Indian Defense Updates

[New guy]

On 4/24/2026 at 1:11 PM, Sgattick10 said:

Lol the irony, RWs and Modi bhakts were praying, doing yagna for Trump's victory amd see what happened? A big big lesson for Modi and RWs. American/Western RW parties are bad news for India

Right wing anywhere is bad news for everyone else. An idealogy based on hate for those who are different cannot be simultaneously be good for an entire country. It will just divide divide and divide till only little prices are left and then will eat those up too

Edited April 25 by New guy

[bsriharsha]

Indians don't need western definitions of right wing / left wing. 

 

As per western definitions , all our parties are centrist populist parties (they lean to the left or right depending on who the parties are). 

 

Bjp will be a center right populist party and congress is a center left populist party. The other parties are somewhere in between depending on their votebase. 

 

Stupid white or black definition of left wing and right wing doesn't work in Indian politics.

[singhvivek141]

50 minutes ago, bsriharsha said:

Indians don't need western definitions of right wing / left wing. 

 

As per western definitions , all our parties are centrist populist parties (they lean to the left or right depending on who the parties are). 

 

Bjp will be a center right populist party and congress is a center left populist party. The other parties are somewhere in between depending on their votebase. 

 

Stupid white or black definition of left wing and right wing doesn't work in Indian politics.

 

The categorization is very straight in India.

You talk about the development of the indigenious culture...you are a right wing supporter, ancient, illiterate, tribal and misfit in modern world.

The moment you talk about prioritisation of foreign culture, you become a left liberal, modern, cool, civilised etc

[bsriharsha]

5 hours ago, singhvivek141 said:

 

The categorization is very straight in India.

You talk about the development of the indigenious culture...you are a right wing supporter, ancient, illiterate, tribal and misfit in modern world.

The moment you talk about prioritisation of foreign culture, you become a left liberal, modern, cool, civilised etc

Not even that. Even in the traditional left-right sense , BJP under Vajpayee would be more left leaning than the democrat ruled govt in USA. 

 

American politics debate on healthcare , gun rights , abortion rights and LGBTQ rights. 

 

Three of the four (excluding LGBTQ rights where india has some ways to go) are already there for the Indian populace (regardless of any party being in power). 

 

 

[bsriharsha]

USA defines what left wing and right wing are in democracies. 

 

India doesn't have that definitions within them. 

 

Are there radical elements in Indian politics? Yes. 

 

Are there mostly counteracted by the coalition nature of Indian democracy ? Yes

 

Is indian democracy perfect ? Well nope. 

 

Is it better than the current sham thats there in USA ? 100% yes

 

[Lone Wolf]

@singhvivek141 shocking reports coming 

 

[Lone Wolf]

Israeli import lobby has infiltrated MoD.. 

 

[singhvivek141]

1 hour ago, Lone Wolf said:

@singhvivek141 shocking reports coming 

 

Saw the report, but I would wait for now.

There has been multiple leaks and reports in the past which may have proven otherwise. 

Specially these "sources", they can say anything just to gather views and sensationalise.

 

Coz Brahmos factory in UP has been set up solely to focus on increasing the production of this missile. Specially after the Op Sindoor, this missile is in demand and is the flagship of the defence Exports.

Once NG variant is there, it too becomes a crucial asset which can be exported to countries who are using Su30s & Su35s.

[singhvivek141]

So Manik can be used for smaller UCAV and loitering munitions.

 

 

[singhvivek141]

DRDO AAP (Vikram VT-21)


 

 

Edited April 25 by singhvivek141

[rangeelaraja]

While you guys are having fanciful dreams about expensive Gen 5 fighter aircrafts, Iran has proved what I've been saying since last year.

 

You don't need a large number of expensive Gen 5 aircrafts --- why do you guys forget - an aircraft is just a means to deliver ordnance ( missiles ).

 

If a nation has advanced missiles and drone capabilties, the ROI in terms of the damage to the enemy at low cost with low CEP, long distance missiles is SIGNIFICANTLY higher.

 

Russia has not been able to dominate Ukraine's airspace despite their highly capable airforce.

 

In time, with better missile and unmanned attack drone capabilties, fighter aircrafts are going to lose their relevance, so no point making long run investments in them.

 

People look at just the acquisition cost of aircrafts, but there is huge operational costs ( annual maintenance and fuel ). Every sortie for a Rafale costs $20,000.

