Listen to this article:

When India’s Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Anil Chauhan speaks of India pursuing a sixth-generation fighter, as he did recently, it is hard to ignore the strategic dissonance. The ambition is striking — but so is the gap between aspiration and capability.

At a time when India is nowhere near fielding a fifth-generation platform and continues to grapple with the long-delayed maturation of the indigenous Tejas Mk1/1A/2 light combat aircraft programme, all and any talk of leapfrogging into a sixth-generation ecosystem is little more than fanciful ambition detached from technological reality and existing capability.

The CDS had recently informed the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Defence that the Indian Air Force (IAF) was actively evaluating participation in emerging sixth generation fighter programmes and could align with one of two competing global efforts: the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), led by the UK, Italy, and Japan, or the rival Franco-German Future Combat Air System (FCAS).

Illustration: Pariplab Chakraborty.

Gen Chauhan’s remarks indicate that while India remains committed to locally developing the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), the complexity, cost and timelines associated with sixth-generation technologies – from artificial intelligence (AI), advanced propulsion and unmanned-unmanned teaming – make international collaboration increasingly unavoidable.

He is believed to have emphasised that any such decision would be guided by strategic autonomy, access to technology and long-term industrial benefits, rather than mere procurement. At the same time, his comments implicitly acknowledged the limits of India’s current aerospace ecosystem in independently delivering next-generation capabilities in the foreseeable future.

A cross-section of aviation industry officials argued that showcasing such advanced concepts without first consolidating the basics was not an illustration of strategic vision but a “feeble and impotent” attempt at projecting capabilities that do not yet exist domestically. The issue, they stressed, was not about thinking ahead – every major air power is already conceptualising sixth-generation platforms that integrate AI, unmanned teaming, advanced sensors, and network-centric warfare – but about demonstrable capability, not aspirational projection.

The fundamental constraint lies in the foundational technologies that give these elaborate ideas expressed by Gen Chauhan operational meaning.

At the core of this challenge are aero-engines — the most complex, expensive and technologically demanding element of any combat aircraft. Without a reliable, high-performance indigenous power plant, all ambitions of next-generation fighters risk remaining conceptual, exposing a widening gap between design aims and the hard engineering reality that ultimately determines combat capability.

India’s continued dependence on imported engines underscores this gap. The Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Tejas relies on the US-origin General Electric F404IN20 power packs, while the proposed advanced multi-role AMCA is expected to be powered, at least initially, by the more advanced General Electric F414. This is because decades of atamnirbharta or indigenous efforts to develop an alternative have yet to yield a viable engine, leaving India exposed to supply constraints, cost escalations, and technology denial regimes that handicap its aerospace ambitions.

Efforts to bridge this propulsion gap have led the Ministry of Defence to explore collaboration with France’s Safran to domestically co-develop a high-thrust indigenous engine. The proposed partnership aims to leverage Safran’s expertise in advanced materials, turbine technology and design processes, while building domestic capability over time.

Yet, even this stresses the harsh reality: after decades of effort, India still requires external assistance for the most critical aerospace technology, highlighting both the scale of the challenge and the cost and time involved in this endeavour.

India’s harrowing experience with the Tejas programme should, by now, have instilled a measure of humility, but it has not. Conceived in the 1980s as a replacement for the ageing Soviet-era MiG-21s, it took nearly four decades to reach even initial operational status and continues to face persistent handicaps – engine dependency, production bottlenecks, and evolving operational design changes. Above all, scaling up Tejas production and delivering its improved variants on schedule remains a work in progress.

Alongside, India’s 5th-generation aspirations remain largely notional. The AMCA programme is still in its incipient developmental stages, with timelines that extend well into the next decade and even beyond. Critical technologies — stealth materials, advanced engines, sensor fusion and others — are nowhere near being realised indigenously. The imprudent decision to exit the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) programme with Russia in 2017-18, despite having invested $295 million in it, only delayed India’s entry into this technologically advanced domain.

Furthermore, invoking sixth-generation fighters against this backdrop creates a credibility gap that is hard to ignore. At a time when the IAF is grappling with declining fighter squadron numbers, ageing combat fleets and persistent gaps in maintenance and production capacity, signalling interest in technologies that are themselves still evolving globally appears misdirected.

However, this is not a new pattern. India’s overall defence planning has long displayed an attraction to “gold-plated” solutions — platforms burdened with expansive, often unrealistic requirements rather than designed for operational efficiency. The consequential result has been repetitively familiar: interminable delays, cost overruns, and stalled programmes. The turn towards sixth-generation rhetoric fits uncomfortably into this history — an instinct to reach for the cutting edge without first securing the fundamentals.

What industry officials believe is badly needed instead is discipline, clear thinking, realistic timelines and a ruthless focus on execution. Programmes like the AMCA must be delivered before being overshadowed by fanciful projects like sixth-generation fighters.

Ultimately, the question is not whether India should aspire to sixth-generation capability, but whether it has built the foundations to get there — and at present, the answer is plainly no, as even the transition from 4th to 4.5-generation fighter capability is still incomplete. In such circumstances, the priority should be technological consolidation, not premature escalation. Ambition untethered from capability is not strategy. It is expensive, time-consuming – and ultimately tragic – theatre.

© The Wire