atmanirbharta – Air Marshal's Perspective

May 1, 2025April 30, 2025

664: BALANCING COST AND COMBAT CAPABILITY IN FIGHTER JET PROCUREMENT

My article was published in the May edition of the “Life of Soldier” journal.

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 the 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. There is a need to explore the intricate trade-offs between affordability and capability, examine past successful and unsuccessful programs, and derive best practices for achieving an optimal balance.

Key Factors Influencing Fighter Acquisition Costs

Acquiring modern fighter aircraft is a complex and costly endeavour influenced by a myriad of factors, ranging from technological advancements to geopolitical considerations. Understanding these key factors is essential to comprehending the significant cost variations across different programs and nations.

Research and Development (R&D) Costs. One of the most significant cost drivers in fighter acquisition is R&D. Developing a new generation of aircraft requires extensive research, prototyping, and testing. Stealth technology, advanced avionics, and next-generation propulsion systems demand substantial investment.

Technology and Performance Requirements. The complexity of the technology integrated into a fighter jet directly influences its cost. High-end capabilities such as low observability (stealth), supercruise, advanced radar systems, and electronic warfare (EW) suites add to development and production expenses. The F-22 Raptor, known for its superior air dominance capabilities, became one of the most expensive fighters due to its cutting-edge technology.

Production Scale and Economies of Scale. The number of units produced significantly affects per-unit costs. Larger production runs allow for economies of scale, reducing the per-aircraft cost due to bulk purchasing of materials and more efficient manufacturing. For instance, the US fighter aircraft benefit from a large international procurement base, lowering their unit cost compared to limited-production fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon or the Dassault Rafale.

Supply Chain and Material Costs. Raw materials, especially those used in composite structures and stealth coatings, impact the cost of fighter jets. Specialised alloys, titanium, and radar-absorbent materials are expensive and often difficult to source. Additionally, supply chain disruptions can inflate costs, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars.

Workforce and Manufacturing Expertise. Highly skilled labour is required to assemble sophisticated aircraft. Countries with a well-established aerospace industry, such as the United States, France, and Russia, have the necessary expertise, but labour costs can vary. As seen in the F-35 production process, advanced automation and AI-driven manufacturing techniques can help reduce labour expenses over time.

Customisation and Export Modifications. Export variants of fighter aircraft often undergo modifications to meet the specific needs of the purchasing nation. These modifications can increase costs, such as different avionics, weapons compatibility, or structural changes. The Rafale, for example, had many India-specific features, leading to increased costs.

Lifecycle and Maintenance Costs. Beyond the initial acquisition, the total cost of ownership includes maintenance, spare parts, and upgrades over the aircraft’s lifespan. High-maintenance aircraft like the F-22, which require specialised maintenance for stealth coatings, can have significant long-term costs. On the other hand, modular designs and open-system architectures aim to keep maintenance costs lower.

Geopolitical and Strategic Considerations. Strategic alliances and political considerations often influence defence procurement. Countries that purchase fighters from allies may receive discounts or financing assistance as part of broader defence agreements. Conversely, embargoes or restrictions on technology transfers can drive up costs if alternative solutions are required. This underscores the need for foresight and strategic planning in defence procurement.

Trade-Offs in Fighter Acquisition Programs

Managing the intricacies of fighter aircraft procurement is vital to defence planning. Military leaders and policymakers must meticulously weigh performance, cost, operational requirements, and strategic objectives to maximise capabilities while staying within budgetary limits.

Balancing Cost and Performance. Acquiring fighter aircraft requires a delicate balance between cost and capability. While advanced fifth-generation fighters provide unmatched performance, they have high acquisition and operational expenses. More affordable alternatives may lack cutting-edge features but offer viable options for air forces with budget constraints. Governments must determine whether to invest in cutting-edge technology or build a more extensive fleet with slightly reduced capabilities.

Multirole Efficiency vs. Specialised Superiority. Modern fighters like the F-35 and Rafale are designed as multirole platforms capable of handling air-to-air combat, ground attacks, and electronic warfare. This reduces fleet diversity but may lead to trade-offs in specialised missions. Decision-makers must evaluate whether a single versatile platform meets their operational needs or if specialised aircraft are necessary for optimal effectiveness.

Domestic Production vs. Foreign Procurement. Nations must choose between developing indigenous fighter programs and purchasing aircraft from foreign suppliers. Domestic programs, such as India’s Tejas and South Korea’s KF-21, foster self-reliance but require extensive research and industrial infrastructure investment. In contrast, buying foreign aircraft ensures immediate capability but may create dependency on external suppliers for maintenance and upgrades.

