think close air support think enemy concentrations that are advancing unchallenged , think enemy air bases near our borders sending sorties against our defending forces and then read your sentence again.
dont confuse striking with bombing Dehli or Agra. strike is also defensive in nature. Indian mobile SAM sites will pose danger to even our CAP missions and SEAD missions will be needed to neutralise them
I thought about all this and wrote the argument. Here's the current situation, Pakistan due to its air force undergoing modernization and the Army being stretched too thin, KNOWS that if a full scale war starts,it won't last for more than 2-3 weeks in it current scenario. Advancing IBG's will require a response and the Nasar will be used.
What you are missing is, the fact that if India decides to put all of the IAF, or 75% of her air assets in a war against Pakistan, you can NOT win. Its simple a much bigger and overwhelming force and PAF's 150 BVR able jets with 200 or so point defense or limited strike fighters like the Mirages, won't cut it. so the answer is......the Nasar unfortunately due to what it brings to the table.
There is a reason why multiple independent military analysts and organizations call this little tiny missile, the MOST dangerous missile developed in the South Asia. Its purpose is one and its lethality is unchallenged and it'll ruin the area. Results would be a terrible region with half the population gone and NEITHER side being able to "WIN" the war.
If you are fighting with me and I have a small Revolver with six bullets in it, and you have two machine guns with 500 bullets each, the chances are, I'll try to survive and will use my six bullets at you as soon as the conflict starts. This is the most dangerous YET real notion in Indo-Pak's scenario. And that's where your military's at!!!!
Now back to the topic of acquiring new air assets, if Pakistan has 400 4th or 4.5th gen jets, a mix of 250 JFT's (block II or III), about 100-120 F-16's and about 44 J-11D's (or 44 SU-30's or 60 FC-20's) dedicated to the PAF, your total comes to around 440+ jets, all 4th gen, (leave out the J-31 for now) + add SAM coverage to it.
This represents a quantum leap in your defensive capability. The area-denial is the name of the game. With the above Mix, IAF can not use its strike platforms through using the SU-30's, Mirages and Rafale's to provide serious ground support or air superiority.
Dealing with 400+ PAF's multi-role air-crafts', India knows that using 400 jets against Pakistan means losing 150-200 of those. THAT by itself, will push out India's regional power goals by a decade, and will make it look like a "Fake and Weak" military soup-o-powa. The cost-benefit ratio in this case is so high that it would be insane to do this and become very weak in-front of the Chinese, for the next 5-10 years, not to mention economic damage incurred worth billions!!
Now, add the Naval air arm, about 40 JFT's + 40 FC-20's (or 40 J-11D's) and serious SAM capability, you've nicely deterred the IN from doing any serious damage to Pakistan.
Also, for strike platforms, you can use non-nuclear Nasar's and Abdalis and cruise missiles with Cluster and other munitions.
But a strong intercepting force would make sure the IAF never get anything close to air superiority or dominance. That will ensure serious losses to the IAF and will prolong the war in Pakistan's favor, forcing both to sit on the table.
India's objectives will always be to do large strikes and damage as much as they can, in a short fight before all world raises hell, so the "RED button" is never pressed. So a larger multi-role and interception capability would provide that. So if in a small conflict like a week long, India couldn't do successful larger scale damage, and still lost over 100 of its jets......what good was the assault to begin with? And the cost SO high??!!!!
Pakistan needs serious multi-role and interception capability, IMO, with between 400-450 advanced 4th or 4.5 gen jets. That would restore the conventional air arm balance and would stop any serious air superiority and all. Ground support can be done through standoff munitions. The world has moved on from traditional warfare.
If this was the 65, I'd be supporting strike platform needs. But with so much standoff and other missile capability, its needed to a much lower level, than interceptors to stop and damage the attacking IAF.
