On what basis is the EFT better? Serviceability? Nope. A2G? Nope. EW suite? Nope. Operational history? Nope. Future roadmap? Nope.
That's not true buddy. In the Libyan conflict for example the serviceability of EF was higher than Rafales. The EF suffers mainly from bad spare supply orders of the operating forces, like the Luftwaffe or the RAF, which reportedly had to cannibalize fighters to keep others operational. That's however is not a fault of the fighter, but of the operator and we see the same spare supply problems in Indian forces too.
In A2G by 2017, the EF will surpass Rafale in CAS and has added limited cruise missile strike too and when SPEAR 3 is added by 2018, it will be better than Rafale in SEAD as well, which leaves only the long range and heavy strikes where Rafale will remain superior and exactly here IAF will have MKI and FGFA with Brahmos in future. And the future roadmap of the EF is actually better (SPEAR 3, CFTs, swashplate GaN AESA with EA capability), the question is only how much of that will be reality, because unlike France which has no alternative to Rafale, EF partners like UK and ITA also will have the F35. It needs to be seen how much they will invest, in which fighter in future.
Today, the Rafale is clearly the better fighter, but that's not important. We have to look at what fighter we can get, when and with what side advantages and if the EF consortium would offer a preferable package for India, we have to consider it, even if we like the Rafale personally or what the conditions of he fighter are in other forces today.
What works?
It wont be around soon.
Neither would be the Gripen E, infact it is planned only for the same 2018/19 timeframe as LCA MK2 and the older Gripen is neither in production today, nor much more capable than the LCA MK1.
The killing of LCA by Gripen is a wasted argument , the real fact is that it will compliment each other.
No they won't, they would have engine commonality, but that's it! Complementing each other would mean, they would add advantages in areas where the other doesn't have. LCA for example can complement an MKI, with it's low RCS or low operational costs, while the MKI provides long range radar data and heavier weapon loads.
LCA and Gripen however are designed and developed for the same purpose and would be too similar. The Gripen E will have advantages because of more hardpoints, but if the payload is similar, it won't be able to carry much heavier loads than LCA MK2. The radar range will be similar, flight performance won't have much difference and so on. So both would work in the same roles with similar capabilities and not complement each other!