Short-Term Gains vs. Long-Term Development. Some countries prioritise acquiring ready-made fighter jets to achieve immediate operational capability, while others invest in long-term development programs. Purchasing off-the-shelf platforms minimises short-term risks but may lead to obsolescence. On the other hand, long-term investments in projects like the Tempest and NGAD aim to ensure future technological superiority, albeit with higher financial and developmental risks.

Expanding Fleet vs. Cutting-Edge Technology. Budgetary constraints force militaries to choose between maintaining a more extensive fleet of less advanced aircraft or acquiring fewer high-tech fighters. A more comprehensive fleet provides excellent operational coverage, while fewer advanced jets offer superior combat capabilities. Many air forces supplement their expensive stealth fighters with more affordable fourth-generation aircraft to maintain a balance between numbers and technology.

Quantity vs. Capability Trade-offs. Nations must decide between acquiring a limited number of highly advanced fighters or a more extensive fleet of less sophisticated aircraft. For example, the U.S. supplemented its elite F-22 fleet with the more affordable F-35, while countries like China and Russia prioritise quantity to ensure strategic depth. This decision impacts force projection and overall combat effectiveness.

Case Studies

Various nations have adopted different strategies to achieve balance, ensuring operational effectiveness while managing costs.

F-16 Fighting Falcon (USA): Cost-Effective Multirole Performance. The F-16, developed in the 1970s, exemplifies how an affordable fighter can remain relevant through continuous upgrades. Originally designed as a lightweight, cost-effective platform, the F-16 has evolved with advanced avionics, radar, and weapon systems. By leveraging modular upgrades, nations operating the F-16 have extended their service life and capability without incurring the costs of entirely new aircraft programs. Its global success—operated by over 25 countries—demonstrates the financial benefits of export-oriented design.

JAS 39 Gripen (Sweden): Affordability through Smart Design. Sweden’s Saab JAS 39 Gripen was designed with cost efficiency in mind. Unlike competitors, the Gripen integrates an open-architecture system that allows easy upgrades, reducing long-term costs. Its reliance on off-the-shelf components, including an American engine and European avionics, lowers development expenses while maintaining high performance. The Gripen’s ability to operate from austere airfields and use cost-efficient maintenance procedures further enhances affordability. Its export success in countries like Brazil and South Africa has helped distribute costs across multiple buyers.

Eurofighter Typhoon (Europe): Multinational Cost Sharing. The Eurofighter Typhoon demonstrates how multinational collaboration can spread development costs while delivering a high-performance aircraft. Shared investment among Germany, the UK, Italy, and Spain allowed the Typhoon to integrate advanced capabilities while mitigating financial burdens on individual nations. Although initially expensive, its long-term sustainment plan ensures affordability through incremental modernisation.

Chengdu J-10 (China): Indigenous Development with Cost Control. China’s Chengdu J-10 was developed as an affordable, indigenous alternative to foreign fighters. China minimised costs by relying on domestic production and technology transfer from Russian sources while achieving a capable multirole aircraft. Continuous upgrades, including the J-10C variant with AESA radar and advanced avionics, have kept the platform competitive without excessive investment in entirely new designs.

Sukhoi Su-30 (Russia): Adaptability and Cost Efficiency. The Su-30 series is a prime example of how Russia balances affordability with performance. Initially derived from the Su-27, the Su-30 has been continuously upgraded to include advanced avionics, thrust-vectoring engines, and long-range strike capabilities. Its affordability and strong export potential have made it a staple in air forces worldwide, including India, Algeria, and Vietnam.

HAL Tejas (India): 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.

KAI FA-50 (South Korea): Light Fighter for Affordability and Export Success. South Korea’s KAI FA-50, based on the T-50 trainer, is a cost-effective light fighter designed for domestic and export markets. With modern avionics and weapons compatibility, the FA-50 offers a budget-friendly solution for nations requiring a capable yet affordable jet. Its success in markets like the Philippines and Poland highlights its balance of affordability and capability.

Best Practices for 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.

Lifecycle Cost Management. The total cost of a fighter aircraft extends beyond its initial purchase price. Governments must factor in long-term expenses such as maintenance, upgrades, and eventual disposal. A comprehensive lifecycle cost analysis prevents budget overruns and ensures the financial sustainability of an air force over decades of service.

Continuous Modernisation Strategies. Modern fighter aircraft benefit from modular systems and open architectures that enable incremental upgrades. The F-16 Fighting Falcon, for instance, has remained operational since the 1970s due to continuous improvements in avionics, radar, and weapons. This strategy extends an aircraft’s service life while spreading costs over time, reducing the need for costly replacements.

Leveraging Partnerships. Multinational collaborations in fighter development and production help distribute costs among participating nations. Programs like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the Eurofighter Typhoon demonstrate shared investment’s financial and technological benefits. By pooling resources, nations reduce individual financial burdens while gaining access to cutting-edge technology.

