indian Ministry of Defence (2021). India’s Future Aircraft Procurement Strategy: A Vision for the Next Decade. Government of India. Government-published paper detailing India’s strategic requirements and procurement strategy, including pursuing fifth-generation fighters.
  1. RAND Corporation (2021). “Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft: A Global Overview”. RAND Corporation. A comprehensive analysis of the global fifth-generation fighter market, including India’s potential partners and competitors.
  1. IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly (2019). “The Future of Combat Aircraft: A Comparative Study”, 56(8), pp. 32-45. This report compares the capabilities of fifth-generation fighters, focusing on the Su-57, F-35, and AMCA, with a section on India’s defence procurement options.
  1. Shukla, A. (2021). “India’s Fighter Jet Dilemma: Will AMCA Be the Answer?” Livefist Defence. https://www.livefistdefence.com. A detailed exploration of the AMCA program and India’s obstacles in developing its fifth-generation aircraft.

Posted on

604:TECHNOLOGY HARVESTING BY INDIAN AEROSPACE INDUSTRY: A STRATEGIC IMPERATIVE

 

My article published on the Indus International Research Foundation website on 19 Feb 25.

 

The Indian aerospace industry has made significant strides in technology harvesting, particularly in defence, satellite technology, and aircraft development. Key successes include the development of indigenous fighter jets like the HAL Tejas and the successful launch of ISRO satellite missions, such as the Mars Orbiter Mission. These achievements demonstrate the growing capability of India’s aerospace sector in adopting advanced technologies and adapting them to local needs. However, there are notable misses, primarily in producing high-performance engines and strategic aerospace systems, where India still relies heavily on imports. Despite efforts to indigenous technology, challenges like bureaucratic inefficiencies, limited R&D funding, and a lack of skilled workforce hinder complete technological independence. The industry must address these gaps through improved collaboration, investment in cutting-edge research, and focused policy support to achieve self-reliance and compete globally in the aerospace sector.

 

Technology Harvesting: The Process.

 

Technology harvesting refers to acquiring, utilising, and leveraging existing or newly developed technologies to achieve strategic goals, enhance innovation, or create value. This practice can involve various methods, such as sourcing new technologies, adapting existing ones, commercialising them, or repurposing them for different industries or applications. Technology harvesting often aims to advance an organisation’s capabilities, improve productivity, maintain a competitive edge, or create new products and services. It can involve the following:-

 

    • Identifying valuable technologies. Finding technologies that can benefit a company’s growth or strategic advantage.
    • Acquiring technologies. Through means like acquisitions, licensing, or partnerships.
    • Commercialising or adapting technologies. Transforming acquired technologies into profitable products, services, or processes.
    • Maximising the utility of available technologies. Making the most of existing technological assets by integrating them into new contexts or markets.

 

Ways and Means. Numerous methods help businesses and organisations stay competitive by quickly accessing and implementing new technologies. Some of these are:-

 

