Chandigarh: The Indian Air Force’s (IAF’s) long-pending plans to induct 60-80 new transporters alongside the long-pending acquisition of 114 multirole fighter aircraft (MFA), represent the most consequential fleet expansion decisions it will undertake in this decade.Together, these two procurements will not just add platform numbers to the IAF, but reshape its operational architecture, logistics approach, and industrial partnerships for decades to come. Yet, their potential scale also highlights a long-standing vulnerability within the IAF: not merely in high acquisition costs, but the cumulative logistical, financial, and operational strain of sustaining a highly diverse force, in contrast to the streamlined, uniform structures maintained by other major air forces.The IAF is set to imminently issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for up to 80 new medium transport aircraft (MTA) – a $6–8 billion programme aimed at replacing its ageing Soviet-era Antonov An-32 and Ilyushin Il-76 fleets, while simultaneously boosting domestic aerospace manufacturing. One of the largest efforts to modernise the service’s tactical and medium-lift transport capability, the programme aims to not only to plug operational gaps, but also to advance atmanirbharta or self-reliance in indigenous materiel production.Concurrently, the IAF is also expected to kick-start its long-delayed procurement of 114 multi-role fighters (MFA), estimated at $25-30 billion, as a critical step in both modernising its combat fleet and boosting fighter squadron numbers that had precipitously declined, from a sanctioned strength of 42.5 squadrons to merely around 29-30 presently. Delayed for nearly a decade due to inertia within the IAF and Ministry of Defence (MoD), the MFA acquisition is likely to gain momentum in the New Year, amid regional security pressures, industrial officials said.Enhancing capability without compounding logistical complexityTaken together, these two acquisitions will decisively shape the IAF’s force structure for decades, but they also impose careful choices. Operating one of the most diverse aircraft inventories among major air forces, the IAF will need to ensure that the new inductions enhance capability without compounding logistical complexity, so that modernisation improves operational effectiveness rather than deepening existing sustainment challenges.This caution is rooted in the IAF’s current force structure. Its fighter fleet, for instance, spans six distinct types across multiple generations, avionics architectures, and weapons ecosystems sourced from Russia, France, Europe, and domestically. Its transport fleet too is equally varied, comprising aircraft from the US, Soviet Union/Russia, Ukraine, and Europe. And, while this diversity in both spheres delivers operational reach, it also imposes heavy burdens in maintenance, training, and logistics, making planning and sustainment far more complex and expensive than in more standardised forces around the world.IAF fighters included Russian Su-30MKIs and MiG-29UPGs, French Mirage-2000Hs (upgraded) and Rafales, Anglo-French Jaguar DARINIII’s and indigenous Tejas Mk1/1A’s, each with unique avionics, weaponry, interfaces, simulators, electronic warfare (EW) suites, and maintenance philosophies. Upgrades and jugaad or local innovations, or both, to improve platform capability had only further deepened divergence by introducing bespoke configurations that were not only expensive to develop, but also confined just the particular aircraft type.The IAFs transport and support fleet, on the other hand, also presented a comparable embarrassment of riches, reflecting the same fragmented complexity. Its heavy and tactical transports included US-origin C-17s and C-130J-30s, Soviet/Russian Ilyushin Il-76s and Il-78s, and Ukrainian/Indian Antonov An-32s, while medium and light transports featured Spanish/Indian C-295s and German-Indian Dornier Do-228s. Though all these aircraft provided the IAF adequate operational reach, each type necessitated separate pilot training, spares, and maintenance chains, consuming resources and multiplying inefficiencies and turning operational capability into a logistical challenge.Consequently, the IAF was forced to sustain a complex mosaic of maintenance regimes, training pipelines, simulators, spares inventories, software standards, and upgrade cycles – each demanding separate contracts, infrastructure, and technical expertise. Over time, this diversity had not only inflated costs and strained manpower, but more critically steadily eroded operational flexibility, particularly as these platforms aged and support chains thinned out.