India’s strategic environment is shaped by its geographic diversity and its position between two nuclear-armed neighbors, Pakistan and China, with whom it shares contentious borders. The western frontier with Pakistan has been a hotspot due to historical conflicts and ongoing tensions. At the same time, the northern and eastern borders with China, particularly along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), have seen escalating friction, exemplified by the 2020 Galwan Valley clash.
India’s armed forces continuously evolve to address emerging security challenges, especially along its northern borders. Military exercises are a cornerstone of any nation’s defence strategy, serving as a vital mechanism to train troops, test equipment, refine tactics, and project power. In the case of India, a country with a complex geopolitical landscape and diverse security challenges, such exercises are indispensable.
“Exercise Prachand Prahaar,” whose name translates to “fierce strike,” emerges as a significant undertaking by the Indian Armed Forces. It was conducted from March 25 to 27, 2025, in the high-altitude terrain of Arunachal Pradesh and was a large-scale joint military drill. The exercise aimed to enhance interoperability between the Army, Air Force, and Navy while demonstrating India’s capabilities in multi-domain warfare.
Exercise Prachand Prahaar builds upon the foundation laid by Exercise Poorvi Prahar, conducted in November 2024, which focused on the integrated application of aviation assets. The current exercise expanded this concept by validating a fully integrated approach to surveillance, command and control, and precision firepower across all three services, reflecting the evolving nature of joint military operations.
Objectives. India’s military exercises serve multiple purposes, from testing new doctrines to improving service coordination. Exercise Prachand Prahaar had well-defined objectives. The multi-domain exercise tested India’s ability to conduct operations simultaneously on land, in the air, at sea, in space, and in cyberspace. The exercise emphasised seamless integration between the three services, enabling efficient command and control structures. Given the proximity to India’s northern borders, the exercise simulated combat scenarios in challenging mountainous terrain, demonstrating readiness in a high-altitude environment. The exercise incorporated modern warfighting tools such as UAVs, loitering munitions, and electronic warfare systems. Other objectives would be:-
Rapid Deployment & Mobility. Evaluating the efficiency of deploying forces, including Special Forces, artillery units, and air assets in high-altitude environments.
Precision Strikes. Validating the efficacy of long-range rockets, drones, loitering munitions, and fighter aircraft in neutralising simulated enemy targets.
Joint Surveillance & Intelligence. Utilising UAVs, satellites, and reconnaissance aircraft to enhance real-time intelligence-sharing.
Electronic & Cyber Warfare Integration. Testing the resilience of Indian forces in an electronically contested battlefield with cyber threats.
Logistics & Sustainment. Assessing how well the tri-services can sustain long-term operations in challenging terrain and adverse weather conditions.
Highlights of the Exercise.
The exercise commenced with a large-scale deployment of surveillance assets, including long-range reconnaissance aircraft of the Indian Air Force (IAF), maritime patrol aircraft from the Indian Navy, focusing on domain awareness, and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and satellites for real-time intelligence gathering. This phase emphasised situational awareness, allowing for precise target identification and battlefield management.
Once targets were identified, the exercise progressed to a synchronised firepower demonstration. The arsenal employed included Fighter aircraft such as the Rafale and Su-30MKI, which delivered precision airstrikes, long-range rocket systems, and medium artillery from the Indian Army, and attack helicopters like the HAL Prachand, which provided air support. The firepower phase illustrated India’s capacity to conduct joint operations under an electronically contested environment, integrating cyber and electronic warfare techniques.
A critical aspect of the exercise was the demonstration of rapid mobility and logistical efficiency. The armed forces executed airborne insertions of Special Forces to simulate offensive operations in enemy territory. The exercise was conducted in a networked environment with joint command centers ensuring seamless ground, air, and naval communication. Battlefield medical support drills were part of the exercise, reflecting the importance of combat casualty management in high-altitude warfare.
Strategic Implications.
