Make In India - Fighter Jet musings - News, Developments, Updates - F16,F18, Gripen, Any other

[X_Killer]

A new Rafale order soon ?

http://www.indiastrategic.in/2017/08/21/iaf-to-get-another-36-rafale-combat-aircraft/

******************************************************************************


Lost battle for F16.
Too old, too late, too Trump.

If SE jet tender will occur than F-16 will be selected to strengthen strategic relationships. (As per present situations)
But if more LCA & RAFALE will be ordered than there is no need of SE jet tender.

One thing is very sure, If anything comes, they have to come with TOT and make in India. tejas itself offers a huge potential to be an excellent multi role fighter. SOme changes are required to be made and if they are made, Tejas shall be a nightmare for enemies with exceptional T/W ratio and state of art electronics.

LCA is a nice Aircraft to perform point Defense , along with this , it can also perform other roles with comparatively lower ranges and load capacity.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Enjoy the show:

Problems sometimes occurred, it doesn't mean that the whole Product is bad.

There is a big difference between a problem on the fourth flight of the prototype,
which was fixed by a S/W update, and a problem that will exist on production F-16INs
if choosen.

 

[X_Killer]

There is a big difference between a problem on the fourth flight of the prototype,
which was fixed by a S/W update, and a problem that will exist on production F-16INs
if choosen.

Why you feel so much insecurity?
Please share the data for number of crashes per flight hour for both fighters. You'll get your answer.

Cheers!

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Why you feel so much insecurity?
Please share the data for number of crashes per flight hour for both fighters. You'll get your answer.

Cheers!

When You are bringing up crashes of during the first test flight, and compare
that with a known deficiency of an aircraft that has gone through several upgrades
after many years in service, I would say You are insecure.

With just six crashes since it entered service 24 years ago, the number of crashes per 100,000 flight hours is hardly relevant.

You have:

1. Pilot flying into vortex at low altitude, plane reacts violently, pilot gets a warning and ejects a moment before the plane recovers. Pilot Error.
2. Pilot makes a steep climb at low speed, and plane enters deep stall. Pilot not trained to handle deep stalls. Pilot Error.
3. Pilot gets ejected because G-suit inflates and releases ejection handle. The pilot had extremely muscular legs. Problem fixed.
4. Pilot presses both accelerator and brakes during landing, overshoots. Pilot Error.
5. Landing gear partly retracted after takeoff. Belly landing. Mechanical Error. Unknown if due to bad maintenance.
6. Pilot flies into the ground during flight show. Pilot Error? Lost orientation? No report.

At the same time You have accidents where F-16 is colliding with other planes.
Doing a comparision between a collision and pilot losing direction hardly give you anything of interest.

 

[X_Killer]

When You are bringing up crashes of during the first test flight, and compare
that with a known deficiency of an aircraft that has gone through several upgrades
after many years in service, I would say You are insecure.

With just six crashes since it entered service 24 years ago, the number of crashes per 100,000 flight hours is hardly relevant.

You have:

1. Pilot flying into vortex at low altitude, plane reacts violently, pilot gets a warning and ejects a moment before the plane recovers. Pilot Error.
2. Pilot makes a steep climb at low speed, and plane enters deep stall. Pilot not trained to handle deep stalls. Pilot Error.
3. Pilot gets ejected because G-suit inflates and releases ejection handle. The pilot had extremely muscular legs. Problem fixed.
4. Pilot presses both accelerator and brakes during landing, overshoots. Pilot Error.
5. Landing gear partly retracted after takeoff. Belly landing. Mechanical Error. Unknown if due to bad maintenance.
6. Pilot flies into the ground during flight show. Pilot Error? Lost orientation? No report.

At the same time You have accidents where F-16 is colliding with other planes.
Doing a comparision between a collision and pilot losing direction hardly give you anything of interest.

