[DrPriyankT]

@Skanchan95, to get around the CAATSA, India may buy NAASMS, more P-8 Poseidons, more MH-60R's, more C-130J's and a few more Apaches. The American Military Industrial complex won't get a customer like India sanctioned under CAATSA. We are a bigger customer than even the Turks.

And regarding the Fulcrums, I feel its just a on paper acknowledgement of the deep upgrades that have been happening now.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by R2D2

I really have to wonder about the $$ layout for this white elephant. F16/F21 may have been a more practical option with Lockheed Martin and Tata's JV manufacturing the fighter locally.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

And coming to the F35, I believe it’s actually cheaper than the rafale and the eurofighter to buy right now thanks to economies of scale and will continue to get cheaper. Also, we should keep in mind that it’s meant to replace a plethora of American fighters ranging from the F16s, Older F15s, harriers and older hornets and become the main aircraft for American air power, so I really don’t think it’s as fragile as it’s portrayed (unlike the F22).

The main problem with buying a F35 is that we’ll end up having one too many platforms. But then again the AMCA could very well drag into the 2040s given the record of HAL, so do we really want to go that long without a decently stealth aircraft when the Chinese already have one? The Chinese could even share the J-31 platform with the Pakistanis.

Originally Posted by skanchan95

Agreed. See what happened to Turkey - they got booted out of the F-35 programme because of "political" & "security" reasons. The four F-35s that were ready for delivery to the TuAF were not delivered. Amidst all this F-35 discussions, we are buying 21 MiG-29s and 12 Su-30MKIs from Russia. It is only a matter of time before the US invokes the ghost of CAATSA over this. Even if we go ahead and buy US built fighters, there is no guarantee of lifetime,sanction free support to the fleet. It is better to stick to the reliable French or Russians.

So I'm going to try and parse through the arguments about the F-35 and include some points.

Cost - dragracer567 is correct, the current blocks of the F-35 are indeed much cheaper than the stratospheric costs we saw in the media with early Block 1 and Block 2 versions. This is because Lockheed has finally achieved the economies of scale through all of it's facilities and with a massive order book, they'll be churning F-35s out by the bucket load, further reducing the cost, especially when compared directly vs expensive small rate production European competitors like the Rafale and the Typhoon (it's very similar to what you see for cars). Another point that gets lost is that there are 3 variants of the F-35 and it's the VTOL capable F-35B that's most expensive (nearly $30m more than the standard A variant)! That F-35A is pretty much in the ballpark of the Rafale's price.
Unless the IN were planning to incorporate the F-35 (and considering they want a twin engine fighter and not VTOL) we can safely exclude both the F-35B and F-35C for arguments sake - then it would be the IAF operating a small F-35A fleet as a sort of silver bullet force. In that regard you now have a compelling argument vs the Rafale in terms of just how much more the F-35 can give in terms of sensor fusion.

Sensor fusion - ah but this segues into a good point. Aircraft in Indian inventory already operate a bizarre mish mash of Russian, Israeli and French systems all networked to each other using what I can only imagine are workarounds on our side. Over time I'd reckon the IAF has a fairly competent capability in this regard. The spanner in the works is by virtue of the F-35 being the most networked fighter in history, and underpinning the digital battlespace picture for NATO forces, Lockheed and the Americans are understandably Insanely protective of not just the hardware (there are only a few authorised service level locations for hardware fixes) but more so of the software - you literally require Lockheed technicians to come with their secure data linked machines to make firmware updates on the jet (and that's a big part of a jet that's had more issues stemming from it's software than hardware over the years). In fact Israel is the only operator country that's allowed to have access to source level code to make adjustments to their fleet. Let's be honest, India will Never have the sort of Congressional lobbying power to get that sort of concession in stark contrast to policy with other historic NATO partners. So if we got it, we'd have a right pickle working out how to network the F-35 with our combat assets, juggling not only the requirements of COMCASA but how to get around CAATSA sanctions because these F-35s would be expected to talk to Russian origin jets in IAF service. This last issue is a major sticking point I just can't see us getting around, not easily at least.

