“When can I become a three-star officer?” asks the Commanding Oficer of an unmanned weapon system unit.

Today the Commanding Officers of Units in the Indian Air Force (IAF) operating unmanned weapon system (UWS), find progression up the career ladder a tough task. The Units that they command that include unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and surface-to-surface missiles (SSMs), perform critical missions and are reaching a stage of development when they would replace manned aircraft in a number of roles. And yet when it comes to promotion to higher ranks, their COs are given short shrift. There is little structured training and exposure for them for higher posts to enable them to compete with their contemporaries on an equal footing.

What should the IAF do so that an opportunity is available to this segment of the officer cadre so that they too can compete with their peers in the flying branch, and make it to the three-star rank! The IAF has from its inception given the pride of place to the fighter pilot, at the cost of losing out on capable pilots of the transport and helicopter streams as well as navigators. This situation needs to change as UWS become more capable and replace manned flying platforms in critical roles. To answer the question, we need to determine the aspects that the IAF needs to consider for making it an inclusive service. The aspects that need to be looked at are: the peculiarities of UAV, SAM and SSM operations during peacetime and during warlike situations, the dynamics of the technical development of weapon systems and its consequent effect on their roles and missions, the career profiling of the officers and men who operate these systems, including training and fitness for command.

Peculiarities of UAV, SAM and SSM Operations

UAV Operations. UAVs of the IAF operate from the same runways as that of the manned aircraft on its inventory. The IAF operates the Heron and Searcher UAVs of Israel, the Lakshya, a pilotless target aircraft, and the Rustom I and II series which have yet to be inducted into service.UAV crews are composed of the CO and Operations Officers from the flying branch, sensor operators and maintenance officers and men. The equipment can be reused extensively until they become redundant because of technical failure. At present, they are slower than fighter aircraft, but whose endurance on station is unmatched by fighter aircraft and unlike manned aircraft, their loss does not result in embarrassing international incidents and hence are the preferred weapon system for dull, dirty and dangerous missions!

SAM Operations. SAMs of the IAF operate around vital installations like runways, radars, strategic assets like dams, the national capital, etc. There are three “natural” classes of SAM systems; heavy long-range systems that are fixed or semi-mobile, medium-range vehicle-mounted systems that can fire on the move like the Pechora and OSA SAMs and short-range MANPADS like the IGLA. Unlike the UAVs, SAM training in peacetime is by simulation as the missiles are used only during war! SAMs also have the CO and Operations Officers from the flying branch, with technical officers and men, making up the rest.

SSM Operations. SSMs are deployed at selected locations which allow them freedom to fire vertically or at an angle towards the designated targets, like the Agni and Prithvi SSMs. They can be fired from fixed positions or movable on tracked vehicles or on rails. Due to their large size and the need for concealment, they could be housed in closed silos, with associated cabins for operations, maintenance and for crew quarters. The CO is from the flying branch, with technical officers making up the maintenance echelon. Simulators would be their main training system.

Technological Advancements in UWS

In the case of SAMs, recent advancements reveal higher levels of accuracy, reduction in size, higher kill probabilities and much greater ranges. SSMs too have seen similar advancements but in orders of magnitude higher than that of SAMs. It is UAVs, however, that have seen spectacular expansion of their roles, from surveillance and reconnaissance, to precision attack albeit, with smaller weapon loads. US UAVs have been extensively used in Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan and have demonstrated their effectiveness against terrorists and have replaced fighter aircraft as the preferred weapon system. This is because they are operating in a benign air defence environment and cause less collateral damage. UAVs have seen the most developments – in speed, size, stealth and weapon load to come close to fighter aircraft, as unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs). In the US Air Force and the Israeli Air Force, UAV flying hours on operational missions have exceeded that of manned aircraft. This has led to a greater need for recognition of their capability, the expansion of their roles and for a place for UAV crew, as the future Warriors of the Skies! The IAF needs to accept this reality and introduce changes in its roles and missions in the future.

HRD Aspects

Manning Officers. COs and Operations Officers of all these systems are from the flying branch, i.e. the fighter, transport, helicopter and navigation sub-branches. In most cases, this is their first posting after being declared temporarily unfit due to medical reasons or if they have not made it in the command list of their respective sub-streams. Since this is not what they joined the service for, there is a lack of identity with the weapon system, leading to a lack of commitment and also a lack of an inner urge to exploit the system to its optimum level. Command of such units is not yet accepted as the preferred choice, for there is little structured training and placements for positions up the career ladder, post the command tenure. Flying branch officers prefer to return to their parent sub-branch as they do not perceive these postings as selective ones for moving to higher command and staff appointments. After one tenure as an Operations Officer, the flying branch officer returns to his parent fold and may later return to command one of these units. Selection to higher staff and command assignments are not built into the system, and he is left to fend for himself, and his performance as an outstanding CO of a UWS is not made use of by the IAF for his growth.

Resolution

Right from the word go when the fledgling flying branch officer joins the service, it must be instilled that all sub-branches i.e. the fighter, transport, helicopter, navigator and unmanned weapon system assignments are all equal and that each officer has a stake in the progress of the IAF and he will have to prove his worth where deployed. The career profile could be restructured in a way that a flying branch officer would first complete his assignment in his parent sub-stream, acquiring a fully operational status. His next tenure would be training and posting to an advanced fighter/transport or helicopter unit and for some selected officers, onto the UWS system, depending on the requirements of the service. He would then proceed for training to the flying unit or to the UWS unit as well as that of an Operations Officer. He would then be posted to an operational flying/UWS unit. This posting to the UWS unit would be considered as an additional exposure to his advantage and not attributed to lack of flying capability. After a successful tenure, his professional capability would be assessed both by his CO as well as the Directorate of Air Staff Inspection (DASI). Then depending on his merit and the vacancies available, he would be posted to command a flying or an UWS unit. A command assignment would be the first step up the career ladder, whether it is a flying unit or a UWS unit. He would again be assessed by his seniors and by the DASI as a CO.

After a successful command tenure, those selected COs would now to go for training to take over as Chief Operations Officers (COOs) of flying wings, be they fighter, transport, helicopter, or ones that have UWS units under their command. This will bring all flying branch officers under one unified training programme. They would then be posted based on their merit, to any flying wing, which would broaden their exposure to the IAF. Hence, a transport pilot could be posted as a COO of a fighter wing and vice versa. A further professional assessment by his Station Commander/Air Officer Commanding and the DASI would ensure that each flying branch officer goes through a rigorous selection process. The next step on the ladder would be that of the status of a Station Commander/Air Officer Commanding of a flying wing. After a further assessment as in the earlier cases, he would now be fit for a higher command/staff assignment.

This flying branch officer, be he a fighter, transport, helicopter or navigation sub-branch and possessing flying or UWS experience, would have proved his capability in his parent type, then in a structured manner, would be exposed to the range of IAF operations, go through the appointments as a COO, a Station Commander or AOC. After completing an assignment as an Air Vice Marshal, he would be fit for empanelment for the rank of a three-star IAF officer.

This would hopefully answer the question of how the CO of a UWS can become a three-star IAF officer!