Iran with a much inferior air force and highly depleted fighter aircraft assets could force the world’s greatest air powers of the USA and Israel, with top end fighters, to the negotiating table within a little over a month. Iran had primarily used ballistic missiles and kamikaze drones.
There are others who are arguing that based on experiences in Ukraine, Op Sindoor, and the Iran War 2026, is it time to invest more in missiles and cheaper drones, and much lesser on expensive fighter aircraft. The flawed logic being applied against fighter aircraft was also applied for the Main Battle Tank (MBT) and the large ships.
Some Wrote off the Tank
Some wrote the obituary of the MBT, when few Russian tanks were knocked off by cheap Ukrainian drones in the initial days of the Ukraine War. Ask an Armoured Corp officer and he will throw enough logic to counter. Interestingly, the counter-drone systems matured quickly and have been displaying great results. In most recent cases nearly 94% drones are getting neutralised. 24 slow-moving U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drones and 18 of Israel have been destroyed by Iranian forces. Lightweight armour for tanks now utilizes advanced composite materials, ceramics, and reactive systems to enhance protection without sacrificing mobility.
Logic against Large Ships
The 2022 sinking of the Russian cruiser Moskva is often cited as a key example of a large vessel’s vulnerability to anti-ship weapons. Large ships are very expensive, are major targets, and modern sensors and precision-guided weapons can quickly neutralize them. Lack of agility, poor manoeuvrability compared to smaller counterparts, making them easier targets to detect and engage.
The cost-ineffectiveness guys cite “square cube law” making constructing massive ships exponentially more expensive. Smaller, more numerous vessels offer a better return on investment and can be produced in greater numbers.
A single massive ship lacks operational flexibility. A single lucky hit, such as a torpedo damaging a propeller or rudder, can disable a major warship, rendering its immense cost and firepower irrelevant. As highlighted during World War II, a strategy focused on only a few high-quality ships can be overwhelmed by a larger number of smaller, faster vessels.
The counter-logic and contextual factors are that larger ships can carry better armour, more advanced countermeasures, and have redundant systems that allow them to absorb damage that would destroy a smaller ship. In a diplomatic or strategic context, large capital ships are considered a significant demonstration of power and resolve. Navies around the world consider large ships as indispensable for long-distance missions, serving as carriers for smaller craft, supplies, and fuel. Large ships could house much bigger reactors, providing superior shields and energy.
Logic Preferring Missiles over Fighter Aircraft
The logic preferring missiles over fighter aircraft is driven by the advantages of cost, speed, and safety, allowing for high-accuracy engagement without risking a pilot. While fighter jets provide versatility and reusability, modern air doctrine increasingly relies on Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missiles and standoff weapons for “first-look, first-kill” capabilities to shape outcomes before a dogfight occurs.
The core logic for those advocating missiles starts with cost-efficiency and production. Air-to-Surface or Surface-to-Surface Missiles are cheaper than modern fighter jets. A BrahMos costs between $2.75 million to $4 million ($12.5 million for BrahMos II). The Agni-IV class of Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile (IRBM) costs approximately ₹35 crore ($5 million) per unit. A Su-30 MKI costs around $75 million. All missiles are not cheap. Yes the kamikaze drones are.
Missiles are also simpler to mass-produce compared to the complex manufacturing of fighter jets. Modern missiles can reach speeds over Mach 3–5, often outmatching the max speed of fighter jets. They are capable of pulling significantly higher G-forces (often 40-60 Gs) than a human pilot can withstand (around 9 Gs), making them ideal for pursuing nimble targets.
Missiles can be launched from smaller, more versatile platforms, including trucks or small vessels, rather than requiring specialized, vulnerable runways or aircraft carriers. While missiles are preferred for their speed and single-use effectiveness, they are best suited for known, fixed, or high-value, pre-designated targets.
Why Air Forces Need Fighter Aircraft
Fighter aircraft are essential for air forces to establish air superiority, protect national airspace, and provide precision strike capabilities in modern combat. They are fast, agile, and equipped with advanced sensors to defeat enemy aircraft, destroy ground targets, and act as a crucial force multiplier in combined arms operations.
Fighter jets are primary weapons to gain control of the skies and protect friendly forces from aerial threats. They intercept enemy aircraft, ensuring that airspace is secured and that ground operations can proceed without threat from above.
Modern fighters (like the Rafale or F-35) are often “multi-role,” capable of performing varied missions including air-to-air combat, deep precision surface strike, ground support, and maritime strike.
Fighters can respond to airspace violations in minutes, intercepting threats far from civilian populations. They also operate in stealth for surveillance and combat, crucial for operating within enemy radar detection ranges.