Exercise Prachand Prahaar was conducted in the eastern sector, primarily in Arunachal Pradesh, an area of strategic importance due to its proximity to the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with China. The exercise aimed to enhance combat readiness, validate new operational concepts, and assess the capability of Indian forces to conduct joint high-altitude warfare.
The exercise reinforced India’s military preparedness, particularly along its northern borders, where high-altitude operations are crucial. Given China’s assertiveness along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the exercise demonstrated India’s ability to mobilise and execute joint operations effectively.
One of the exercise’s most notable outcomes was its emphasis on jointness. As the Indian military transitions towards integration, drills like Prachand Prahaar provide valuable insights into improving inter-service coordination.
The exercise sent a clear strategic message to both regional adversaries and allies. To potential aggressors, it showcased India’s combat readiness and willingness to engage in multi-domain warfare. It reaffirmed India’s role as a security provider in the Indo-Pacific region to allies and defence partners.
Exercise Prachand Prahaar provided crucial lessons shaping future defence planning and warfare conduct. The modern battlefield increasingly relies on electronic and cyber warfare, requiring continued investment in network-centric capabilities. Logistics and mobility remain critical, particularly in high-altitude conflict zones. The exercise highlighted India’s strides in defence indigenisation, with systems like the HAL Prachand attack helicopter playing a pivotal role.
Conclusion
Exercise Prachand Prahaar was a landmark military drill reinforcing India’s preparedness for future conflicts. It showcased the Indian Armed Forces’ ability to conduct high-intensity operations across multiple domains, leveraging cutting-edge technology and joint force integration. As India modernises its military and enhances its strategic posture, such exercises will play an increasingly vital role in ensuring national security and regional stability.
Please Do Comment.
For regular updates, please register your email here:-
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
My Article published on the Chanakya Forum Website
on 24 Mar 25.
A recent Indian defence committee has recommended increasing private sector participation in military aircraft manufacturing to enhance the Indian Air Force’s capabilities. The committee, led by the defence ministry’s top bureaucrat, submitted its report to Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, who has directed that the recommendations be implemented promptly. The report emphasises the need for private companies to work alongside Defence Public Sector Undertakings (DPSUs) and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) to achieve self-reliance in aerospace manufacturing. It suggests implementing short-, medium–, and long-term measures to expedite the production of Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) variants, including Mk-1, Mk-1A, and Mk-2, to address delays and strengthen the IAF’s operational readiness.
India’s aerospace and defence sector has undergone significant transformation in recent decades, evolving from a predominantly state-controlled domain to increasingly embracing private sector participation. Fighter jet production, a critical component of national defence, has traditionally been the preserve of public sector undertakings (PSUs) like Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). However, with the government’s push for indigenisation, self-reliance, and modernisation under initiatives like “Make in India,” the private sector is emerging as a vital player in this high-stakes industry. This article examines the intricacies of how private companies contribute to India’s defence capabilities and what lies ahead for this evolving partnership.
Historical Context
India’s journey into fighter jet production began in the mid-20th century, heavily reliant on foreign technology and licensing agreements. The 1960s saw HAL commence production of the Soviet-designed MiG-21 under license, marking the start of India’s aircraft manufacturing journey. Over the years, HAL expanded its portfolio, producing aircraft like the Jaguar, Mirage 2000, and Su-30 MKI, all under similar arrangements with foreign OEMs. These efforts established HAL as the cornerstone of India’s defence aviation industry, supported by other PSUs and the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
The push for Indigenous fighter jet development gained momentum with the HF-24 Marut, designed by German engineer Kurt Tank in the 1960s. However, the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas program, initiated in the 1980s by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) with HAL as the production partner, represented a significant leap towards self-reliance. The Tejas, inducted into the Indian Air Force (IAF) in 2016, showcased India’s ability to design and build a modern fighter jet, albeit with substantial reliance on imported components.
