A letter to Defence Minister, with lessons from American fighter pilot John Boyd: Jaithirth Rao

The Print

6 days ago

This writer is being a tad presumptuous in penning this letter. But knowing of your sobriety, open-mindedness, and willingness to take courageous decisions, this privilege is being boldly exercised.
1. Addressed a longstanding grievance of service personnel regarding pensions.
2. Moved assertively towards creating a younger and more agile human capital base in our armed forces through the imaginative Agnipath Yojana.
3. Started re-equipping our forces with vigour after a decade-long hiatus. In doing so, you even had to approach the Supreme Court to clearly establish your bona fides. This was really well done. The nation is grateful.
4. Encouraged much-maligned state sector entities, which have risen to the challenge. HAL, for instance, has shown fresh vigour after years of apathy. DRDO, of course, has proved its mettle not just on paper but on the battlefield.
5. You have converted bureaucratic ordnance factories into companies ensuring greater transparency and accountability. You have pushed this overdue reform despite considerable and misplaced opposition. The hope is that you will soon list these companies. About 50 years ago, this writer had the privilege of being taught by the brilliant Professor Suresh Kuchhal, who argued that many of the gains of privatisation could be achieved simply by listing PSUs. Ordnance factories would benefit from the scrutiny and visibility that listing would bring.
6. You have opened up the defence industrial complex to the private sector. With one stroke, you have done away with 80 years of self-inflicted wounds rooted in mistrust of Indian businesses. Other countries (e.g. Japan, Korea) viewed their companies and conglomerates as national assets. We have finally come around to this view. Thank you, sir.
7. You have encouraged nimble, entrepreneurial start-ups to become partners in India's defence journey. This is a source of great national benefit both in the immediate and medium term.
8. You have promoted the export of Indian defence equipment. This is a stroke of genius. The purpose is not to encourage war but to deter it. Well-equipped countries are less likely to go to war. More importantly, this move forces Indian suppliers to make products that are world-class and globally competitive.
9. You have created a solid, mutually synergistic relationship between the Defence Ministry and the Department of Space and ISRO, at a time when the Department of Space has imaginatively opened this exciting domain to India's private sector and to start-ups. The benefits will undoubtedly be magnified.
Also read: It doesn't end here. India must prepare for mightier neighbours
John Boyd, the great American fighter pilot
Now, with considerable humility, and in the hope that you are open to constructive inputs, this writer would like to offer an unusual suggestion: please read the book Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War by Robert Coram. In fact, I would go so far as to recommend that all officers in the services and civil servants in your ministry read it.
This book is about a brilliant American fighter pilot, John Boyd. He started as one of the most successful servicemen in his line and went on to identify the theoretical foundations of what had until then been attributed to the 'intuitive skills' of pilots. He developed a manual that ended up being used not only by American fighter pilots but by their counterparts across the world.
The US Air Force allowed him to fulfil his desire to go back to university. Boyd often told his friends that he didn't want to 'become' someone through promotions as ends in themselves. Instead, he wanted to 'do' something, regardless of whether he was promoted. He studied Industrial Engineering at Georgia Tech, which enabled him to pivot toward equipment design and project management.
Boyd plunged into aircraft design, defying bureaucratic norms that did not assign him this task. He argued for a simple, lean design focussed on functionality. He was not in favour of adding bells and whistles like fancy equipment and even a second engine. His vision was a nimble, singularly focussed weapon: a fighter plane. He did not win all his battles. Officers who loved bigger, more expensive (and therefore, in their opinion, better) planes opposed him. So did equipment manufacturers who wanted to keep palming off earlier designs with redundant additions for better profit margins. But Boyd managed to win most of his battles. The F-16 emerged as a 'good' plane, though Boyd himself argued it could have been 'great'.
As an aside, India may find that developing uni-focussed equipment for specific terrains such as deserts and mountains may be more effective and economical than relying on multipurpose platforms. Such equipment might also be easier to export to countries with similar geography.
Also read: Ministry of Defence has lofty reform plans for 2025. First, establish Theatre Commands
Boyd succeeded despite sabotage by bureaucracy
Boyd's associate and protégé, Pierre Sprey, fought another battle. In the US Air Force, large, complex bombers were seen as 'upper class', fighters as 'middle class', and ground support aircraft as 'low class'. These distinctions allowed Sprey to get himself almost surreptitiously appointed as chief designer of a ground support aircraft, which eventually became the US Air Force's A10 — affectionately or disdainfully known as the 'Ground Hog'. Sprey designed with vim and gusto. But he too lost some bureaucratic battles. The A10 was bigger and had exotic additions that it did not need. Once again, what emerged was a 'good' aircraft rather than a 'great' one. This aircraft was dismissed as cheap and ugly, but it emerged as a winner in the first Gulf War. The A10 was loved by pilots and feared by the enemy.