Maximising Multi-Role Capabilities. Multi-role fighters enhance operational flexibility by performing diverse missions within a single platform. The Dassault Rafale exemplifies this approach, excelling in air combat, ground attack, and reconnaissance. Such versatility allows air forces to reduce reliance on multiple aircraft types, simplify logistics, and lower maintenance costs.

Enhancing Export Potential. Designing fighters with exportability in mind helps amortise development costs and lower per-unit expenses. Countries that successfully market their fighter jets internationally can reinvest revenues into further technological advancements, strengthening their domestic defence industry.

Robust Program Management. Effective oversight and clear program objectives are crucial to avoiding cost overruns and scope creep. Strong governance, transparent communication, and disciplined financial management ensure that fighter programs stay within budget while meeting operational requirements. The U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program has emphasised digital engineering to streamline development and prevent cost escalation.

Embracing Emerging Technologies. Advancements in technology are reshaping how air forces balance affordability and capability. The following innovations are improving cost efficiency while enhancing combat effectiveness.

The Role of Unmanned Systems. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and “loyal wingman” drones complement traditional fighter jets by undertaking high-risk missions at a lower cost. These systems enhance reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and combat operations, reducing pilot exposure to danger. Programs like the Boeing MQ-28 Ghost Bat highlight the increasing integration of UAVs into modern air combat strategies.

Digital Engineering. Digital twins and model-based systems engineering accelerate fighter development and reduce costs. Digital prototypes allow designers to test and refine aircraft designs in virtual environments before physical production begins.

Additive Manufacturing. 3D printing, or additive manufacturing, streamlines the production of complex aircraft components, reducing material waste and manufacturing time. This technology enables rapid part replacement, minimising downtime and sustainment costs. Fighter manufacturers increasingly use 3D printing to enhance affordability without sacrificing performance.

AI-Driven Warfare. Artificial intelligence (AI) transforms modern fighter capabilities by improving decision-making, enhancing situational awareness, and reducing pilot workload. AI-powered mission planning and adaptive combat algorithms enable greater efficiency and operational effectiveness, potentially lowering training costs and increasing mission success rates.

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 the effectiveness of their air power. By embracing innovative technologies, fostering international collaboration, and adopting robust program management practices, governments can achieve an optimal balance that ensures operational readiness and financial sustainability. The lessons from past programs and emerging trends guide navigating this challenging landscape.

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

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:-

Arena, M. V., Blickstein, I., Younossi, O., & Grammich, C. (2008). Why Has the Cost of Fixed-Wing Aircraft Risen? RAND Corporation.

Lorell, M. A. (2003). Going Global? U.S. Government Policy and the Defence Aerospace Industry. RAND Corporation.

Tirpak, J. A. (2020). “How Much Should a Fighter Cost?” Air Force Magazine.

Trimble, S. (2018). “F-15EX vs. F-35A: The Debate Over Air Superiority Affordability.” FlightGlobal.

Shalal, A. (2021). “Cost vs. Capability: U.S. Air Force Considers Future Fighter Mix.” Reuters.

Majumdar, D. (2017). “Why Stealth Fighters Are So Expensive (And What Can Be Done About It).” The National Interest.
Laird, R. F., & Timperlake, E. (2013). Rebuilding American Military Power in the Pacific: A 21st-Century Strategy. ABC-CLIO.

Heginbotham, E., Nixon, M., Morgan, F. E., Heim, J. L., Hagen, J., & Engstrom, J. (2015). The U.S.-China Military Scorecard: Forces, Geography, and the Evolving Balance of Power, 1996–2017. RAND Corporation.

Sweetman, B. (2014). The F-35 Lightning II: From Concept to Cockpit. Zenith Press.

Johnson, J. M. (2019). The Cost of Air Superiority: The Economics of the F-22 Raptor. Air & Space Power Journal.

European Defence Agency (EDA). (2022). European Combat Aircraft: Multinational Cooperation and Industrial Sustainability.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO). (2020). The Cost of Replacing Today’s Air Force Fleet.

Kausal, V. (2003). Arming the Indian Arsenal: Challenges and Policy Options for India’s Defence Industrialisation. Routledge.

April 13, 2025

646: PRECISION FROM AFAR: INDIA’S GLIDE BOMBS AND THE CHANGING FACE OF WARFARE

My Article was published on the EurasianTimes Website

on 13 April 25.