The Turkey precedent - Turkey got booted primarily for the high profile S-400 purchase even though they're a NATO member. Buying Russian missile systems as a NATO partner would be akin to India purchasing the JF-17, it's absolutely bizarre. Now there's a myriad other reasons for Why Erdogan did this. To summarise, he felt aggrieved at the Americans for not extraditing exiled Turkish cleric/leader Fethulla Gulen who Erdogan was convinced was behind the abortive coup against him. Also there was the repeated US pushback to Turkish efforts to engage in offensive operations against Kurdish forces which Turkey view as enemies (they have a complicated history with the Kurds - they don't recognise them). All these combined to have Erdogan royally irked enough to go out of his way to get back at the Americans. His petulance resulted in Turkey rightfully getting booted from the JSF programme even though they're a partner with Turkish firms manufacturing a fair few components. Now India won't exactly have this NATO issue but let's spin this around. The US has repositioned itself from counter insurgency ops in the Middle East back to great power competition since the tail end of the Obama administration (it was reflected in their most recent defence white paper). No surprises in the great power it's competing against being China and to a less direct extent, Russia. India's inside line into the F-35 would only come in the day that the requirements for the US to counter China are So enormously pressing that it would be in their interest to station a US origin platform on China's southern doorstep. This is obviously very hard to forecast..

But we've come this far, so let's just imagine what it Would look like to have IAF roundels on an F-35 - well you guys asked for it. Say India, after concerted diplomatic efforts both in New Delhi and Washington pulls off the coup of being granted sales of the F-35 (not partner access to the programme - bridge too far imo). We end up fielding a squadron's worth. This is where it'll be useful to borrow the example of the F-35s wearing IAF star of David's, I speak of course of the Israeli's. We've seen that they pretty much wasted no time in getting theirs before pressing them into service against the Syrians (the Israeli's have launched strikes with impunity the last few years). India would likely be more circumspect but I'm not speaking purely about the operational issue here, my worry is the regional escalation issue. Shortly after seeing the Israeli's using their F-35s with abandon, there's been voices in the Arab parts of the Middle East, particularly the UAE in wanting to have some of their own. Now this will be halted by the fact that there's an unwritten rule in Washington that Israel must be provided weapons by the US that allow it to maintain a technological and warfighting advantage over their near peers. If India would get the F-35, we'd have a deep penetrating platform that would likely terrify the PAF and royally irk the PLAAF. What we might see then is that as a way to get back at the US and India, China might sanction the sale of the potential J-31 to the PAF (unlikely they'd sell the J-20 to Pakistan) and would likely position J-20's in Tibetan forward air bases in concert with their upcoming stealth strategic bomber. The latter would really ruin India's day because it would give an almighty headache to our defence planners. So you're starting to see that the F-35 would immediately set off a set of consequences that could exacerbate an already tense picture on the subcontinent.

So it's really not as cut and dry wrt getting an F-35. I've just laid out and gamed the scenario for you based on my thinking. It's here that I think a softer option in terms of the ensuing ramifications would indeed be an advanced LO UAV.

Originally Posted by dragracer567

Other than the platforms already discussed, another UCAV platform which I believe was already in contention is the General Atomics Avenger (or the Predator C) which I believe still isn’t operational yet but was aggressively marketed to India. Infact, the Indian armed forces themselves were eager to buy as many as 100 of these as per media reports back then (source). It’s basically like the predator and reaper drones but with turbo fan engines while having avionics and stealth from the F35. This is quite an unique platform though it’s upto the Indian armed forces to decide if it makes sense for them.

So something like the Avenger would indeed make an interesting intermediate step to getting an Indian equivalent to the RQ-170 Sentinel that the Americans were able to park over Abottabad at will to see what was going on underneath, relatively unbeknownst to the Pakistanis. That's an enticing capability for India.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by ads11

But we've come this far, so let's just imagine what it Would look like to have IAF roundels on an F-35.

Sorry,couldn't resist but You asked for it.







You made an interesting point about J-31s. What if China sells J-31s to the PAF just to piss India off first? The legendary Indian reactionary purchase instincts will kick to look for an equal or better alternative. With India pulling out of the Su-57 programme, what other options does India really have in terms of stealth aircraft? F-35 only realistically, unless India partners the UK in the Tempest programme, which is still on paper. So the F-35 will be the only viable option left. To counter both the PAF & PLAAF stealth aircraft together on two fronts, one would need atleast 4-5 squadrons worth of F-35s.

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

Sorry,couldn't resist but You asked for it.