    • Internal Research and Development (R&D). Companies and organisations invest in R&D to develop new technologies that can give them a competitive edge. This can be through in-house teams or dedicated innovation labs.
    • Collaborative Research and Development (R&D). Partnerships between universities, research institutes, and businesses allow for technology sharing and joint development, which can expedite innovation.
    • Buying Start-ups: Larger companies often acquire smaller tech start-ups that have developed innovative technologies. This enables quick access to cutting-edge tech and talent.
    • Technology Transfer. Institutions like universities often transfer their research outputs to private companies that can commercialise the technology. This is facilitated through licensing agreements.
    • Technology Licensing. Companies or individuals who hold patents on specific technologies can license them to other firms for a fee or a royalty agreement.
    • Patent Pools. Multiple organisations might collaborate and share patents or licenses to reduce barriers and avoid litigation, accelerating technology adoption.
    • Open-source software. Companies or individuals contribute to open-source projects, allowing others to use, modify, and build upon the technology freely. This can lead to rapid advancement and broader adoption.
    • Open Innovation. Engaging external parties in solving technological challenges, including crowdsourcing solutions and using external ideas and inventions to advance a product or service.
    • Tech Incubators. These programs support early-stage start-ups by providing resources like mentorship, capital, and networking opportunities to help turn nascent technologies into viable businesses.
    • Accelerators. Accelerators are similar to incubators but focus on scaling and rapidly bringing technologies to market. These programs often have a more structured approach.
    • Joint Ventures. Companies often form joint ventures to combine resources and technologies, enabling both parties to leverage each other’s expertise.
    • Industry Collaborations. Corporations in the same industry may collaborate to develop shared technologies that benefit all parties involved.
    • Product Disassembly. Some organisations or individuals harvest technology by disassembling a competitor’s product to understand its design and function. While legally risky, this can provide insights into innovation.
    • Crowdfunding Platforms. Companies and inventors can raise funds to bring their technologies to market by directly engaging with the public. Popular platforms like Kickstarter or Indiegogo can help gauge market interest.
    • Crowdsourcing Ideas. Platforms like InnoCentive allow companies to post problems and offer rewards for solutions, enabling the harvesting of global ideas and innovations.
    • Scanning for Emerging Tech. Firms often employ technology scouts to search for new technologies that could be adopted, licensed, or acquired. This involves monitoring patent filings, academic publications, and industry trends.
    • Subsidies and Funding. Governments often provide grants and funding to develop or commercialise new technologies, particularly in fields like green energy, biotechnology, or defence.
    • Public-Private Partnerships. Governments may partner with the private sector to develop key technologies and infrastructure projects.

 

Indian Aerospace Industry and Technology Harvesting

 

The Indian aerospace industry has undergone a significant transformation in recent decades, shifting from a sector heavily reliant on imports to one that is making substantial progress in indigenous development. This evolution has been primarily driven by government initiatives, defence collaborations, foreign investments, and, most notably, technology harvesting.

 

Evolution of the Indian Aerospace Industry. The foundation of India’s aerospace industry was laid in the early 1940s with the establishment of Hindustan Aircraft Limited (now Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, HAL). Over the years, the Indian government, through organisations such as DRDO (Defence Research and Development Organisation), ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation), and private-sector initiatives, has fostered aerospace capabilities. Despite significant progress, India still relies heavily on imported technology, particularly in critical areas such as jet engines, avionics, and stealth technology.

 

Technology Harvesting in the Indian Aerospace Industry. Technology harvesting has played a crucial role in advancing India’s aerospace capabilities. The country employs multiple strategies to acquire and integrate advanced technology, including technology transfer agreements, joint ventures, back engineering, and indigenous R&D.

 

    • Technology Transfer. India has effectively utilised offsets and technology transfer agreements in defence procurement deals as a key strategy for technology harvesting. These agreements, which mandate foreign firms to invest a portion of the contract value in India’s defence sector, have fostered local expertise and infrastructure development. For instance, the Rafale Deal with Dassault Aviation, France, involves the transfer of advanced radar, avionics, and composite material manufacturing techniques to Indian firms. Similarly, India’s partnerships with Boeing and Lockheed Martin have led to the domestic manufacturing of C-130J Super Hercules airframes and Apache attack helicopter components.
    • Joint Ventures. The Indian government has encouraged joint ventures between domestic and foreign companies to accelerate technology harvesting. These partnerships allow Indian firms to access cutting-edge aerospace technology while contributing to global supply chains. Notable joint ventures include Tata Advanced Systems and Lockheed Martin for manufacturing C-130J Super Hercules airframes in India, Adani and Elbit Systems (Israel) for UAV production under the “Make in India” initiative, and L&T and ISRO Collaboration for developing reusable launch vehicles and space technologies.
    • Indigenous Aerospace Programs and Achievements. Technology harvesting has significantly influenced India’s ability to develop indigenous aerospace programs. The success of these programs is a testament to India’s growing self-reliance in the sector.

 

Successes

 

India’s aerospace industry has made significant strides in technology development over the past few decades, particularly in indigenous aircraft production, space exploration, and defence technology. Here’s a look at its notable successes and challenges.

