On 26 September 2025, the Indian Air Force will retire its MiG-21 fighters at Air Force Station Chandigarh, closing a 62-year chapter of extraordinary service. This iconic aircraft, which defended India’s skies through wars and crises, is a symbol of national pride. Yet, its prolonged service reveals deep challenges in our defence procurement system—delays in replacements, extended timelines and systemic bottlenecks. As India aspires to Viksit Bharat, the MiG-21’s story offers urgent lessons for how we plan, acquire and modernize critical defence capabilities. Citizens deserve to know why delays persist and how we can secure our future.
How Long Should Fighter Aircraft Serve? Fighter aircraft have defined lifespans:
Soviet-era designs like the MiG-21 were built for 2,000–4,500 flight hours, roughly 25–30 years of operational use.
Western fighters, like the F-16 or F-15, are designed for 6,000–8,000 hours, often extending to 30–40 years with upgrades.
Extending lifespans requires deliberate planning, robust budgets, and modern infrastructure.
Russia phased out the MiG-21 by the mid-1990s. Today, only a few nations—India, Syria, North Korea, and select African states—still fly limited numbers. India, however, kept the MiG-21 in frontline roles from 1963 to 2025—62 years, nearly double the typical lifecycle. Why did this happen?
A Plan Thwarted by Delays
The IAF showed foresight by championing the LCA Tejas programme in the 1980s to replace the MiG-21, with HAL and DRDO projecting induction by the mid-1990s, enabling phased retirements. As a stopgap, the IAF upgraded MiG-21s to the Bison variant while awaiting Tejas. Yet, complex institutional challenges delayed Tejas by over 20 years:
Institution |
Responsibility |
Challenges Faced |
HAL |
Production & scale-up |
Constrained by capacity limitations and delayed production timelines. |
ADA/DRDO |
Design & integration |
Grappled with complex design iterations and engine development setbacks. |
MoD |
Oversight & procurement |
Faced difficulties in aligning timelines and ensuring consistent project monitoring. |
Political leadership |
Funding & prioritisation |
Hindered by shifting priorities and limited continuity in decision-making. |
These hurdles forced India to extend the MiG-21’s service, with airframes often exceeding design limits through extensive overhauls. This raised maintenance costs, increased crash risks and strained pilots, compromising operational readiness.
The Human and Strategic Cost
The MiG-21’s overextension came at a steep price. Over 400 crashes since 1963 have claimed 200+ pilots, earning the aircraft its grim “flying coffin” moniker. Financially, upgrades and overhauls consumed over ₹15,000 crore since 2000—funds that could have fielded modern squadrons. Strategically, the retirement leaves India with just 29 squadrons against a sanctioned 42, weakening deterrence against China’s J-20 stealth fighters and Pakistan’s upgraded F-16s and JF-17s. Crises like Doklam, Galwan and Op Sindoor (India’s 2025 strikes on terror camps) exposed these gaps, straining our two-front war readiness and increasing pilot attrition.
A Broader Pattern: Ageing Helicopters
The MiG-21’s story echoes across services. The Army and Air Force’s Cheetah and Chetak helicopters—1960s-era French Alouette variants—have served over five decades, including in Siachen’s harsh terrain. Deemed obsolete by the early 2000s, replacement efforts, like HAL’s Light Utility Helicopter (LUH) and foreign bids (e.g., Eurocopter, Kamov), have been stalled by different hurdles. Despite successful LUH trials, scaled induction lags, leaving ageing these helicopters operational. Six crashes in 2024 alone highlight the risks to air safety and mission readiness.
Systemic Hurdles - Several issues persist:
Fragmented Oversight: Unclear delivery milestones and slow progress.
Limited Ecosystem: To build up competition and deliver at scale, the need to enable the private sector is essential.
Disconnected Feedback: Service inputs are often delayed or overlooked.
Build-in Contingencies: Robust fallback plans need to be build in (e.g., imports or joint ventures) to cater for such delays.
Accountability Gaps: Diffused responsibility leads to slippages.
These reflect inefficiencies in process, not intent. Citizens and taxpayers deserve transparency on why these delays occur and how they impact national security.
Lessons for a Secure Future
With the DAP 2020 under review and in-light of current geopolitical realities, post-Op Sindoor, India must reform its defence procurement:
Enforce Timelines: Set hard deadlines with sunset clauses for legacy platforms.
Plan Contingencies: Activate imports or joint ventures if indigenous programs lag.
Leverage Expertise: Pair HAL and DRDO’s experience with private-sector agility (e.g., L&T, Tata) for scale.
Streamline Governance: Create empowered, independent bodies like South Korea’s DAPA for oversight.
Prioritize Safety: Accidents stem from policy gaps—timely replacements and training are critical.
Plan Lifecycles: Base retirements on airframe fatigue and costs, not sentiment.
Conclusion: Building a Stronger Defence Ecosystem
The MiG-21’s 62-year legacy is heroic but humbling. Its prolonged service reflects bottlenecks we must overcome. As squadrons dwindle to 29 and adversaries modernize, India cannot afford another delayed Tejas. By embracing disciplined procurement, empowered governance and private-sector synergy, we can ensure our that our skies—and our security—are never compromised. Citizens deserve a defence system that matches Viksit Bharat’s ambition. The MiG-21’s final flight is not just a farewell; it’s a call to act.
(The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.)