 

I asked Chatgpt to give me the lifetime cost of a single Rafale ( using Rafale as an example because this has been chosen as India's premier long term fighter aircraft )

 

Here is what i got : 

 

 

1. Key Inputs (what drives lifetime cost)

For a Dassault Rafale:

• Acquisition cost: ~$90M–$120M per aircraft
• Flight hour cost:
  • ~$16K–$20K typical
  • Up to ~$31K depending on methodology
• Annual maintenance: €2.7M–€3.5M per year
• Typical life: ~35–40 years
• Usage assumption: ~200 flight hours per year

---

2. Simple Lifetime Cost Build (per aircraft)

A. Operating cost over life

Using a realistic mid-case:

• 200 hours per year × 40 years = 8,000 flight hours
• Cost per hour ≈ $20K (rounded midpoint)

Operating cost ≈ $160M

Using higher estimate (~$31K/hour):
Operating cost ≈ $250M

---

B. Maintenance-only view (cross-check)

• ~$3M/year × 40 years = $120M

(This aligns broadly with the flight-hour math)

---

C. Full lifecycle rule of thumb

A widely used defense heuristic:

Acquisition = ~1/3 of total lifecycle cost

So:

• Purchase: ~$100M
• Lifetime total: ~$300M–$600M

[rangeelaraja]

^^ So lifetime cost for a single Rafale is $300M minimum ( it is 3 times the acquisition cost ).

 

The very best cruise or ballistic missile when produce at large  scale would cost roughly $3M each.

 

So the lifetime cost of a single Rafale can procure rough 100 state of the art missiles ( could be Brahmos or any other variety )

 

There is absolutely no comparison in the RoI.  

 

Plus one pilot error and the Rafale can be toast ( along with the risk of loss of life to the pilot )  but ground to ground and ground to air missiles - do the damage - guaranteed. 

 

 

 

 

[singhvivek141]

9 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said:

While you guys are having fanciful dreams about expensive Gen 5 fighter aircrafts, Iran has proved what I've been saying since last year.

 

You don't need a large number of expensive Gen 5 aircrafts --- why do you guys forget - an aircraft is just a means to deliver ordnance ( missiles ).

 

If a nation has advanced missiles and drone capabilties, the ROI in terms of the damage to the enemy at low cost with low CEP, long distance missiles is SIGNIFICANTLY higher.

 

Russia has not been able to dominate Ukraine's airspace despite their highly capable airforce.

 

In time, with better missile and unmanned attack drone capabilties, fighter aircrafts are going to lose their relevance, so no point making long run investments in them.

 

People look at just the acquisition cost of aircrafts, but there is huge operational costs ( annual maintenance and fuel ). Every sortie for a Rafale costs $20,000.

 

I asked Chatgpt to give me the lifetime cost of a single Rafale ( using Rafale as an example because this has been chosen as India's premier long term fighter aircraft )

 

Here is what i got : 

 

 

1. Key Inputs (what drives lifetime cost)

For a Dassault Rafale:

• Acquisition cost: ~$90M–$120M per aircraft
• Flight hour cost:
  • ~$16K–$20K typical
  • Up to ~$31K depending on methodology
• Annual maintenance: €2.7M–€3.5M per year
• Typical life: ~35–40 years
• Usage assumption: ~200 flight hours per year

---

2. Simple Lifetime Cost Build (per aircraft)

A. Operating cost over life

Using a realistic mid-case:

• 200 hours per year × 40 years = 8,000 flight hours
• Cost per hour ≈ $20K (rounded midpoint)

Operating cost ≈ $160M

Using higher estimate (~$31K/hour):
Operating cost ≈ $250M

---

B. Maintenance-only view (cross-check)

• ~$3M/year × 40 years = $120M

(This aligns broadly with the flight-hour math)

---

C. Full lifecycle rule of thumb

A widely used defense heuristic:

Acquisition = ~1/3 of total lifecycle cost

So:

• Purchase: ~$100M
• Lifetime total: ~$300M–$600M

Bro, most of your points are valid from cost POV. But reality is fighter aircrafts still play a key role in modern conflict.

Drones like the Shahed-136 or Bayraktar TB2 are essentially slow, propeller-driven cruise missiles or surveillance platforms. They excel when the air defenses are saturated. Also, if jammed, they're nothing but just the paperweight as they payload is miniscule in comparison to fighter jet.

