^^^^^^^^^
Given the Fact that Gripen totally messed up by not having a proper prototype sent to the trials.
True, but the Mig 35 prototypes that was send to the trials were also no near prototypes, but upgraded Mig 29Ks only. If the real Mig 35 will be different, the Russians must be out of the competition too. But if they propose just an upgraded Mig 29K, because of the less time they have for development, the specs will highly differ from those that are available on the net (weight, payload, T/W ratio, weapon stations...), which makes it even less comparable to the other contenders.
I would prefer the Rafale ,
but the F-18's are more cost effective(we could get an LCA for every SH we get as opposed to a Rafale which is 30 million dollars more expensive) ,
smarter politically(Indo-US ties weigh more than Indo-French) ,
On time delivery with no cost escalations ,
Fit's in with Boeing's greater strategy in India( so more investment from Boeing Into India).
I agree to your points, except to cost-effectiveness and on time delivery. The latter is offered by Dassault too and they even offer early delivery of 40 fighters if we want.
When it comes to costeffectiveness, I am still undecided!
No doubt that MICA EM/METEOR and AASM are more expensive than AIM 120, or Paveway LGB/JDAM, but for the F18SH we need to set up a complete new logistic line, because IAF hardly have some Paveway bombs and maybe Harpoon missiles now. That means additional costs that one must take to account for the US side (or those fighters that mainly use US weapons) too!
The French on the other side will use the same weapons that will be in IAF from the Mirage 2000 upgrade onwards, so more expensive per piece, but no additional costs.
But that's not all! The US don't offer the integration of Indian weapons, unlike European fighters like Rafale, or Gripen. So instead of using the costlier foreign weapons only, we could use cheaper Indian alternatives too (Indian LGB instead of US Paveway LGB/LJDAM, or AASM). For high value targets, the foreign ammo could be used, if they offer advantages, but for normal targets, cheaper Indian LGBs would be more cost-effective. So if a Rafale, will use mainly I LGB and keep AASM only as a more capable alternative, will the F18SH still be more cost-effective in terms of weapons?
I have some doubts here, but as long as I don't know the exact costs, I prefer to say I don't know.
Similar can be said in terms of spares too, the F18SH spares will be completelly US license build, or provided parts. The Rafale on the other hand offers Kaveri-Snecma engine integration, which would add a level of customisation and indigenous techs, that nobody else can offer. By the fact that the main engine parts was developed in India anyway, the costs for R&D, as well as production will be clearly lower, than a licence produced GE 414 could be. Not to forget, that if a engine upgrade for the F18SH is needed, we have to fund it too, which means additional costs for a foreign engine, instead of our own.
Another advantage would be, that we could not only build the engine in India, but if we further develope it, could integrate these changes directly to the Rafale too and don't have to wait for a foreign manufacturer to make upgrades every 10, or 15 years.
So, on paper of course the F18SH seems to be more cost-effective, but that differs from country to country and a customised Rafale could turn out to have comparable costs, maybe even less.
Rafale to its end will give use much better ToT including source code for their AESA radar.
But ToT on the SH still meets the Tender requirements , But does not seem to go over and above as the French has chosen to do.
It's not only the pure ammount of ToT that is important, the point is of what! For example, if Boeing offers 80% ToT of airframe, will our industry improve form that ToT? Rafale on the other side, seems to be offered with AESA radar ToT + source codes, and even if they would offer only 40% of it, our industry would gain much more of it for future radar developments right?
As you can see, the US fighters might fulfill the minimum ToT requirements (just like Gripen), but the important point is, of which parts, or techs? I expect Rafale and EF to offer the best in this fields, because they developed radar, engine, or the avionics by themself and are not bound to any restrictions. Be it the ammount, or the quality of ToT, they should be the best choice.
Of course, this does not mean that the F-16 will not be selected as Chinese acquisition of the Su-30MKK did not deter the IAF from ordering similar Su-30s.
Several people says that, but I would request to look at both cases a bit closer!
The most important reason why we chose the MKI was the advantage of licence production and ToT to produce all parts in India, which gives us more confidence about spare supply. PLAAFs Su 27 and Su 30MKK were build in Russia, so no matter that they bought similar fighters too, we had a clear advantage.
The F16IN also will be licence produced in India, but it's not clear which parts and if the important parts like radar, or avionics will only be assembled in India. So although we have an advantage over PAF with licence production, the spare supply, especially in war times, or during sanctions will not be as easy compared to the MKI.
Yes, the Su 30 MKK has the same design, the same engine and the same weapons as our MKI and except of the engine, that will be the same case with F16 in PAF and F16IN. But, PAF has 30 years of experience with F16s, PLAAF instead procured the first Su 27 SKs in the early 90s, while IAF get the first Su 30MKs in the mid 90s. That gives PLAAF hardly a superiority in terms of confidence, or tactics with that fighter. PAF instead, knows any advantages, as well as weak points and have a clear experience advantage with that fighter, which clearly reduced the advantage of more capable techs in the F16IN. It still might have slight advantages, but very less compared to the advantages other contenders would offer.
