Damn right India isn't!
You know why? At least SAA has the courage to fight. Anyone who actually watched the last Idlib offensive play out would know that they were getting hit non-stop by drones and artillery, yet they still kept pushing forward and taking territory in their junk T-55s until the minute ceasefire went into effect. When they had Su-24 shot down by Turkey, they didn't play it off by saying 'oh we
only lost that disposable tin can'. They responded by bombing a Turkish post with Tochka as retaliation.
You wouldn't
dare to put up so much as one percent of the resistance they did. If it were not SAA, but IA instead, they would have fled immediately only to get slaughtered by drones all the way back to Damascus and beyond. How do I know this? Because IA fled after getting spanked by PLA
in melee. So don't even begin comparing your cowardly Jawans to SAA, you have not earned that right yet. The best you can do is sucker punch attacks, and SAA knows how to sucker punch way better than you too.
Since you choose to go OT about how much USA's spending on military is, maybe you need another concept explained to you. Spending (un)godly amounts of money is not something to celebrate when it ends up being wasted, especially when you let your civilian infrastructure at home rot away in order to direct taxpayer money towards the military (in peacetime FFS), only for it to be wasted anyway. So let's use your example of 100s fifth-generation fighters:
If you were better at spending than wasting, even the thought of entertaining this idea should never have to cross your mind. Not even considering yet how F-35 was always supposed to be
the successor to F-16, but only now are they seriously considering the possibility which it cannot, but they also require a brand new 'low cost' fighter as a
real successor? Because I always thought one of the programs merged into the JSF program was literally called 'Common
Affordable Lightweight Fighter'. True, cost should always be
a concern even when you outspend any other country on military
by far. But when it is so unaffordable such that you are
still considering F-35s as the other 'high-end' fighter, that's not the F-35 being a 'Ferrari' of fighter jets or something. That's called the F-35 largely failing in its intended purpose, and you buying a cheap cargo van for the price of a Ferrari i.e. a 2-for-1 failure right there. Just in case you need clarification, I'll remind you that normally you try to avoid such failures regardless of how much you can afford to fail, but especially so when you are clearly hurting in other areas. Get it?
Then again, you probably don't get it at all. because apparently you people just cheer over your failures all the time. You cheered over Balakot after losing a fighter, a helicopter, lives of several soldiers, and international
prestige LOL YOU THOUGHT/ISPOILER]. You cheered getting scammed over Rafale. You cheer right now over having a score of your soldiers killed in one of the dumbest, if not
the dumbest, ways ever. You have the most expensive program ever
for a simple freaking tank and you drag development out for close to half a century which your army still doesn't want, but you will continue cheering for Modi Ji as he forces another 118 of those
real disposable junks down your army's throats.