In early April 2025, India successfully tested two indigenously developed glide bombs. The first, Long-Range Glide Bomb (LRGB) named “Gaurav,” was tested between April 8 and 10, 2025, from a Sukhoi Su-30 MKI fighter jet of the Indian Air Force (IAF). This 1,000-kg class bomb, designed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) in collaboration with Research Centre Imarat, Armament Research and Development Establishment, and Integrated Test Range, Chandipur, demonstrated a range close to 100 kilometers with pinpoint accuracy. The trials involved multiple warhead configurations and targeted a land-based site on an island, paving the way for its induction into the IAF. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and DRDO Chairman Dr. Samir V. Kamat praised the achievement, highlighting its role in enhancing India’s standoff strike capabilities and self-reliance in defence technology.

The second was the lightweight “Glide” bomb, called the SAAW (Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon), which the IAF and DRDO test-fired in Odisha. The SAAW is a lightweight, precision-guided bomb designed to target enemy airfields, runways, bunkers, and other reinforced structures at ranges up to 100 kilometers. Weighing approximately 125 kilograms, it features advanced guidance systems, including electro-optical sensors, for high accuracy. The weapon has been integrated with platforms like the Jaguar and Su-30 MKI, with plans to equip it on the Dassault Rafale and HAL Tejas MK1A. Three tests were carried out under varying release conditions and ranges, all successful. The DRDO Chairman announced that the SAAW is set for imminent induction into the armed forces, enhancing India’s precision-guided munitions arsenal.

These developments underscore India’s push toward indigenous defence solutions amid regional competition. Both bombs offer cost-effective, accurate, and standoff strike options to engage targets while keeping aircraft beyond enemy air defences. In the ever-evolving landscape of modern warfare, long-range glide bombs have emerged as a transformative technology, blending precision, affordability, and strategic flexibility. These munitions, designed to glide over extended distances to strike targets with pinpoint accuracy, have redefined how militaries project power, neutralise threats, and minimise risks to personnel and assets.

Long-Range Glide Bombs

Long-range glide bombs, sometimes called standoff glide munitions, are unpowered or minimally powered precision-guided weapons that rely on aerodynamic lift to travel extended distances after being released from an aircraft. Unlike traditional free-fall bombs, glide bombs have wings or fins that allow them to glide toward their target, often covering ranges from tens to hundreds of kilometers. They typically incorporate advanced guidance systems—such as GPS, inertial navigation, or laser homing—to ensure accuracy, even against moving or heavily defended targets.

The effectiveness of long-range glide bombs lies in their simplicity and adaptability. A typical glide bomb consists of several key components:-

- Warhead. The explosive payload can range from 100 kilograms to over a ton, depending on the target. Warheads may be high-explosive, bunker-busting, or fragmentation-based.

- Guidance System. Most glide bombs use a combination of GPS and inertial navigation for all-weather accuracy. Some advanced models incorporate laser or infrared seekers for terminal guidance, enabling strikes on moving targets.

- Aerodynamic Surfaces. Foldable wings or fins provide lift, allowing the bomb to glide efficiently. The glide ratio—distance travelled per unit of altitude lost—determines the weapon’s range.

- Control Unit. An onboard computer processes navigation data and adjusts control surfaces to keep the bomb on course.

When deployed, a glide bomb is released at a high altitude (typically 30,000–40,000 feet) and high speed. The launch aircraft’s momentum and altitude provide the initial energy, while the bomb’s wings extend to maximise the glide distance. As it descends, the guidance system corrects its trajectory, ensuring it hits within meters of the intended target. Some systems, like the U.S.’s Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) GBU-39, can achieve ranges exceeding 100 kilometers under optimal conditions.

These munitions bridge the gap between conventional bombs and cruise missiles. While cruise missiles are self-propelled and highly autonomous, they are expensive and complex. Glide bombs, by contrast, are more cost-effective.

Historical Context and Global Developments

The concept of glide bombs dates back to World War II, with early examples like Germany’s Fritz-X, a radio-guided bomb used to attack ships. However, these primitive weapons lacked the range and precision of modern systems. The development of long-range glide bombs gained momentum in the late 20th century as advancements in electronics, aerodynamics, and satellite navigation enabled greater accuracy and standoff capabilities.

The U.S. military’s Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) program, introduced in the 1990s, marked a significant milestone. JDAM kits transform unguided “dumb” bombs into precision-guided munitions by adding tail fins and GPS guidance. While early JDAMs had limited range, subsequent variants like the JDAM-ER (Extended Range) incorporated foldable wings, extending their reach to over 70 kilometers. Other nations, including Russia, China, and European powers, have since developed their glide bomb systems, such as Russia’s KAB-500 series and China’s LS-6 precision-guided bombs.

Recent conflicts, particularly in Ukraine and the Middle East, have showcased the growing prominence of glide bombs. For example, Russia has extensively used glide bombs like the FAB-500-M62 with UMPK kits, allowing Su-34 and Su-35 aircraft to strike targets from beyond the reach of short-range air defences. Similarly, Western-supplied glide bombs, such as France’s AASM Hammer, have been employed by Ukraine to target Russian positions with high precision.

