There's nothing in the report that level-headed people didn't already know.
The disappointment/realization that some are facing is purely because they were taken in by all the magical, mystical qualities that were attributed to Rafale & SPECTRA by fanboys in their unofficial capacity...backed by certain, carefully stage-managed OEM statements (the OEM which of course has a vested interest in selling the plane).
Now they admit the IAF version we have now (F3R) or even the one offered in MRFA (F4.X) is insufficient to counter J-20B. But for some reason all these years they were pushing us to get ToT for making this variant - knowing the possibility that even if F5 can somehow counter 5th gen**, it may not be possible to upgrade existing F3/F4 airframes to F5 as that standard might incorporate structural changes to accommodate new equipment.
OTOH, he problem with waiting for F5 is that it can only be realistically delivered by the mid-2030s, so we'll have to be taking delivery of MRFA and the far more survivable AMCA simultaneously! So IMO, F5 ToT actually makes even less sense than F4.
The F5 is for countries that already operate Rafale, but don't plan on inducting a 5th gen platform (like France, which is going directly to 6th gen NGF/FCAS). Even though F5 can't really substitute a real 5th gen, France has no other go - they don't plan on inducting a real stealth plane with internal weapons before ~2045, so they need something that can tide them over in the meantime, even though it's just half-a$$ing it.
But our plans are different - we plan on inducting the stealthy AMCA by around the same time France plans on inducting F5. So F5 doesn't really make sense for us. It would be too much expense for a sub-optimal capability. The F5 isn't something you invest in if you have the option of inducting an actual stealthy airframe with internal weapons in that same timeframe.
**I still maintain that F5 can't really do it. Not even counting the possibility that by that time we'd probably be facing a J-20C with CCAs acting as forward observers & effectors...
...the concept of ACT or digital stealth cannot apply uniformly to all threats. There are theatres & opponents against which it would be less effective than others. With the kind of sensor density & tech we would be facing with China (and we won't have F-35s, F-22s & B-21s fighting on our side like the French will if going up against Russia), ACT cannot really be counted upon to work.
Spoof incoming missile seekers? Doable.
Make your plane stealthy against modern AESAs? Not really.
The 2016 deal, in my opinion, was pushed through for one primary reason above everything else - nuclear delivery.
Everything else, like A2A, A2G, was secondary or tertiary.
All other planes on offer at the time were either not survivable, and if survivable, wouldn't allow for nuclear integration. So we really had no choice but go for 36 Rafales. AMCA will have to take over this role in the future as Rafale won't remain survivable for very long - much shorter than we thought.
But now that we've already bought into the platform, we need to get 62 more to do justice to the investment (36 IAF, 26 IN). But making further long-term investments in the platform is not worth it. Which is why I say MRFA & ToT for a foreign 4.5 gen jet makes no sense.
Investment should only go toward the Tejas Mk-II and AMCA platforms. The latter would be properly survivable into the future for frontline duties (at least much better than any MRFA contender, that's for sure), while the former gives us a reliable indigenous jet that can take care of all the low-end duties and can be affordably produced in any number we want.
]. This deal was probably helped by the bribes paid to IAF officers to tilt them towards rafale over its competition. Others might have paid some bribes too, but Dassault is known to be very generous in this area.
