![](https://bharatshakti.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/LT-BSI-Defence.gif")
Editor’s Note
The author argues in this piece that modern warfare has shifted from the pursuit of outright superiority to cost-driven asymmetry, in which cheap, scalable unmanned systems can impose disproportionate costs on an adversary. In this context, India’s legacy certification regime, built for manned platforms, has become a constraint, leading to over-engineering, inflated costs, and slowed innovation in the drone ecosystem. The piece contends that treating expendable unmanned systems like long-life aircraft undermines their very purpose. It calls for a fundamental reset – a flexible, mission-oriented certification framework that accepts calculated risk, enables rapid iteration, and aligns standards with the economic logic of contemporary warfare.
The Economics of Modern Warfare
For decades, air warfare revolved around the idea of achieving outright superiority—dominating the skies through better aircraft, superior training, and overwhelming force. However, modern conflict has steadily shifted away from this paradigm toward one of economic asymmetry, where the objective is not necessarily to destroy the adversary outright, but to impose disproportionate costs on him.
In such a framework, victory is achieved when the enemy finds it increasingly expensive and unsustainable to continue operations. This shift is particularly relevant in an era where military budgets, even for major powers, are under pressure.
Nations are now seeking ways to achieve maximum operational impact at minimal cost. The emergence of unmanned systems—ranging from small drones to sophisticated UAVs—has provided precisely this opportunity, fundamentally altering the economics of warfare.
Asymmetric Warfare – The Rise of Unmanned Systems
Unmanned systems have brought about a paradigm shift, transforming the operational landscape by enabling persistent surveillance, precision targeting, and scalable force deployment without risking human lives. Their ability to remain airborne for extended durations and perform repetitive or dangerous missions makes them indispensable in modern combat scenarios. From intelligence gathering to offensive roles such as loitering munitions, their versatility is unmatched.
More importantly, the removal of the pilot from the platform has changed the very nature of risk in aerial operations. The psychological and strategic burden associated with the potential loss of human life has been removed from the equation, allowing militaries to employ these systems more aggressively, including in high-risk environments where the use of manned platforms would pose significant risks.
At the heart of modern warfare lies the concept of cost imposition—forcing the adversary to spend far more on defence than what is spent on attack. A relatively inexpensive drone can compel the deployment of costly air defence systems, including missiles, radars, and electronic warfare assets. Even if the drone is neutralised, the exchange remains favourable to the attacker.
When multiplied across dozens or even hundreds of platforms operating simultaneously, this cost imbalance becomes strategically decisive. Swarm tactics can saturate even advanced air defence networks, forcing the adversary into a reactive and financially draining posture. Over time, this leads to a situation where sustaining operations becomes economically unviable for the defender.
Recognising these advantages, leading military powers have consciously moved away from traditional, highly conservative certification models for unmanned systems. Instead, they have adopted a more flexible approach that prioritises mission effectiveness over long-term durability.
Systems are being designed with limited operational lifespans, tailored to specific mission requirements rather than prolonged service and re-usability. This shift has enabled rapid innovation cycles, allowing new technologies to be tested, refined, and deployed in significantly shorter timeframes.
The use of commercial off-the-shelf components has further reduced costs and improved scalability. In some cases, even unconventional materials are being used effectively, underscoring the emphasis on functionality over perfection. For example, a cardboard drone is preferred over a stronger, more durable drone made of composite materials.
Pitfalls of Legacy Mindset
India’s certification ecosystem has evolved over decades with a strong emphasis on safety, reliability, and robustness—principles that are absolutely essential for manned aviation. These standards have ensured the safety of aircrew and the operational integrity of the Indian Air Force’s fleet. However, the same stringent norms are now being applied to unmanned systems without adequate differentiation.
It has resulted in a misalignment between operational requirements and certification practices. Systems that are inherently expendable or short-lived are being subjected to standards designed for long-life, high-value manned platforms. Consequently, the very advantages that unmanned systems are meant to provide—cost efficiency and scalability—are being undermined.
