“Death of Fighter Jet” Narrative Vague; Ex-IAF Air Marshal Explains Why Missiles Cannot Replace Combat Jets

Why It Matters

The analysis challenges a cost‑driven shift toward missile‑centric forces, urging defense planners to preserve fighter capabilities that ensure air dominance and adaptable response in high‑intensity conflicts.

Key Takeaways

• Missiles cost $2.5‑$5 million vs $75 million per fighter jet.
• Fighters provide reusable, multi‑role flexibility that missiles lack.
• Air‑launched missiles gain range and speed from high‑altitude platforms.
• Combined fighter‑missile approach remains essential for air superiority.
• Iran’s 2026 war showed minimal fighter losses despite heavy missile use.

Pulse Analysis

Modern militaries are wrestling with a budgetary dilemma: invest in cheaper, high‑volume missiles and drones or maintain expensive, versatile fighter aircraft. Proponents of a missile‑only doctrine point to the low unit cost of weapons like the BrahMos ($2.75‑$4 million) and the Agni‑IV IRBM ($5 million), arguing that these can neutralize high‑value targets without risking pilots. However, the high‑speed, high‑G capabilities of missiles do not translate into the persistent presence, situational awareness, and decision‑making flexibility that a manned platform provides. As conflicts in Ukraine, the 2025 India‑Pakistan clash, and Iran’s 2026 war demonstrate, air superiority still hinges on platforms that can adapt mid‑mission, conduct reconnaissance, and provide a deterrent presence.

The synergy between fighters and missiles amplifies combat effectiveness beyond the sum of their parts. Air‑launched missiles benefit from the altitude and kinetic energy imparted by fast jets, extending range and reducing fuel consumption. Systems such as India’s Astra Mk‑2 and Russia’s Kinzhal illustrate how launch platforms can boost missile performance, creating larger no‑escape zones and enabling deeper strikes. Moreover, modern fighters act as network‑centric nodes, integrating data from AESA radars, electronic‑warfare suites, and satellite feeds to guide multiple weapon types in real time. The emerging manned‑unmanned teaming (MUM‑T) concept further multiplies this advantage, allowing pilots to command swarms of drones while retaining the option to fire precision‑guided munitions.

For policymakers, the takeaway is clear: a balanced force structure that preserves advanced fighter fleets while expanding missile inventories offers the most resilient posture. The United States and Israel continue to field high‑end jets like the F‑35 and F‑15EX precisely because they provide rapid response, air‑defense interception, and the ability to project power far beyond the reach of ground‑launched missiles. Nations that over‑prioritize low‑cost missiles risk losing the strategic flexibility needed to counter dynamic threats and maintain credible deterrence. Future procurement cycles should therefore weigh lifecycle costs, reusability, and the value of human‑in‑the‑loop decision making alongside raw firepower.