I have a open source data (collected from various sources) for you:

For F-16
First flight : 1974
Introduction: 1978
Total duration since first flight : 43 years.
Total number of Aircrafts produced by Jan 2017: 4638
Total number of accidents till now: 651 ( by July 2017)
Out of which 348 Aircrafts cross the Operational age of 30 years
Number of combat hours: more than 200,000 hours
Number of combat kills : about 36 are known
So average number of accidents per year per Aircraft : 0.0031
If we exclude the crashed of obsolete Aircrafts: 0.0015

For GRIPEN
First flight : 1988
Introduction: 1997
Total duration since first flight: 29 years.
Total number of Aircrafts produced by Jan 2017: 249
Total number of accidents till now: 11 ( by July 2017)
Aircrafts cross the Operational age of even 20 years: 0
Number of combat hours: 2000 hrs (while guarding no-fly zone over Libya in 2011)
Number of combat kills : 0

Average crashes per year per Aircraft : 0.0015

____________________________&_____________________________
NOTE: Comparison not for serious reasons

For LCA ( I'm comparing it to make the environment lighter)
First flight : 2001
Introduction: 1997
Total duration since first flight: 16 years.
Total number of Aircrafts produced by Jan 2017: 21
Total number of accidents till now: 0 ( by July 2017)
Aircrafts cross the Operational age of even 20 years: 0


Average crashes per year per Aircraft : 0.00

 

[MULUBJA]

Tejas may become a nice fighter, or a light air to ground straffer, but not a truly multi role fighter.
It is too light for that.
It was developped as a point defense fighter to replace Mig21, not as a multirole fighter, needed to be bigger.

Exceptionnal T/W ratio ? explain me what is exceptionnal in its.

I will explain it to you. With its current rate it has a very good T/W ratio. With weight going down by 8% and 10% more powerful engine coming in, it would up by 19% which will have a big positive impact on the performance of the plane and it will outclass anything in the category with even planes like F 16, and Gripen shall be left much behind in this criterion and no need to mention JF 17 or J10.

It is capable of carrying about 2 times the weight of Mig 21 so that gives it a multi role capability provided other things are put in place which actually are there. It is tested for swing role capability. Yes, I would agree with you that it will not have the multi role capabilities of twin engine plane like Eurofighter and Rafale but it will have some good multi role capability.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I have a open source data (collected from various sources) for you:

For F-16
First flight : 1974
Introduction: 1978
Total duration since first flight : 43 years.
Total number of Aircrafts produced by Jan 2017: 4638
Total number of accidents till now: 651 ( by July 2017)
Out of which 348 Aircrafts cross the Operational age of 30 years
Number of combat hours: more than 200,000 hours
Number of combat kills : about 36 are known
So average number of accidents per year per Aircraft : 0.0031
If we exclude the crashed of obsolete Aircrafts: 0.0015

For GRIPEN
First flight : 1988
Introduction: 1997
Total duration since first flight: 29 years.
Total number of Aircrafts produced by Jan 2017: 249
Total number of accidents till now: 11 ( by July 2017)
Aircrafts cross the Operational age of even 20 years: 0
Number of combat hours: 2000 hrs (while guarding no-fly zone over Libya in 2011)
Number of combat kills : 0

Average crashes per year per Aircraft : 0.0015

____________________________&_____________________________
NOTE: Comparison not for serious reasons

For LCA ( I'm comparing it to make the environment lighter)
First flight : 2001
Introduction: 1997
Total duration since first flight: 16 years.
Total number of Aircrafts produced by Jan 2017: 21
Total number of accidents till now: 0 ( by July 2017)
Aircrafts cross the Operational age of even 20 years: 0


Average crashes per year per Aircraft : 0.00

As I said, this comparision does not give any information which is relevant for
a decision which airplane to select.

You could add that 14% of the F-16 force has crashed, but only 2% of the Gripen force.
That still does not make it relevant, until you understand why.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

http://www.indiandefensenews.in/2017/08/the-indian-navys-hunt-for-new-carrier.html

THE INDIAN NAVY’S HUNT FOR A NEW CARRIER FIGHTER HITS ROUGH SEAS

Angad Singh explains why the Indian Navy faces difficulties as it begins its search for new carrier fighters.
At the annual Navy Day press conference, held on December 02, 2016, Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Sunil Lanba told media that the Indian Navy had elected not to field the naval variant of the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), and would look abroad for new fighters. For the less well informed, this was a stunning volte-face from the Service that has unstintingly backed domestic procurement programmes and has contributed considerable funding to the development of an indigenous carrier fighter.
To the slightly more clued in, however, the announcement had been a long time coming. Navy officers – from operational naval aviators to flag officers – have privately expressed reservations about the Naval LCA for a long time.

