Last month, China surprised the world by unveiling two new aircraft, believed to be prototypes of sixth-generation fighters. Comparisons were quick to follow. How does China manage to design, develop, and mass-produce advanced weapon systems so quickly, while India seems stuck in a never-ending loop of delays?
India’s flagging airpower presents a stark example. Despite years of effort, the Tejas Mk-1A has yet to enter squadron service, the Tejas Mk-2 remains on the drawing board, and the ambitious fifth-generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) programme feels more like a pipe dream. Even when the country looks to buy advanced systems from abroad, the process can be equally slow. Case in point: the search for multirole fighters has now dragged on for over 20 years.
This consistent sluggishness raises critical questions about India’s ability to navigate an increasingly volatile security environment. Proposed solutions often focus on streamlining procurement processes, increasing budgets, restructuring the armed forces, or reforming research agencies and production facilities.
These suggestions are not without merit, but at the heart of the problem lies a more fundamental challenge: the lack of a coherent national vision and strategic framework to guide military planning and modernisation. Without a unifying strategy, efforts to fix broken processes or accelerate timelines risk becoming isolated, tactical measures that fail to produce meaningful long-term outcomes.
India’s challenges require a shift in perspective—one that embraces systems thinking and strategic coherence as foundational principles to drive policy.
Why Systems Thinking and Strategy Matter
Systems thinking views the national security apparatus as an interconnected network of elements working together to achieve broader objectives. The interactions among these elements often produce outcomes far more complex than the sum of their parts. Actions to “improve” one element can ripple through the system, often in unpredictable ways. Without careful evaluation of these interdependencies, modernisation risks becoming counterproductive and undermining the very objective it aims to achieve.
For example, the IAF’s numerical shortfall against China might prompt a push to induct more fighters. At first glance, this would appear to strengthen airpower. However, airpower is not just about fighter counts; it is the product of an interconnected system of capabilities. Fighter aircraft need robust support from command-and-control infrastructure, early warning systems, refueling tankers, integrated air defences, and logistical networks to realize their full potential. Each element must complement the others for the system to function effectively.
Without sufficient AWACS coverage, even the most advanced fighters would lack situational awareness. The paucity of airborne refueling tankers—critical for increasing the endurance of fighters and enabling operations from bases farther away—could limit their flexibility and operational reach. Inadequate base infrastructure, such as hardened shelters to protect these fighters from pre-emptive strikes or logistics networks to sustain high-tempo operations, could undermine their availability during a crisis. Worse still, gaps in integrated air defences might leave these aircraft vulnerable to enemy strikes before they even take off.
These interdependencies highlight a critical lesson: isolated improvements are rarely enough. True advancement requires system-wide improvements, where each capability is developed in alignment with the others.
Building on this, it is also vital to recognise what strategy truly is. Far too often, discussions on modernisation fixate on adding mass, improving processes, or optimizing resource utilization. While these measures are valuable, they do not constitute “strategy.” And they often fail, as they tend to focus on imitating the competition without understanding why it has chosen a particular course of action.
Strategy is about making deliberate choices to achieve long-term objectives. It requires thinking from first principles to identify priorities, acknowledge trade-offs, and align resources to serve overarching goals. For India, this means moving beyond the fixation on individual platforms and capabilities to consider how they fit into a broader conception of national security. Only by anchoring modernisation efforts in a clear strategic vision can India position itself to navigate the challenges of modern conflict and build a secure future.
A historical example of strategic clarity and first-principles thinking can be found in Finland’s approach during the Cold War. Facing the challenge of proximity to a militarily superior Soviet Union and the imperative to maintain its independence, Finland adopted a pragmatic strategy tailored to its unique circumstances.
Finland’s military strategy married its challenging geography—dense forests and rugged terrain—with a highly trained reserve force, a decentralized command structure, and robust civil defence measures. Together, these elements were designed to serve a singular goal: to deter aggression by demonstrating that the costs of an invasion would be unacceptably high. Military capability was not pursued as an end in itself but as a means to support a strategic purpose.
In addition to its territorial defence, Finland maintained a carefully calibrated policy of neutrality, balancing geopolitical pressures while quietly preparing for worst-case scenarios. It was a delicate balancing act that allowed the country to preserve its autonomy and security without unnecessary provocation.
India’s Fragmented Military: A System in Disarray
India’s approach to national security and modernisation often lacks this strategic cohesion. Without systems thinking to underpin a well-coordinated strategy, arms acquisition becomes ad hoc and reactionary—driven more by historical precedent and critical shortages than by a long-term roadmap. Initiatives that should align with broader goals instead become isolated efforts, wasting resources and fueling turf battles between stakeholders.
The consequences are both glaring and frustrating. The Army, for instance, scrapped a vital project to digitally network its infantrymen in favor of acquiring new rifles—a shortsighted trade-off that prioritized immediate (and arguably contrived) needs over long-term capability building.
Similarly, the Navy has invested heavily in aircraft carriers, often for reasons of prestige rather than strategic necessity. India’s aircraft carriers sat out two major wars and played only a token role in a third. Yet, the Navy continues to demand a multi-carrier fleet, at times justifying it with circular arguments such as the need to replace aging carriers or maintain operational expertise.
