In the Age of Rafale and Tejas, IAF Doesn't Need 42-Squadron Strength to Counter China-Pakistan Simultaneously, Says Ex-Air Marshal

The Indian Air Force's (IAF) long-held goal of achieving a 42-squadron strength, a benchmark set in the 1980s to counter a simultaneous two-front war with China and Pakistan, may no longer be necessary, according to Air Marshal Anil Khosla (Retd.), former Vice Chief of Air Staff.

In a recent interview on The Gaurav Arya Podcast, Khosla argued that advancements in aviation technology and the changing geopolitical landscape have significantly altered India's defense needs.

The 42-squadron figure was initially conceived when the IAF relied on aircraft with limited capabilities. The 1962 war with China and subsequent conflicts with Pakistan highlighted the need for a large number of aircraft to compensate for their shorter ranges, smaller payloads, and less sophisticated technology. This ensured operational continuity with enough aircraft for rotation, maintenance, and to account for combat losses.

However, the IAF has since modernized its fleet with aircraft like the Sukhoi Su-30MKI, Dassault Rafale, and HAL Tejas. These advanced jets boast superior speed, agility, and avionics, including cutting-edge radar systems and precision-guided munitions.

"Today's fighters can perform air-to-air combat, ground strikes, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare missions, often in a single sortie," Khosla explained, emphasizing the multi-role capabilities of modern aircraft. This versatility allows the IAF to achieve greater operational effectiveness with fewer aircraft.

Citing the Rafale as an example, Khosla highlighted its ability to conduct deep strikes, engage in dogfights, and perform maritime missions. Similarly, the Su-30MKI, the IAF's mainstay fighter, is capable of long-range strikes, air defense, and close air support. The indigenous Tejas Mk1A, though still in its early stages of induction, is expected to further enhance the IAF's multi-role capabilities.

IAF's current squadron strength, which stands at approximately 30-32, falling short of the 42-squadron target. This deficit is attributed to the phasing out of older MiG-21 and MiG-27 aircraft without timely replacements. Delays in the Tejas Mk1A program and the slow pace of acquiring additional Rafales have compounded the issue. Furthermore, reliance on aging platforms like the MiG-29 and Jaguar, which require extensive maintenance and upgrades, adds to the strain on the IAF.

While the 42-squadron goal may be outdated, the IAF still faces challenges in maintaining a sufficient number of state of the art squadrons to effectively address its current security needs. Balancing the induction of new-generation fighters with the modernization of existing fleets remains crucial for the IAF to maintain its combat readiness in a rapidly evolving geopolitical environment.

 

[R. Singh]

India need 50 squadron fighter jets and 10 squadron of dedicated bomber (GHATAK unmanned and Manned) squadron and 60 squadron of home made UCAV/Swift/AURA/Heron TP/MQ-9 then only we can win two front war !

 

[Ajay Singh]

While it is true that contemporary aircraft can accomplish a lot more than older ones, this cannot be the only criterion to determine the required squadron strength. The number of aircraft fielded by potential adversaries is the key factor. India’s 42 squadron target will not be enough to match China, let alone a combined threat from China and Pakistan. Don’t forget that the adversaries’ contemporary aircraft are also much more capable than their older ones. In fact the Chinese have a great technological advantage over India, having deployed two 5th generation aircraft while we have yet to test our first one.

 

[sishir]

Yes I agree we need high tech and capable birds to match the China factor over himalayas. We need bombers similar to B52 to neutralize the Pakistan sector.
Then comes wingman and uva of different capacities and payload.

 

[amitg]

Flase we need to be nearly 52 squadrons

 

[archer]

In my opinion " Make in India " is a wonderful thing but India lags and lacks behind it's adversaries. So, if western countries offers to sell advanced jets to India, it'll benefit India a lot. India should buy those jets so that it can defend itself readily with ease. And in the mean time India can concentrate its " Make in India " without worrying about lacking advance jets when war broke out anytime. First it was China and Pakistan but now Bangladesh is also posing a threat. It's now showing coziness to Pakistan and even offer Pakistan to have their missiles on their soil so that Pakistan could reach upto southern parts of India as Pakistan doesn't have the capability to reach southern states with their current missiles. And as " Make in India " really lagging too much, India should consider buying F-35s. It's just not about fighter jets, India should also phase out all of its ww2 era weapons and focus on more modern and better weapons and equipment. For example, Indian army still uses the BREN LMG which others have placed it in as a museum piece. And its army doesn't have body armor but a few wearing only some old ones. I think the body armor is older than the one wearing it.

 

[Sriram A R.]

USA we cannot trust but we can rely on France for Rafale. 35 to 36 squadrons is sufficient for a two front war guven indias rocket power can take out any target in china. Believe pralay prithvi akash, brahmos Pinaka and so on.

 

[Ajay Shukla]

I re-read the original post hoping to find text related to the inventory of our neighborhood adversaries, especially China. Did not find that, and I feel the content is incomplete, for the Air Marshal couldn't have possibly ignored this aspect.

Would we apply the same logic, say, for Air Defence assets? Aren't the modern AD acquisitions more capable than the legacy ones, so can we afford to have less AD units?

Assessed squadron strength is all about a calibrated SWOT analysis. T stands for threats, read China.

With the 5th Gen inventory China is expected to have in a decade or so, if at all, IAF may need much more than 42 squadrons.

Numbers matter. The Russia Ukraine conflict teaches us that.