Strategic Advantages

Long-range glide bombs offer several strategic benefits that make them indispensable in modern warfare:-

- Standoff Capability. Gliding bombs allow aircraft to strike from beyond the range of enemy air defences, reducing the risk to pilots and platforms. This is particularly valuable against adversaries with sophisticated surface-to-air missile systems.

- Cost-Effectiveness. Compared to cruise missiles, which can cost millions per unit, glide bombs are far cheaper. For example, a JDAM-ER kit costs around $20,000–$40,000, making it a budget-friendly option for precision strikes.

- Versatility. Glide bombs can be tailored to various targets, from fortified bunkers to mobile convoys. Modular warheads and guidance systems allow militaries to adapt them for specific missions.

- Mass Deployment. Because they are relatively inexpensive and easy to produce, glide bombs can be used in large numbers to overwhelm defences or saturate key targets.

- Reduced Collateral Damage. Precision guidance minimises unintended destruction, making glide bombs suitable for urban environments or near civilian infrastructure.

Challenges and Limitations

Despite their advantages, long-range glide bombs are not without drawbacks. Their unpowered nature makes them dependent on the launch platform’s altitude and speed, limiting their range compared to powered missiles. Additionally, while GPS guidance is efficient, it can be disrupted by electronic jamming or spoofing, as seen in conflicts like Ukraine, where Russian forces have employed electronic warfare to degrade GPS-dependent munitions. Glide bombs are also vulnerable to advanced air defences if launched within the interceptors’ range. For instance, systems like the Patriot or S-400 can engage glide bombs at certain altitudes and distances.

Global Proliferation and Future Trends

The proliferation of long-range glide bombs is reshaping global military dynamics. Countries like India, Turkey, and South Korea are investing heavily in indigenous glide bomb programs. At the same time, non-state actors and smaller nations seek access to these technologies through exports or reverse-engineering. This democratisation of precision strike capability could complicate future conflicts, enabling asymmetric actors to challenge stronger adversaries.

Future advancements in artificial intelligence and autonomous navigation will likely enhance glide bomb capabilities. AI-driven guidance could allow bombs to adapt to jamming or dynamically select targets in real time. Hypersonic glide bombs, which combine high speed with extended range and are also under development, promise to blur the line between bombs and missiles further.

Conclusion

Strategically, glide bombs shift the balance between offense and defence. By enabling standoff strikes, they challenge traditional air defence paradigms, forcing adversaries to invest in more advanced countermeasures. This arms race could drive up military spending and destabilise regions already prone to conflict.

Long-range glide bombs represent a pivotal evolution in precision warfare, offering militaries a cost-effective, versatile, and low-risk means of projecting power. Their ability to strike from a distance accurately has made them a cornerstone of modern arsenals, from superpowers to emerging nations. However, their proliferation and potential for misuse underscore the need to consider their ethical and strategic implications carefully. As technology advances, glide bombs will likely play an even more significant role in shaping the battlefields of tomorrow, balancing destructive power with the promise of precision.

Please Add Value to the write-up with your views on the subject.

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

Link to the article on the website:-

Bomb, Missile Or A Fusion? India Turns To Long-Range Glide Bombs That Proved “Effective” In Ukraine War

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

References:–

Press Information Bureau (PIB), Government of India. “Successful Flight-Test of Indigenous Glide Bombs ‘Gaurav’ and ‘SAAW'”. PIB, April 11, 2025.

Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), “DRDO Conducts Successful Trials of ‘Gaurav’ and ‘SAAW’ Glide Bombs”, DRDO, April 10, 2025.

The Hindu, “India Successfully Tests Indigenous Glide Bombs ‘Gaurav’ and ‘SAAW'”, The Hindu, April 12, 2025.

Hindustan Times, “DRDO’s ‘Gaurav’ and ‘SAAW’ Glide Bombs Set for Induction into IAF”, Hindustan Times, April 12, 2025.
Livefist Defence, “Inside India’s Glide Bomb Program: ‘Gaurav’ and ‘SAAW’ Take Flight”, Livefist Defence, April 11, 2025.

Observer Research Foundation (ORF), “India’s Glide Bomb Advancements: Strategic Implications and Regional Dynamics”, ORF, April 2025.

Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), “Enhancing Precision Strike Capabilities: The Role of ‘Gaurav’ and ‘SAAW'”, IDSA, April 2025.

Jane’s Defence Weekly. “DRDO’s Gaurav and Gautham: India’s Smart Glide Bombs Take Shape.” Janes.com, August 2023.

IISS. “India’s Precision Strike Capabilities: Strategy and Deployment.” Strategic Dossier, International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2023.