The Trouble With The LCA

The present N-LCA prototypes (the Navy never adopted the ‘Tejas’ moniker for their program) use the same GE F404 afterburning turbofan engine as the IAF Tejas, but incorporate, among other modifications, a strengthened undercarriage and fuselage, tail-hooks for carrier landings, leading-edge vortex controllers (LEVCONs) at the wing roots for additional lift and control authority at low speeds, and extensive usage of new corrosion-resistant materials for sea-based operation.
The LCA’s well-documented weight and power issues have only been magnified in maritime garb, where structural changes have added further weight penalties. Proposals to re-engine both variants of the LCA with higher-thrust GE F414 engines were put forward as early as 2007, but when the MoD doubled down on the F404-engined LCA Tejas Mk.1A for the IAF last year, all but abandoning the new engine programme (or at least pushing it back significantly), the Navy was forced to re-consider its own fighter plans. However, even as Admiral Lanba nixed the operational future of the N-LCA, he stressed that the service would continue to support the development of a home-grown carrier fighter as it evaluated foreign options.
Comments from senior flag officers after Admiral Lanba’s announcement indicate that apart from the usual credibility concerns regarding the ability of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and the DRDO’s Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) being able to develop and deliver a fighter by the promised deadlines, the principal worry was that the over-weight and under-powered land-based LCA would take some serious fettling to safely fly from the unforgiving environs of a carrier flight deck. Poor ‘bolter’ (go-around, where the aircraft has to accelerate back into the air after missing all three wires on the carrier’s deck) performance at typical landing weights and speeds was repeatedly cited – although it should be noted that this has yet to be physically tested and is among the last (and most risky) test points in the flight envelope certification process.
Navy sources later indicated that the Service was hoping to acquire aircraft that would be able to operate off the STOBAR Project 71 Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC-1, to be commissioned as INS Vikrant) under construction at Cochin Shipyard Limited (CSL), as well as the planned CATOBAR IAC-2 (which remains un-funded by the MoD). A month after the controversial announcement, even as furious debate raged over the decision to drop the N-LCA, the Navy issued a Request For Information (RFI) for 57 ‘Multi-Role Carrier Borne Fighters’ (MRCBF).
The RFI indicates that the MRCBF is to be day, night and all-weather capable, and will be employed for Air Defence (AD), Air-to-Surface Operations, Buddy Refuelling, Reconnaissance, and Electronic Warfare (EW). The document is generally exploratory in nature, seeking details of available fighters worldwide, in order to frame appropriate qualitative requirements to be issued with the eventual Request For Proposals (RFP). Crucially, the RFI also indicates that technology transfer and licence production of the fighters in India will be preferred, with aircraft deliveries expected to commence within three years of contract signature and be completed within a further three years (a rate of 19 deliveries per year).
Of the three in-production types likely to be offered, at least two (Boeing’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Dassault’s Rafale) can meet this build rate. The maximum build rate at Russia’s RSK-MiG, which delivered 45 MiG-29K/KUBs to the Indian Navy at the rate of about six per year, remains unclear. In the days following the RFI, commentary in news media seemed to indicate that the Western fighters were front-runners for the MRCBF requirement.

Why MRCBF?

SAAB Gripen single engine fighter. Gripen Maritime is the carrier borne version
IAC-1 was designed to operate the MiG-29K and Naval LCA, yet the decision to evaluate a broad field for MRCBF instead of simply expanding the MiG-29K fleet to account for the lack of N-LCA of appears rooted in an unstated acceptance that the STOBAR MiG-29K, while certainly more potent than anything fielded before, is essentially a technological cul-de-sac. Acquiring more such aircraft, with 25-year/6,000-hour service lives for carriers projected to enter service from the mid-2020s onward is seen as a retrograde step when more capable (or at least CATOBAR-compatible, and therefore ‘future proof’) aircraft could be sought instead. In addition, it is understood through Government audit reports that the MiG-29K is far from a trouble-free asset, suffering from significant structural and reliability issues. Having essentially financed the development of the modern-spec MiG-29K and now stuck ironing out the in-service kinks, the Indian Navy is simply reluctant to acquire more Fulcrums with the same problems as opposed to more capable and reliable fighters.
It is for this reason that the MRCBF RFI specifically demands information regarding the ability of any proposed aircraft to operate off the STOBAR IAC-1 (Vikrant) with its ski-jump and Svetlana arresting system, as well as the planned CATOBAR IAC-2 which could use C-13 series steam catapults or electro-magnetic catapults (EMALS) for launch and Mark 7 Mod3 or Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) for recovery. Without explicitly spelling it out, MRCBF is a programme intended to account for the removal of the N-LCA from the Navy’s plans in the near term, and supplant the MiG-29K in the longer term.