And then there is the Air Force, which, despite its numerical and resource superiority over Pakistan, struggled during the 2019 air skirmish. The reliance on a patchwork of systems procured from multiple countries created interoperability issues that became painfully evident when the Air Force tragically shot down its own helicopter over Budgam. In this case, electronic interference from civilian frequencies forced a critical identification system offline, leading to a tragic and avoidable friendly-fire event.
India’s armaments industry also suffers under this fractured mindset. The Tejas programme is emblematic of the broader issues at play. Instead of leveraging past experience—such as the Marut project or decades of license manufacturing—to build a robust research and manufacturing ecosystem, short-term priorities took precedence. Had these earlier efforts been used to establish the building blocks of critical technologies—such as jet propulsion, digital avionics, and composite materials—India would have built a stronger foundation. This could have significantly reduced the technological risks and timelines associated with the Tejas. Instead, the project had to start from scratch, resulting in avoidable delays.
The Arjun tank also suffered from overly ambitious goals, shifting requirements, and mismanagement; transforming an initially modest undertaking into an quagmire. The result was a tank that was too heavy for critical border bridges, challenging to transport by rail, and equipped with a weak powertrain ill-suited to its bulk.
The issue here is not limited to a single tank or aircraft programme—it is a systemic problem. India’s military modernisation is plagued by a lack of alignment among stakeholders, with individual services, research agencies, and production units often operating in silos. This approach squanders resources, fuels inefficiency, and hinders India’s ability to address its most pressing security challenges effectively. Without a unified vision to guide its efforts, India risks continuing down a path of piecemeal improvements that fail to deliver a coherent and capable military force.
The Chinese Playbook
China’s military reform offers valuable insights. Rather than trying to match its adversaries plane-for-plane or ship-for-ship, China focused on its strategic objectives and developed capabilities tailored to countering its opponents asymmetrically. This shift became particularly evident after Operation Desert Storm, which highlighted the effectiveness of advanced Western military systems and doctrines.
One notable example is China’s heavy investment in anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities. This included surveillance systems, long range missiles, air and naval platforms, and unconventional forces designed to restrict an adversary’s ability to operate freely near Chinese territory. These measures created formidable barriers for external powers attempting to project force in the region, complicating their operations.
Another example is the development of extensive tunnel-based infrastructure. These hardened structures secured critical assets and logistics while concealing them from American intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)—a domain where the US held a clear advantage. By denying adversaries vital information about the location and movement of its forces, China achieved operational resilience even against superior ISR capabilities.
China also made significant strides in cyber capabilities, recognising their potential to disrupt adversary networks while securing its own. It was an early mover in the race to integrate information warfare into a broader strategy, continues to maintain an advantage to this day.
However, China’s strength lies in integrating capabilities into a strategic framework, focusing on systemic coherence rather than merely producing cutting-edge platforms. Chinese military thinking views war as a confrontation between systems rather than individual units, platforms, or weapons. This systemic approach informs every aspect of its modernisation. By clearly defining its objectives—dominating its near seas, deterring intervention by external powers, and reshaping the Indo-Pacific region into a sphere of influence—China has built a military posture that not only reflects its broader national aspirations but also establishes a secure strategic position.
Reframing the Problem
The IAF’s numerical shortfall illustrates a recurring challenge. It is clear that there is no viable path to rapidly building up fighter strength. Perhaps the answer lies not in acquiring large numbers of aircraft but exploring ways to reduce their centrality in warfare. Revising India’s strategic posture, investing in doctrinal innovations, or developing asymmetric capabilities could offer cost-effective deterrence and operational flexibility.
This perspective also highlights a broader issue: India often replicates foreign military models instead of tailoring solutions to its unique challenges. This tendency to mimic rather than innovate perpetuates delays and inefficiencies while stifling the development of capabilities that could provide a strategic edge. Modernisation efforts become less about achieving strategic outcomes and more about maintaining parity in superficial metrics.
For this to change, India must establish clear definitions of national vision and strategic goals. What kind of power does India aspire to be? What are its core security interests? And what outcomes does it seek in its immediate neighbourhood and beyond?
Without clear answers to these questions, the military risks remaining an expensive and ineffective patchwork of platforms and capabilities. Establishing a cohesive strategy would give the armed forces a unifying purpose, breaking down the siloed thinking that currently hampers success. Systems thinking offers a framework to integrate and align efforts, ensuring that modernisation and reform serve a unified purpose rather than remaining a series of disjointed initiatives.
In other words, the key lies in reframing the problem at its core. Military modernisation must move beyond catch-up games to become a strategic process aimed at addressing India’s unique challenges and aspirations. By embracing this shift, India can move beyond the constraints of its past and build a military that reflects its global ambitions and strategic needs.
Mihir Shah is a mechanical engineer who tracks military and aerospace issues closely. He contributes to to LiveFist, Pragati Magazine, and Bharat Rakshak’s Security Research Review. Follow Mihir on Twitter here.