Theatre commands: Why the IAF wants fighter flexibility and what it means for defence acquisitions

The approach could influence how the armed forces plan their future capabilities and how the government prioritises defence capital expenditure over the coming decade. In an interview with news agency PTI, Singh said the guiding principle should be "centralised control" where necessary and "decentralized execution" where appropriate. His remarks notes a key question for India's defence establishment: how can the three services be integrated without compromising the IAF's ability to concentrate combat power rapidly across different fronts?

Why the IAF wants to retain flexibility The IAF chief argued that air power derives much of its operational value from speed, reach, flexibility and the ability to concentrate combat assets at the point of decision. Permanently dividing fighter resources by geography, he indicated, would not show how air power needs to be employed in a changing security environment. Aircraft can operate beyond the geographical areas from which they are based, with aerial refuelling, long-range weapons, networked sensors and suitable basing arrangements enabling them to be shifted between sectors as threats evolve.

The IAF's argument is not against jointness or integration with the Army and Navy. Rather, it is about ensuring that an integrated command structure does not restrict the ability to deploy air assets dynamically. Singh cited Operation Sindoor as an example of the benefits of centralised allocation and timely reallocation of critical resources. He said the operation was conducted under a joint architecture established by the Chief of Defence Staff and the three service chiefs, with a shared air picture enabling dynamic employment of assets.

"Our own experience bears this out. During Operation Sindoor, under a joint architecture established by the Chief of Defence Staff and the three service chiefs, the centralised allocation and timely reallocation of critical resources proved decisive in the outcome," Singh told PTI. The experience, he suggested, reinforced the need to design joint structures around operational effectiveness rather than permanent geographical divisions of scarce air assets.

1L cr committed, no Tejas Mk-1A jets delivered: Why delays are hurting the IAF What the IAF's position could mean for defence acquisitions The IAF chief's remarks do not announce a change in procurement plans or specify future acquisition numbers. However, the operational principle he has outlined has implications for the types of capabilities the Air Force may need to sustain its flexibility under an integrated command structure.

Multi-role fighter aircraft could remain central to fleet planning. If fighter assets need to be deployed across multiple fronts, platforms capable of undertaking different missions and operating within networked combat systems would remain important. The broader acquisition context includes the Light Combat Aircraft Tejas Mk1A, the planned Tejas Mk2 and the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA) programme.

Singh's comments do not establish any new orders or alter the existing status of these programmes, but they reinforce the operational importance of flexibility in future fleet planning. Force multipliers could become increasingly important. The IAF chief specifically highlighted aerial refuelling, long-range weapons, networked sensors and appropriate basing as factors that allow air power to be concentrated over considerable distances.

This puts the ability to extend aircraft range, improve targeting and share information across platforms at the centre of the operational debate. Aerial refuellers, airborne early warning and control systems, and secure communications and sensor networks are relevant to this requirement. Interoperability will matter alongside platform numbers. An integrated command structure requires the services to exchange information and coordinate operations across different domains.

The emphasis on a shared air picture and the dynamic allocation of assets during Operation Sindoor highlights the importance of connected sensors, communications, electronic warfare capabilities and systems that can work together across platforms and services. For defence planners, the implication is that combat effectiveness cannot be measured only by the number of aircraft acquired. The ability to connect those aircraft with surveillance systems, weapons, refuellers and command networks will also determine how effectively the fleet can be deployed across theatres.

What it means for India's defence industry For domestic manufacturers, the IAF's attention towards flexible and networked air power points to a long-term requirement for aircraft, upgrades, sensors, communications equipment and supporting technologies that can be integrated into a common operational architecture. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL), private-sector defence companies and smaller suppliers could find opportunities across these areas as existing programmes progress and future requirements take shape.

Indigenous aircraft production, avionics, electronic warfare systems, mission software and networked sensors are among the capabilities relevant to the operational priorities described by the IAF chief. A focus on common platforms and interoperable systems could also support production at scale and sustained upgrade programmes. However, the Air Chief's remarks do not amount to a commitment to standardise all fighter fleets, award additional contracts or redirect specific procurement budgets.

Any such outcomes would depend on formal acquisition decisions, operational requirements and funding approvals. The broader policy challenge is to align capital expenditure with the capabilities needed to sustain operational flexibility. That means considering aircraft and their supporting systems together, rather than treating fighter procurement as a standalone exercise. This approach is also relevant to India's drive for greater self-reliance in defence manufacturing.

Indigenous systems that can be upgraded and integrated with other platforms could help the services adapt to changing operational requirements. The extent of the industrial opportunity, however, will depend on future procurement choices and the pace at which programmes move from development to production. 12L cr approvals Theaterisation plan faces questions over command structures Announced in 2019, theaterisation is among India's most ambitious military reforms since Independence.

It seeks to integrate the capabilities of the Army, Navy and Air Force under joint commands to improve coordination and the use of resources during military operations. The proposed architecture envisaged three integrated commands: a Northern Theatre Command in Lucknow focused on China, a Western Theatre Command in Jaipur to address challenges from Pakistan, and a Maritime Theatre Command in Thiruvananthapuram.

At present, the three services operate separate commands. Under the proposed system, each theatre command would include Army, Navy and Air Force units operating as a single entity within a defined geographical area. Progress has stalled amid differences among the services over the proposed command structures, with the IAF raising concerns about the implications of dividing its fighter squadrons. Former Chief of Defence Staff General Anil Chauhan had submitted a comprehensive proposal to Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, but it is not immediately clear whether the Defence Ministry is pursuing the plan in line with that report.

Current Chief of Defence Staff General NS Raja Subramani is understood to be focusing on key aspects of the wider restructuring. The challenge is to establish joint structures that improve coordination without weakening the services’ ability to respond to operational demands. IAF calls for phased reform tailored to India Singh also cautioned against designing future military structures on the assumption that the nature of warfare can be predicted with excessive certainty.

He said future conflicts were likely to become faster, more autonomous and more dependent on networks, while combining greater transparency with deception and precision with mass. He argued that organisational structures must be able to absorb these changes and should be designed around India's strategic, geographical, technological and operational circumstances rather than copied from other countries.

The Air Chief also called for the transformation to be implemented in phases so that operational readiness is never compromised. This suggests that the pace of restructuring, alongside the final command design, will remain important considerations for defence planners. The IAF has reiterated its commitment to working with the Army and Navy to build an integrated military structure. But its position makes clear that jointness, in its view, must preserve the ability to concentrate air power where it is most needed.

For India's defence acquisition priorities, the central question is therefore not simply how many aircraft the country will buy, but how its future fighter fleet, force multipliers and networked systems will work together across multiple fronts. The eventual design of the theatre commands could influence how these capabilities are planned, integrated and procured over the next decade.