Confronted with shrinking combat aircraft capacity, the Indian Air Force appears willing to swap projected numbers on paper for actual fighters on hand. At least, that is the message being conveyed by IAF brass as they once again trim their fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) requirement.
Reports in the local media indicate that the IAF has reduced the scope of its outlined FGFA procurement down to just three squadrons of fighters (roughly 18 aircraft apiece), plus a handful of extra aircraft for training purposes. This would place the total requirement at around 65 Russian-built T-50 fighter jets, far less than what was envisioned back in the middle of the previous decade when the unit figure was placed at 214 aircraft. This latest reduction also represents the second time the IAF has downsized its requirement, with the first coming in October 2012 when the service announced a reduction from 214 fighters down to 144.
Once again the IAF finds itself in the midst of a major fighter procurement project that promises a lot, delivers nothing in the short term, and is subject to localized industrial work share and advanced technologies that serve to both complicate and potentially derail negotiations.
01/09/15 Daniel Darling/The Diplomat
To Read the News in full at Source, Click the Headline
Reports in the local media indicate that the IAF has reduced the scope of its outlined FGFA procurement down to just three squadrons of fighters (roughly 18 aircraft apiece), plus a handful of extra aircraft for training purposes. This would place the total requirement at around 65 Russian-built T-50 fighter jets, far less than what was envisioned back in the middle of the previous decade when the unit figure was placed at 214 aircraft. This latest reduction also represents the second time the IAF has downsized its requirement, with the first coming in October 2012 when the service announced a reduction from 214 fighters down to 144.
Once again the IAF finds itself in the midst of a major fighter procurement project that promises a lot, delivers nothing in the short term, and is subject to localized industrial work share and advanced technologies that serve to both complicate and potentially derail negotiations.
01/09/15 Daniel Darling/The Diplomat
