Abhijit Bhattacharyya | IAF at 94: Glory, Grit & the Need To Evolve

As the IAF completes 94 years, the commanders thereof can justifiably feel happy to have proved themselves to be exemplary and commendably apolitical professional torchbearers carrying the flag of an aerial legacy, appreciated by every Indian. The October 1932-born IAF is the eighth seniormost air force among all contemporary world peers. Those preceding IAF are Royal Air Force (1918), Italy (1923), New Zealand (1923), Romania (1924), Afghanistan (1924), Finland (1928) and Chile (1930).

Understandably, any combat institution of a subcontinent like India has to have a story of ups and downs owing to the vagaries and unpredictability of international factors and a myriad combo of local and regional developments. What won out, however, were the guts, grit and glory of IAF leaders and their lads’ impeccable professionalism albeit taught by the white colonial rulers. No doubt the story of British imperialism doesn’t create positive vibes for the ordinary Indian. Still, the fact is that setting up an institution like IAF proved beneficial for Independent India. The British introduced air power in India for their own benefit in order to rule for long. However, with their 1947 departure, New Delhi got a first-class ready-made military machine. The institution, born as Royal Indian Air Force, is the pride of the nation today.

Nevertheless, a birthday is also a time for self-assessment and reflection. “How are you IAF? All well, one hopes?” The IAF is bound to say “I am fine”, but surely things could have been better if one delves slightly deep to assess the reality for the men and women who are on a 24/7/365 mission for the nation.

According to Jane’s World Air Forces 2025 (Issue 62, page 278), “The IAF is world’s fourth-largest air force. Although it’s a competent and professional service, it faces increasing challenges, especially due to dwindling fleet numbers and procurement issues… the IAF admitted that inventory numbers are not adequate to fully execute air campaigns in a ‘two-front’ scenario against China and Pakistan.” In several policy documents, “India sanctioned 42 fighter squadrons”. However, the IAF inventory is filled with an ageing fleet of “approximately 28 squadrons”.

That’s disappointing. According to Military Balance 2026 IISS, London (pages 264-265), the IAF consists of 1,51,800 personnel and “29 squadrons of 636 combat-capable fighters”. The capable fighters of IAF have no doubt, along with capable people in air and on ground. However, a relook at age of machines recorded by Jane’s World Air Forces 2025 should be enough to coax every Indian to ponder corrective action.

Of 28/29 combat squadrons, the original “Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft” (DPSA) Anglo-French SEPECAT Jaguars are 46 years old or more, inducted as they are in 1979. The twin-engine Russian MiG-29 was commissioned in 1986 (40 years), and the single-engine French Mirage 2000H joined IAF in 1984 (42 years). The first batch of the twin-engine Russian Sukhoi-30MKI joined squadron service in 1997, more than 29 years ago.

Actual users and ops experts may point out that “age alone is not the sole factor for determining or judging a fighter aircraft quality and performance in actual battle because every machine is under the command, control, supervision and maintenance of experts of the force and fleet upgrading is an ongoing process”. Yet would it be far-fetched to suggest that the older the flying machine, the more time, energy and money are spent to keep it “flightworthy” for air ops? Along with wear and tear, logistics and training, won’t it always be an avoidable additional challenge for the pilots and their engineering colleagues to stay at par with newly inducted fighters in complex aerial exercise and routine training sorties?

That said, the redeeming feature of the IAF’s ageing fleet is HAL’s 2016-inducted Bangalore-made single-engine indigenous Tejas Mark 1 and the French-manufactured twin-engine Rafale EH commissioned in 2019. The IAF does have a formidable task cut out for an onerous responsibility of eternal vigilance over the South Asian airspace.

The 94-year-old IAF is one of the three principal arms of the Indian defence system, with the second-largest manpower, the Army being the largest and the Navy with a manpower of 84,350 the smallest. What’s, however, striking is that, unlike IAF, the indigenous industrial capacity of the four principal shipyards in Mumbai, Kolkata, Visakhapatnam and Kochi successfully ensured that the Indian admiralty does not become an exclusively buyer’s navy banking on foreign suppliers. If the Navy does well every Indian feels happy. A builder’s navy, or for that matter, army and air force, too, would always be the best for India. Hence, if IAF operates below strength, with vintage craft aged between three and four decades having high maintenance, challenging logistics and expensive spare parts and frequent “downtimes”, it’s indeed a matter of serious national concern.

What’s the remedy then? How quick and efficiently could IAF come out of this morass of national embarrassment to emerge a full-strength 42 ops squadron fleet? The task is uphill, and choices are extremely limited, fraught with treacherous headwinds and scandal-afflicted prospects.

Here are a few suggestions. First and foremost is a fighter power plant without which everything would be exercise in futility. Power, thrust and quality will make a fighter defeat an opponent because every instrument of the machine depends thereon. In this context, the Jane’s World Air Forces 2025 report deserves a close look: “In October 2016, then air chief stated that Jaguars were overweight and underpowered because of avionics and systems upgrades” and “Honeywell turbofan engines will replace twin Rolls-Royce Adour Mark-821s”. The then air chief was emphasising the supreme importance of powerful fighter engines because no one knows better than users and commanders as to what type of fighter they want, with what features and capabilities for what mission and under which circumstances.

At present, India produces a one single-engine combat plane Tejas. A twin-engine Advance Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) is in the pipeline. India has been doing every possible thing more than 40 years except in the area of fighter engines. An indigenous engine is prime need of the hour. Samples from the United States, Russia, China and France reveal that in today’s combat aviation, the minimum single-engine fighter thrust should not be below 25,000 pounds to perform its multi-role mission.

Two single-engine fighter samples would suffice. The five-decade-old US Lockheed F-16 single-engine fighter’s static thrust stands at 29,588 pounds, followed by “Increased Performance Engine” (IPE) and then “Enhanced Fighter Engine” (EFE), which automatically ensures overall superior performance of flying controls, landing gear, electrical systems, avionics, armament, payload, speed, service sealing, max take-off weight and combat range.

Even the cancelled Lavi programme helped the older Chinese fighter J-10 (Meng Long) of Israel and its Russia-supplied single-engine Saturn/Lyulka generate a 17,857-pound static thrust going up to 27,558 pounds after burning. If India does go for fighter engines on a war footing, it must give full responsibility jointly to the Air Chief Marshal and HAL, and not to Shylock-like private traders, to avoid being at the mercy of foreign suppliers. It’s for the Centre to act because IAF is the user and HAL and the defence ministry are the facilitators.

The writer is alumnus, National Defence College and a life member of the Aeronautical Society of India. Views are personal.

Thursday, October 8, is the 94th Indian Air Force Day.