Originally Posted by skanchan95

With India pulling out of the Su-57 programme, what other options does India really have in terms of stealth aircraft? F-35 only realistically, unless India partners the UK in the Tempest programme, which is still on paper. So the F-35 will be the only viable option left. To counter both the PAF & PLAAF stealth aircraft together on two fronts, one would need atleast 4-5 squadrons worth of F-35s.

A very valid point indeed. On a parallel thread (and not a counter argument to your point) - the real counterweight for the stealth fighters in enemy inventory would be even more advanced radar systems & larger contingents in dual layer arrangements of advanced AD systems like the S400s. In my opinion (which is that of a layman) - the better way to counter stealth fighters is not dog-fights but capable SAM systems if they are available, deployed in overlapping fields in strategic locations. Given the long range coverage for the S400, in theory this would be a feasible solution with a practically achievable number of batteries coupled with correctly position radar systems.

Once & if the enemy stealth planes manage to breach this line of defense into our airspace, dogfights with them can be reasonably possible with conventional 4.5G fighter interceptors as well since at closer distances the plane should be identifiable, engage-able with modern AESA phased array radars onboard frontline fighters. (My guess i.e.)

Own stealth fighters would be better for preemptive and/or retaliatory strikes instead.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

Sorry,couldn't resist but You asked for it.

Attachment 2025547

Attachment 2025545

Attachment 2025546

You made an interesting point about J-31s. What if China sells J-31s to the PAF just to piss India off first? The legendary Indian reactionary purchase instincts will kick to look for an equal or better alternative. With India pulling out of the Su-57 programme, what other options does India really have in terms of stealth aircraft? F-35 only realistically, unless India partners the UK in the Tempest programme, which is still on paper. So the F-35 will be the only viable option left. To counter both the PAF & PLAAF stealth aircraft together on two fronts, one would need atleast 4-5 squadrons worth of F-35s.

Hah! I appreciate the renders! Seeing it with an underslung missile load out made me wonder about something - considering the limited space of the F-35 weapons bay, the IAF would have an almighty headache trying to not only work out which of it's arsenal of missiles are configured to work on it, but to see which ones would fit in there in the first place! It would require a whole lot of work to get say Astra's I imagine to fit in there - and I'm only going on the work the Americans have had to do to adapt existing missiles to fit.

Anyway you've cottoned on to what I was alluding to - the fact that all China would need to do to throw a spanner in the works is kit the PAF with the J-31. That being said it's been a while since I've seen any new flight test imagery of the J-31, so I'm curious how far along that programme is. On paper it really it takes a lot of the boons of the F-35 in terms of it's LO surface shaping concepts and instead of requiring a single mighty engine, it opts for a twin engine load out (granted that also has to do with the well published fact that Chinese engines just aren't on par with their Western counterparts yet). But in doing so they aren't prisoner to the limitations of the F-35 in that a solitary airframe had to fulfil the VTOL mission as well, which I think most will admit now has handicapped the USAF and USN at the cost of giving the USMC the jump jet they lusted after. So essentially if the Chinese really nail it they could have a much cheaper and uncompromised cousin to the F-35A (and I say cousin because it's no secret that Chinese state sanctioned industrial espionage of the JSF programme data led to the striking similarity between the J-31 and F-35).

Coming back to your point, if India were to go for a reactionary purchase, which in itself is an atrocious way to go about things considering it compounds the already bad problem we have of a patchwork assortment of platforms, there really wouldn't be any flight worthy alternatives. Like it or not, beyond the F-35 the only hope for India to buy an off the shelf 5th gen platform would be to go back to the Russians for what is still a deeply stunted programme. And like you said the Tempest programme hasn't even got off the planning stage yet so it's well over a decade before it reaches flight testing of a prototype, let alone squadron level service options. However choosing to partner with the UK on such a huge strategic programme would signal a change to a long term outlook and perhaps it could be welcome synergy. There's no denying that the existing aerospace engineering base in the UK, though far removed from the halcyon days post WW2, is still at the top table. What they desperately lack is funding, which India could bring (not saying we're rolling in money but I'd wager we'd have more of a ROI than the Su-57). It's clear that the UK would openly welcome such investment in a dreary post Brexit industrial environment for them and I imagine historic ties are such that there should be less likelihood of major hiccups in working together. But the problem with the Tempest programme is that the currency it's most in need of is time and that's the question for India, does it have that time?

