But nothing remains static: capabilities of aircraft, fleet composition, threat scenarios and capabilities. Indeed, the more precisely the 39.5 squadron figure was first arrived at the more rapid the divergence from reality. And I don’t know when it was first arrived at, but I don’t think it was particularly recently. And whilst I agree that quantity matters, the other extreme — as represented by hammering the 39.5 squadron figure — which would propose to equate 1 MiG-21 with 1 Su-30MKI is even less credible. If 39.5 squadrons is indeed a hard figure that simply must be met, it follows that India should abandon heavy fighters and buy cheaper aircraft in greater numbers until the 39.5 squadron figure is restored.

I think the 39.5 squadron figure was derived in the last decade. India used to operate more squadrons in the past (>40).

With regards to 1 MiG-21 = 1 Su-30, 1 MiG-21 = 1 Su-30 does apply if your opponent replaces 1 F-7 with 1 J-10/11 or 1 F-7/Mirage III with 1 F-16/J-10/FC-1.

A more capable jet doesn’t mean a requirement for less number of jets if your opponent is also replacing their fleet with more capable jets.

In fact if J-20 and J-31 enter service in numbers, then replacing 1 MiG-21 with 1 SU-30MKI is comparatively insufficient and you might need 1 MiG-21: 2 Su-30MKI.

Yep … the low insurgency conflict is close by, within state borders even. :p

Yup!

The report talks about retaining andu pgrading 178 F-15C/Ds.

Given that a similar number of a/c only supports 6 x 18 a/c F-22 units, it seems 3 F-15 units will be deactivated by 2020.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the 1 USAFE squadron goes, given draw down in Europe.

Then maybe two more ANG or the two remaining PACAF F-15 units in Kadeena?

The decline has been debated in the Indian media in recent years. The government has authorised the IAF a certain strength which they are not able to meet.

It’s a decline when:

1.) Your potential opponents are also acquiring advanced aircraft.

2.) Your defence plans require X number of squadrons to deal with potential threats whilst maintaining a strategic reserve.

In India’s case from memory, they require 20+ squadrons just to face the Pakistani “threat”, with the rest dedicated to China and other needs.

Remember India’s concerns are potential high intensity conventional wars with neighbouring countries, and generally not far away low insurgency conflict.

3.) Quantity has a quality. F-22 might be the world’s greatest fighter but it can’t be in two places at the same time.

Quality only is fine for Euro-forces who have no threats and whose air forces are often used as token forces in colonial type wars.

If quantity was irrelevant, one would think the US would’ve retired all it’s existing PACAF/USAFE/ANG F-15C/Ds (a total of 9 squadrons still operational – more than F-22 total of 6 squadrons) as they have the F-22 now. Instead they continue to serve.

Same applies to India – the Su-30MKI might be wunderwaffe compared to MiG-21 or MiG-23 but the Indians still need numbers for their defence strategy to work.

4.) Hence a Western centric view of “retire the junk and buy small fleets of 4.5/5th gen aircraft” doesn’t really stick.

The same issues are present in other areas where risk of conventional warfare exists – South Korea, Japan and Taiwan all still fly old F-4 and/or F-5 to keep up numbers.

Luckily the Pakistanis have slowed down their modernisation but the PLAAF is continuing to grow in strength. Remember the Indians fought a war with China in 1962 and the two aren’t exactly best friends.

Also Tejas and Rafale are not in service. – If India goes to war tomorrow, it will be with actual strength that includes 13 squadrons of MiG-21s and not paper “wish list” types that haven’t been built or ordered yet. And given India’s procurement history, it is possible the MiG-21s linger a lot longer in service than 2017 out of service date.

There is a long way to go for Rafale and Tejas to be in meaningful service.