IAF Holds Significant 4:1 Advantage in Precision Munitions Over Pakistan, Bolstered by BrahMos and Rafale to Ensure Strategic Dominance

India's air superiority over Pakistan is significantly strengthened by its substantial advantage in precision-guided munitions.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) possesses a considerable strategic advantage over the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) due to its superior inventory of stand-off weapons (SOWs) and precision-guided munitions (PGMs). This 4:1 advantage in stockpiles is crucial for maintaining air dominance and ensuring the effectiveness of India's air power in any potential conflict.

SOWs and PGMs are fundamental to modern air combat, allowing air forces to strike targets with high accuracy from safe distances, minimizing risks to aircraft and pilots. The IAF's diverse inventory encompasses a wide array of air-to-ground and air-to-air missiles, glide bombs, and smart munitions, sourced from both domestic and international manufacturers. This combination of quantity and technological diversity provides the IAF with exceptional flexibility and lethality.

India's sustained investment in defence modernization has been instrumental in building this advantage. Indigenous programs like the DRDO-developed Smart Anti-Airfield Weapon (SAAW) and BrahMos-A supersonic cruise missile, along with acquisitions from countries like Israel, France, and Russia, have significantly bolstered India's arsenal. Systems such as the Spice-2000 guided bombs, Rafale's SCALP cruise missiles, and the Hammer precision-guided munitions have further augmented the IAF's strike capabilities.

In contrast, Pakistan's reliance on a limited inventory of precision munitions, primarily acquired from China and with constrained indigenous development, restricts its operational flexibility. While platforms like the JF-17 Thunder have been equipped to deliver Chinese PGMs, their scale and technological sophistication do not match the breadth and capability of the IAF's arsenal. Furthermore, the lack of adequate stockpiles limits the PAF's ability to sustain prolonged operations in high-intensity conflicts.

The advantage of a larger SOW and PGM stockpile extends beyond precision strikes. It enhances the IAF's capacity to execute a range of missions, including pre-emptive strikes, suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD), and long-range interdiction. This capability allows the IAF to achieve a strategic upper hand in any conflict, ensuring dominance over key battle spaces and minimizing potential collateral damage.

India's focus on increasing indigenous production of SOWs and PGMs through initiatives like the Make-in-India program has ensured a steady supply chain and reduced dependence on foreign suppliers. This self-reliance strengthens India's strategic posture, allowing the IAF to replenish its stockpiles even during protracted conflicts, a capability Pakistan lacks due to its reliance on external sources.

The stockpile advantage also enables the IAF to maintain a credible deterrent posture. The ability to strike with precision and sustain operations sends a strong message to adversaries, reinforcing India's position as a dominant regional power. It also allows the IAF to dictate terms in a conflict scenario, ensuring that any escalation would be met with a decisive and overwhelming response.

In conclusion, the IAF's 4:1 advantage over the PAF in SOW and PGM inventory is a cornerstone of India's air power strategy. It enhances operational readiness and serves as a critical factor in maintaining regional stability. By continuing to invest in modernization and self-reliance, India ensures that this advantage remains a key pillar of its defence capabilities for the foreseeable future.

 

[siva]

Still we are comparing with Pak, shameful now onwards we have to do it with China.

 

[Somnath Sinhababu]

Still we are comparing with Pak, shameful now onwards we have to do it with China.

Nowdays India can not afford head to head fight with Pakistan....forget China....

 

[Aravind Raveendran]

It's good to hear this, but we can't win a war with one single platform. We lag behind in some critical areas too. So, instead of chest-thumping, it's better we focus on strengthening ourselves in other areas too.

Moreover, we must stop comparing ourselves to a failed country that has 1/10th of our GDP and instead prepare ourselves for a confrontation on two sides (if not managed well, this could end up being 3 sides, including Bangladesh), which includes a heavyweight panda.

 

[Dredd]

Its like comparing enemy having a pistol and a ourself having a armour piercing bullets without a rifle..