Historically, private sector involvement in fighter jet production was minimal. The defence sector’s strategic importance, high capital requirements and restricted access to advanced technology confined manufacturing to PSUs. While effective in establishing a foundational aerospace industry, this PSU-centric model faced limitations in scalability, innovation, and meeting the IAF’s growing demands, setting the stage for private sector inclusion.
A series of progressive policy reforms have driven the shift towards private sector involvement in defence manufacturing, including fighter jets. Launched in 2014, the “Make in India” initiative sought to bolster domestic manufacturing and reduce import dependency, with defence identified as a priority sector. This program encouraged private companies to participate in defence production by fostering a conducive business environment and promoting collaborations with global players.
A pivotal policy change was the liberalisation of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in defence. Previously capped at 26%, the FDI limit was raised to 74% under the automatic route in 2020, with provisions for up to 100% on a case-by-case basis for critical technologies. This opened doors for foreign OEMs to invest in India, often in partnership with private Indian firms, facilitating technology transfer and capacity building.
The Strategic Partnership (SP) Model, introduced in the 2017 Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP), marked another milestone. Designed to foster long-term collaborations between private Indian companies and foreign OEMs, the SP Model identifies private firms as Strategic Partners in manufacturing major defence platforms, including fighter aircraft. The selection process emphasises financial stability, technical expertise, and manufacturing capabilities to create a robust domestic defence industrial base.
Revisions to the DPP further supported this shift. The DPP 2016 introduced the “Buy (Indian-IDDM)” category—Indigenously Designed, Developed, and Manufactured—prioritising equipment with at least 40% Indigenous content. Offset clauses in defence contracts, mandating foreign vendors to invest a percentage of the contract value in India, have also incentivised partnerships with private companies. These policies collectively signal a departure from the PSU monopoly, inviting private sector innovation and investment.
Current Involvement of the Private Sector
The private sector’s role in Indian fighter jet production is multifaceted, spanning manufacturing, supply chain contributions, and support services. While HAL remains the primary assembler of fighter jets like the Tejas, private companies are increasingly integrated into the production ecosystem.
Supply Chain Contributions. In the Tejas program, private firms supply critical components and sub-systems. Dynamatic Technologies, for instance, manufactures the front fuselage of the Tejas, demonstrating the precision and reliability private players can offer. Larsen & Toubro (L&T) contributes to various aerospace projects, leveraging its engineering expertise, while Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) participates in component manufacturing and assembly processes. These collaborations reduce HAL’s burden and enhance production efficiency, paving the way for a more robust and agile production ecosystem.
Offset Obligations. Major defence deals have catalysed private sector involvement. The 2016 Rafale deal with France’s Dassault Aviation, involving 36 fighter jets, included offsets worth billions. Reliance Defence and Engineering partnered with Dassault to fulfil these obligations, producing components and establishing a manufacturing facility in Nagpur. Such partnerships generate business for private firms, facilitating skill development and technology absorption.
Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO). Beyond production, private companies are making inroads into MRO services, which are essential for maintaining fighter jet fleets. TASL has established advanced MRO facilities that service military and civilian aircraft, while Mahindra Defence Systems supports aerospace equipment. These services ensure operational readiness, a critical factor given the IAF’s ageing fleet.
Emerging Technologies. Some private firms are exploring adjacent fields like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Companies like TASL and Adani Defence & Aerospace are developing drones and building aerospace expertise that could eventually support fighter jet programs. While UAVs differ from manned fighters, the technological overlap strengthens the private sector’s aerospace capabilities.
Technology Transfer and Innovation. Technology transfer remains a cornerstone of private sector growth. Collaborations with foreign OEMs provide access to advanced systems, such as radar and propulsion technologies, while joint ventures encourage co-development. Private firms also invest in innovation, exploring additive manufacturing (3D printing) and artificial intelligence to streamline production and reduce costs. Over time, these efforts could lead to fully indigenous fighter jet designs.