US or even Russia weren't prepared for such ancient tech, their AD were trained to hit high value targets not these small drones. I appreciate DRDO here that they were quick to adapt and using older L60 and L70 guns to attack Pooki drones. US didn't do that, Russia too came late to the party. But these drones are still "distractions", the killer blow is given by missiles launched by Air/Land.

Modern 5th Gen fighter jets, they can remain "stealthy" and get close to the target so much so that by the time enemy radar detects, it's too late for them as the missile is mere seconds away.
Jets like Su30MKI, are like missile trucks, they can fire long range missiles, but given the heat signature it also gives the enemy enough time to send countermeasures. It's like Batman attacking on criminals from the shadows in the night instead of running behind them in the broad daylight.

That's why the concept of Loyal Wingman is getting introduced, these are unmanned ships, controlled by the manned pilot jet, who will act on his behalf and will strike deep into enemy territory, even if they don't succeed and get hit, it's not a loss of life.

The style of warfare has changed now, earlier it used to be the Army which was the prime aggressor (specially in our scenario). But it is different now
1. Drones will distract the AD, saturate them
2. Airforce/UCAV's will use missiles to destroy the enemy Radars, making them blind and cripple their air attack capability. Achiveing Air Dominance
3. Army will barge in through the borders, crushing the enemy defences on land and gaining grounds by launching massive attacks.
4. Navy will pin them at their shores, effectively crippling the economic situation, leading to rise in inflation in the society.
5. IW, this will use the above four, and cause panic and fear in the people...the more they'll panic, weaker the enemy will be as it's civilian architecture will crumble from within.

[rangeelaraja]

14 minutes ago, singhvivek141 said:

Bro, most of your points are valid from cost POV. But reality is fighter aircrafts still play a key role in modern conflict.

Drones like the Shahed-136 or Bayraktar TB2 are essentially slow, propeller-driven cruise missiles or surveillance platforms. They excel when the air defenses are saturated. Also, if jammed, they're nothing but just the paperweight as they payload is miniscule in comparison to fighter jet.

US or even Russia weren't prepared for such ancient tech, their AD were trained to hit high value targets not these small drones. I appreciate DRDO here that they were quick to adapt and using older L60 and L70 guns to attack Pooki drones. US didn't do that, Russia too came late to the party. But these drones are still "distractions", the killer blow is given by missiles launched by Air/Land.

Modern 5th Gen fighter jets, they can remain "stealthy" and get close to the target so much so that by the time enemy radar detects, it's too late for them as the missile is mere seconds away.
Jets like Su30MKI, are like missile trucks, they can fire long range missiles, but given the heat signature it also gives the enemy enough time to send countermeasures. It's like Batman attacking on criminals from the shadows in the night instead of running behind them in the broad daylight.

That's why the concept of Loyal Wingman is getting introduced, these are unmanned ships, controlled by the manned pilot jet, who will act on his behalf and will strike deep into enemy territory, even if they don't succeed and get hit, it's not a loss of life.

The style of warfare has changed now, earlier it used to be the Army which was the prime aggressor (specially in our scenario). But it is different now
1. Drones will distract the AD, saturate them
2. Airforce/UCAV's will use missiles to destroy the enemy Radars, making them blind and cripple their air attack capability. Achiveing Air Dominance
3. Army will barge in through the borders, crushing the enemy defences on land and gaining grounds by launching massive attacks.
4. Navy will pin them at their shores, effectively crippling the economic situation, leading to rise in inflation in the society.
5. IW, this will use the above four, and cause panic and fear in the people...the more they'll panic, weaker the enemy will be as it's civilian architecture will crumble from within.

 

 

Bhai its not about cost.  

 

Its about IMPACT and RoI.

 

We can easily address this using first principles. 

 

Why were fighter aircrafts built in the first place ? How did all the evolve ? 

 

1. Fighter aircrafts were built to deliver ordnance and destroy ground assets of the enemy with accuracy. Missile tech was no very advanced back in the day and fighter aircrafts were needed to deliver precision strikes from close quarters. 

 

2. Then with time both the Soviets and US developed similar capabilties -- so  the role of air to air combat and dogfights and airspace domination evolved. 

 

3. Then BVR came into being and dog fights is a thing of the past now .

 

........

 

Cut to today --- if you can destroy your enemies ground assets - remotely and accurately from a distance  through a combination of low CEP cruise and ballistic missiles-- and lay foundation for a ground invasion  after remotely destroying most of the enemies offensive capabilities - what is the role of fighter aircrafts then ? 