 

[Sandeep]

Nowdays India can not afford head to head fight with Pakistan....forget China....

What rubbish as we can easily take on China! Just now their army was forced to retreat after losing over 45 troops.

 

[Akshat]

Nowdays India can not afford head to head fight with Pakistan....forget China....

Haha...India took China head on in Galwan and won. Forced them to retreat. So yeah, sure.

 

[Sandeep]

India needs the private sector to start designing, developing and manufacturing our own air launched PGM, LGB, cruise, and ballistic missiles. They need to commit more investment in research and development without looking to our military to make all major purchases as they should look to make exports as well.

We need to start reducing western and Russian armaments and start more indigenous weapon development.

 

[WarTech]

Haha...India took China head on in Galwan and won. Forced them to retreat. So yeah, sure.

Bruh you can't be serious, a full front war (which will be 3 land -Pak, China, Bang, and 3 water - A&N, BoB and Arabian Sea) would shred us unless nuclear threat is issued, and using nukes would mean total annihilation anyways. We are doomed in non nuclear fighting scenario.

 

[Akshat]

Bruh you can't be serious, a full front war (which will be 3 land -Pak, China, Bang, and 3 water - A&N, BoB and Arabian Sea) would shred us unless nuclear threat is issued, and using nukes would mean total annihilation anyways. We are doomed in non nuclear fighting scenario.

Well such a full on war isn't gonna take place either. Because if you are assuming that all of India's enemies would attack us together, why are we not assuming that China's enemies would do the same? You think US won't take advantage? Or Japan? Or even Russia, for that matter? So if you want to make a hypothetical scenario then make it realistic bro.

 

[WarTech]

Well such a full on war isn't gonna take place either. Because if you are assuming that all of India's enemies would attack us together, why are we not assuming that China's enemies would do the same? You think US won't take advantage? Or Japan? Or even Russia, for that matter? So if you want to make a hypothetical scenario then make it realistic bro.

Well let's make it realistic. China controls Pak and Bang and would make them to attack together, and they also have grand dreams of taking Indian land. So that works out very well. They want our land and are willing to work together. But what about the countries you mentioned? Why would US, Japan, and even Russia attack China or help us significantly? While we are in conventional war, there is a chance that China might play nuclear card to deter them. US isn't that close to us, neither is Japan, and both have nothing to gain. They might open up a front there, but nothing too deep. Russia, while a traditional ally, would not interfere cause they are highly dependent on China. So what happens? We lose.

 

[Akshat]

Well let's make it realistic. China controls Pak and Bang and would make them to attack together, and they also have grand dreams of taking Indian land. So that works out very well. They want our land and are willing to work together. But what about the countries you mentioned? Why would US, Japan, and even Russia attack China or help us significantly? While we are in conventional war, there is a chance that China might play nuclear card to deter them. US isn't that close to us, neither is Japan, and both have nothing to gain. They might open up a front there, but nothing too deep. Russia, while a traditional ally, would not interfere cause they are highly dependent on China. So what happens? We lose.

Well before I answer that. Here is a simple question. You assumed that US or Russia would be deterred if China plays the nuclear card. We also have nukes. So if they can be stopped by China, why can't China be stopped by us? Yes they want our land. But not badly enough to risk nuclear war.

Moving on. Russia has active land disputes with China. So if you argue that China would attack India since they have grand dreams of taking Indian land, why won't they attack China?

Similarly, US has an interest in seeing China fall. If not with manpower, they would surely help with equipment, especially if we pay for it. And Russia has played the nuclear card but that didn't stop US or the NATO. In fact, France has officially told India in writing (in a letter from their government) that they stand with us, militarily, against China. (During the Galwan clash, their government wrote a letter to our government, stating explicitly that their army stands ready to help us) Of course, it may not actually happen or it may be an exaggeration, but it still tells us that at least in terms of equipment, we will get full support from NATO. US in fact did help us with intelligence and even material support during LAC stand off.