One of the most visible consequences of this approach is the tendency toward over-engineering. For instance, specifying an engine life of 1000 hours for a drone expected to operate for only 20 to 50 hours introduces unnecessary complexity and cost. Such requirements not only inflate development timelines but also make the final product economically unviable.
Over-engineering also limits designers’ flexibility, forcing them to prioritise durability over affordability. It runs counter to the fundamental philosophy of many unmanned systems, which are intended for use in large numbers and, if necessary, to be sacrificed during operations.
Stifling Innovation
The current certification approach has created a paradox within the industry. Manufacturers are compelled to design systems that are simultaneously low-cost and highly durable—two mutually incompatible objectives. It leads to inefficient design compromises and suboptimal solutions.
For example, efforts to create extremely low-cost yet long-life composite structures result in increased design complexity without delivering proportional operational benefits. Instead of enabling innovation, such requirements constrain it, preventing the industry from exploring more practical and cost-effective alternatives.
Start-ups and small to medium enterprises, which are key drivers of innovation in the unmanned domain globally, face significant challenges under the existing certification regime. Lengthy approval processes, high compliance costs, and regulatory uncertainties discourage new entrants and slow down technological progress.
Innovation thrives in environments that encourage experimentation and iteration. When certification becomes a bottleneck rather than an enabler, it not only delays development but also risks making indigenous solutions obsolete by the time they are operationally cleared.
Inability to Mass Produce
Another critical impact of stringent certification norms is the limitation they impose on production scalability. The insistence on high-end materials and components restricts the use of commercial supply chains and rapid manufacturing techniques. It, in turn, affects the ability to ramp up production in response to operational demands.
The rapid advancement of unmanned systems globally has been driven in large part by the adoption of commercial technologies. Components developed for consumer electronics and other industries offer cost advantages and are readily available at scale. Integrating these into military systems can significantly reduce development time and cost.
In a conflict scenario, the ability to produce and deploy large numbers of systems quickly can be decisive. A rigid certification framework that does not account for this requirement undermines national preparedness and limits strategic flexibility.
The Core Issue: Risk Aversion
At the heart of these challenges lies an institutional tendency toward risk aversion. Traditional certification emphasises the platform’s structural integrity and longevity. This mindset, while justified in the context of manned aviation, becomes a constraint when applied indiscriminately to unmanned systems. The historical emphasis on eliminating all possible risks has led to a reluctance to accept even calculated and manageable risks.
In the unmanned domain, such an approach is neither practical nor desirable. The absence of onboard human life fundamentally alters the risk equation, necessitating a reassessment of what constitutes acceptable risk, wherein it must be evaluated in relation to mission objectives rather than absolute safety standards. Factors such as cost of loss, operational lifespan, and mission criticality need to be considered when defining acceptable thresholds, with the bottom line being to impose an asymmetric cost of operation on the adversary.
By prioritising mission objectives over platform perfection, certification agencies can adopt a more balanced approach that ensures operational objectives are met without imposing unnecessary design constraints. A system designed for a short-duration mission does not require the same reliability standards as a long-endurance platform. This shift in perspective allows for more pragmatic decision-making. Instead of striving for perfection, the focus should be on achieving an optimal balance between performance, cost, and reliability.
A tiered certification framework offers a practical solution to the challenges outlined above. By categorising unmanned systems by role, cost, and operational profile, certification requirements can be tailored accordingly. High-end strategic UAVs would continue to be subjected to stringent standards, while lower-cost tactical and disposable systems would benefit from relaxed norms.
Such an approach ensures that safety and reliability are not compromised where they matter most, while still enabling flexibility and innovation in other areas. It also provides clarity to the industry, allowing manufacturers to design systems with well-defined certification pathways.
Indian certification agencies need to define clear guidelines for the use of components manufactured as consumer goods and readily available in the market. By allowing graded adoption based on mission-criticality, they can enable the industry to harness the benefits of commercial innovation without compromising essential safety requirements.
The impact of certification philosophy can be clearly seen in the example of engine life requirements. Under the current approach, specifying a 1000-hour engine life for a short-duration drone leads to higher costs and longer development timelines. It makes the system less attractive from both operational and economic perspectives.
