@Kharavela
I don't want to continue this discussion anymore in this thread... We're literally spamming this thread...
This will be my last post...
----
Have you read the IAF Doctrine last updated in 2012 ? Let me quote from that:
"Control of the air is seen not merely as the most fundamental role of airpower (to protect the nation-state from attack) and a vital prerequisite for all other operations but also as the capability to defend a nation and provide freedom of maneuver as a deterrent in itself."
Note the key-phrases "protect the nation from attack", "capability to defend a nation" and "deterrent in itself". As we know from the history, IAF never and I repeat never planned / executed an expeditionary mission.
First of all, I haven't read the 2012 document before... But since you asked me to read it, I read it a bit...
VISION of IAF in the 2012 doctrine says this--->
"To acquire strategic reach and capabilities across the spectrum of conflict that serve the ends of military diplomacy, nation building and enable force projection within India's strategic area of influence."
MISSION STATEMENT says this--->
"To be a modern, flexible and professional aerospace power with full spectrum capability to protect and further national interests and objectives."
I couldn't locate that particular sentence that you quoted in your post, but simply from the vision and mission statement of IAF, it is clear that IAF's doctrine is NOT limited to defending Indian Air space alone...
Note the words, "
full spectrum of capabilities", and "enable force projection within India's strategic area of influence".
Full spectrum of capabilities include a lot more things than merely protecting Indian territory from incoming missiles and fighter jets...
It includes going offensive in enemy controlled territory among other things... Even if you have to simply defend your airspace, you need to go offensive...
IAF did conduct strikes in enemy controlled territory, latest example being Balakot strike... Balakot strike was done to further national interests and objectives as stated in the mission statement...
Tomorrow if IAF as tasked with going offensive inside China, they will do it... It is a part of their doctrine and whether they have done it in the past or not doesn't matter...
----
please tell me Is it safer to use a manned aircraft in contested air-space ? Or a remotely piloted unmanned system (which is expendable) in such situation ? Imagine yourself as Theater Commander and decide, would you prefer to risk life of your men or send the expendable machine instead ?
If an enemy has vast number of Air Defence assets, you first take them down... To do that, drones at current levels of technology are NOT enough...
Even MUM teams are atleast 2 decades away...
You need Manned Aircrafts with longer legs to take down the AD assets... Men need to take on the spot decisions given the complexity of SEAD and DEAD missions...
If I'm a Theater Commander, I'd definitely risk men if I know that expendable machines can't do the job effectively...
----
US Air Force must be dumb.
The US Air Force is turning old F-16s into pilotless AI-powered fighters
F-16 into Pilotless AI-powered fighters
USA is converting F16s into UAVs to use them as target drones for training purposes...
They are not going to use these QF16s in offensive operations...
Using Kamikaze drones or decoy drones or Unmanned drones with AI are ideas on which many countries are working, including USA...
The author of that particular link combined both these things and wrote some gibberish... Next time please do not throw random links...
USAF are definitely not dumb... They know what they're doing...
-
Converting retired MIGs into drones is an idea given by many internet warriors... But turning them into anything beyond Kamikaze drones is pretty useless... And I stand by my point...
Coz. no one knows how much the conversion costs, what are the additional costs required for support infrastructure, how much airframe life is left in them, how much can we rely on them to take-off and actually fly all the way to the target when required, what will be their shelf life after conversion, do we have reliable spares to keep them in flying condition...?
It is simply much easier to design new UAVs using latest technologies than relying on these old jets, which we are doing anyway...
----
Our entire discussion started with you saying that 20 Tejas M1/1A squadrons are enough for IAF... I said that we need relatively heavier jets given the change in threat perception...
You in turn replied to it by saying that we need more UAVs and Drones instead of Manned jets...
I'm saying that AI enabled drones that can take down layered enemy AD assets are still many years away and we will continue to use manned jets for many years to come...
I guess there is no point in continuing this discussion anymore... I'm leaving it here...
