India’s dilemma: U.S. or Russian weapons

By Hari Sud
Column: Abroad View

Published: July 31, 2009

Font size:

Toronto, ON, Canada, — India is facing a decision that will affect its military and political future for a long time to come: whether to buy Russian or U.S. military hardware. Cost and capability are critical, but history and political realities cannot be ignored.

U.S. high-tech weapons are like a finely tuned sports car, whereas similar Russian weapons are built like a freight truck – rugged and cheap. Third world nations tend to prefer the Russian hardware. Other than being cheap, Russian equipment does not require highly advanced infrastructure for maintenance, and the Russians do not insist on intrusive end-user monitoring.

U.S. weapons are the preferred choice of its allies, of course. Others with deep pockets, such as Arab nations, also buy these weapons.

From 1945 onward the Russians have built weapons to counter the inventions of the United States and other countries. For example, the MIG-21 was to counter the U.S. F-4 Phantom, and the MIG –25 super fast jet fighter was to counter the U.S. XB-70 Valkyrie supersonic bomber. The Valkyrie program was cancelled as soon as the MIG-25 flew at Mach 3 speed. Russian nuclear submarines were built to counter U.S. submarines – and the list goes on and on.

Similarly, the Americans have been building weapons to counter every new Russian weapon. The current basic rifle of a U.S. soldier, the M-16, is a counter to the highly successful Russian Kalashnikov rifle. Russian-designed short- and intermediate-range missiles that have proliferated around the world have a counter in the U.S. Patriot missile and the planned missile defense system. Not to be left behind, the Russians have built a missile that can dodge the U.S. missile defense system, countering all the technology and money that have gone into that system.

Today’s highly publicized U.S. F-22 Raptor fighter, touted as an air dominance fighter, is a counter to the successful Russian Su-30 fighter. The Raptor appears to be an expensive lemon. At US$150 million apiece, it requires 30 hours of maintenance for each hour of flight. The Pentagon wishes to cancel further orders after purchasing about 200 of these.

The point is that any sophisticated weapon built today will have a counter sooner or later. Hence the high expense of staying ahead is sometimes wasteful. Less sophisticated weapons like rocket propelled grenades, improvised explosive devices and rifle bullets continue to be effective, as the Americans and their NATO partners are learning in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Less sophisticated weapons are cheaply available and can do the same job as highly sophisticated weapons. The difference is that the former kills everyone in its path while the latter kills with less collateral damage. But terrorists who carry less sophisticated weapons do not distinguish; they are prepared to kill everybody.

India’s dilemma is whether to continue to buy weapons from Russia, or go for U.S. or European weapons. Why worry about expensive Western weapons when equally capable ones are available more cheaply and with fewer strings attached from Russia?

As a result of their defense hardware export policies, the Russians have mishandled the captive market they had in India in the last few years. They have asked to renegotiate contracts signed as much as six years ago. The refitting of the aircraft carrier Gorshkov is a case in point.

In this process the Russians have lost influence with the Indians. Also, some of the weapons they supplied in a hurry in 1999, such as R-77 missiles and artillery shells, have been found defective.

Still, Russia’s role in supplying defense hardware to India for the past 50 years cannot be ignored. They played a crucial role in India’s wars in1965, 1971 and 1999, enabling India to keep the Pakistanis, with their sophisticated U.S. weapons, at bay.

India has imported 70 percent of its weapons in the last 50 years, the bulk from Russia and the remainder from Britain, France and Israel. Only a few items – including weapons locating radar and a navy landing ship – have been U.S.-made.

India has domestically produced only about one-third of the weapons used by its army, navy and air force. This is a pity for a US$1 trillion economy that boasts of its high-tech industry.

Indian defense factories, called ordinance factories, turn out only very basic weapons. With a US$2-billion budget, India’s Defense Research and Development Organization cannot compete with the West and the Russians. Its development projects take too long; its management techniques are faulty and it concentrates on high-value, high publicity weapons like missiles, light combat aircraft and large tanks. These require high technology and take a generation to develop.

The DRDO’s successes include the Agni and Prithvi missiles, the Brahmos missile, the Arjun tank, a nuclear submarine and successful missile interceptor tests.

But India’s armed forces are not helping the development process; they expect successful weapons or nothing at all. Like any science, weapons development involves more misses then successes, and perfection comes slowly.

Western development efforts have been ongoing for many years, and upgraded, improved models keep coming all the time. In developing its jet fighters over the last 40 years, the United States produced the F-94, F-100, F-104 and F-111 – all lemons that were quickly taken out of service. The list of other weapons that never even became operational is longer.

Russian military hardware also has problems, as India can testify. The MIG-21, considered a major success by the Russians, is known as a widow-maker in India. The Russians blame this on poor maintenance and substandard parts used in the 1990s.

As for Russia’s highly touted MIG-29, it is developing cracks after 10 years of service. The Russians can take heart in the knowledge that the U.S. Super Hornet, the F-18, is having similar problems. Russian hardware has quality problems, but pricey U.S. versions are not problem-free.

Enter the Chinese into the arms race. They have copied everything the Russians have sold them over the years. But reverse-engineered goods are never as good as the originals; hence cheaper Chinese products masquerading as originals are a bad idea.

There is a huge marketing and publicity effort under way in India to discredit Russian hardware, partly thanks to defense hardware salesmen with political connections. Also, the Indian military would like to diversify its procurement sources. It will prefer any deal that includes technology transfer.

A case in point is the US$10 billion fighter jet contract for which the Russians, Americans, Swedes, French and a consortium of European nations are bidding. The one that offers the best product as well as technology transfer will win the deal. So far only the Russians are offering technology transfer, while the Americans and Europeans are offering jobs for Indians in local assembly only.

Political considerations could affect the decision too. If the Americans keep postponing implementation of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, the Russians might be the right choice for the fighter contract.

In short, the Americans may have the best-looking hardware, but the Russians are ahead in price and ruggedness. Only if India is looking for highly sophisticated hardware with high-tech gadgetry are the Americans and Europeans the right choice.

(Hari Sud is a retired vice president of C-I-L Inc., a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager. A graduate of Punjab University and the University of Missouri, he has lived in Canada for the past 34 years. ©Copyright Hari Sud.)