My line of thought is this: for now, by not ostensibly escalating the regional picture by acquiring something like the F-35 it should hopefully preclude the PAF suddenly lighting a fire under its butt to get itself the J-31. However the ball remains in China's court in that it could just as easily offer the J-31 to the PAF to escalate from their side. What I wager is prudent for India to do is to absolutely have a well defined picture of what the IAF fleet structure and associated missile defence network should look like to counter the inevitable use of LO assets against Indian interests/positions (a question of when, not if). To that end we're seeing the noises HAL is at least making with the AMCA. However it needs to be much more than just noises. It's time India started to deliver. And it should certainly have some back up in place that is feasible keeping in mind geopolitical and economic realities.

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

A very valid point indeed. On a parallel thread (and not a counter argument to your point) - the real counterweight for the stealth fighters in enemy inventory would be even more advanced radar systems & larger contingents in dual layer arrangements of advanced AD systems like the S400s. In my opinion (which is that of a layman) - the better way to counter stealth fighters is not dog-fights but capable SAM systems if they are available, deployed in overlapping fields in strategic locations. Given the long range coverage for the S400, in theory this would be a feasible solution with a practically achievable number of batteries coupled with correctly position radar systems.

Once & if the enemy stealth planes manage to breach this line of defense into our airspace, dogfights with them can be reasonably possible with conventional 4.5G fighter interceptors as well since at closer distances the plane should be identifiable, engage-able with modern AESA phased array radars onboard frontline fighters. (My guess i.e.)

Own stealth fighters would be better for preemptive and/or retaliatory strikes instead.

So this is absolutely a valid argument. Create essentially an A2/AD bubble of multiple overlapping radar and SAM systems. And that's entirely the most feasible option for India, the irony being that it would be akin to deploying the same playbook the Chinese have opted for in the SCS to make entry of any USN carrier strike groups something they'd have to seriously consider instead of being able to do with impunity. The Chinese programme that seriously worries me however is their long range strategic bomber programme, think of it as their B-2 Spirit. A LO platform such as that able to deliver payloads deep into Indian territory unencumbered by whatever air defence bubbles we have is something that to me at least, is deeply disconcerting. Such a platform is entirely a strike platform for incising into your target territory, it's half the reason the USAF can have theirs set off from home soil and fly half way round the world and pummel a position and be home to catch the news the next day. While China might want theirs to be able to say venture out into the Pacific and hit Guam without relying on their vulnerable and aging H-6's needing to venture well beyond their protective sphere to be effective, such a platform would offer the PLAAF an incredibly useful tool to wield against India much closer to home. For all the S-400's vaunted strength I think it hasn't yet come face to face with a 5th gen LO platform yet, part of me thinks this is due to both sides being wary of the other like cage fighters. Hence you haven't seen USAF F-22s or F-35s overlap with S-400 systems AFAIK. I think the first instance we'll really see of the S-400 being tested is if the Israeli's use theirs and run into one though I'm not sure if the Syrians have the S-400 yet; Israel hasn't directly struck Turkey or had reason to; Netanyahu and Putin seem to have an understanding that they avoid each other; and I doubt any of the GCC nations have the S-400 in their arsenal either.

But as it's patently clear at this stage a lot of this devolves into conjecture. We'll just have to see how things evolve in our neighbourhood to see which direction all the players end up taking.

[Shreyans_Jain]

Noob questions

What’s an LO platform? What’s an A2/AD bubble?

[ads11]

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

Noob questions

What’s an LO platform? What’s an A2/AD bubble?

Ah sorry, it's hard not to fall prey to the military industrial complexes favourite past-time this side of hoovering all the taxpayer money - coming up with & using acronyms. Find a uniformed service member anywhere and I bet you they can rattle off a whole list of acronyms. In discussing these, even an armchair observer like myself, can't help but fall for the same trap.

LO is for Low Observable. Colloquially it's often taken to be synonymous with stealth/invisibility but in most instances it's referring to the electromagnetic signature of the platform. How well you're able to deflect and dissipate the radar returns to minimise how you appear on the radar receivers display. LO as a concept is much more broad spectrum in that it also includes things such as the electronic emissions signature of an aircraft. So when I mention LO platform I'm basically referring to something that has features designed to reduce it's electromagnetic signature and this can include something like a cruise missile, an aircraft (fighter/bomber/UAV), a vehicle or a ship.

A2/AD stands for Anti Access Area Denial.

