675: AMCA PROGRAMME EXECUTION MODEL: A NEW ERA FOR INDIA’S DEFENCE PRODUCTION

 

My Article published on the EurasianTimes website on 01 Jun 25.

 

India’s quest for self-reliance in defence technology has reached a pivotal milestone with the approval of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) Programme Execution Model on May 26, 2025. This model, greenlit by Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, introduces a collaborative and competitive framework to accelerate the development of India’s first indigenous fifth-generation stealth fighter jet. Designed by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) under the Ministry of Defence, the AMCA is a 25-tonne, twin-engine, multirole stealth aircraft intended to bolster the Indian airpower capabilities by 2035. The new execution model emphasises private sector involvement, international collaboration, and a competitive bidding process, significantly departing from traditional defence procurement practices.

 

Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft. AMCA is India’s fifth-generation stealth fighter jet program, developed by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) under the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). Designed as a multirole, twin-engine aircraft, the AMCA aims to replace ageing fleets such as the SEPECAT Jaguar and Mirage 2000, while complementing the Rafale and future Tejas Mk2 in the Indian Air Force (IAF). The 25-tonne, twin-engine AMCA features stealth shaping, internal weapons bays, and advanced sensor fusion. It is intended to excel in air superiority, deep strike, and electronic warfare missions. It will have an advanced avionics suite, Indigenous AESA radar, and potentially AI-based mission systems. The aircraft is envisioned in two phases: Mark 1 with current-generation technologies and imported engines, and Mark 2 incorporating Indigenous sixth-generation features and an Indian powerplant. The AMCA is strategically significant as it will enhance India’s air combat capabilities and reduce reliance on foreign platforms.

Strategic Significance of AMCA. The AMCA is not just a defence project but a strategic lever and India’s entry ticket into the elite club of fifth-generation fighter operators. The AMCA program is critical to countering regional threats, particularly from China and Pakistan. China’s deployment of J-20 and J-35 stealth fighters, with plans to supply 40 J-35s to Pakistan, underscores the urgency of AMCA’s development. The IAF’s modernisation drive, aiming for 42 squadrons by 2035, relies on the AMCA to maintain a technological edge. The collaborative model’s success could position India among the elite nations with fifth-generation fighters, alongside the US, China, and Russia.

 

Historical Progress: Bottlenecks. The AMCA program was conceived in the early 2010s as a follow-on to the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas. However, despite its strategic importance, progress was tepid due to multiple challenges. Initial timelines projected a first flight by 2020 and production by 2025, but these slipped to 2028 and 2038-39 due to funding constraints and bureaucratic delays. The program’s preliminary design phase began in 2015, with CCS approval only in 2024. The Tejas program’s prolonged development (from the 1980s to the late 2010s) is a cautionary tale, highlighting systemic issues in India’s defence ecosystem. The program lacked an empowered governance structure, slow decision-making, and HAL’s overburdened capacity. The absence of an indigenous high-thrust engine has been a persistent hurdle for the program; the Kaveri engine program’s inability to meet requirements forced reliance on foreign engines, delaying self-reliance. India lacked expertise in advanced technologies and high-thrust engines, necessitating foreign collaboration. The withdrawal from the Indo-Russian FGFA project in 2018 due to disagreements over technology transfer forced a fully indigenous approach, increasing technical risks. The new execution model addresses many of these issues by decentralising authority, attracting capital, and professionalising development.

 

Boosting the AMCA Program

Collaborative Execution Model. Announced on May 26, 2025, the AMCA Programme Execution Model introduces a public-private partnership (PPP) framework, moving away from the traditional reliance on Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) as the sole manufacturer. The new model proposes a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)-based framework, with a private sector partner who will work alongside the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), and the Indian Air Force (IAF).  Under this model, the ADA will issue an Expression of Interest (EoI) to public and private entities, allowing them to bid independently or as consortia. The model offers flexibility to include global OEMs as technology partners or equity stakeholders in the SPV. This shift signifies a bold experiment breaking free from India’s traditionally state-dominated defence production ecosystem. It promises to enhance project accountability, bring commercial rigour to execution, and facilitate foreign direct investment and technology infusion. The competitive approach aims to streamline development, reduce costs, and integrate cutting-edge technologies. One of the most progressive steps is to move from a nomination-based to a competitive merit-based selection model. The collaborative model is expected to provide several key benefits to the AMCA program.

Encouraging Efficiency and Speed.  By involving private sector firms alongside HAL, the model diversifies the production base, reducing bottlenecks associated with a single manufacturer. Private companies would bring agility, innovation, and financial muscle, which can accelerate manufacturing and delivery timelines. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has emphasised reducing timelines. Firms will be incentivised to optimise costs and timelines to win bids, reducing the bureaucratic delays that plagued earlier phases of the AMCA program. The Combined Quality Cum Cost Based System (CQCCBS) model will evaluate bids based on technical and financial merits, ensuring high-quality outcomes.