By aligning the requirement with the mission profile—say, 50 to 100 hours—the system becomes significantly more affordable and easier to produce. This simple adjustment can dramatically enhance operational flexibility and scalability.
An Appetite for Risk
Unlike traditional aircraft development, which follows long, linear timelines, unmanned systems benefit from iterative development cycles. Rapid prototyping, field testing, and continuous improvement are essential to keeping pace with evolving operational needs. Certification processes must adapt to support this dynamic approach.
It can be achieved through mechanisms such as provisional clearances and limited operational approvals. By deploying systems in controlled environments while they are still being refined, agencies can facilitate faster innovation without sacrificing oversight.
Developing an appetite for risk does not imply a disregard for safety; rather, it involves making informed decisions based on a clear understanding of trade-offs. Certification agencies must adopt a mindset that recognises the strategic value of calculated risk-taking. It includes being open to new approaches and learning from both successes and failures.
Such a cultural shift requires training, leadership support, and institutional reforms. It also necessitates moving away from rigid procedures toward more flexible, adaptive frameworks that can respond to changing technological and operational realities.
The Role of Leadership
Meaningful change in certification philosophy must be driven from the highest levels of leadership. Policymakers need to appreciate the strategic importance of cost asymmetry and provide clear direction to certification agencies.
Military leadership, in turn, must articulate operational requirements in a manner that supports flexible, mission-oriented certification, thus promoting innovation and permitting calculated risks. Without institutional backing, even well-intentioned reforms are unlikely to succeed.
A reformed certification ecosystem will have far-reaching implications for India’s defence industry. It will enable greater participation by private players, particularly start-ups and MSMEs, which are well-positioned to drive innovation in the unmanned domain. Lower entry barriers and clearer regulatory pathways will encourage investment and entrepreneurship.
Additionally, cost competitiveness will improve, enhancing India’s ability to produce systems at scale. It not only strengthens domestic capabilities but also opens up significant export opportunities in the global market for affordable unmanned systems.
It is important to strike the right balance between safety and strategic objectives. Relaxing certification norms should not lead to uncontrolled risks, particularly in areas where civilian safety may be impacted. Instead, standards should be context-sensitive, with stricter requirements for operations in populated areas and more flexibility in combat zones.
Such a balanced approach ensures safety is not compromised while enabling the full benefits of unmanned systems.
Way Forward
India must develop a dedicated certification framework specifically tailored to unmanned systems, recognising their unique operational and risk profiles.
This framework should incorporate a tiered approach, allowing different categories of systems to be certified under appropriately calibrated standards. By doing so, it will provide clarity and direction to both the industry and the armed forces.
Equally important is the need to define mission-based reliability standards that align with actual operational requirements rather than legacy benchmarks.
Encouraging the use of commercial technologies, enabling rapid prototyping, and fostering close collaboration between industry and certification agencies will further strengthen the ecosystem.
Finally, institutionalising modern risk assessment practices and investing in capacity building within certification bodies will ensure that these reforms are sustainable and effective.
Conclusion: Time for a Strategic Reset
India stands at a critical crossroads in its journey toward military modernisation and strategic autonomy. The rise of unmanned systems offers an unprecedented opportunity to achieve cost-effective capability while strengthening the domestic industrial base. However, this potential can only be realised if the certification ecosystem evolves in step with changing realities.
The challenge is not to lower standards, but to make them more relevant and responsive. Certification agencies must move beyond a purely risk-averse approach and embrace a more balanced philosophy that values innovation and mission effectiveness. In the era of asymmetric warfare, the ability to accept and manage the right risks will determine not just operational success, but strategic advantage.
Ultimately, the question is not whether risks can be eliminated, but whether they can be intelligently managed to impose greater costs on the adversary. Developing this capability will be key to ensuring that India is prepared not only for today’s conflicts but also for the uncertainties of tomorrow.
Air Marshal Vibhash Pande (Retd) (Author is a former AOc-in-C of Maintenance Command, IAF)