Role of MSMEs. Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) are the backbone of the aerospace supply chain. These firms produce smaller components—fasteners, wiring harnesses, and sub-assemblies—supporting larger private companies and PSUs. By integrating MSMEs, the industry can enhance efficiency and scalability, fostering a broader industrial ecosystem and providing opportunities for growth and innovation.
Key Defence Production Private Companies. Several private companies have shown interest in participating in fighter jet manufacturing, either independently or in collaboration with HAL and foreign OEMs.
Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) has emerged as a leader in India’s private aerospace sector. Its joint venture with Lockheed Martin to produce aero structures, including wings for the C-130J Super Hercules, showcases its manufacturing prowess. Although the F-16 production proposal did not materialise, TASL’s capabilities position it for future fighter jet projects.
Mahindra Defence Systems. Mahindra has leveraged its automotive expertise to enter defence manufacturing, supplying aircraft components and expressing interest in the SP Model. Its partnership with Airbus for helicopter components reflects its ambition to expand into fighter jet production.
Larsen & Toubro (L&T). L&T’s decades-long experience in defence engineering includes contributions to the Tejas and other platforms. Its advanced manufacturing facilities and focus on precision engineering make it a strong contender in aerospace production.
Adani Defence & Aerospace. It aims to enhance India’s self-reliance in defence manufacturing. While active in UAVs, avionics, and MRO, it seeks partnerships for fighter jet production but lacks an indigenous fighter aircraft program.
Challenges Faced by Private Companies
Private companies face significant hurdles in entering fighter jet production despite growing involvement.
High Capital Investment. Aerospace manufacturing demands substantial upfront investment in infrastructure, technology, and skilled manpower. The long gestation periods before returns materialise deter many firms, particularly more minor players.
Technological Barriers. Fighter jet production requires mastery of complex technologies—avionics, propulsion, and materials science—that PSUs like HAL have developed over decades. Private companies often lack this expertise, relying on foreign partnerships that may limit technology transfer.
Bureaucratic Procurement Processes. The defence procurement system is notoriously complex, with lengthy tendering, evaluation, and approval stages. This can discourage private firms accustomed to faster commercial cycles.
Competition with PSUs. HAL’s entrenched position and government backing create an uneven playing field. Private companies must compete with HAL’s economies of scale and establish relationships with the IAF.
Quality and Certification. Fighter jets demand uncompromising quality and safety standards. Private firms must navigate rigorous certification processes, such as those mandated by the Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC), adding time and cost.
Future Prospects
The private sector’s role in Indian fighter jet production is set for significant expansion, driven by policy continuity, market demand, and technological advancements. Government initiatives such as Atmanirbhar Bharat and the Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) foster a stable investment climate, encouraging private firms to engage in aerospace manufacturing. Policy measures like strategic partnerships and increased foreign direct investment (FDI) limits further enhance private sector participation.
Market demand is another key driver. The Indian Air Force (IAF) is undergoing rapid modernisation, with plans to replace ageing aircraft and induct advanced fighters. Additionally, India’s ambition to become a defence exporter presents lucrative opportunities for private companies. Countries in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa could become potential buyers, bolstering the case for increased private production.
Technological advancements are also reshaping the industry. Additive manufacturing, artificial intelligence, and advanced materials reduce entry barriers and enable new players to contribute. Collaborations with global aerospace firms can further accelerate technology absorption.
However, for private firms to succeed, key enablers must be addressed. Streamlining procurement processes, enhancing R&D funding, and developing a skilled workforce are critical. Bureaucratic hurdles and financial constraints have historically hindered private participation, but targeted reforms could unlock their full potential. If these challenges are managed effectively, private companies could be pivotal in next-generation fighter projects like the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). This would strengthen India’s defence manufacturing ecosystem and enhance its strategic autonomy in aerospace technology.