Technology Integration. Including private firms would enable access to advanced manufacturing techniques and expertise in composites, avionics, and AI. The collaboration is expected to enhance the AMCA’s technological edge, aligning it with global fifth-generation standards.

Economic and Industrial Growth. The model would foster a robust domestic aerospace ecosystem, generating employment and technological advancements. By distributing work packages among private firms, the program stimulates investment in infrastructure and skilled workforce development, aligning with India’s “Atmanirbhar Bharat” vision for self-reliance.

Risk Mitigation. The collaborative approach spreads financial and technical risks across multiple stakeholders, reducing the burden on HAL and the government. This is particularly crucial given the program’s history of delays and funding shortages.

 

Technological Challenges

However, challenges remain. Establishing fighter jet manufacturing facilities requires significant investment, and private firms may face hurdles in acquiring land, infrastructure, and skilled labour. Scepticism persists about their ability to match HAL’s experience, which could lead to initial teething issues. The AMCA’s development involves overcoming significant technological hurdles, particularly in stealth and engine capabilities.

Stealth Technology. Achieving a low radar cross-section (RCS) is critical for the AMCA’s fifth-generation credentials. The AMCA incorporates a twin-tail layout, platform edge alignment, and diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) with serpentine ducts to conceal engine fan blades. However, refining radar deflection capabilities is essential. India is developing RAM to reduce RCS, with IIT Kanpur’s Anālakṣhya Meta-material Surface Cloaking System (MSCS) enhancing stealth against Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). Scaling this technology for industrial production remains a challenge. Stealth design compromises aerodynamics, reducing manoeuvrability. Balancing these aspects requires advanced computational modelling and wind-tunnel testing.

Engine Capabilities. The AMCA’s supercruise and thrust vectoring requirements demand a high-thrust engine, posing significant challenges. India’s lack of indigenous jet engine technology remains a bottleneck. Achieving sustained supersonic flight without afterburners and enabling thrust vectoring for enhanced manoeuvrability requires advanced engine designs. Integrating these systems into the AMCA’s airframe is technically demanding. The Kaveri engine project highlighted the gaps in materials science and manufacturing precision, necessitating foreign expertise.

 

International Collaboration

The AMCA program’s success hinges on robust private sector and international partners participation. Opening the doors to foreign OEMs and global collaboration is a key differentiator of the new model. Foreign OEMs from Russia, France, the UK, and the US are expected to play a crucial role, particularly in addressing technological gaps. Several roles are envisioned for global partners.

Collaborations ensure technology transfer, critical for building India’s aerospace capabilities. Technology transfer is expected, particularly for stealth shaping, radar-absorbing materials (RAM), advanced avionics, and sensors. Foreign partners can provide expertise in radar-absorbing materials, low-observable designs, and AESA radar systems. The US, with its F-35 program, and Russia, with the Su-57, offer valuable insights, though India’s withdrawal from the Indo-Russian FGFA project in 2018 underscores its focus on indigenous control.

India lacks an indigenous jet engine for the project. The AMCA Mk-1 will use GE Aerospace F414 engines (98 kN), while the Mk-2 requires a 110-120 kN engine. France’s Safran is in advanced talks for co-development, leveraging offset obligations from the Rafale deal. Rolls-Royce has offered to co-design and co-develop, allowing India to retain IP rights. Russia’s expertise in thrust vectoring and the US’s advanced engine technologies are also under consideration. Collaboration with GE (U.S.), Safran (France), or Rolls-Royce (UK) is vital.

 

Implications for HAL: From Monopoly to Competition

HAL, long seen as India’s defence aviation behemoth, now faces a significant paradigm shift. While HAL will remain a stakeholder in the AMCA program, it will no longer enjoy uncontested leadership. Its role is expected to evolve from sole integrator to collaborator, contributing expertise in production, system integration, and testing infrastructure. This transformation could prove beneficial if HAL adapts proactively.  However, the threat of being sidelined if it fails to remain competitive could motivate internal reforms, increase efficiency, and push HAL toward greater innovation and collaboration. Including foreign OEMs and private firms in the AMCA program will have profound implications for HAL.

 

Shift from Monopoly to Competition. HAL’s role as the default manufacturer is no longer guaranteed. It must now bid alongside private giants, which could challenge its dominance but also push it to improve efficiency and innovation.

Technology Transfer Opportunities. Collaboration with foreign OEMs like Safran (France) and Rolls-Royce (UK) for engine development offers HAL access to advanced technologies. However, HAL must navigate intellectual property (IP) agreements to ensure India retains significant control.

 Capacity Constraints. HAL’s current workload strains its resources, including 180 Tejas Mk-1A aircraft and four Tejas Mk-2 prototypes. The competitive model would allow HAL to focus on core competencies like final assembly while outsourcing subassemblies to private firms, potentially alleviating pressure.

 

Challenges Ahead

While the execution model marks a shift, several hurdles remain.