 

Indigenous Aircraft Development. One of the achievements is the development of the HAL Tejas, a fourth-generation multi-role light combat aircraft.  The Tejas has proven successful in designing, engineering, and integrating advanced systems, though it still faces some challenges related to production timelines and numbers.

 

Space Technology. ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation) has shown significant technological advances, especially in satellite technology and space exploration. India’s Mars Orbiter Mission (Mangalyaan) and Chandrayaan missions to the Moon were notable successes, signalling India’s growing expertise in space missions.

 

GSLV & PSLV Rockets. India has developed reliable launch vehicles, particularly the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV), making India one of the leading providers of commercial satellite launches globally. The Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV) has been crucial for launching heavier payloads, demonstrating a significant leap in India’s rocket development.

 

Missile Technology. India’s missile technology, mainly through the Agni and Prithvi series, has significantly succeeded in strategic and tactical weapons. The BrahMos, a joint venture with Russia, is among the world’s fastest cruise missiles and showcases India’s ability to partner internationally while developing cutting-edge technology.

 

Hypersonic and Space Technologies. India is making strides in hypersonic technology, a critical frontier in aerospace innovation. The Hypersonic Technology Demonstrator Vehicle (HSTDV), developed by DRDO, is a significant step toward mastering scramjet propulsion for future hypersonic missiles and aircraft.

 

Challenges.

 

Delays in Aircraft Production. While successful, the HAL Tejas program has faced significant delays. Initially expected to enter service in the late 1990s, the Tejas project has been plagued by issues related to engine integration, production delays, and insufficient numbers for the Indian Air Force (IAF).

 

Missed Opportunities in Commercial Aircraft Manufacturing. India has failed to develop a competitive indigenous commercial aircraft. The RTA-70 was initially conceived as a regional aircraft but has not progressed beyond the conceptual stages. HAL’s failure to enter the commercial aircraft market has kept India from tapping into a potentially lucrative market, especially with rising demand for air travel in Asia.

 

Reliance on Foreign Technology. While India has made strides in many defence technologies, it remains heavily dependent on foreign technology for critical components, such as aircraft engines, avionics, and radar systems. The Kaveri engine, developed for the Tejas, faced performance issues, leading to continued reliance on foreign suppliers like GE Aviation for the Tejas’ engine. Similarly, radar and electronic warfare systems are often imported.

 

Slower Transition to 5th Generation Aircraft. India’s pursuit of a fifth-generation aircraft, specifically the AMCA (Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft), has been slow. While it is an ambitious project, it faces development timelines and funding challenges. Additionally, India’s slow progress in stealth technology has led to delays compared to countries like China and Russia, which are already advancing.

 

Challenges in Commercial Space. While ISRO has achieved remarkable success in government and scientific space exploration, it has not yet fully capitalised on the commercial space sector. Although India has been a competitive player in satellite launches, it faces stiff competition from U.S. and European private companies. The growth of private space players like SpaceX has overshadowed ISRO’s commercial potential in the global space race.

 

Way Ahead

The way ahead for technology harvesting by the Indian aerospace industry lies in a multi-pronged approach, focusing on leveraging global innovations, fostering indigenous capabilities, and enhancing collaboration between government, private sector, and academia. India has historically depended on technology imports to meet the demands of its aerospace sector. Still, with growing aspirations for self-reliance, the industry is actively working on increasing its technological base. A significant step in this direction is the Indian government’s push for the “Atmanirbhar Bharat” (Self-reliant India) initiative, which encourages domestic manufacturing and innovation.

 

Key areas for technology harvesting include advanced materials, propulsion systems, avionics, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Collaboration with global aerospace leaders and partnerships with foreign entities through joint ventures and knowledge exchange programs will enable the Indian aerospace sector to integrate cutting-edge technologies. The private sector’s growing role, exemplified by companies like Tata Advanced Systems and Reliance Aerospace, is crucial in driving innovation and attracting foreign direct investment. These companies are now working to develop advanced systems and technologies that could be exported globally. Additionally, academia and research institutions like the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) play a pivotal role in fostering research and development in key areas such as avionics, artificial intelligence, and machine learning, which are rapidly transforming the aerospace sector.

