Singha wrote:I dont think it was any chankian insight into weakness of ground based IADS but just pure lack of money.
Not lack of insight but the desire to opt for more Fighter Aircraft over building multilayred IADS , Since IAF top bosses are all fighter jocks they are more biased toward purchasing more aircraft over investing similar money to build IADS given a choice and thats the trend in most airforces even that of NATO and USAF.
We would spend $20 Billion in buying Rafale or $35 Billion in buying FGFA would would dread spending similar or half the amount in building IADS as an effective counter to Fighter and other airborne threats and as cost effective alternative against PLAAF/PAF airborne threats.
Kosovo war as shown that a well trained mobile IADS even using 60's equipment could tackle 90's era NATO system even with overwhelming numerical superiority on the latters side with majority of IADS remaining intact even after months of air war according to NATO post war assesment.Kosovo and the Continuing SEAD Challenge Revisiting the Lessons of Operation Allied Force
Such things though remain trivial when chocolate fighters and pilot rule the Airforces of world , infact very few countries have invested heavily in multilayered IADS with Russia and China leading in that front , while even US and NATO lack those capability as they are dominated and inclined in purchasing fighters.