Conclusion
The involvement of the private sector in Indian fighter jet production marks a paradigm shift from a PSU-dominated landscape to a collaborative ecosystem. While challenges like capital intensity and technological gaps persist, the opportunities—driven by policy reforms, IAF requirements, and global partnerships—are immense. Companies like TASL, Mahindra, and L&T exemplify the potential of private enterprises to enhance India’s defence capabilities. As the nation strives for self-reliance, the private sector’s role will be pivotal in shaping a robust, innovative, and competitive aerospace industry, ensuring that India’s fighter jets soar not just in the skies but also as symbols of industrial prowess and strategic autonomy.
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
References:-
Singh, Abhijit. “Public-Private Partnership in Indian Defence Manufacturing: A Strategic Perspective.” Journal of Defence Studies, vol. 16, no. 2 (2023): 51-78.
Raghavan, Ramesh. “The Role of Private Companies in Defence Production: Lessons from Global Models.” Strategic Analysis, vol. 45, no. 1 (2022): 29-50.
Mehta, Sameer. “India’s Quest for Fighter Jet Autonomy: Challenges and Opportunities for the Private Sector.” Air Power Journal, vol. 17, no. 3 (2022): 12-35.
Sharma, Arvind. “HAL and the Evolving Role of Indian Private Defence Firms.” Journal of Defence Research and Development, vol. 19, no. 4 (2023): 88-105.
Chakrabarti, Rajesh. Defence Economics in India: The Transition to a Military-Industrial Complex. Oxford University Press, 2020.
Sinha, Rakesh. Privatisation and Defence Manufacturing in India: The Road Ahead. Routledge, 2019.
Pandit, Rajat. “HAL and the Private Sector: A New Era in Indian Fighter Jet Production.” The Times of India, March 10, 2023.
Peri, Dinakar. “Adani and Tata’s Role in India’s Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) Project.” The Hindu, August 12, 2023.
Unnithan, Sandeep. “How Private Players Are Transforming Indian Defence Manufacturing.” India Today, November 15, 2022.
Singh, Rahul. “India’s LCA Tejas and the Private Sector: The Growing Role of Private Industry in Aerospace.” Hindustan Times, July 20, 2023.
Mitra, Joydeep. “The Rafale Offset Deal: How Private Companies are Gaining from India’s Fighter Jet Deals.” Business Standard, September 25, 2023.
Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS). The Future of India’s Indigenous Fighter Jet Development: Role of Private Sector. CAPS Report No. 231, 2023.
Observer Research Foundation (ORF). Public-Private Collaboration in Indian Defence: Global Lessons and Local Challenges. ORF Special Report, 2022.
Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA). Self-Reliance in Indian Defence: Evaluating the Private Sector’s Role. IDSA Monograph No. 82, 2023.
Carnegie India. India’s Fighter Jet Ecosystem: Bridging the Capability Gap through Private Sector Involvement. New Delhi: Carnegie India, 2023.
Kumar, Rohit. “The Evolution of the Tejas Fighter Jet: Indigenous Capability and the Role of Private Sector.” Defence and Security Review, vol. 24, no. 3 (2022): 15-37.
My Article published on the EurasianTimes Website on 19 Mar 25.
In an interesting development, Portugal, Canada, and Germany are hesitating over the F-35. These developments can be both a challenge and an opportunity for India, whether India should jump into the fray and take the risk or stay away.
Indian Worries. India’s worries include operational and maintenance challenges, US policy uncertainty and technology transfer issues. Countries reconsidering their F-35 purchases usually cite concerns about high operational costs, maintenance complexities, and reliability issues. If a country like Canada, with a strong NATO supply chain, has problems, India, without an established F-35 ecosystem, could face serious logistics nightmares. India has historically struggled with restrictive American defence deals (e.g., CAATSA concerns with Russia). If Canada and Portugal are reconsidering under U.S. influence, India’s potential F-35 deal might come with diplomatic strings attached. Moreover, the U.S. is unlikely to share deep tech integration rights.