"..alludes to that family of military capabilities used to prevent or constrain the deployment of opposing forces into a given theater of operations and reduce their freedom of maneuver once in a theater"

Simply put it's creating conditions through the use of say SAM systems; fixed weapon installations & fortifications; forward basing fighters; etc that all combine to impede the ability of an outside actor to operate freely in a specific zone or area. So in that sense it's pretty much self explanatory. It's recently come back in vogue in the last decade or so because that's the policy the Chinese are pursuing (eg all their shenanigans in the South China Sea). Their aim is to firstly establish all the way till the First Island Chain (which includes Taiwan) control such that the USN cannot send their carrier strike groups (CSGs) within sight of Chinese shores. Once they've achieved this the next stage is to extend this buffer zone all the way till the Second Island Chain (now including Japan), hence their need for true blue water capability. I suppose examples from history would include those such as the Maginot line as well. In principle it was established to deny the sort of manoeuvring from WW1. So when I mention A2/AD bubble I'm essentially referring to that combination of military capability that creates that zone of hopefully impassibility but at the very least severe inconvenience to those willing to push through.

Hope that helps.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by ads11

Hah! I appreciate the renders! Seeing it with an underslung missile load out made me wonder about something - considering the limited space of the F-35 weapons bay, the IAF would have an almighty headache trying to not only work out which of it's arsenal of missiles are configured to work on it, but to see which ones would fit in there in the first place! It would require a whole lot of work to get say Astra's I imagine to fit in there - and I'm only going on the work the Americans have had to do to adapt existing missiles to fit.

For the benefit of our readers, let me demonstrate what "limited" space in the F-35's weapons bay means (applicable to stealth aircraft like F-22, F-117 , Su-57 etc). The stealth bombers like B-2 have bigger internal weapons bay and therefore have larger payload capacities.

The principal reason for using weapons in internal weapons bay is to make the aircraft stealthy/ difficult to detect on radar. Modern combat aircraft are designed to have minimal radar cross-sections, which makes it difficult to detect by airborne and surface radars. Large racks of missiles and bombs hanging below the wings return very distinct radar signatures which was eliminated by designing internal weapon bays to carry weapons inside the fuselage. This also improved aerodynamic performance and also increases the payload which can be carried and the range of the aircraft.

In the F-35's internal weapons bay, it can carry 4 X AIM-120s ( 2 in each bay) or 1 X AIM-120 & 1 X GPS/Laser guided bomb (in each weapons bay, which means 2X AIM-120 & 2 X guided bombs in the jets internal weapon bays).

In Stealth mode, weapons carried only in the internal bays. none of the wings( 2 X AIM-120 AMRAAMs & 2 X GBU-31 JDAMs<GPS Guided>)


In flight. To fire/drop the weapon, the internal bay door opens once the trigger is pressed by the pilot and it is at that moment the aircraft momentarily loses its stealth capabilities.


Weapons carried on wings + in the internal bay[ 2 X AIM-120 AMRAAMs, 2 X GBU-31 JDAMs<GPS Guided> in the internal bay, 2 X AIM-9X Sidewinders & 8 X GBU-38 JDAMs < on twin ejector racks, GPS Guided> on the Wings]

[arijitkanrar]

Originally Posted by skanchan95

For the benefit of our readers, let me demonstrate what "limited" space in the F-35's weapons bay means (applicable to stealth aircraft like F-22, F-117 , Su-57 etc). The stealth bombers like B-2 have bigger internal weapons bay and therefore have larger payload capacities.

I have to ask, where o'where did you find such a beautiful scale model which has operable weapons bay doors?

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by arijitkanrar

I have to ask, where o'where did you find such a beautiful scale model which has operable weapons bay doors?

Generally most of these can be found on Amazon.com easily (the USofA one, not .in). I have a fully functional (including BB firing air-soft gun) T90 tank model that I had ordered from there (of course it is made in PRC ). Shopping from Amazon.com into India is quite simple & shipping charges are reasonable for desirable items that cannot be found here in India. Here's one sample F35C-

Amazon.com : F35C scale model

(Currently hardly anything is order-able of course due to COVID19 restrictions and transport disruptions all over the world.)
Historic warbirds, tanks, RC kits - you can also find on AliExpress.com in addition to Amazon.com (again - Covid19, postal disruption + China's undue arrogance up north mean this avenue is pretty much congested right now too.)

I have a Fw190 RC warbird in my wishlist in both sites since a while now! Some day I'll take the plunge surely.