 

Conclusion.

The Indian aerospace industry is on a transformative path, leveraging technology harvesting to bridge the gap between domestic capabilities and global standards. Through strategic partnerships, reverse engineering and indigenous R&D, India is steadily reducing its reliance on foreign suppliers. The success of projects like Tejas, AMCA, and hypersonic weapons development showcases India’s ability to absorb and innovate upon harvested technology. Further investments in jet engine technology, stealth aircraft, and AI-driven aerospace solutions will be key to solidifying India’s global power position. By strengthening its ecosystem through private sector participation and continued technology absorption, India is poised to achieve genuine self-reliance in aerospace and defence.

 

Please Do Comment.

 

1315
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

Link to the article on the website:-

Technology Harvesting by Indian Aerospace Industry: A Strategic Imperative (by Air Marshal Anil Khosla)

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pic: Courtesy Net.

References:-

  1. “India’s Aerospace Industry: The Path Forward” (2021), by Aerospace and Defence Manufacturing Association of India (ADMA).
  1. “Atmanirbhar Bharat and the Indian Aerospace Industry” (2020), Ministry of Defence, Government of India.
  1. “The Indian Space Programme: An Overview” (2018), Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO).
  1. Subramanian, K., & Iyer, R. (2022). “Technological Developments in India’s Aerospace and Defence Sector: Opportunities and Challenges.” International Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 35(4), 567-589.
  1. Sharma, S., & Dinesh, P. (2021). “The Role of Private Sector in Advancing Aerospace Technologies in India.” Asian Journal of Aerospace Technology, 27(2), 123-139.
  1. Aggarwal, M., & Kumar, A. (2020). “Defence Technology Development in India: The Next Frontier in Aerospace.” Journal of Defence Technology, 8(3), 220-233.
  1. “National Aerospace and Defence Policy Framework” (2019), Government of India.
  1. “Make in India: Aerospace and Defence” (2017), Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, Government of India.
  1. “Aerospace & Defence Industry in India: An Overview” (2021), KPMG India.
  2. “Global Aerospace Outlook 2020” (2020), PwC India.
  1. “Indian Aerospace Industry: Key Trends and Future Potential” (2022), Ernst & Young India.
  1. “India’s Aerospace and Defence Sector is Taking Off” (2022), Economic Times.
  1. “How India’s Aircraft Manufacturers are Making Their Mark” (2021), The Hindustan Times.
  1. “Private Players Taking the Lead in India’s Aerospace Growth” (2020), Business Standard.

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.

Posted on

603: Sequel to Previous Article on Rise of Combat Drones

 

My previous article, “Rise of Combat Drones: Implications for Traditional Air Power,” was well-received. The readers had a few queries and suggestions, which this sequel aims to address.

 

  1. Could you add a supplement or some riders, i.e., limitations in drone speed vis a vis the manned fighter, weapon loads that can be carried over such long distances, and what drones are available today that can overcome these liabilities?

 

Limitations in Drone Speed vs. Manned Fighters

Drones (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles, or UCAVs) generally lag behind manned fighters in terms of speed due to several factors. One key reason is engine performance and design priorities. Most drones are optimised for endurance rather than speed, using turboprop or low-bypass turbofan engines for fuel efficiency. In contrast, manned fighters rely on high-bypass turbofans or afterburning turbojets, which provide the thrust needed for supersonic flight.

Aerodynamics also play a crucial role in speed limitations. Drones are typically designed for long loiter times and stealth, often requiring subsonic speeds and high-aspect-ratio wings to maximize efficiency. On the other hand, manned fighters prioritize agility, acceleration, and sustained speeds, especially in combat scenarios, where airframe designs enable them to reach speeds exceeding Mach 2.

Another significant factor is structural and cooling limitations. Supersonic flight generates extreme aerodynamic heating, necessitating the use of expensive thermal-resistant materials. Manned fighters incorporate robust cooling systems and heat-resistant materials to withstand these conditions. However, since most drones are optimised for cost efficiency and long-duration missions, they rarely include such features.