The Contenders

A U.S. Navy Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet on board the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) during Exercise Malabar in October 2015 | Photo: Angad Singh

Boeing’s Super Hornet has been in contention as an Indian Navy carrier fighter for the better part of a decade. The fighter was briefly considered for the INS Vikramaditya in the late 2000s, with Boeing even going to the trouble of simulating ski-jump take-offs, discovering “that not only could the Super Hornet take-off from a ski-jump, but could do so with a significant weapons load.” Landing was not expected to be a problem since the Proletarsky Zavod ‘Svetlana’ three-wire aircraft arresting complex on Vikramaditya (also installed on IAC-1) is configured to halt aircraft at up to 20 tonne landing weights and typical carrier approach speeds with maximum deceleration forces not exceeding 5g, broadly similar to American arresting systems to which the Super Hornet is certified. The most mature carrier fighter in contention for the MRCBF requirement, the Super Hornet also has an edge when it comes to armament, and is certified to employ the widest range of air-to-air, air-to-ground and anti-ship weapons.
Dassault have also run STOBAR simulations with the Rafale M, albeit revealing far fewer details regarding the results than Boeing. On the weapons front, the Rafale will have MBDA’s Meteor BVRAAM integrated at time of delivery, giving it a significant boost in the air-to-air stakes, even if the type does not boast the wide variety of guided and unguided weapons that the Super Hornet can show-off. Importantly, for a carrier fighter operating with limited organic tanking support, the Rafale has significantly greater range and endurance than the Super Hornet, an advantage that is extended with more stores mounted, since the Super Hornet’s canted pylons dramatically increase aerodynamic drag in flight.
The MiG-29K, though not favoured by Navy for this round, is probably the easiest pick on technical grounds. It is by now a familiar asset, warts and all, and is a drop fit on IAC-1, that carrier having been designed to host the Fulcrum from the outset. However, it lacks the electronically-scanned radars (AESAs) of the two Western fighters, and further development of the type is far from assured given the parlous state of Russian carrier aviation and the aerospace industry as a whole.
SAAB has offered the Gripen Maritime (formerly the Sea Gripen), based on its new Gripen E shore-based fighter, and would likely offer a broadly similar weapons package and kinematic performance. Since the proposal is still on the drawing board, however, it is impossible to guess at much more detail.
The Navy has no easy options. Beyond the Navy’s reluctance to acquire more MiG-29Ks, the type faces a significant hurdle if the Navy elects to firm up around CATOBAR-compatibility so that the MRCBF can operate not just from IAC-1, but also future Indian carriers. It is not feasible for RSK-MiG to offer CATOBAR certification with any catapult-launch system under consideration given the military sanctions that would preclude any co-operation between US catapult makers and the Russian military industry.
The Super Hornet will be EMALS/AAG certified from the outset, as well as compatible with legacy launch/recovery systems, but will require a full round of certification for STOBAR operations, given that it is intended, at least initially, to operate solely from a STOBAR carrier. The Rafale M would similarly need to be fully STOBAR certified, but would need a second round of trials with EMALS/AAG should the Indian Navy select those systems for IAC-2, which would add to the Navy’s cost burden either up-front or further down the road (depending on when they elect to carry out the certification).