Now coming to B'desh. No China doesn't control them. US does. With the help of Pakistan. Can you name one significant pro-China move taken by the Yunus government? On the other hand, please go and see the grand welcome Biden gave to him when he visited US during the UNGA meeting. Even NATO members weren't welcomed that warmly. And that warmth might vanish quickly under Trump. So it is unlikely that B'desh would do anything that favors China.

 

[WarTech]

Well before I answer that. Here is a simple question. You assumed that US or Russia would be deterred if China plays the nuclear card. We also have nukes. So if they can be stopped by China, why can't China be stopped by us? Yes they want our land. But not badly enough to risk nuclear war.

Moving on. Russia has active land disputes with China. So if you argue that China would attack India since they have grand dreams of taking Indian land, why won't they attack China?

Similarly, US has an interest in seeing China fall. If not with manpower, they would surely help with equipment, especially if we pay for it. And Russia has played the nuclear card but that didn't stop US or the NATO. In fact, France has officially told India in writing (in a letter from their government) that they stand with us, militarily, against China. (During the Galwan clash, their government wrote a letter to our government, stating explicitly that their army stands ready to help us) Of course, it may not actually happen or it may be an exaggeration, but it still tells us that at least in terms of equipment, we will get full support from NATO. US in fact did help us with intelligence and even material support during LAC stand off.

Now coming to B'desh. No China doesn't control them. US does. With the help of Pakistan. Can you name one significant pro-China move taken by the Yunus government? On the other hand, please go and see the grand welcome Biden gave to him when he visited US during the UNGA meeting. Even NATO members weren't welcomed that warmly. And that warmth might vanish quickly under Trump. So it is unlikely that B'desh would do anything that favors China.

For the first point: Our stupid adherence to NFU. No other country has it. So can't threaten nukes.

Second counterpoint: Russia is heavily dependent on China due to sanctions. So there's that.

Third point: Yeah, they might help in equipment, but as I said, the 3 front land war and 3 front sea war would give us huge losses. Our intelligence agencies are a bit ®€t@®d€d, so there's that. We would lose NE very quickly along with Kashmir, so getting it back would be difficult, just like how Ukraine is struggling due to Russian troops deeply entrenched in their lands, even tho it is getting full equipment support and intelligence inputs. And our navy is underfunded, protecting A&N and making sure we won't get attacked by their navy world stretch out resources thin.

Fourth counterpoint: While it is true that China doesn't directly control them, (1) China controls Pak, which has heavy influence on Bang, (2) Bang wants to increase their land, as they themselves are saying it, and of course China will collaborate with them, as it makes everything easier for them, while making everything difficult for us. Win win for both of them.
China has started to make inroads in Bang, and as you said, US will distance from themselves during Trump administration, which is a ripe opportunity to gain inroads further.

So yeah....

 

[Ravi C (Ravindran Chulliparamb]

Don't forget it was Pakistan which hit our Airports first while we were brushing our theeth. How we going to counter getting hit first. Right now Pakistan Airforce is much ahead of us. And that's why our Airchief is Angry.

 

[Sun]

Should we be downgrading ourselves, by comparing to Pakistan (a country with one fourth of our land area, population is one fifth, begging economy). We should place ourselves in a place where no one even speaks of comparing India versus Pakistan. Unfortunately even minnows like Bangladesh dares to shows eyes to us. We should aim to catch up with China and compare ourselves with them.
Once Pakistan gets fifth gen fighters then qualitatively it's air force will have a upper hand. It is ahead of India in submarines quantitatively and qualitatively.
We are slow to catch up.

 

[Chitra]

Very simple. Throw the NO FIRST USE POLICY of nukes into the dustbin particularly in the case of China. Atleast major things like grabbing of territory will fall in line. Give a open permission to the armies to use ammunitions mercilessly if provoked or they put foot on our territories