As strange it may sound, but IA has lot more offensive firepower against PLA than IAF has against PLAAF.
By design. The IA is more threatening than IAF to the Chinese due to the potential for loss of land.
All our plight is because we didn't procure 120 Rafales back in 2012 and dropped out of FGFA. Two of the biggest blunders in our mil-aviation history, IMO.
Given what we know today, I don't think those Rafales would have helped a lot. We would have been in a better position, but we needed far more advanced capabilities than that.
FGFA wasn't realistic 'cause the Russians weren't playing ball, but I won't be surprised if we get to know MMRCA was closed due to creeping obsolescence rather than financial issues, although that would have played a part. For example, we were negotiating for F3+, and it could not be upgraded to F5 or F6, and has its own separate MLU process which would have made it less capable in the future.
IAF officers have been known to complain about how we start a tender and then induct old stuff 'cause the tender would take a decade to deliver.
For example, the RBE2 AESA was already older than the American APG-83 SABR and APG-84 RACR by the time MMRCA was complete, and now the APG-79(V)4 GaN radar. This was also the reason given for focusing on indigenization, which resulted in Uttam Mk2 coming up to Western standards around the same time as they did.
As for what Ignorants is ranting about, he's made two mistakes. First, he thinks a funny video by Andrew Tate deserves the same seriousness as a doctoral thesis that's regularly cited. I don't have to explain why, but that limits his own intellect.
Second is he thinks quite a bit of the equation between India and China has changed since before, but it's not so. Our posture against China was always defensive, both air force and army. The IAF merely had a technological edge, but it's the Chinese that have held an offensive posture against India for decades, both in the air and on the ground, primarily on the ground. They have had a 3 million-man strong army for decades alongside 4000 fighters. They planned on using 25-30 divisions against India back then. And we maintained a defensive posture with a few mountain divisions and a few hundred fighter jets, mostly Mig-21s.
Since 1995, they phased out over 3000 fighter jets out of 4000+, and reorganized their ground forces to less than a million men and still maintain an offensive posture against India. Btw, those are 4000 "fighters," not counting another 1000+ fighter-bombers and multirole aircraft like the J-10 and J-11. Their bomber fleet back then was 400+ too.
After 2020, the IA has rapidly switched to an offensive-defense posture with their 2 new MSCs, new border infrastructure and talk of setting up the IRF, whereas IAF has only carried that out their plans on paper. That's why I think when the Chinese started their reorganization under Xi Jinping, the Modi govt killed MMRCA and FGFA in exchange for a new strategy, which evolved into today's MRFA and AMCA.
Had we stayed the course with MMRCA, we would have ended up with a lot of outdated jets by 2025-30, a repeat of MKI. MMRCA was designed to maintain a defensive posture against the Chinese, and the FGFA was an MKI replacement program. Once MKI's lifespan was enhanced to 40-50 years instead of 25-30, and ADA/HAL fixed issues with LCA, new options showed up, so the MoD began plans for Project Ghatak and AMCA, with MRFA enabling the two programs in the form of a technology partner.
These two programs, and MRFA, now provide the IAF the capabilities necessary to switch to an offensive posture. This is the reason why MRFA is necessary and will happen. And the latest comments from the ACM confirm that.
In the meantime, the IAF will continue to maintain a defensive posture against China with its new IADS and introduction of new weapons, which was always part of the plan beforehand.