 

[rtyagi]

This is the most imbecilic interview I've read in a long time! The 42 squadron requirement is not because the MiG-21s had a smaller range; it is because we have an enormous border to defend. No aircraft of any radius of action can defend very large areas from a single base, because time is of the essence and therefore, the ability to reach a hostile target in the shortest possible time is important.

If you designate a hostile target crossing our Western border, will you engage the target from Gwalior, because you have aircraft based there with the requisite range to engage targets at that distance? By the time you reach the border, the hostile target would have already done it's job and returned home! You would engage the hostile track from Suratgarh or some other base closer to the border!

What a load of crap this interview is! 😅

 

[sanket]

Missing opportunity of 21 MIG-29 & now just discussion ...............??? should have gone for that 21 MIG-29 in 2019 i have alreay said it in 2019

 

[Anant]

Counter-argument here: The PLAAF is also far larger today than it was back then, and their aircraft are also fairly modern. That means they also have the capability jump. That, in turn, means that we would actually need more than 42 squadrons.

 

[abhinav srivastava]

Enemy aircrafts and anti aircraft tech have also evolved since 1980s. We need more than 42.

 

[Cookie monster]

Hypothetical question - Can a nation with a lower fighter count beat a nation with a higher fighter count ?

Can tactics help you achieve that or does raw superior fighter count negates any tactical masterstroke one can come up with ?

 

[Apocalypse gupta]

Counter-argument here: The PLAAF is also far larger today than it was back then, and their aircraft are also fairly modern. That means they also have the capability jump. That, in turn, means that we would actually need more than 42 squadrons.

Competing with china is folly. We should focus on deterrance vs china. We cannot hope to match them at least for the next 20 years. That is why we bought S400 and few rafales.

we are already above par, when it comes to pakis. IMHO, we should just focus on our indigenous programs, without getting too concerned for either pakis or china.

if you look at USA, they have way less fighters than they did in 1980s. China also had more fighters then. Now, air forces are reducing numbers of jets, and focusing more on increasing capability and drones.

 

[M S Chatterji]

Counter-argument here: The PLAAF is also far larger today than it was back then, and their aircraft are also fairly modern. That means they also have the capability jump. That, in turn, means that we would actually need more than 42 squadrons.

China cannot bring everything they have to the Himalayas. They have 80% of their obligation in China Sea against Taiwan, US, Phillipines, Vietnam, Japan. They just cannot abondon those fronts.

 

[Kira]

Counter-argument here: The PLAAF is also far larger today than it was back then, and their aircraft are also fairly modern. That means they also have the capability jump. That, in turn, means that we would actually need more than 42 squadrons.

To be sure,PLAAF was always massive and vastly bigger than the IAF,but for most of their history,they had obsolete jets coupled with inadequate infrastructure and training that won't bother IAF much,actually the PAF was a far more potent threat.
But today due to PRCs unprecedented economic and industrial growth over the last three decades,everything has changed,and now they boast of growing infrastructure in Tibet that can support air operations for longer,much better training standards and increasingly higher proportion of 4th Gen birds(in future 5th Gen jets) in its inventory that can take the fight to the IAF.

 

[Dipesh Debnath]

Counter-argument here: The PLAAF is also far larger today than it was back then, and their aircraft are also fairly modern. That means they also have the capability jump. That, in turn, means that we would actually need more than 42 squadrons.

A country of 1.4 billion people needs to be protected with 1000 squadrons of aircrafts.

 

[Anant]

Competing with china is folly. We should focus on deterrance vs china. We cannot hope to match them at least for the next 20 years. That is why we bought S400 and few rafales.

we are already above par, when it comes to pakis. IMHO, we should just focus on our indigenous programs, without getting too concerned for either pakis or china.

if you look at USA, they have way less fighters than they did in 1980s. China also had more fighters then. Now, air forces are reducing numbers of jets, and focusing more on increasing capability and drones.

I agree completely. We can't compete with them. That said, as they scale up, so must we to a reduced extent to maintain deterrence. Also, we do and should use the geographical advantage for accentuating that deterrence.

Of course, the sad thing is that even that deterrence is gradually getting eroded at the present.

 

[Anant]

A country of 1.4 billion people needs to be protected with 1000 squadrons of aircrafts.

You do realise we don't count paper planes, right? Not to mention the fact that all air forces put together globally probably don't have 1,000 squadrons.

 

[Anant]

China cannot bring everything they have to the Himalayas. They have 80% of their obligation in China Sea against Taiwan, US, Phillipines, Vietnam, Japan. They just cannot abondon those fronts.

Agreed. However, we do need to maintain deterrence. Also, just as China cannot bring more than 25-30% of their forces here, we will have to keep around 60-65% of our forces against Bhikaristan. That makes things far more even.

 

[Anant]

Hypothetical question - Can a nation with a lower fighter count beat a nation with a higher fighter count ?

Can tactics help you achieve that or does raw superior fighter count negates any tactical masterstroke one can come up with ?

The answer to your question is a definitive yes. However, there are a lot of factors that go into play here, ranging from technology to tactics to geography, and all the way down to plain simple luck.

 

[Aary007]

Hypothetical question - Can a nation with a lower fighter count beat a nation with a higher fighter count ?

Can tactics help you achieve that or does raw superior fighter count negates any tactical masterstroke one can come up with ?

Yes but no, the thing is if you have less aircraft then you need to have a technological superiority as well as ideally have more early warning aircraft but if you have less aircraft but don't have technological superiority it is more likely than not that you will lose however it may also end in a stalemate though that is unlikely