 

 

Don't believe me - just look at the results of the 2 most recent wars ( Ukraine vs. Russia and the Iran war ) 

 

The decisive factor has been missile ( and drone) capability NOT having better quality and quantity fighter aircrafts.

 

 

 

Edited April 25 by rangeelaraja

[Lone Wolf]

1 hour ago, singhvivek141 said:

Saw the report, but I would wait for now.

There has been multiple leaks and reports in the past which may have proven otherwise. 

Specially these "sources", they can say anything just to gather views and sensationalise.

 

Coz Brahmos factory in UP has been set up solely to focus on increasing the production of this missile. Specially after the Op Sindoor, this missile is in demand and is the flagship of the defence Exports.

Once NG variant is there, it too becomes a crucial asset which can be exported to countries who are using Su30s & Su35s.

The ramjet engine imported from Russia could be the issue... Russians are stretched thin coz of war.

 

DRDO apparently is also facing manpower shortage as recruitment has dried up last few years.

[Lone Wolf]

6 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said:

what is the of fighter aircrafts then ? 

A modern 5th gen fighter aircraft can annihilate forward bases and missile launchers.  And a squadron of those can wipe out multiple 4.5 gen squadrons in a combat.

 

Drones can't do heavy hitting like that.

[rangeelaraja]

4 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said:

A modern 5th gen fighter aircraft can annihilate forward bases and missile launchers.  And a squadron of those can wipe out multiple 4.5 gen squadrons in a combat.

 

Drones can't do heavy hitting like that.

 

Using Missiles right ? 

 

Ground to ground cruise and ballistic missiles if sufficiently accurate can do the same.

 

 

[singhvivek141]

2 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said:

 

Using Missiles right ? 

 

Ground to ground cruise and ballistic missiles if sufficiently accurate can do the same.

 

There is a risk in that.
The Sats can easily capture the data and attack on the places where launchers are kept on ground. We did the same to Kirana Hills and now that site is a radiation zone. That's why you've seen Indian Railways working on canisterized versions of missiles so that we can use the dense rail network.

Oceans are still the best place, whether under water or at sea. 

[rangeelaraja]

2 minutes ago, singhvivek141 said:

There is a risk in that.
The Sats can easily capture the data and attack on the places where launchers are kept on ground. We did the same to Kirana Hills and now that site is a radiation zone. That's why you've seen Indian Railways working on canisterized versions of missiles so that we can use the dense rail network.

Oceans are still the best place, whether under water or at sea. 

 

There is also risk with fighter aircrafts  because airbases and their hangers that house these aircrafts can also be subject to high volume missile attacks causing wide spread damage - as Pak found out on May 10. 

 

 

[singhvivek141]

19 minutes ago, rangeelaraja said:

 

 

Bhai its not about cost.  

 

Its about IMPACT and RoI.

 

We can easily address this using first principles. 

 

Why were fighter aircrafts built in the first place ? How did all the evolve ? 

 

1. Fighter aircrafts were built to deliver ordnance and destroy ground assets of the enemy with accuracy. Missile tech was no very advanced back in the day and fighter aircrafts were needed to deliver precision strikes from close quarters. 

 

2. Then with time both the Soviets and US developed similar capabilties -- so  the role of air to air combat and dogfights and airspace domination evolved. 

 

3. Then BVR came into being and dog fights is a thing of the past now .

 

........

 

Cut to today --- if you can destroy your enemies ground assets - remotely and accurately from a distance  through a combination of low CEP cruise and ballistic missiles-- and lay foundation for a ground invasion  after remotely destroying most of the enemies offensive capabilities - what is the role of fighter aircrafts then ? 

 

 

Don't believe me - just look at the results of the 2 most recent wars ( Ukraine vs. Russia and the Iran war ) 

 

The decisive factor has been missile ( and drone) capability NOT having better quality and quantity fighter aircrafts.

 

I'm not cancelling you entirely, you're correct in your assumption.
What I'm saying that while the long range BVR and A2A combat is crucial, you need to have a modern 5th gen stealthy jet to go near to the attack zone and launch missiles to destroy the target.
Take an example of Op Sindoor, we blasted the 11 Airbases using Airforce missiles and Pooks didn't had a clue. Coz their AD was useless and junk.

Had it been a better AD, we may have faced some amount of interception as the missiles have to travel longer giving AD sufficient time to detect. In that case you'll have to go bit closer to the target without getting caught. Coz AD and radar will keep on improving, hence in that sense the fighter jets have to improve as well.