Despite support from imaginative seniors up to the level of Defence Secretaries, Boyd was denied promotions. The middle bureaucracy sabotaged his career. Boyd left the service. As it turned out, this became a blessing in disguise. He then developed his intellectual pursuits in unexpected directions. He delved deep into military history, and explored the roots of knowledge, perception and reality as these matters change in a kaleidoscopic manner. While these are fascinating, they are not germane to the purpose of this letter.
In the field of military strategy, US Services accepted Boyd's ideas grudgingly. The one unit that responded enthusiastically was the Marine Corps, the smallest of the armed services, which embraced his theoretical idea of 'getting into the adversary's decision cycle'. The Marine Corps' spectacular success in the first Gulf War vindicated Boyd. The US Army, which only partially adopted his ideas and reverted to its time-honoured traditions, saw more limited success, though this fact was covered up by their PR.
Reading Boyd's biography can be of enormous value not just for serving officers and defence designers but also for political leadership. By his own standards, Boyd failed — sabotaged by a bureaucracy that always wanted to go for the exotic, the costly, and the profitable over the efficient and effective. Safety, efficacy, and simplicity took a back seat. The system likes to fall back on 'tried and tested,' despite evidence of failure or limited success at best. It is interesting to note that even Boyd and his team could only manage 'good' designs — not 'great' ones. Yet partial success matters and must be lauded.
So, dear Raksha Mantri, when you feel frustrated by the slowness, the tediousness, and the obstreperousness of the 'system,' you may take comfort in the fact that strong American personalities — like James Schlesinger, Caspar Weinberger, and Colin Powell — faced similar hurdles and found ways to work around them.
Also read: Gaza, Ukraine being fought on techno-battlefields. Indian military is 3 decades behind
Proposal for govt: A new ministry, please
In the spirit of John Boyd, and running the risk of appearing impertinent, this writer offers the following suggestions.
1. Please create a Ministry of State position for 'Defence Design, Development, Production, and Procurement'. This should supersede the current setup focussed only on production.
2. Move the Minister of State to Visakhapatnam. Not every department needs to be based in Delhi. Space and Atomic Energy are based in Bengaluru and Mumbai. Incidentally, there will be some brownie points gained with your political partner, N Chandrababu Naidu. The Defence Ministry already has land in Visakhapatnam. Accommodating a lean department should not be a problem. Avoiding Delhi's miasmal winds will automatically provide impetus to the new ministry.
3. Some civil servants may be reluctant to move out of Delhi. There is no need to force them. This new ministry should comprise only willing personnel. The officers can be transferred to other ministries or to a central pool ensuring that they remain in Delhi as per their desire.
4. Junior and mid-level officers from all services should be deputed to Visakhapatnam. This group must be asked to read Coram's book and model themselves on Boyd's team.
5. Defence attachés in Kyiv, Moscow, Tel Aviv, and Teheran should be assigned to this ministry after their term ends. Those from Beijing, Washington, Seoul, Tokyo, and Paris should also be considered. They can bring fresh global ideas.
6. National private sector companies should be encouraged to engage with the new ministry. Stern warnings should be given to them that this engagement is for the benefit of the country and its defence. While they will certainly make profits, their role should not be that of short-term vultures.
7. These companies should be invited to second some of their best engineers and project managers for short-term assignments. These individuals should be clearly told that they will have to forego their present salaries and accept salaries on par with their government counterparts. If this is not acceptable, then they need not come. There is no compulsion. The new ministry wants only willing, enthusiastic, hungry people. These individuals will have to publicly take an oath that they will not be swayed by conflicts of interest and work indirectly for their employer's benefit. Their commitment for the next few years will only be to the country's defence.
8. A close liaison with the Department of Space and ISRO should be institutionalised. For external parties, both should appear seamlessly integrated.
9. Start-ups should be encouraged to pitch ideas to the new ministry.
10. The Raksha Mantri should visit Visakhapatnam every month for two days to review progress and assess start-up pitches.
11. The aim of the new ministry should be simple: within five years, India must have world class, state-of-the art defence equipment in multiple fields. While cutting-edge technology is important, effectiveness, cost-efficiency, and scalability should be the overarching themes. Risks will be taken in a calibrated manner. Risk-taking will not be punished. The focus will be on learning lessons and moving forward.
12. The Prime Minister should inaugurate the new ministry and visit it at least twice a year for the next five years.
It is this writer's ardent hope that our country learns from John Boyd's ideas — fully and substantially, not just partially as has been the case with America. The time is now for us to build on the amazing foundation your government has laid in recent years. The next five can be really exciting.
Jaithirth 'Jerry' Rao is a retired entrepreneur who lives in Lonavala. He has published three books: 'Notes from an Indian Conservative', 'The Indian Conservative', and 'Economist Gandhi'. Views are personal.
(Edited by Prashant)