The Show Stopper
Despite recent reports that the two Western MRCBF competitors could operate from INS Vikramaditya in addition to the Indian Navy’s future carriers, this is simply not possible. The converted Soviet-era ‘aircraft carrying cruiser’ has two aircraft elevators that are located within the flight deck, instead of on the deck-edges, and both are too small to accommodate either the Super Hornet or the Rafale. The larger forward lift, beside the carrier’s superstructure, is 18.8 x 9.9 metres, while the Super Hornet’s wings fold to just under 10 metres and the Rafale’s wings, slightly less than 11 metres wide, do not fold at all. The aft lift is narrower, with an 8.6-metre width that is barely able to fit the MiG-29K’s 7.5-metre folded span. The Naval LCA, with a wingspan of a little over eight metres, would certainly have fit the forward lift if not the aft one – the Navy prefers for aircraft carrier elevators to be sufficiently larger than the aircraft they will carry for ease of aircraft handling and movement.
The real ‘show stopper’ for the entire MRCBF requirement, however, is the configuration of IAC-1. Unlike Vikramaditya, and like most contemporary carriers, the aircraft lifts on IAC-1 are positioned on the starboard edge of the deck allowing longer aircraft to ‘hang out’ over the water with only their landing gear on the platform. But because the carrier was designed around an air wing of MiG-29Ks and Naval LCAs, the lifts were sized for wingspans no larger than eight metres. 10 x 14 metres, to be precise. While MiG-29Ks and N-LCAs can fit on these lifts with parts of their noses or empennages hanging over the edges, the Super Hornet and Rafale once again cannot.
Both Boeing and Dassault are apparently working on solutions to allow their aircraft to fit the lifts. Sources close to the programme said that Boeing is considering a system that would allow the Super Horner to sit canted on the lift, the tilt of the (folded) wings thereby resulting in a slightly shorter overall span measured parallel to the deck. With its fixed wings, the Rafale cannot offer such a solution, and Dassault is understood to be exploring a detachable wingtip, although this involves greater engineering and certification challenges.
Whatever the final form of the eventual MRCBF RFP, and whatever the proposals that arrive in response, it is clear now that the process for procuring the Navy’s next carrier fighter will be far from straightforward. None of the aircraft on offer can be operated by the Indian Navy without significant expenses for non-recurring engineering, modification and certification that will have to be amortised over a relatively small 57-aircraft requirement. This will drive the cost of the overall programme up, and certainly make induction of new aircraft in time to fly off IAC-1 in 2023 all but impossible. If the Navy elects to modify the deck-edge lifts on IAC-1, which is certainly within the realm of possibility, it could push the carrier programme back enough to allow it to sync up with likely MRCBF procurement time lines, but further postponements in commissioning and operationalising the already-delayed carrier are not likely to go down well with the MoD and broader national leadership.

Mr. Angad Singh is one of India's premier photographers, many of his work (with great courtesy) has been published on this portal

 

[BON PLAN]

As I said, this comparision does not give any information which is relevant for
a decision which airplane to select.

You could add that 14% of the F-16 force has crashed, but only 2% of the Gripen force.
That still does not make it relevant, until you understand why.

Military career of Gripen can't be compared to those of the Soldier F16.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Military career of Gripen can't be compared to those of the Soldier F16.

I just did...
As I said, the comparision is useless.

 

[X_Killer]

As I said, this comparision does not give any information which is relevant for
a decision which airplane to select.

You could add that 14% of the F-16 force has crashed, but only 2% of the Gripen force.
That still does not make it relevant, until you understand why.

I cleared all conditions. both f-16 and gripen has similar crash rate ( with age of less than 20years)

as per your biased parameter, I will vote for LCA Tejas which has crash rate of "0" (Zero)

 

[Incog_nito]

Enjoy the show:

Problems sometimes occurred, it doesn't mean that the whole Product is bad.


As far as Indian market is concerned, GRIPEN starts with a high thurst but as of now, it positioned behind f-16.

This is an old video. Grippen is a very good aircraft. But, give some real inside information on F-16 deal with IAF. I am not sure. But does F-16 for IAF will be bigger than Block-60?

IAF might not be in trouble at all. They have open option with Rafael M and may be French might come up with a dual seat Rafael M too and also F-18E/F are there too.

About 250 Gripen A-D have been built so far, and there are orders for 96 Gripen E-F.
Over time, it is expected that Brazil will have two more batches adding 60-70 aircraft.
SAAB is actively selling to Slovakia, Bulgaria, Croatia, India, Botswana, Colombia, Austria.
An India order would be for 100-200 Gripen E-F, and dwarf everything else.
The others summed up, are close to 100 Gripen C-D.

India might be looking towards F-16s, according to members comments. But I think they should look towards Grippen.

 

[X_Killer]

This is an old video. Grippen is a very good aircraft. But, give some real inside information on F-16 deal with IAF. I am not sure. But does F-16 for IAF will be bigger than Block-60?