Defence Decode. “Gaurav vs Gautham: Decoding India’s New Air-Launched Precision Bombs.” YouTube / Defence Decode Channel, March 2024.

RAND Corporation. “Emerging Military Technologies in South Asia: Glide Bombs and Beyond.” RAND Brief, 2023.

April 3, 2025April 2, 2025

637: THE GEOPOLITICS OF FIGHTER EXPORTS AND JOINT VENTURES

My Article was published on the Indus International Research Foundation Website on 02 April 25.

Fighter aircraft exports and development are more than commercial transactions or technological endeavours. Fighter exports and joint ventures serve as key instruments of statecraft, influencing alliances, shaping military doctrines, and reinforcing spheres of influence. Beyond economic interests, fighter exports often signal political alignment, with buyers and sellers engaging in long-term defence cooperation that extends beyond individual transactions. Complex negotiations usually accompany the sale of advanced fighter jets, offset agreements, and technology transfer arrangements, which carry significant diplomatic and security implications. The United States, Russia, China, and European powers dominate this space, but emerging players like India, South Korea, and Turkey increasingly assert themselves. There is a need to explore the multifaceted dimensions of fighter exports and joint ventures, analysing their impact on global security, economic interests, and diplomatic manoeuvring.

The Strategic Significance of Fighter Aircraft Development Programs

Fighter aircraft represent the apex of military aviation, integrating state-of-the-art engineering, advanced technology, and substantial financial investment. These platforms are key instruments in modern warfare, providing air superiority, precision ground attack capabilities, and deterrence. The strategic significance of fighter jets extends well beyond their battlefield utility, influencing geopolitical alignments, economic landscapes, and technological advancements.

Power Projection. The export and co-development of fighter aircraft significantly enhance a nation’s ability to project power beyond its borders. Supplying fighter jets to allies, an exporting nation extends its strategic reach, ensuring its influence in key regions. Nations with advanced fighter capabilities can assert dominance over contested airspace, deter potential adversaries, and support allied operations with force projection.

Alliance Building. Defence agreements involving fighter jets are instrumental in solidifying alliances. The procurement of these aircraft often necessitates long-term agreements that go beyond a simple arms transaction. Training programs, maintenance support, and logistical cooperation ensure sustained engagement between supplier and recipient nations. For instance, the U.S. sale of F-35 fighters to NATO allies strengthens collective defence, while India’s collaboration with France on the Rafale program deepens bilateral ties.

Economic Impact. Fighter aircraft programs play a crucial role in economic development for exporting and recipient nations. Manufacturing these sophisticated platforms generates high-skilled jobs, fosters technological innovation, and stimulates the defence industry. For importing nations, participation in joint ventures or localised production can help build a domestic aerospace sector, reducing long-term dependence on foreign suppliers and fostering economic self-reliance.

Technological Sharing. Collaborative fighter programs provide an avenue for technological transfer, enabling recipient nations to develop indigenous capabilities. By engaging in co-development projects, such as India’s involvement with Russia on the Su-30MKI or Japan’s partnership with the U.K. and Italy on the next-generation fighter program, nations acquire critical knowledge in avionics, stealth technology, and aerospace engineering. This reduces reliance on foreign manufacturers and strengthens national security.

Geopolitical Dimensions of Fighter Exports

Fighter aircraft exports are deeply intertwined with the geopolitical strategies of major military powers. Beyond economic gains, these transactions serve as instruments of influence, shaping alliances, regional security dynamics, and global power structures. Exporting fighters enables nations to strengthen partnerships, enforce strategic conditions, and maintain regional balances of power.

Exporting Influence. Fighter aircraft exports are often tied to the exporting nation’s broader geopolitical objectives. The U.S. dominates global fighter exports, offering aircraft such as the F-16, F-15, and F-35. These sales typically include conditions that align recipient nations with U.S. strategic goals, such as interoperability with NATO forces and adherence to U.S.-led arms control policies. For example, selling F-35 fighters to NATO allies and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states strengthens collective security frameworks and reinforces U.S. influence in these regions. On the other hand, Russian fighter exports, including the Su-30, Su-35, and MiG-29, play a crucial role in Moscow’s foreign policy. Russia leverages these sales to sustain its geopolitical clout in South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. India’s long-standing acquisition of Su-30MKI fighters exemplifies this strategic relationship, ensuring continued defence cooperation between the two nations. China is emerging as a formidable player in the fighter export market. The JF-17 Thunder, co-developed with Pakistan, exemplifies Beijing’s ambitions to challenge U.S. and Russian dominance. With its affordability and modularity, the JF-17 has gained traction among developing nations seeking capable yet cost-effective fighter platforms.

