In a significant development, Portugal and Canada are expressing hesitancy over proceeding with the acquisition of F-35 stealth fighters from the United States. Adding to this, military experts from Germany have also voiced concerns about purchasing American stealth aircraft. These evolving stances pose both challenges and opportunities for India as it contemplates its own future fighter jet acquisitions.
India’s primary worries regarding the F-35 acquisition stem from several operational and logistical challenges. High operational costs, complex maintenance requirements, and reliability issues have repeatedly been cited by countries reconsidering their purchase. Even Canada, a nation with a well-integrated NATO supply chain, has raised concerns, suggesting that a country like India—without an established F-35 ecosystem—could face even more severe logistical hurdles.
India has historically found itself constrained by restrictive American defense agreements, such as the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) regarding Russian defense dealings. If Canada and Portugal, both longstanding U.S. allies, are reconsidering their F-35 deals under Washington’s influence, India must tread carefully. A potential F-35 deal with the U.S. could come with diplomatic and operational strings attached, limiting India’s autonomy over its fleet.
Moreover, the likelihood of the U.S. sharing deep technology integration rights with India remains low. The F-35 program is tightly controlled, with Lockheed Martin ensuring that buyers adhere to stringent operational protocols, reducing the scope for independent customization—a major factor that has deterred India in the past.
F-35
Despite these concerns, the hesitancy of NATO countries in proceeding with their F-35 purchases presents certain advantages for India. If these nations formally withdraw or delay their acquisitions, production slots for the F-35 could open up, potentially allowing India to secure earlier delivery schedules should it opt to proceed. This could be particularly strategic given Pakistan’s interest in acquiring the Chinese J-35, positioning India to gain a stealth capability edge.
Furthermore, Lockheed Martin might become more flexible in pricing and support agreements with India to fill any gaps left by NATO’s reduced orders. Negotiation leverage could allow India to secure better terms, particularly in maintenance and training arrangements.
India could also use a limited number of F-35s as a stepping stone toward its indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) program. Experience with 5th-generation fighter operations would be valuable in refining India’s domestic fighter jet capabilities, ensuring a smoother transition once the AMCA becomes operational.
The decision to procure a fighter jet is not merely about acquiring the latest technology; it is a strategic choice involving cost-benefit analysis, long-term sustainability, and geopolitical alignment. Countries must balance several factors when deciding on a fighter jet acquisition program:
- Cost vs. Capability
Fifth-generation aircraft such as the F-35 and F-22 provide cutting-edge stealth and avionics capabilities but come with high acquisition and operational costs. Alternative options, such as the F-16 or Gripen, offer more cost-effective solutions at the expense of certain technological advantages.
- Multirole Flexibility vs. Specialization
Modern fighters like the F-35 and Rafale are designed to handle air superiority, ground attack, and electronic warfare missions, reducing the need for a diverse fleet. However, specialized aircraft like the A-10 Thunderbolt II excel in specific roles, such as close air support. Nations must weigh the benefits of a single multirole platform against a diverse fleet of specialized aircraft.
- Short-Term vs. Long-Term Investment
Some nations prefer acquiring proven aircraft that deliver immediate capability, while others invest in long-term research and development for future superiority. The latter approach, seen in programs like the Tempest (UK) and Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) (U.S.), involves greater risk but ensures cutting-edge advancements.
- Fleet Size vs. High-End Technology
Countries must decide whether to prioritize fleet quantity or technological superiority. A larger fleet allows broader coverage and higher sortie rates, while fewer advanced aircraft offer enhanced combat performance. For example, the U.S. supplements its high-end F-22 fleet with the more cost-effective F-35, balancing capability and quantity.
- Indigenous Development vs. Foreign Procurement
Developing domestic fighter programs, like India’s Tejas and AMCA, promotes self-sufficiency but demands high investment in research and industrial infrastructure. Foreign procurement offers immediate capability but creates dependencies on external suppliers, limiting long-term strategic autonomy.
India’s Approach to Cost-Effective Fighter Acquisition
India has prioritized indigenous development as a means of cost-effective fighter procurement. The HAL Tejas, developed to reduce foreign dependence, incorporates modular designs that enable continuous upgrades. Though its development has faced delays, it remains a relatively affordable alternative to Western aircraft.
Several strategies can help India optimize its fighter procurement programs:
- Comprehensive Lifecycle Planning
Beyond the initial purchase price, governments must consider long-term expenses, including operational and maintenance costs. Lifecycle cost analysis ensures financial sustainability over an aircraft’s operational tenure.
- Incremental Upgrades
Aircraft with modular systems and open architecture allow for incremental upgrades, extending service life and reducing obsolescence risks. The F-16, operational since the 1970s, remains relevant due to consistent avionics and weaponry upgrades.
- Multi-Role Versatility
Fighter jets that can perform multiple missions streamline logistics and reduce overall costs. The Dassault Rafale exemplifies this, capable of handling air-to-air combat, ground strikes, and reconnaissance roles with equal efficiency.
- Export-Focused Development
Developing aircraft with export potential helps recover development costs. Countries like Sweden (Gripen) and South Korea (KF-21) design fighters with both domestic and foreign markets in mind, ensuring financial viability.
Technologies Shaping Fighter Jet Procurement
Advancements in technology are reshaping the affordability and capability balance in modern fighter acquisitions:
- Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and ‘Loyal Wingman’ Drones
Unmanned systems can complement manned fighters, executing reconnaissance, electronic warfare, and combat missions. Programs like the Boeing MQ-28 Ghost Bat demonstrate how AI-enabled drones can reduce operational risks and costs.
- Artificial Intelligence (AI) Integration
AI enhances decision-making, optimizes combat strategies, and reduces pilot workload. Advanced AI integration in mission planning and combat execution is a defining feature of next-generation aircraft.
India Consider the F-35
While the F-35 offers unparalleled technology, its restrictive operational framework, high costs, and geopolitical baggage make it a challenging proposition for India. Given that NATO allies like Germany, Canada, and Portugal—despite their robust U.S. interoperability—are hesitating, India must exercise even greater caution before considering an F-35 purchase.
Key concerns include:
- Technology Transfer Limitations – The U.S. is unlikely to grant India deep integration rights, limiting India’s ability to customize or upgrade the platform.
- Operational Sovereignty Risks – Heavy U.S. oversight could hinder India’s ability to use the F-35 independently in strategic operations.
- Cost Considerations – Maintenance and lifecycle costs must be weighed against indigenous alternatives like AMCA.
- Geopolitical Constraints – Past U.S. sanctions and export restrictions raise concerns about long-term fleet sustainability.
- Interoperability with India’s Existing Fleet – India’s mixed Russian, French, and indigenous aircraft fleet could face logistical challenges integrating the F-35.
The F-35 remains a cautious “no.” While faster delivery schedules and potential price negotiations may seem attractive, India must prioritize self-sufficiency and strategic autonomy. The path forward lies in strengthening indigenous fighter programs, exploring alternative stealth options, and ensuring operational sovereignty in all future defense procurements.
