The issue is:
1. The absence of a pilot for a period of 1.5 years every time the person has a delivery (It is not 9 months. From the time pregnancy is diagnosed to the post partum period to fitness is at the minimum 9m + 6m +/- 3m= 15-18m) or ~ 2 months if the person has a termination of pregnancy. (GoI rules allow upto 60 days leave in the event of a Termination of Pregnancy {Abortion})
{PS on a humorous note: My previous boss had to undergo a coronary bypass surgery, and he was back on the job in 35 days. His secretary had an abortion just before his surgery, but she availed of her full 60 days leave. He pointed this out to every person who dropped by his office to enquire about his health }
The point is that this throws the schedules of the entire unit off the racks because this is unpredictable. Things such as leaves, QRT duties etc then have to be readjusted. Bad for cohesiveness. Imagine now if there are more than one women in that unit.
The fact is leave aside the fighter pilot profession, I have personally seen instances (two of them) where senior management was reluctant to employ women, when so many men are available, because of schedules getting upset out of the blue.
And there is a somewhat similar precedence to this "No kids until xyz age" rule in India. Nurses. Many private hospitals around the country will tell you that there was a time when nurses had a bond that they will not get married until they were in the nursing profession. If they got married, they had to leave it. This was years ago in many a hospital in India.
The other aspect that needs to be remembered is that apparently, there should be no medical reason why women should be able to perform just as well as they did after a pregnancy is over as they did before it.
2. Here is an example that I have heard from the AMC doctors themselves.
Why should women be employed as fighter pilots at all? Do they have any advantages over men, or even meet the standards that men have to live by? Sure, if they do, accept them by all means. But given the medical issues above, why would any employer concerned only with operational readiness consider it?The army rules want that a man should have at least one testicle. This means that a man with only one testicle is technically eligible to be in the armed forces. But the fact is, that there is no shortage of men who have both testicles, so one rarely if ever sees the single testicle men in the armed forces.
3. If the country feels that they are willing to look over these issues and still have women on the team, there is the issue of training cost. The government then should then bear the expenses for the inclusion of women into the force, and not fully burden the air force with it.