Who said Gripen is bad Aircraft?
it is a very good aircraft but I'm defending the Claim of best aircraft.
F-16 block-70 has no outer structural change and no change in size as well. The only part which makes it most modern among previous blocks is the "latest/advanced avionics and systems".

F-16/Gripen are called to showoff their modern/upgraded capability claims.

IAF might not be in trouble at all. They have open option with Rafael M and may be French might come up with a dual seat Rafael M too and also F-18E/F are there too.

Situation will be more cleared with the live STOBAR trials. And most likely RAFALE-M will be there to serve for IN.

India might be looking towards F-16s, according to members comments. But I think they should look towards Grippen.

there are more chances that Single engine jet tender will be scrapped n favour of more FGFA + Rafales + LCAs and less chances that SE jet tender would stay alive.

If SE jet tender will be saved than both have almost 50-50 % chances.
Newer generation jet but made partnership with Adani group which has no aviation manufacturing experience but on the otherside F-16 is also good but form partnership with TASL which has a lot of exp.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I cleared all conditions. both f-16 and gripen has similar crash rate ( with age of less than 20years)

as per your biased parameter, I will vote for LCA Tejas which has crash rate of "0" (Zero)

It is well known in the I.T. industry that garbage in results in garbage out.
With six crashes, you do not have enough statistical material.
Out of those six crashes you have probably four pilot errors.
You have one defect which only occurs if a pilot has exceptionally muscular legs. This has been fixed.
Lastly, a failure in the undercarriage, which might or might not be related to service by the ground crew.

Why would these crashes affect Indias decision?
Why do You compare these crashes with air collisions?
Why do You see these crashes as equal to problems which are inherent to the aircraft,
which will enter a spin spontaneously under certain normal conditions.

Who said Gripen is bad Aircraft?
it is a very good aircraft but I'm defending the Claim of best aircraft.
F-16 block-70 has no outer structural change and no change in size as well. The only part which makes it most modern among previous blocks is the "latest/advanced avionics and systems".

F-16/Gripen are called to showoff their modern/upgraded capability claims.

Situation will be more cleared with the live STOBAR trials. And most likely RAFALE-M will be there to serve for IN.

there are more chances that Single engine jet tender will be scrapped n favour of more FGFA + Rafales + LCAs and less chances that SE jet tender would stay alive.

If SE jet tender will be saved than both have almost 50-50 % chances.
Newer generation jet but made partnership with Adani group which has no aviation manufacturing experience but on the otherside F-16 is also good but form partnership with TASL which has a lot of exp.

Meanwhile neither F/A-18 nor Rafale are useable on Indias carriers because they
are too large for the elevators...
And India is considering scrapping the FGFA to get 36 more Rafales, not the SE project.
France will not accept production in India for such low numbers.

India might be looking towards F-16s, according to members comments. But I think they should look towards Grippen.

Noone knows the outcome. IAF will do an evaluation, but before that can be acted on,
India might have a new government, which may have a very different idea
on what needs to be done.
Modi killed MMRCA once he reached power.

Those "confident" members are generally producing hot air, but not much more.

 

[Incog_nito]

Who said Gripen is bad Aircraft?
it is a very good aircraft but I'm defending the Claim of best aircraft.
F-16 block-70 has no outer structural change and no change in size as well. The only part which makes it most modern among previous blocks is the "latest/advanced avionics and systems".

F-16/Gripen are called to showoff their modern/upgraded capability claims.

Situation will be more cleared with the live STOBAR trials. And most likely RAFALE-M will be there to serve for IN.

there are more chances that Single engine jet tender will be scrapped n favour of more FGFA + Rafales + LCAs and less chances that SE jet tender would stay alive.

If SE jet tender will be saved than both have almost 50-50 % chances.
Newer generation jet but made partnership with Adani group which has no aviation manufacturing experience but on the otherside F-16 is also good but form partnership with TASL which has a lot of exp.

You are absolutely right. In my views, IAF might be looking for 36 more Rafaels to add and there are rumours of IAF buying used Malaysian MiG-29s. Moreover, IAF can also get M-2000s from France with upgrades like they are getting some used Jaguars. This will keep the fleet up and be running.

FGFA, MCA, and LCA will arrive soon! But I think Russia is also keen to sell MiG-35 to IAF too...