With advancements in electronics, radar, and stealth (5th and 6th generation), fighters act as sophisticated command centres that can, in some cases, control drone swarms and process enormous amounts of battle data. Fighter aircraft remain the backbone of national defence strategies, allowing for the rapid deployment of force and the ability to dictate the pace of an aerial battle.
Nearly 50% of all defence budgets since WW II have gone to air power, and more than 50% of those funds have gone to fighter programs. The world’s largest defence companies like Lockheed, Boeing, British Aerospace, China’s AVIC, Russia’s UAC and India’s HAL are into military aviation. India’s flagship programs are LCA and AMCA. 6th and 7th generation aircraft on drawing boards will still have man in the cockpit. They will have unmanned “Loyal Wingmen.”
Advantage Fighter Aircraft over SSM
Fighter aircraft offer significant advantages over Surface-to-Surface Missiles (SSMs), particularly in flexibility, reusability, and the ability to adapt to real-time tactical changes. While SSMs are highly effective for rapid, deep strikes on known, static targets, manned and unmanned fighters provide a broader spectrum of operational capabilities.
Key advantages of fighter aircraft over SSMs include operational flexibility and versatility. Fighter aircraft are multi-role platforms that can perform varied missions in a single sortie, such as air superiority, suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD), close air support (CAS), and reconnaissance. Unlike an SSM, which has a single purpose, a fighter can change targets or missions based on real-time data.
Fighter jets are reusable, allowing them to participate in numerous missions, making them more cost-effective in prolonged conflicts. While a missile is consumed after a single use, a fighter can return, rearm, and re-engage.
The presence of a pilot (human-in-the-loop) allows for in-flight decision-making, including target identification (friend-or-foe), mission changes, and the ability to abort a strike to avoid collateral damage.
Fighters can loiter over a battle area, providing persistent surveillance and immediate air support (CAP – Combat Air Patrol). They can also conduct real-time intelligence gathering, which is not possible with a single-use missile.
Advanced electronic warfare (EW) aboard modern fighters act as advanced EW platforms, equipped to jam enemy radars and defend against threats, providing an “electronic umbrella” for friendly forces.
Fighter presence provides a visible, psychological advantage, and through strategic intimidation acting as a deterrent to enemy actions. Fighters are superior for managing dynamic situations, defending airspace, and conducting sustained campaigns.
Fighters Bombers Add Range and Speed to Missile
Firstly, the fighter or Bomber aircraft goes much closer to the battle zone which could be few thousands of kilometres away. Launching missiles from fighter jets significantly enhances their operational range and speed due to the initial kinetic energy imparted by the aircraft, acting as a “first stage” of acceleration. New ramjet-powered missiles maintain high speed throughout their flight, ensuring a No Escape Zone (NEZ) that is significantly larger than conventional rocket-propelled missiles. Ramjets need initial speed. When the missile starts with significant kinetic energy, it allows it to reach maximum velocity faster than a surface-launched counterpart.
A higher, faster-flying aircraft (sometimes supersonic) enables missiles to attain higher potential energy, resulting in increased range. Launching from a higher altitude allows a missile to glide in the thin upper atmosphere, reducing drag and increasing its range.
Fighters can fire missiles at a “lofted” trajectory, where the missile climbs to high altitudes to conserve energy before diving, maximizing the engagement range.
Because the fighter provides initial acceleration, the missile‘s motor can operate for a shorter time, saving propellant for higher speeds during the terminal phase. Modern BVR missiles benefit greatly from the energy provided by fast fighter platforms to maintain high average speeds throughout their flight.
The Astra Mk-2 features advanced propulsion (dual-pulse) for an extended range of over 200 kilometres, allowing for proactive aerial denial. The Kinzhal/BrahMos high-speed, air-launched missiles utilize the parent aircraft’s speed to attain superior target penetration and evasion compared to land-launched versions.
Advantage Fighter & Missile Combination
Combining modern fighter jets with advanced missiles provides a significant military advantage by merging high-speed, adaptable aerial platforms with precision, long-range, and “fire-and-forget” effectors. This synergy allows for the engagement of targets from safe stand-off distances, reducing pilot risk while maintaining flexibility to react to changing battlefield conditions that autonomous missiles cannot.
For high-value target engagement, fighter platforms enable targeting of heavily defended, time-sensitive, or mobile assets using precision-guided munitions (Bunker Busters Bombs, BrahMos, Scalp, HAMMER, JSOW) that stand-off from enemy air defences.
5th generation fighters like the F-35 use internal weapon bays to carry missiles, reducing drag and radar signature, allowing them to penetrate contested airspace.