Command and control constraints also impact drone speed. The latency involved in remote control or autonomous decision-making can make high-speed operations risky. Pilots in manned aircraft can make split-second decisions during combat, whereas drones depend on AI algorithms or remote human operators, introducing potential delays that could be detrimental in high-speed engagements.

 

Weapon Load Considerations

Long-range drone missions face several challenges in carrying large weapon payloads. One primary limitation is structural capacity. Most drones are built for endurance and fuel efficiency rather than heavy payloads. For instance, the MQ-9 Reaper can carry about 1,700 kg of munitions, whereas an F-15E Strike Eagle can haul over 11,000 kg, demonstrating a significant gap in firepower.

Another issue is the trade-off between drag and fuel efficiency. Carrying heavy external ordnance drastically reduces a drone’s endurance, limiting its ability to remain in the air for extended periods. Additionally, stealth UAVs such as the RQ-170 Sentinel and B-21 Raider must carry weapons internally to maintain low observability, which further restricts payload volume compared to externally loaded fighter jets.

Drones also have limited air-to-air capabilities. Unlike manned aircraft, which can engage enemy fighters using a range of sophisticated air-to-air missiles, drones currently lack the manoeuvrability and situational awareness required for traditional dogfights. Some advanced UCAVs, like the MQ-28 Ghost Bat, are being developed with potential air combat roles, but their capabilities remain limited compared to manned fighters.

 

Drones Overcoming These Limitations

Despite these challenges, new drone designs are emerging to bridge the gap. Some high-speed drones are being developed to complement manned aircraft. The XQ-58A Valkyrie, which flies at Mach 0.85, is designed as a loyal wingman to assist fighters in combat. The RQ-180, a stealth drone reportedly in USAF service, is built for high-speed deep-penetration intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions. A hypothetical but much-discussed concept, Darkstar, is believed to be a Mach 6+ reconnaissance drone, possibly inspired by the SR-72 project.

Several solutions exist for drones requiring greater payload capacity and endurance. The MQ-25 Stingray provides aerial refuelling, effectively extending the range of manned fighters. The B-21 Raider, while primarily a bomber, has the potential to take on UCAV roles. The RQ-170 Sentinel, a stealth reconnaissance drone, can perform deep-penetration missions without detection. Russia’s S-70 Okhotnik is another notable UCAV, heavily armed and designed to work alongside the Su-57 fighter.

Looking toward the future, Loyal Wingman drones such as the MQ-28 Ghost Bat and XQ-58A Valkyrie could supplement manned fighters in high-speed combat. Hypersonic drone concepts like the rumoured SR-72 could also revolutionise reconnaissance and strike capabilities, pushing drone technology toward greater autonomy and performance.

 

2. What’s the ballpark cost range of these drones?

The cost of military drones varies widely based on their size, capability, endurance, and payload.

(These approximate figures have been taken from open sources on the net and do vary)

Small Reconnaissance & Tactical Drones ($10,000 – $500,000). These drones are used for short-range surveillance, infantry support, and battlefield awareness. They are usually hand-launched or catapult-launched.

Drone Model Country  Approx. Cost
RQ-11 Raven USA $35,000 – $50,000 per unit
Switchblade 300 (loitering munition) USA $60,000 – $80,000
Skylark 3 Israel $100,000 – $300,000
Black Hornet Nano Norway $195,000 per system (includes multiple drones)

 

Medium-Altitude Long-Endurance (MALE) Drones ($1M—$20M). These drones are used for surveillance, reconnaissance, and precision strikes. They have higher endurance and often carry weapons.

Drone Model Country Approx. Cost
Bayraktar TB2 Turkey $5M – $7M per unit
MQ-1 Predator (Retired) USA $4M – $5M per unit
MQ-9 Reaper USA $15M – $30M per unit (depends on sensors & weapons)
Heron TP Israel $10M – $20M per unit
CAIG Wing Loong II China $2M – $5M per unit
Rustom-II / TAPAS India (DRDO) Estimated $4M – $6M per unit

 

High-Altitude Long-Endurance (HALE) Drones ($30M – $150M). These are strategic UAVs used for intelligence gathering, persistent surveillance, and deep strikes.