Opportunity. On the bright side, the cancellations by these countries could open up production slots, potentially leading to expedited deliveries if India proceeds with an F-35 deal. Furthermore, under these circumstances, Lockheed Martin may be more accommodating in pricing or support agreements with India. A limited number of F-35s could act as a stepping stone to India’s indigenous AMCA program, providing valuable 5th-gen combat experience until India develops its own.
Balancing Affordability and Capability. Balancing affordability and capability in fighter acquisition programs is a complex and intellectually stimulating challenge in defence procurement. Modern fighter jets, with their advanced avionics, stealth technology, and weapons systems, are not just engineering marvels but also strategic assets that can dominate air, land, and sea. However, these capabilities come at a steep cost, and governments must grapple with budgetary constraints while ensuring their air forces remain capable of addressing current and future threats.
Trade-offs. Understanding and navigating the myriad trade-offs in fighter aircraft acquisition programs are a cornerstone of defence procurement. Balancing performance, cost, operational requirements, and strategic objectives is a complex task that governments and military planners must master to ensure optimal capability within the constraints of their resources. This knowledge empowers decision-makers and enhances the effectiveness of defence strategies.
Trade-Offs for Consideration in Fighter Acquisition Programs
Cost vs. Capability. A fundamental trade-off in fighter acquisition is between cost and capability. High-end fifth-generation fighters like the F-35 and the F-22 offer unparalleled performance but come at an exorbitant price. More cost-effective alternatives, such as the F-16 or the Gripen, may lack some advanced features but remain viable options for many air forces. Nations must decide whether to prioritise cutting-edge technology or opt for a more extensive fleet with slightly reduced capabilities.
Multirole Flexibility vs. Specialisation. Many modern fighters, such as the F-35 and Rafale, are designed as multirole platforms capable of performing air-to-air, air-to-ground, and electronic warfare missions. This flexibility reduces fleet diversity but may lead to compromises in specific roles. In contrast, specialised aircraft like the A-10 Thunderbolt II excel in close air support but lack air superiority capabilities. Decision-makers must weigh whether a single multirole platform meets their needs or if specialised aircraft are necessary.
Short-Term vs. Long-Term Investment. Some nations prioritise acquiring proven, off-the-shelf platforms that provide immediate operational capability, while others invest in the long-term development of next-generation aircraft. The former minimises short-term risks but may become outdated sooner. The latter approach, seen in programs like the Tempest and NGAD, is high-risk but ensures future technological superiority.
Fleet Size vs. High-End Technology. Budget constraints often force militaries to choose between a more extensive fleet of less advanced fighters or a smaller number of top-tier aircraft. A more comprehensive fleet provides more coverage and sortie rates, while a smaller fleet of high-end fighters offers superior combat capability. For instance, many nations supplement their fleets of expensive stealth aircraft with cheaper fourth-generation fighters to maintain numbers.
Capability vs. Quantity. Nations must decide between procuring fewer advanced jets or a more extensive fleet of less capable aircraft. For instance, the U.S. chose to supplement its high-end F-22 fleet with the more affordable F-35, while countries like China and Russia have emphasised quantity to ensure strategic depth.
Indigenous Development vs. Foreign Procurement. Countries face a strategic choice between developing domestic fighter programs and purchasing from foreign suppliers. Indigenous programs, such as India’s Tejas/AMCA or South Korea’s KF-21, promote self-sufficiency but require significant research and industrial infrastructure investment. Buying foreign jets ensures immediate capability but can lead to dependency on external suppliers.
Indigenous Fighter Development for Cost-Effectiveness. India’s HAL Tejas was developed to reduce reliance on foreign fighters while maintaining affordability. Designed with modular upgrades in mind, the Tejas has gradually improved with better radar, weapons integration, and avionics. Despite delays in development, its affordability compared to Western counterparts has made it an attractive option for India’s long-term air power strategy.