While cruise missiles cost a few millions for single-use, fighters can deliver multiple precision-guided bombs at a much lower cost per target, providing a more economical solution for intensive bombing campaigns.
Combinations such as Dassault Rafale with Meteor/SCALP offers immense versatility, combining the long-range active radar-guided Meteor for air superiority with the SCALP precision-guided weapon for air-to-ground strikes. Su-30MKI with Astra can carry BrahMos. These combinations are critical for achieving air dominance and ensuring successful tactical and strategic strikes in modern warfare.
As near space becomes active, fighter aircraft could use a missile to neutralise satellites in Low Earth Orbit.
Analysing Aircraft Losses in Iran War 2026
The USA lost 54 aircraft in Iran War 2026. 24 were MQ-9 UAVs. Many aircraft, including AEW&C and FRA were destroyed on ground in GCC countries. Total of 5 fighters were hit. These included 3 F-15E lost to friendly fire. One F-35 damaged in combat action. Israel lost 18 UAVs of Hermes and Heron class. Lost no fighters. Effectively only one American/Israeli fighter was hit in combat.
To Summarise
Since most analysts cite Iran War 2026, Iran fired over 1,300 ballistic missiles. Initially over 90% were intercepted, the percentage dropping to 75% interception rates later. The ballistic missiles success was mostly against targets in Gulf Countries. The large number of ballistic missiles fired by Iran against Israel in last three years hardly created much damage. Aircraft fired missiles and dropped bombs / munitions had a very high success rate.
The Israeli Defence Forces announces an extraordinary 97% success rate in intercepting the Iranian missile and drone attack. The air defence systems operated in a coordinated manner and succeeded in thwarting most of the targets fired at Israel.
During Op Sindoor in May 2025, Indian Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems (C-UAS) and integrated air defence networks achieved an extremely high success rate, with some reports citing a near 100% kill rate in neutralizing over 400–600 Pakistan drones and loitering munitions.
Examination of fighter aircraft lost in combat shows insignificant losses, including from ground-based AD systems.
Trends in modern warfare indicate high-intensity conflicts, the ability to destroy enemy infrastructure from afar with air-launched missiles taking priority to secure air superiority before aircraft are committed.
The combination of fighter aircraft and missiles is considered a superior military strategy because it merges the human decision-making, flexibility, and sensor power of a manned platform with the immense speed, precision, and destructive range of guided weapons. This synergy allows air forces to achieve air superiority, conduct deep strikes, and secure airspace far more efficiently than ground-based systems alone.
Modern fighters act as launch platforms for long-range missiles, enabling pilots to engage targets on the ground and in the air over many hundreds of kilometres away.
Fighter jets provide initial speed and altitude, boosting a missile‘s kinematic performance and maximizing its kinetic energy upon impact, making it harder to evade.
Unlike surface-to-surface missiles, which are committed once launched, fighters can be recalled if negotiations or changing rules of engagement occur before weapon release. During the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War, India had launched a daring, air strike using Canberra bombers against the American USS Enterprise, which was deployed by the US to the Bay of Bengal as Task Force 74 to intimidate India. The strike was called off after getting airborne.
Manned fighters can loiter in an area, follow a target for hundreds of kilometres, and re-engage if a target evades the first missile. Manned fighters in manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) can control and coordinate with drones and swarms for greater combat effects.
Although fighters have high up-front costs, they are reusable platforms that can fire multiple rounds of cheaper, guided smart bombs rather than relying on a single-use, high-cost cruise missile. SSMs are very expensive too. Sometimes 5-6 SSMs are cost of a modern fighter.
Fighter-launched missiles have higher initial speed boost and need lesser fuel to reach their target (due to the airplane’s speed and range), they can carry a larger warhead, providing “more bang for the buck”.
Modern jets are equipped with advanced sensors (AESA radars) and electronic warfare suites (like SPECTRA on the Rafale) that allow them to “deceive” enemy radars and confuse incoming missiles, increasing the survival rate of both the aircraft and its payload.
Fighters act as network-centric nodes, integrating data from radars, infrared, and satellites to target multiple opponents simultaneously.
A single fighter can carry different missile types in one sortie for air-to-air, air-to-ground, and anti-ship allowing it to adapt to changing mission objectives.
In essence, while missiles offer speed and safety, they lack the adaptability and persistent presence of a fighter aircraft. Combining them ensures a highly lethal, adaptable, and survivable force. Fighter aircraft relevance is intact. MUM-T is the future with fighter aircraft the Anchor.
Note: The article was originally written by the Author for The Eurasian Times on 19th April 2026; it has since been updated.
Header Picture Credit: Representative Image Generated using AI
Twitter: @AirPowerAsia