Drone Model Country Approx. Cost
RQ-4 Global Hawk USA $130M – $150M per unit
MQ-9B SkyGuardian USA $30M – $40M per unit
Heron Mk II Israel $20M – $25M per unit

 

Stealth & UCAVs (Over $50M). Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs) with stealth and advanced strike capabilities.

Drone Model Country Approx. Cost
XQ-58A Valkyrie USA $5M – $7M per unit
Ghatak UCAV (Under Dev) India Estimated $50M+
S-70 Okhotnik Russia $50M – $100M
nEUROn EU (Dassault) $50M – $80M

 

3. While India is developing drones rapidly, what’s holding it back from matching, say, the Turks?

India has made some progress in drone technology, but it’s still behind countries like Turkey, which has established itself as a major drone power with combat-proven UAVs. The main factors holding India back include:-

Gaps in Indigenous R&D and Manufacturing. India’s drone development is largely led by state-owned entities like DRDO, which tend to be slower and less agile than private companies. Turkey has Baykar (Bayraktar TB2, Akıncı) and TAI (Anka, Aksungur), which are aggressive in R&D, production, and exports. Indian private companies are entering the UAV space, but they lack the scale and experience of Turkish firms.

Engine and Sensor Technology Dependence.  India relies on foreign engines for its drones. For example, the indigenous Rustom UAV uses an Austrian Rotax 914 engine. Turkey has worked around this by producing engines (e.g., TEI PD-170 for Anka UAVs). High-end sensors and satellite communication technology are also areas where India still depends on imports.

Delayed and Overregulated Procurement. India’s defence procurement process is bureaucratic and slow, with lengthy approvals, trials, and acquisition delays. The focus on “Make in India” sometimes results in delays when indigenous solutions are pushed over faster foreign acquisitions.

Lack of a Dedicated Drone Warfare Doctrine. While India has UAVs for surveillance and reconnaissance, it lacks a coherent doctrine for using armed drones in combat. On the other hand, Turkey has developed UAV-centric warfare concepts, integrating drones with air and ground operations.

Combat Experience and Export Focus. Turkey has extensively tested its drones in combat (Syria, Libya, Nagorno-Karabakh, Ukraine), refining them in real-world scenarios. India lacks such experience, as its military engagement with drones has been limited (primarily surveillance against Pakistan and China). Turkey has aggressively exported drones (to over 30 countries), which helps fund further R&D. India is only now entering the export market.

Lesser Political Will for UAV-centric Warfare. Turkey’s political leadership (especially under Erdoğan) has strongly backed UAV development, using it as a strategic tool for geopolitical influence. India, while investing in UAVs, still prioritises manned aircraft and traditional military assets over a full-fledged drone warfare strategy.

India is trying to catch up.

  • Indigenous UAVs like Tapas (Rustom-II), Archer-NG, and Ghatak stealth UCAV are being developed.
  • India has acquired MQ-9B Reapers from the US for enhanced strike capability.
  • Private sector involvement is increasing, with startups focusing on AI-powered drones, loitering munitions, and swarm technology.
  • India is pushing for exports, with countries like Armenia and Southeast Asian nations showing interest in Indian UAVs.

 

4. What’s the risk of drones escalating warfare? If we and our western neighbor both deploy surveillance drones and start shooting them down, will it increase tensions?

Yes, the deployment of drones—especially if both India and Pakistan engage in shooting them down—can escalate tensions in several ways. While drones reduce the risk to human pilots, they also lower the threshold for conflict by making military engagement seem less costly or provocative at first.

Increased Risk of Tit-for-Tat Escalation. If both countries start shooting down each other’s drones, it could trigger a cycle of retaliation. A drone being shot down is not the same as a manned aircraft loss, but it still represents an attack on sovereign military assets. If both nations were to lose expensive UAVs repeatedly, military pressure to respond would increase.