[skanchan95]

Originally Posted by arijitkanrar

I have to ask, where o'where did you find such a beautiful scale model which has operable weapons bay doors?

The model does not have a mechanism for "working" landing gear and weapon bay/landing gear and its doors so to speak (meaning the landing gears doesn't retract into its bay or the weapons bay door close and open). But I do know of very expensive models that have such working mechanisms.

It doesn't have operable weapon bay doors and landing gear. It comes with various attachments using which you can either display the model in any one the following "attachments" configurations:

A) Open weapons bay doors/ landing gear deployed
OR
B) Open weapons bay doors/ landing gear up
OR
C) Weapons bay closed and Landing gear up.
OR
D) Weapons bay closed and Landing gear down

It also has two types of cockpit canopy attachments- one "closed" and other "open". The attachments are removable but in some models are 'weak' and needs careful handling.

The model box with various weapons, pilot, canopy, landing gear and door attachments for the display configurations I listed above




HobbyMaster is probably the most well known, detailed and quality conscious brands in the world, beaten probably only by Calibre Wings.

Almost all of these well known aircraft model brands are based or have factories in China. If one is into the Boycott Chinese thing, you'll be in a dharam sankat while deciding to buy those models.

I buy most of these models, including the HM F-35A, from DBJets.com. A few I have bought from Aliexpress. A little birdie told me that Customs have begun clearing Chinese origin consignments stuck In Indian sea and air ports after clearance from "THE" higher authorities.

And there is this wonderful thread started by Narayan Sir on Aircraft Scale Models, which thanks to all the contributors, has become a wonderful thread to browse through if you a scale model lover- Scale Models - Aircraft, Battle Tanks & Ships

[ValarMorghulis]

OK, another noob question to the experts here:
Isn't F-35 maintenance hours more than say, F-18? Wouldn't it be prudent to have multiple F-18 Hornets (if India ever gets a chance to buy F-35 or F-18 that is), which can do more sorties in a day (I read 9 more in a day than an F-35)?
Also since our primary target would be either Pak or China, we'll need more speed than stealth or am I missing big chunks in my primitive knowledge?

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by ValarMorghulis

OK, another noob question to the experts here:
Isn't F-35 maintenance hours more than say, F-18? Wouldn't it be prudent to have multiple F-18 Hornets (if India ever gets a chance to buy F-35 or F-18 that is), which can do more sorties in a day (I read 9 more in a day than an F-35)?
Also since our primary target would be either Pak or China, we'll need more speed than stealth or am I missing big chunks in my primitive knowledge?

I'm sure the experts here will answer it far better. But pure numerical superiority would have meant India and China would be ruling 50% of the earth each simply on the population counts.

While higher number of cheaper planes certainly has a case for itself, note that the auxiliary expense of maintenance, upgrades and operational costs also increase with each extra unit procured. So there needs to be a balance in an advanced platform that is complemented by capable support crafts.

Pure numerical superiority can never assure victory in calculations on paper. That math generally results in a higher attrition also. If an adversary acquires a more advanced weapon system, the dice are pretty much rolled for you and one doesn't have too many options but to counter that to maintain the balance. Either you get equal or better planes OR an alternate defense mechanism that does the job.

In theory you can send 12 F18s to counter 5 F35s and save money let's assume. But that works only if the F18s along with any available AWACs can actually spot and engage the stealth plane from a safe distance. If the stealth has already reached its attacking range from intended target - you are already late.

Speed and likely superior training regime we have may get the job done when it comes to Pakistan given the size of the country E2E. This does not work with China in case of an all out conflict. For the key targets that are spread across thousands of KMs in Tibet and beyond - the planes need a lot of travel to target and stealth surely is a vital item for deep interdiction/strike missions. Without stealth, IAF would be primarily looking at interception, defense, infantry support & tactical strikes in near-range battlefield level. Nothing strategic whatsoever.

So - perhaps the doctrine itself may focus on using cruise and ICB missiles to target deep strategic targets while the air-force assumes the role primarily of local air cover. In this strategy, a higher number of cheaper planes, makes a case.

[locusjag]

A scrapped and auctioned Mig 21 is busy attracting footfalls for a Dhaba in the NCR region now:

From sentinel of skies to dhaba decoration, a MIG-21 finds new home - https://indianexpress.com/article/in...-6496683/lite/