My first question would be how much is it the jet that delivers the weapon and how much is it the weapon that was deployed vs the other aircraft...
bigyabai · 13h ago
My armchair admiral perspective is that this validates the missile-first doctrine we've seen emphasized for modern air combat. India's got the Rafale and Su-30, two powerful and maneuverable fighters that are both twin-engine combatants. By comparison, the J-10 and JF-17 are both single-engine fighters that are slower and rely on better missiles and powerful AESA radar to engage opponents. Pakistan's success seemingly validates the focus on missile technology and light fighters, but it's honestly too early to say for sure.
Price is a bit harder to call and it varies over time, but suffice to say a single-engine aircraft is typically cheaper than a twin-engine fighter. Estimated cost of a modern J-10 is ~$40 million USD, whereas Su-30 is estimated to be more in the $60 million range (and Rafale estimated at $100+ million).
nothercastle · 12h ago
To place missiles inside Pakistan India would have had to come close to Paki ground Radar at the border so Pakistan would have had the advantage when it comes to target acquisition. Also to prevent escalation they didn’t target military facilities so doing a first strike in airborne aircraft was probably not in the mission parameters.
Price is a bit harder to call and it varies over time, but suffice to say a single-engine aircraft is typically cheaper than a twin-engine fighter. Estimated cost of a modern J-10 is ~$40 million USD, whereas Su-30 is estimated to be more in the $60 million range (and Rafale estimated at $100+ million).