Ambiguity and Miscalculation. Surveillance drones operate near sensitive borders, making distinguishing between a reconnaissance UAV and a strike-capable drone hard. A country may shoot down a drone assuming it is armed, escalating tensions unnecessarily. The U.S. and Iran have had multiple drone-related incidents, with Iran shooting down a U.S. RQ-4 Global Hawk in 2019, nearly leading to a retaliatory strike.

Crisis Instability and Automated Retaliation. If both sides deploy AI-assisted drone swarms or automated defensive systems, it could lead to uncontrolled escalation. A drone automatically targeting an enemy UAV or launching a retaliatory strike could trigger a rapid, unintended military response. The Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict saw drones targeting command centres—a dangerous precedent if similar attacks happen in South Asia.

Psychological & Political Pressures. The public might demand retaliation for a downed UAV, just as it would for a manned aircraft. With drones capturing and transmitting live footage, propaganda battles could fuel public anger, pushing governments toward escalation. If a drone is shot down over disputed territory and its footage is released, political and military leaders may feel pressure to respond forcefully.

Drone warfare makes escalation more likely because it removes the human cost, making military engagements seem less risky. However, once UAV shootdowns become frequent, the pressure to retaliate more aggressively could lead to conventional military strikes or full-scale escalation. In the India-Pakistan context, drone warfare—if not carefully managed—could become a dangerous flashpoint.

 

5. Till now drones have been employed successfully against a technologically weaker adversary and reducing direct exposure of combatants to the enemy fire. It is difficult to predict the outcome when both contestants have similar capabilities.

When both contestants possess similar drone capabilities, predicting the outcome of a conflict becomes exceedingly complex as technological parity shifts the focus toward strategic, tactical, and logistical factors. The effectiveness of drones in battle is not solely determined by their specifications but by how well they are integrated into broader warfare systems. Electronic Warfare (EW) superiority plays a decisive role, as the side with more advanced jamming, spoofing, or cyber capabilities can disrupt enemy drone operations, rendering them ineffective. Integration with broader military assets is equally crucial; drones do not function in isolation but work alongside air defence. Coordinating drone reconnaissance with precision strikes or air defence suppression can significantly influence the battlefield. Moreover, operational doctrine determines how drones are deployed—whether used in swarms to overwhelm defences, prioritised for ISR (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance), or focused on Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD). Even with comparable drone technology, the side that adapts its doctrine more effectively to the battlefield conditions will have the upper hand. Lastly, logistics and sustainability are often overlooked but are critical to long-term drone warfare. Given the high attrition rate of drones, the ability to rapidly replace lost UAVs, maintain a steady supply of spare parts, and ensure uninterrupted operations becomes a decisive factor. A country with a well-developed domestic production line and efficient supply chain will have a sustained advantage over one dependent on imports or struggling with manufacturing constraints. When both sides have similar drone capabilities, victory does not merely hinge on superior technology but on how effectively drones are employed, defended, and resupplied in the face of constant attrition and evolving battlefield challenges.

 

6.  Cost vs benefit could impose a limit. 

 

Cost vs. Benefit Analysis of Drone Warfare

Drone warfare has transformed modern military operations, offering strategic advantages and introducing new risks and costs. Below is a structured cost-benefit analysis considering various aspects of drone warfare.

Cost-Benefit Comparison: Drone vs. Manned Combat Systems

Factor Drones Manned Aircraft/Troops
Cost per Unit Low High
Operational Cost Low High
Survivability Low High
Effectiveness in Asymmetric Warfare High Moderate
Electronic Warfare Vulnerability High Low
Risk to Human Life None High
Strategic & Psychological Impact High Moderate

Drone warfare offers a high return on investment, particularly in asymmetric conflicts and precision strikes. However, drones remain vulnerable in high-intensity warfare against near-peer adversaries and require integration with traditional military assets to stay effective. While they provide cost-effective alternatives to manned aircraft, the rapid evolution of counter-drone technology will ultimately determine their long-term viability on the battlefield.

 

7. Terrain and sensor limitations could impose a challenge. 

While drones offer significant advantages in modern warfare, they face critical terrain and sensor effectiveness challenges. These limitations can impact reconnaissance, targeting, and overall combat efficiency. 

