We can criticize the Rafale all we want, but the cost is justified. The tech in the Rafale isn't cheap.
That depends on which cost you are talking about. There have been a lot of figures appearing in the media lately. If it is 14 billion dollars as the OP's article states, then it is more than justified. Heck, I'd be ecstatic. If it is 20 billion as most other news sources state, it would be an unpleasant purchase, but necessary for the IAF. If it is closer to 30 billion, as a few articles are stating these days, then it is daylight robbery.
If the tech in Rafale is not cheap, then it had better be worth the money - something that other manufacturers don't have. If their tech is very expensive, but not very different from what others have, then their product is a failure. Russian tech is getting as good, and in some areas, better than what the Rafale fields, for a lot less money. If Rafale costs are as outrageous as it seems, then a purchase of super-MKIs with tech developed for Su-35, and an AESA should make better sense from India's POV. The savings would be immense - not just for the upfront cost, but also for training and facilities and spares and other logistics. The costs saved can be ploughed into more AEWACS and LCAs, and that might lead to a more powerful air force.
Consider the fact that an Indian made AEWACS only costs as much as two Rafales. Do Rafales bring anything so revolutionary that MKIs with full and assured AEWACS backing cannot do? We could equip every squadron of the air force with an AEWACS, instead of this gold plated bird. Or, more reasonably, equip every two squadrons with an AEWACS and manufacture 126 MKIs and 100 more LCAs to obviate the necessity for the Rafale. Or simply purchase some 100 F-35s for the same money, which would actually bring game changing technology that MKIs or Rafales or other 4.5 gen fighters cannot.
Anyway we don't really know what the cost is going to be. I really hope it stays within reasonable limits.