Export Restrictions and Conditionality. Exporting nations often impose restrictions to safeguard their strategic interests and limit the recipient’s operational autonomy. Exporting nations usually restrict access to critical fighter technologies to prevent potential adversaries from gaining sensitive capabilities. This limitation affects recipient nations that seek to develop indigenous aerospace industries but must navigate restrictions on advanced avionics, stealth technology, and weapon systems. The U.S. enforces strict end-user agreements to regulate how exported fighters are used and resold. For instance, Turkey’s removal from the F-35 program following its purchase of Russia’s S-400 air defence system underscores the geopolitical stakes of such agreements.

Regional Balance of Power. Fighter aircraft exports significantly influence regional security landscapes. Exporting nations frequently calibrate their sales to maintain a delicate balance and prevent regional destabilisation. The U.S. sells advanced fighters like the F-15 and F-35 to Saudi Arabia and Israel. While supporting GCC states against Iran, Washington ensures that Israel retains a qualitative military edge through exclusive access to superior variants and additional defence systems. Russia’s fighter sales to India and China highlight its efforts to balance relationships with two regional powers with a complex strategic rivalry. By equipping both nations with advanced aircraft, Moscow maintains leverage while preventing either from becoming overly dependent on Western defence suppliers.

Joint Ventures: A Collaborative Approach.

Joint ventures in fighter aircraft development represent a strategic approach to balancing technological advancement, economic efficiency, and national security interests. Participating nations can foster technological independence by sharing costs, risks, and expertise while strengthening geopolitical alliances. These collaborations play a crucial role in shaping the global defence landscape.

Technology Sharing and Sovereignty. Joint fighter development programs enable nations to develop cutting-edge aircraft while enhancing domestic aerospace capabilities. Notable examples include. A collaboration between Germany, the UK, Italy, and Spain, the Eurofighter Typhoon exemplifies how nations can pool resources to produce a world-class multirole fighter. The program has enhanced European defence capabilities and reinforced industrial cooperation among partner nations. A joint project between Pakistan and China, the JF-17 Thunder allowed Pakistan to develop an affordable and capable fighter while gaining valuable experience in aircraft manufacturing. This partnership has strengthened Pakistan’s aerospace industry, reducing reliance on Western suppliers.

Geopolitical Complications. Despite their advantages, joint ventures are often complex and fraught with challenges. Competing interests among partner nations can lead to inefficiencies, delays, and disputes over work share. For instance, the Eurofighter program experienced significant delays due to disagreements over each partner’s production priorities and technological contributions. Nations involved in joint ventures may have differing operational requirements or export policies, leading to complications in decision-making. Varying national security interests can hinder smooth cooperation and affect the program’s long-term success.

Emerging Collaborations. New joint ventures reflect the evolving nature of global defence partnerships and the push for technological superiority. A Franco-German-Spanish initiative aimed at developing a 6th-generation fighter, FCAS underscores Europe’s desire for strategic autonomy in military aviation. The program will integrate next-generation technologies such as AI, stealth, and advanced networking capabilities. Led by the UK in collaboration with Italy and Japan, the Tempest program highlights the growing trend of non-U.S. defence collaborations. This initiative aims to develop a highly advanced fighter with state-of-the-art avionics, weaponry, and data fusion technologies, demonstrating a shift in defence cooperation beyond traditional alliances.

Challenges in Fighter Exports and Joint Ventures

Exporting fighter aircraft and international joint ventures in military aviation face significant challenges. These range from economic constraints and technological dependencies to political risks and intense competition. Each of these factors shapes the global fighter aircraft market and influences the success of such programs.

Economic Constraints. Modern fighter jets are prohibitively expensive, limiting their affordability for many nations. A single advanced multirole fighter can cost tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, not including operational and maintenance expenses. Exporters often offer financing options, leasing arrangements, or government-backed subsidies to mitigate this. However, these financial mechanisms can strain national budgets and face domestic political scrutiny. For instance, India’s procurement of Dassault Rafale jets from France was marred by alleged controversy over pricing, alleged favouritism, and offset agreements. Such economic considerations can delay or cancel deals, affecting both export and importers.

Technological Dependencies. Fighter aircraft exports often create long-term dependencies on the supplying nation for maintenance, spare parts, and upgrades. This dependence extends to software updates, weapons integration, and operational training. The geopolitical implications of such dependencies can be significant, as the exporter retains leverage over the recipient. For example, many nations operating American-made fighters must seek U.S. approval for upgrades or modifications, restricting their operational autonomy. Similarly, India’s reliance on Russian aircraft like the Su-30MKI has led to logistical challenges due to The Russia-Ukraine war and Western sanctions on Russia, disrupting the supply of critical components.