 

Challenges to Drone Warfare Due to Terrain.

Mountains and Rugged Terrain. Mountainous regions pose several challenges for drone operations. Signal disruptions occur due to steep terrain blocking radio waves, which affects real-time control and data transmission. Additionally, drones rely on line-of-sight (LOS) sensors, such as optical and infrared cameras, which struggle to track targets moving through valleys, caves, and ridges. Wind and air pressure variability in high-altitude areas cause strong turbulence, making drone operation difficult. Furthermore, reduced endurance at high altitudes forces drones to consume more energy to maintain flight, limiting loiter time and operational efficiency. In Afghanistan, U.S. drones had difficulty tracking Taliban fighters who used caves and rugged terrain to evade detection, requiring ground forces and satellites for confirmation.

Dense Forests and Jungles. Drones face significant vision obstruction in dense foliage, reducing the effectiveness of optical, infrared, and LIDAR sensors. High humidity and weather interference in jungles can degrade drone electronics and infrared imaging, reducing reliability. Additionally, drones struggle to locate small or camouflaged units as guerrilla fighters blend into thick vegetation. In a Vietnam War-style scenario, drones would struggle to track Viet Cong-like guerrilla fighters moving under jungle cover, limiting their effectiveness in counterinsurgency.

Urban Warfare Challenges. Urban environments introduce GPS signal interference, as high-rise buildings cause multipath errors that reduce navigation accuracy. Limited sensor coverage in narrow streets and indoor hideouts makes tracking enemy movements difficult. Higher risks of collateral damage require extreme precision in drone strikes to avoid civilian casualties. Moreover, urban areas provide cover for electronic warfare (EW) units that can jam or spoof drone signals. In Gaza and Mosul, drones have been effective but struggled with hidden tunnels, EW disruptions, and difficulty distinguishing combatants from civilians.

Desert and Open Plains. Drones operating in deserts face extreme heat and dust storms, which degrade battery performance and reduce sensor visibility. Additionally, the lack of cover in open plains makes drones easier targets for air defence systems. Thermal imaging is also affected, as high infrared signatures from sand make distinguishing human targets from the environment difficult. In Libya and Syria, drones were less effective during sandstorms, limiting their ability to track mobile convoys.

 

Challenges to Drone Warfare Due to Sensor Limitations

Optical and Infrared Sensor Issues. Drones rely on optical and infrared sensors, but these are affected by weather conditions such as clouds, fog, smoke, and rain, which degrade visibility. Camouflage and deception techniques, including heat-reflecting blankets and decoys, can further confuse infrared sensors. While infrared and thermal imaging assist in night time operations, they still face limitations in extreme cold or cluttered environments. Russian forces in Ukraine have successfully used smoke screens and camouflage nets to evade drone detection.

Radar and LIDAR Limitations. Radar and LIDAR sensors face constraints in complex environments. Limited ground penetration makes it difficult to detect underground bunkers and tunnels. In urban environments, signal reflection and distortion cause errors in target identification. Additionally, low-flying drones use active radar risk detection by enemy air defences. Hamas tunnels in Gaza remain challenging to detect despite drone surveillance due to their underground depth and deceptive entry points.

Electronic Warfare (EW) & Cyber Security Vulnerabilities. Drones are vulnerable to jamming, which disrupts communication links with operators. Spoofing and hacking techniques can mislead drones into incorrect locations or even hijack them. Advanced EMP and directed energy weapons can disable drones using electromagnetic pulses or lasers. In Ukraine, Russian EW systems have jammed and downed thousands of drones, forcing Ukrainian operators to develop alternative navigation methods.

 

While terrain and sensor limitations challenge drone effectiveness, technological innovations gradually overcome these barriers. Drones’ success in future conflicts will depend on their adaptability, resilience against electronic warfare, and integration with other military assets. As adversaries continue developing counter-drone measures, drone warfare will evolve in response, ensuring that UAVs remain a dominant force in modern combat.

 

Please Do Comment.

1315
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

 

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.

 

 

English हिंदी