After nearly forty years, Israel is once again exploring the possibility of building its own fighter jet.
According to late July 2026 reports from Bloomberg and The Jerusalem Post, an anonymous senior official in Israel revealed a ten-year plan to create a homegrown stealth fighter and an unmanned combat aerial vehicle (UCAV) that leverages F-35 technology.
This marks Israel's first major attempt at a completely new fighter design since the ambitious IAI Lavi programme was controversially scrapped in 1987 due to massive costs and American political pressure.
This new vision aligns with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's broader strategy to gradually end Israel's reliance on the $3.8 billion in annual military aid it receives from the United States under the current 2018–2028 agreement.
Over the next decade, Israel hopes to replace this foreign aid with domestic funding, local manufacturing, and international joint ventures.
Since the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel has relied entirely on American-made aircraft for its frontline fighter fleet. This dramatic shift towards strategic independence has led defence experts to wonder if Israel's ambitions could perfectly align with India's own fifth-generation stealth fighter project, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).
The Reality of Israel's Announcement
It is important to understand that Israel's stealth fighter initiative is still in its infancy. The official who spoke to the media clarified that the ten-year timeline is strictly for developing a flight demonstrator.Currently, there are no chosen contractors, no official schedules, and no formal programme launched by the Israeli Ministry of Defence.
However, the official mentioned that international partnerships could play a role in bringing this vision to life.
At the same time, leaders within Israel's defence sector have admitted that building a complete aircraft from scratch is not something their modern research and development industry is currently equipped to handle.
At this stage, Israel has a strong strategic intention backed by political desire, but it lacks the necessary manufacturing infrastructure, dedicated engineering teams, and a funded aerospace programme.
This early stage of development is a crucial factor for India to consider when evaluating any potential collaboration.
Israel's prominent defence companies possess highly advanced, proven expertise in creating Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radars, electronic warfare (EW) technologies, and sophisticated avionics.
Much of this knowledge has been refined over decades of modifying American jets, most notably their highly customised F-35I "Adir" variant.
However, Israel currently lacks the facilities to mass-produce stealth aircraft bodies, test radar-evading designs, or integrate powerful high-thrust turbofan engines.
Establishing these foundational aerospace capabilities requires immense time and resources, which explains why Israel's proposed demonstrator phase will take at least a decade to complete.
The Logic Behind an Indo-Israeli Partnership
If Israel and India decide to collaborate, they will be building upon a very strong foundation. The two nations share a deep and tested defence relationship.For instance, India's Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL) and Israel's Rafael Advanced Defence Systems have an active joint venture for manufacturing precision-guided munitions.
Additionally, the Barak-8 surface-to-air missile system remains one of the most successful international co-development projects for both nations.
This rich history of working together has fostered a high level of mutual trust and seamless technology transfer.
Outside of India's established partnerships with Russia and France, few countries share such a reliable defence cooperation framework with New Delhi.
Israel's current aerospace shortcomings perfectly match the strengths that India can provide.
Because Israel does not have the massive industrial scale needed to mass-produce fighter jets, it needs a partner with extensive manufacturing capabilities.
India offers a vast domestic defence industry, the established infrastructure of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), and the Indian Air Force's massive demand for future aircraft—a scale of production that Israel's smaller military could not justify alone.
In return, incorporating top-tier Israeli radar, electronic warfare, and sensor fusion technology could resolve existing technical challenges within the AMCA's internal systems.
Furthermore, bringing Israel into the fold would help India diversify its technological dependencies.
Currently, India relies heavily on France, particularly as it awaits final Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) approval for a joint venture between France's Safran and India's Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) to build a 120-kilonewton engine for the AMCA.
Partnering with Israel for avionics could prevent India from becoming too reliant on a single foreign nation for its most advanced fighter programme.
Challenges of Co-Developing the Airframe
Despite the potential benefits, making Israel a core structural partner in the physical design of the AMCA is highly impractical.The AMCA project has been carefully structured to ensure India retains complete domestic ownership over the stealth airframe and intellectual property.
This was done deliberately to protect the programme from the strict export controls and bureaucratic hurdles that have historically plagued India's Tejas fighter, which relies on engines from the American company General Electric.
The current workshare agreements are strictly defined around the upcoming Safran and GTRE engine partnership.
Introducing a brand-new structural partner for the aircraft itself would force India to restart complex and politically sensitive negotiations, which could derail the project just as the vital French engine deal nears final clearance.
Another hidden risk is the issue of technology export controls. A significant portion of Israel's cutting-edge electronic warfare and sensor technology—especially equipment linked to the F-35I—is heavily regulated by the United States.
Because these systems feature embedded American intellectual property, Washington retains the final say on who can buy or use them.
While Israel wishes to achieve strategic independence from the US, its current technology is still firmly tied to American oversight.
If India were to integrate Israel into the core architecture of the AMCA, it could accidentally introduce American veto power over the jet's future.
This would defeat the entire purpose of India's long-term effort to build a truly sovereign fighter and its strategic choice to rely on French partnerships to avoid US export restrictions.
Additionally, the development schedules of the two nations are completely mismatched.
India's Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) is aiming for the first flight of the AMCA Mk1 prototype by 2028 or 2029, with mass production targeted for 2035.
In contrast, Israel is just beginning its journey and is at least ten years away from producing a basic flight demonstrator.
Israel simply does not have any mature, ready-to-use airframe technology that could be incorporated into the AMCA without causing severe delays to India's firmly established timeline.
The Best Path Forward
Ultimately, the most practical approach is a more focused, lower-profile collaboration. Rather than teaming up to design the entire jet, India should invite Israeli defence firms to act as subsystem suppliers.By providing critical components like electronic warfare suites, advanced radar elements, and sophisticated sensor fusion software, Israel would be operating in a space where it already excels.
This strategy would perfectly fill the existing gaps in India's technology while leaving the core AMCA structure—and the critical Safran-GTRE engine partnership—completely undisturbed.
Furthermore, a component-level agreement would prevent geopolitical complications.
Integrating Israel as a primary creator of India's flagship stealth fighter could strain New Delhi's delicate diplomatic balancing act in West Asia, where it maintains important ties with both Gulf nations and Iran.
A subsystem partnership delivers the technological benefits without the heavy diplomatic risks.
