This article is a continuation (Part 2) of the series. You can read Part 1 here.
The Agniveer Scheme and Geopolitical Implications
The Agniveer scheme is India’s ambitious plan to overhaul its military by recruiting young, tech-savvy soldiers for a four-year term, moving away from the traditional lifetime service model. The goal is to build a nimble, adaptable force ready for modern challenges. However, the media has created hype around this scheme, fuelled by vested interests from the Western lobby aiming to derail India’s defense improvement. When India focuses on defense improvement rather than the protests, it can become a major defense exporter.
There’s also a geopolitical twist. Some suggest the United States might be quietly pleased with this turmoil. The reasoning goes like this: if India can’t sort out its military reforms—like Agniveer—and keeps facing internal pushback, it stays reliant on foreign arms, especially from the U.S. India has already spent £15.5 billion on American military equipment since 2008—planes, helicopters, and more. Now, talks of dropping another £7.8–11.6 billion on F-35 fighter jets and Patriot missile systems are circulating. That’s a hefty bill, and it locks India deeper into a dependency trap. The more India leans on U.S. gear, the harder it gets to break free and build its own.
Self-reliance is the real prize here — crafting a military that stands on its own, not one tethered to foreign suppliers for every spare part. The protests over Agniveer, whether fuelled by local discontent or subtly nudged from abroad, risk pulling India off that path. Sorting out this mess internally isn’t just about calming the streets; it’s about taking control of India’s defense future. Why let chaos—or whispers from across the ocean—keep India from that goal?
Incidents and Accidents Involving the F-35
The F-35 Lightning II, a family of single-seat, single-engine, all-weather stealth multirole fighters, has experienced several notable accidents and incidents since its introduction. These events have involved engine fires, crashes, and collisions, often resulting from human error, mechanical failures, or design issues. Below is a summary of key incidents based on available information:
These accidents have contributed to debates about the F-35’s safety and reliability, given its complexity and high cost. However, with over 721,000 flight hours and 965 aircraft delivered, some argue its accident rate is within expected norms for a new military platform.
Autonomous Incidents Involving the F-35
The F-35 is a manned aircraft, not designed for fully autonomous flight. While it features advanced automation and artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities—such as sensor fusion, target detection, and tracking—these are decision-support tools controlled by the pilot, not autonomous flight systems. As a result, there are no documented incidents of the F-35 operating autonomously or crashing due to autonomous flight operations.
However, automation-related issues have played a role in some incidents:
- 2022 Utah Crash: The crash at Hill AFB was caused by a software glitch in the air data system, which stopped responding to pilot inputs after being triggered by turbulence. While this involved automation, it was not an autonomous operation—rather, it highlighted risks of reliance on complex software systems.
The F-35’s AI and automation are designed to enhance pilot situational awareness and combat effectiveness, not to replace the pilot. Unlike unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the F-35 requires human control, and all reported incidents stem from human error, mechanical failures, or design flaws rather than autonomous behaviour.
Strategic Decision-Making: Building Self-Reliance
India must approach this decision with caution. The smart move is to negotiate with America to share the F-35’s blueprints so it can be built domestically—otherwise, India should decline the offer. Russia’s Su-57 deal allows for domestic production, aligning with the “Make in India” initiative and saving costs while fostering local expertise. Additionally, India should advocate for global regulations on AI warfare to prevent major powers like China and America from dominating with advanced technology that India lacks. HAL’s track record—delays in delivering the Tejas—indicates the need for external assistance to catch up. However, purchasing advanced jets like the F-35 without acquiring the necessary know-how keeps India dependent, rather than empowering it to stand independently.
Evaluating the F-35, it offers impressive capabilities: speeds of 1,975 km/h, a range of 2,220 km, and stealth features with a radar cross-section of 0.001 m². However, it comes with a hefty price tag—£62 million per jet, plus additional costs for spares and fuel—and carries only 10 weapons, fewer than some competitors. In contrast, the Su-57, while less stealthy (0.1 m²), is cheaper to co-build, and Russia is willing to share technology. The AMCA represents India’s future aspirations—stealthy, domestically produced, and AI-ready—but its completion is projected for 2035, which is too far off to address immediate needs.
The real fight is shifting to the skies, with AI jets—no pilots, just computers making decisions, outthinking and outflying anything human. China is advancing rapidly in this domain, and America is not far behind. India’s own Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), intended to be a high-tech response, won’t be ready until 2035—ten years too late to catch up. This delay poses a significant challenge, as AI-driven jets represent the future of air combat.
Moreover, there is no global rulebook for AI wars. Existing agreements like the Geneva Convention cover human soldiers, not machines. If an AI jet goes rogue and hits the wrong target, accountability becomes a complex issue. This regulatory gap leaves nations vulnerable to unforeseen consequences.
While the F-35 is currently a solid option—it flies, fights, and hides effectively—it is not designed for the AI-driven future. Investing in the F-35 now could mean buying yesterday’s technology for tomorrow’s war, potentially leaving India at a disadvantage as AI jets become the norm.
India requires a solution now that not only meets current defense needs but also contributes to long-term self-reliance. The focus should be on building capabilities that empower India, rather than creating dependency on foreign suppliers.
Conclusion
India’s decision between the American F-35 and the Russian Su-57 fighter jets is a complex and multifaceted one, with significant implications for the country’s defense strategy, geopolitical alliances, and long-term self-reliance. The F-35 offers advanced stealth and technology, but it comes with high costs and potential dependencies on the United States. In contrast, the Su-57, while less stealthy, aligns with India’s “Make in India” initiative, fostering local expertise and reducing reliance on foreign suppliers.
The rapid evolution of AI-driven aviation further complicates this decision, as the future of air combat will likely be dominated by pilotless jets. Investing in the F-35 now could mean buying technology that may soon be outdated, whereas the Su-57 offers a platform for future innovations and self-reliance.
The Agniveer scheme and the geopolitical dynamics surrounding India’s defense reforms highlight the importance of focusing on long-term strategic goals rather than short-term fixes. Ensuring India’s freedom to choose its path and building a robust, independent defense capability are paramount.
This decision isn’t just about picking planes—it’s about ensuring India retains the freedom to choose its path. The Indian Air Force (IAF) needs strength to guard the skies, and with only 31 squadrons against the required 42, the gap is significant. China is not waiting, and the urgency is clear. However, opting for the F-35 could lock India into America’s grip, costing billions—£62 million per jet, with dozens needed and years of upkeep. This dependency could bleed resources and limit strategic autonomy.
Russia offers a partnership with the Su-57, allowing India to build and learn domestically. This aligns with the “Make in India” initiative, fostering local expertise and reducing reliance on foreign suppliers. The Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) represents a home-grown hope, but it’s a decade away from being operational. The future of air combat lies in AI-driven, pilotless jets, which come with no established rules and significant risks.
India must avoid trading tomorrow’s freedom for today’s quick fix. The focus should be on strategic choices that build long-term self-reliance and resilience. Choosing wisely now will prevent future regret and ensure India’s defense capabilities are robust and independent. Ultimately, the choice between the F-35 and the Su-57 is not just about acquiring new aircraft; it’s about shaping India’s defense future. By making strategic decisions that prioritize self-reliance and resilience, India can secure its position as a major defense power and avoid the pitfalls of dependency on foreign suppliers.
Vikram Mohan is an independent writer with a keen eye for global defense and geopolitics. While not a formal specialist, he brings a fresh, analytical perspective to complex strategic issues, blending meticulous research with insightful commentary.
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.