Balancing Affordability and Capability
Balancing affordability and capability in fighter acquisition programs is a complex but essential task for modern air forces. Governments must ensure that their aircraft provide operational effectiveness without exceeding budgetary constraints. The following best practices help achieve this balance.
Comprehensive Lifecycle Planning. A fighter jet’s cost extends far beyond its initial acquisition price. Governments must consider long-term expenses, including operation, maintenance, upgrades, and eventual disposal. Comprehensive lifecycle cost analysis, which involves estimating all costs associated with a system over its entire life, helps mitigate budgetary surprises and ensures financial sustainability over decades of service.
Incremental Upgrades. Modern fighter jets should have modular systems and open architectures to accommodate incremental upgrades. This approach extends an aircraft’s service life while spreading costs over time. The F-16 Fighting Falcon, introduced in the 1970s, remains operational due to continuous upgrades in avionics, radar, and weapons. This strategy prevents obsolescence while reducing the need for costly new aircraft acquisitions.
Focus on Multi-Role Capability. Multi-role fighters provide greater operational flexibility by performing various missions with a single platform. The Dassault Rafale exemplifies this concept, capable of air-to-air combat, ground attack, and reconnaissance missions. This versatility allows air forces to reduce the number of specialised aircraft types, simplifying logistics and maintenance while lowering overall costs.
Prioritising Export Potential. Designing fighter jets with exportability in mind helps amortise development costs and reduce per-unit expenses. Countries that successfully market their fighters to foreign buyers can reinvest revenues into further technological advancements.
Emerging Trends and Technologies. Technological advancements are reshaping how air forces balance affordability and capability. The following emerging trends offer cost-effective solutions while enhancing combat effectiveness.
Unmanned Systems. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and ‘loyal wingman’ drones, which are autonomous aircraft that operate alongside manned aircraft, complement traditional fighter jets by taking on high-risk missions at a lower cost. These platforms can conduct reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and combat operations without endangering pilots. Programs like the Boeing MQ-28 Ghost Bat highlight the growing role of UAVs and ‘loyal wingman’ drones in modern air combat.
Artificial Intelligence. AI-powered systems improve decision-making, enhance situational awareness, and reduce pilot workload. Advanced AI integration enables autonomous operations, making fighters more effective while potentially reducing crew training costs. AI-driven mission planning and adaptive combat algorithms are key to next-generation fighter capabilities.
Conclusion
Balancing affordability and capability in fighter acquisition programs is a complex but essential endeavour. As nations face evolving threats and fiscal constraints, the ability to make strategic trade-offs will determine their air power’s effectiveness. By embracing innovative technologies and fostering international collaboration, governments can achieve an optimal balance that ensures operational readiness and financial sustainability.
India traditionally prefers non-restrictive platforms like the Rafale and Su-30MKI that allow customisation. The F-35, despite its advanced stealth and networking, is deeply tied to U.S. control mechanisms. If Germany, Canada, and Portugal, NATO allies with solid U.S. interoperability, are hesitating, India must be doubly cautious before signing anything. The Big Question, however, remains whether India should even consider the F-35. After analysing the factors mentioned earlier, the current answer is negative (even with faster delivery schedules).
For considering the F-35 as a potential option for India, several critical concerns must be addressed to make it a viable choice. Foremost among these is the issue of technology transfer and support to Indigenous aircraft development.Operational sovereignty is essential, as any restrictions imposed by the U.S. could limit India’s ability to integrate indigenous systems and conduct independent upgrades. Cost considerations (including procurement, maintenance, and lifecycle expenses) must be carefully weighed against alternative platforms. Geopolitical reliability is another key factor, given past U.S. sanctions and export restrictions that could impact fleet sustainability. Finally, interoperability with India’s existing fleet and infrastructure must be thoroughly assessed to ensure seamless integration without excessive logistical burdens. Addressing these concerns through ironclad agreements and long-term strategic assurances would be essential for India even to consider the F-35 option (in limited numbers).
Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.
