True, but only on the lower level and only as a figure. The fact is, with more than 200 x MKIs now and another 110 x Mig 29s and Mirage 2000s under upgrade, IAFs top tier is more capable than ever before.
The figure of the squadron numbers doesn't tell you which fighters are gone or which fighters are added. Simple example:
IAF recently had made an exercise at the Jodhpur airforce base, which normally is the home of Mig 27 and Mig 21 squadrons. These fighters however are old generation single role fighters (the 21s are Bisons with some modern upgrades, but still mainly interceptors). Which means the Mig 21s will be used for A2A and the 27s for A2G roles only. The Rafale is meant to replace the Bisons at this base, so on paper 1 x squadron will be replaced by 1 x new onw. Operationally, that however that is not the case, because the Rafale as a multi role fighter and by capability, will be able to take over the roles of both the roles of the Mig 21s and of the 27.
In fact, in a typical strike mission of the Mig 27, you would need a credible number of 21s in escort roles, which means a good number of fighters from both squadrons are needed to do a single mission. The Rafale however is capable of defending itself, even if in strike config, which means you need far less fighters to do the same mission, while the rest of the squadron can be diverted to other missions or roles.
So yes, IAF's squadron numbers on paper are reducing, no denial in that! But at the same time the capabilities in A2A and A2G are multiple times better than they were in the past, even with less fighters! Of course the Rafale is not selected or available yet, but IAF is not waiting for it and is already improving it's capabilities with the MKIs and the upgraded Mig 29s / Mirage 2000s, the Rafale will only put another type of fighter with a credible ammount of additional capabilities to IAF. The best example to see the difference is the Mig 29, which in the past were pure A2A fighters, which made the 3 x squads only useful for interception and escort roles. With the upgrade however, they get credible multi role capabilities and will be useful in CAS, SEAD and even maritime attack roles, which suddenly makes it to one of IAFs most versatile fighters.
That's not correct, since the 76 include the latest additions and puts it to a total of 126 x topline fighters, but that is roughly the number of IAF's Mig 29 and Mirage 2000s fleet, even if you split the MKI numbers in half for both border lines, PAF would need to counter another 100 x of them, which puts the topline numbers alone in a 1:2 disadvantage.
Only if we include the older gen Migs, the MKI has lower crash rates than PAFs F16s and apart from the last Mirage crash caused by pilot error, otherwise they have a very good reliability rate as well.
Which brings us the the next part where IAF has even a better edge over PAF at the moment, quality! The advantage of BARS over anything that PAF has so far is undeniable, but you raised the point of detecting radiation of radars. But how do you detect that, if most of PAF's fighters doesn't have RWRs? The F16s the US cleared for PAF are highly limited in technical capabilities, be it of EW sensors, the lack of IRST (which makes them dependable on an active radar) and even in dogfights they are dependent on older gen WVR missiles, which hardly can take advantage of the JHMCS.
The MKI or the Mig 29 on the other side have IRST, RWR, modern jammers and after the upgrade of the MKI also modern MAWS. Except of the IRST, the M2K will have the same advantages, which all of them will have HMS + an agile HOBS missile.
So the point you made with detecting the radars actually works the other way around, since most of IAF's fighters can detect PAFs fighter radars at long range and are not dependent on their own radar alone.
