Source: Weichert, Brandon J. “India and France Are At Each Other’s Throats Over the Dassault Rafale Fighter.” The National Interest, May 28, 2025.
The National Interest (TNI) is an American bimonthly international relations magazine edited by American journalist Jacob Heilbrunn and published by the Center for the National Interest, a public policy think tank based in Washington, D.C., that was established by former U.S. President Richard Nixon in 1994 as the Nixon Center for Peace and Freedom. The magazine is associated with the realist school of international studies.
Washington D.C. – A recent article by Brandon J. Weichert in The National Interest sheds light on a burgeoning diplomatic and defense procurement crisis between India and France, sparked by the “dismal showing” of India’s advanced Dassault Rafale fighter jets in its recent four-day conflict with Pakistan. The underwhelming performance, particularly against Pakistan’s Chinese-built aircraft and PL-15 missiles, has triggered a wave of recriminations and raised questions among other international clients of French defense contractors.
According to Weichert’s analysis, the “unimpressive display” of the Rafales in the early phases of the recent India-Pakistan confrontation has sent shockwaves through the global defense market. One immediate fallout is the government of Indonesia launching an audit of its recent deal to purchase several Dassault Rafales, a move transparently linked to concerns about the French fighter’s combat performance in the subcontinent.
The Blame Game: Paris Punches Back at New Delhi
In an attempt to salvage the Rafale’s reputation, Paris is reportedly “punching back at New Delhi,” attributing the losses to India’s maintenance practices and pilot error rather than inherent deficiencies in the advanced fighter jet. Weichert notes unconfirmed reports that the Indian government is “refusing” to grant Dassault’s audit team access to its Rafale fleet, fearing that the French auditors’ primary objective is to shift blame onto the Indian Air Force (IAF) itself.
While India categorically denies these insinuations, Weichert suggests that “poor IAF pilot training and lax maintenance standards over the course of many years” could indeed have contributed to the “catastrophe.” However, he cautions against a simplistic explanation, arguing that “the French are trying to cover for the fact that their complex Rafale jets are no longer superior enough to Pakistan’s Chinese-built aircraft to justify their vastly higher price tag.”
India’s Decade-Long Readiness Crisis
Weichert points to a decade of “well-documented” but “unaddressed” readiness issues within the IAF that lend credence to France’s concerns. He highlights findings from the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence:
- Pilot Shortages: The IAF has been grappling with a “critical shortage of pilots,” with a shortfall increasing from 486 in February 2015 to 596 in 2021.
- Training Aircraft Issues: Personnel shortages have delayed repairs and operational issues with critical training aircraft, such as the Pilatus PC-7-Mk-II.
- Insufficient Pilot-to-Seat Ratio: The pilot-to-seat ratio of 1.25:1 for fighter aircraft was deemed insufficient for “high-intensity operations” by the Parliamentary Committee.
- Fighter Squadron Deficit: The IAF possessed a meager 31 fighter squadrons, significantly below its air doctrine’s call for a minimum of 42.
- Delayed Phasing Out: The force also failed to phase out older aircraft and introduce new ones in a timely manner, further degrading its defense readiness.
“Clearly, the French auditors are aware of these issues,” Weichert writes, emphasizing that “nothing the Indian government did to resolve their aircraft and pilot shortages worked.”
The PL-15 Factor: Chinese Advances Cannot Be Dismissed
However, Weichert stresses that India’s readiness issues cannot solely account for the “excellent performance of Pakistani PL-15 missiles against what were supposedly India’s superior air capabilities.” He argues that these issues “cannot camouflage the problems with the French weapons and warplanes that India was using against Pakistan.”
Crucially, Weichert underscores that “no one should dismiss the very real strides the Chinese have made in terms of producing systems that are on par with, or perhaps even better in some cases, than the expensive and complex Western systems.”
The Source Code Stand-off and Chinese Mockery
Another major point of contention highlighted in the article is Dassault’s persistent refusal to share the source code for the Rafales with the IAF. India argues that access to this code is essential for “seamless maintenance over the avionics suite, the complex mission systems, and to maintain key weapons integration.” Weichert speculates that Dassault’s reluctance could stem from fears of intellectual property theft or a deeper concern that India might discover it “was bilked by another Western defense contractor that overcharges, over-promises, and under-delivers.”
The ongoing dispute has provided fertile ground for Chinese triumphalism. Weichert points to “wolf warrior” diplomats on social media mocking New Delhi’s inability to access the Rafale’s source code, especially when news broke about India capturing an intact Chinese PL-15 missile. One such diplomat questioned, “India spent $288 million per Rafale, and they don’t even have access to the source code… Yet, they can’t even access the core functions of their own Rafale jets?”
Shared Blame and India’s Urgent Need for Rethinking
Weichert concludes that “for whatever reason one prefers, India was unprepared for the high-intensity of the war with Pakistan at the start.” He asserts that India’s rapid escalation of the conflict was an attempt to compensate for this unpreparedness.
Ultimately, Weichert places blame on both sides: “While France and India will continue to point fingers at one another, they ultimately share the blame for the obvious failures at the start of the war.” He issues a stark warning that “India in particular must change course while time remains,” suggesting a fundamental rethinking of its armed forces and procurement strategies.
Disclaimer: The content provided on Vogue Tribune is for informational and educational purposes only. While we strive for accuracy, the dynamic nature of news means that information may evolve over time. We rely on credible sources, but we do not guarantee the completeness, reliability, or absolute accuracy of the content. The views expressed in articles, op-eds, or guest contributions belong to the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Vogue Tribune. Readers are encouraged to verify critical information through additional sources before making decisions based on our reporting. Vogue Tribune is not liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from the use of this information. For corrections, clarifications, or feedback, please contact: admin@voguetribune.com