“The IAF’s assets today look less like a carefully curated force and more like a flying museum – one of everything, none in sufficient quantity, and several that don’t quite fit together,” said a veteran three-star fighter pilot. The issue is unmanaged variety, he stated, declining to be named, with legacy platforms kept alive through jugaad and institutional willpower, resulting in chronic squadron shortages. Introducing one more different aircraft – fighter or transport– would further strain logistics, he sagely added.Other veterans also noted that a conscious effort at consolidation or ensuring fleet conformity could significantly reduce overheads, simplify training, and streamline maintenance, allowing the IAF to extract maximum operational value from each platform.They argued that from a warfighting perspective, excessive heterogeneity complicated operational readiness and efficiency. Pilots could be easily cross-trained on different fighters or transporters, and weapons, sensors, mission planning systems, and data links needed to be integrated separately for each platform, driving up costs. In an era of networked, software-driven air combat, such fragmentation they said undermined such essential integration.“How the IAF navigates this decision to acquire new fighters and transporters will determine the effectiveness, readiness, and sustainability of its fleet for decades to come” said a veteran two-star transport pilot, requesting anonymity. It will also test whether modernisation can be translated into true operational efficiency or remain burdened by the logistic complexity the service has long tolerated, he added.‘Rarely addressed the cumulative burden imposed on the force’Other than financial costs, diversity in platforms strategically hampered indigenisation, as domestic aerospace development depended on stable production runs and predictable upgrades; frequent platform switches ended up disrupting supply chains and limited the growth of India’s aerospace industry to little more than licensed assembly.“Each procurement in the past had solved an immediate problem, but rarely addressed the cumulative burden imposed on the force,” said the aforementioned two-star IAF officer. This had created a situation where both the fighter and transport fleets had ended up becoming a ‘patchwork’ rather than a seamless system, he declared.A look at other major air forces in this regard is instructive.China’s rival People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) has pursued a deliberate strategy of fleet standardisation, concentrating on a few core aircraft types: Chengdu J-10s, Shenyang J-16s, and Chengdu J-20s – while retiring older types like the J-7 and J-8. This approach had allowed the PLAAF to simplify maintenance, standardise spare parts and systems, and reduce logistical complexity, demonstrating how uniformity can enhance operational sustainability and readiness across a large combat aircraft fleet.Similarly, the U.S. Air Force operated a streamlined, but potent fighter mix focused on air superiority, multirole strike, and stealth capabilities. Its primary aircraft included the F-15 Eagles and F-15EXS for air superiority and high-end strike, the F-16 Fighting Falcon in multirole and legacy roles, the F-22 Raptor for stealth air dominance, and the F-35A Lightning II as its 5th generation multirole stealth platform.And though the F-16 and older F 15C/D variants were gradually being retired or transferred to the Air National Guard and allied nations, the F-22 and F-35 continued to constitute the backbone of the USAF’s future combat capability. The USAF is also advancing its Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) programme by fielding a sixth-generation fighter with stealth, sensor fusion, and optionally manned capabilities by the 2030s. Overall, it is moving toward a smaller number of highly capable, networked platforms, reducing fleet diversity to simplify maintenance, logistics, and interoperability, while ensuring dominance in contested environments.The Russian Aerospace Forces, for its part, operated a mix of Sukhoi Su-27/30/35s for air superiority, the MiG-29/35 for multirole tasks, and the Su-57 as its fifth-generation stealth fighter. Its modernisation programmes aimed to streamline avionics and reduce logistical burdens while sustaining combat readiness across multiple generations of fighters from the same family.And France’s Armée de l’air et de l’espace maintains a compact, uniform fighter fleet centered on Rafales and Mirage 2000/2005s, but with the former fighter increasingly assuming all primary roles. Emphasis on fleet uniformity, standardised maintenance procedures, and common spares inventory ensured high readiness, cost-effectiveness, and above all, simplified logistics.France’s future programmes, notably SCAF (Système de Combat Aérien du Futur / Future Combat Air System), carry this logic forward, emphasising interoperability, maintainability, and technological coherence. As a collaborative France-Germany-Spain effort, SCAF seeks to build a sixth-generation air combat ecosystem by the early 2030s by tightly integrating manned fighters, unmanned systems, sensors, and weapons into a single, networked architecture.For the IAF, the lesson is amply clear. As it weighs new inductions – whether the 114 MFAs or additional transport aircraft – it must enhance capability without deepening fragmentation and balance modernisation with long-term sustainability. Prioritising fleet uniformity, not unchecked diversity, offers the clearest path forward.By prioritising standardisation, common systems, and long production runs, the IAF can reduce logistical strain, simplify training and maintenance, and extract greater combat value from each platform, ensuring that modernisation translates into sustainable operational effectiveness.