Political Risks. Defence cooperation and fighter exports are susceptible to shifts in political leadership and international alliances. Changes in foreign policy or diplomatic disputes can abruptly halt ongoing programs. The United States’ decision to exclude Turkey from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program after Ankara purchased the Russian S-400 missile system exemplifies how political disagreements impact military collaboration. Such disruptions affect the purchasing nation and have economic and strategic consequences for the supplier.

Export Competition. The global fighter jet market is fiercely competitive, with the U.S., Russia, China, and France among the key players. Nations engage in aggressive marketing, offering attractive offset deals, technology transfers, and financing packages to secure contracts. The competition is further intensified by geopolitical alignments, with countries often choosing suppliers based on broader strategic partnerships rather than purely technical or economic factors. Fighter exports are highly competitive, with nations like the U.S., Russia, China, and France vying for market dominance. This competition can lead to aggressive marketing tactics and the provision of offset deals to sweeten contracts.

The Future of Fighter Exports and Joint Ventures

The landscape of fighter exports and joint ventures is set to evolve significantly, driven by technological advancements, the rise of new defence players, and shifting geopolitical dynamics.

Sixth-Generation Fighters. The development of sixth-generation fighters will reshape the geopolitics of fighter exports. Nations investing in advanced capabilities such as artificial intelligence, stealth, and directed-energy weapons will dominate future markets. Programs like NGAD (U.S.), FCAS (Europe), Tempest (UK-Japan-Italy), and the HAL CATS Program highlight the race to define the next generation of air power. These aircraft will demand extensive collaboration and significant financial investments, potentially altering traditional supplier-recipient relationships.

Regional Players. Emerging defence producers like South Korea (KF-21 Boramae) and India (Tejas MK2, AMCA) are entering the global market, challenging established exporters. These nations aim to reduce reliance on imports while expanding their geopolitical influence through exports. Their ability to offer cost-effective alternatives and localised production incentives could shift market dynamics and disrupt the dominance of traditional suppliers like the U.S., Russia, and France.

Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs). The growing adoption of UCAVs presents a parallel trend in fighter exports. Nations like Turkey (Bayraktar TB2) and Israel (Heron, Harop) have already established themselves as leaders in this field, with significant geopolitical implications. As unmanned systems become more capable and cost-effective, they may replace or complement traditional manned fighters, leading to a worldwide shift in defence procurement strategies.

Realignments. As global power shifts, fighter exports and joint ventures reflect new alliances and rivalries. The U.S.-China competition, the rise of multipolarity, and regional conflicts will shape the market’s future dynamics. Countries will increasingly seek defence partnerships that align with their strategic interests, making flexibility and technology-sharing critical for successful export programs.

Conclusion

The geopolitics of fighter exports and joint ventures is a multifaceted domain where technology, economics, and strategy converge. As nations pursue advanced capabilities and seek to bolster their influence, fighter programs will continue to serve as instruments of diplomacy, deterrence, and power projection. The interplay of competition and collaboration in this field will shape the future of airpower and the broader contours of international relations.

Please Do Comment.

Link to the article on the website:-

The Geopolitics of Fighter Exports and Joint Ventures

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

Pics Courtesy: Internet

Disclaimer:

References:-

Bitzinger, R. A. (2008). “The Global Arms Trade: The Shifting Strategic Landscape.” Survival, 50(2), 55-68.

Eriksson, M. (2021). “The Mirage of European Defence Autonomy: Fighter Jet Collaboration and Transatlantic Tensions.” Journal of Strategic Studies, 44(5), 767-789.

Gilli, A., & Gilli, M. (2019). “Why China Has Not Caught Up Yet: Military-Technological Superiority and the Limits of Imitation, Reverse Engineering, and Cyber Espionage.” International Security, 43(3), 141-189.

Taylor, T. (2013). “Offsets, Technology Transfer, and Defense Industrialization: The Case of India’s Fighter Jet Programs.” Defense & Peace Economics, 24(5), 453-472.

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). (2024). Trends in International Arms Transfers.

European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS). (2023). The Future of European Fighter Jet Collaboration: FCAS vs. Tempest.

Indian Ministry of Defence. (2023). Defence Production and Export Policy 2023.

China’s State Administration for Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense (SASTIND). (2023). China’s Defense Industrial Reforms and Export Strategies.

The Diplomat. (2023). “China’s Fighter Jet Exports: How JF-17 and FC-31 Are Changing the Market.”

Hartley, K. (2014). The Economics of Defence Policy: A New Perspective. Routledge.

Bitzinger, R. A. (2017). Arming Asia: Technonationalism and the Dynamics of Defence Industrialization. Routledge.

Sapolsky, H. M., Gholz, E., & Kaufman, A. (2009). US Defense Politics: The Origins of Security Policy. Routledge.