    • SPV Selection & Governance. Choosing the right private partner with financial depth, technical competence, and political neutrality is critical.
    • IP Ownership. Managing intellectual property rights, especially with foreign OEMs, will require legal finesse.
    • Funding Certainty. The AMCA requires an estimated ₹15,000–20,000 crore for development. Ensuring uninterrupted funding from all stakeholders will be vital.
    • Workforce & Skill Gaps. India’s aerospace talent pool must scale up to meet the design, integration, and production demands.
    • Export Potential. Safeguards and foreign collaboration agreements should not hinder India from exporting the platform to friendly nations.

 

Conclusion

The announcement of a collaborative execution model for AMCA on 26 May 2025 could be the inflexion point the program needed. The model addresses historical delays and technological gaps by fostering competition, involving private firms, and leveraging international expertise. While HAL’s role remains pivotal, shifting toward a diversified production base could redefine India’s defence manufacturing landscape. For a nation striving for strategic autonomy, technological self-reliance, and regional superiority, the success of the AMCA is non-negotiable. However, its execution depends on how well India can manage the complex dynamics of competition, collaboration, and capability development. If the SPV model succeeds, it could become the blueprint for all future high-tech defence platforms in India—from UAVs to next-gen submarines.

 

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

 

1299
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

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:-

  1. Ministry of Defence, Government of India. Press Release: “Collaborative Execution Model for AMCA Programme Announced”, 26 May 2025.
  1. Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA). Overview of the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) Programme.
  1. Pubby, Manu. “India’s AMCA fighter jet project to get private sector partner.” The Economic Times, May 2025.
  1. Unnithan, Sandeep. “How AMCA Will Shape India’s Future Air Power.” India Today Defence, April 2025.
  2. Raju, R. “Challenges in India’s Military Jet Engine Development.” ORF Occasional Paper No. 404, Observer Research Foundation, 2024.
  3. Joshi, Manoj. “India’s Quest for Strategic Autonomy through Defence Indigenisation.” Centre for Policy Research, 2023.
  4. DRDO Annual Report 2023–24. Chapter on Aeronautics R&D and Indigenous Fighter Programs.
  1. GlobalSecurity.org. “AMCA – Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (India).”
  1. FlightGlobal. “India Eyes Foreign Partners for AMCA Jet Engine Collaboration.” March 2024.
  1. Vivek, Raghuvanshi. “India’s AMCA Jet to Fly with GE Engine Initially, Indigenous Powerplant Planned Later.” Defence News, July 2024.
  2. Roy, Shubhajit. “France’s Safran Proposes Joint Development of Jet Engine for India’s AMCA.” The Indian Express, January 2024.
  3. Singh, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra. “Fifth-Generation Fighter Development: Why India Needs to Rethink.” VIF Brief, Vivekananda International Foundation, 2023.

672: VIDEO BYTES DURING OPERATION SINDOOR

 

07 May NDTV with Vishnu Som (Links Below):-

 

 

https://x.com/ndtv/status/1921940958503178398

 

 

 

Bharat FM Channel on 08 May 25 (Link Below):-

 

 

07 May on India Today(Links Below):-

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/15owaQbheR/

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16TphBbfQj/

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Bti8N1eM1/

 

On CNN (Link Below):-

https://x.com/CNNnews18/status/1920691643902034126

 

On Wion TV (Link Below):-

https://x.com/venkatesh13tk/status/1920855863897575585

 

https://x.com/WIONews/status/1920855316155044298

 

 

 

 

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

 

1299
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

1299
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

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:-

  1. Arena, M. V., Blickstein, I., Younossi, O., & Grammich, C. (2008). Why Has the Cost of Fixed-Wing Aircraft Risen? RAND Corporation.
  1. Lorell, M. A. (2003). Going Global? U.S. Government Policy and the Defence Aerospace Industry. RAND Corporation.
  1. Tirpak, J. A. (2020). “How Much Should a Fighter Cost?” Air Force Magazine.
  1. Trimble, S. (2018). “F-15EX vs. F-35A: The Debate Over Air Superiority Affordability.” FlightGlobal.
  1. Shalal, A. (2021). “Cost vs. Capability: U.S. Air Force Considers Future Fighter Mix.” Reuters.
  1. Majumdar, D. (2017). “Why Stealth Fighters Are So Expensive (And What Can Be Done About It).” The National Interest.
  2. Laird, R. F., & Timperlake, E. (2013). Rebuilding American Military Power in the Pacific: A 21st-Century Strategy. ABC-CLIO.
  1. 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.
  1. Sweetman, B. (2014). The F-35 Lightning II: From Concept to Cockpit. Zenith Press.
  1. Johnson, J. M. (2019). The Cost of Air Superiority: The Economics of the F-22 Raptor. Air & Space Power Journal.
  1. European Defence Agency (EDA). (2022). European Combat Aircraft: Multinational Cooperation and Industrial Sustainability.
  1. Congressional Budget Office (CBO). (2020). The Cost of Replacing Today’s Air Force Fleet.
  1. Kausal, V. (2003). Arming the Indian Arsenal: Challenges and Policy Options for India’s Defence Industrialisation. Routledge.
English हिंदी