MRCA News and Discussion

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 02 Aug 2010 00:14

Any MMRCA contenders use the same engines as LCA?

venkat_r · Post by **venkat_r** » 02 Aug 2010 00:26

My Solah Ane on UffF Attara

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 02 Aug 2010 00:43

europhighter (1€)

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 02 Aug 2010 02:37

In the Land of the Kama Sutra nothing better than the Super Duper Horneyt

munna · Post by **munna** » 02 Aug 2010 02:48

100 on F-18. This one is going down the political route F-18 126 plus 60 odd Mig-35.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 02 Aug 2010 04:03

Rs 100 on F/A-18 as it is going to be a political decision. The only other potential competitor F-16 will be out as it is with PAF and also quite old. That leaves only F/A-18 on the table.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 02 Aug 2010 04:49

The betting currency is wrong. There is no bookie. Who's going to collect? I suggest 'posts' as currency. If you win you get the odds as posts, if you lose you're knocked back to 'trainee'

naird · Post by **naird** » 02 Aug 2010 06:12

^^ haha -- Good one Cosmo -- But we are also smart enough to realize that you dont have anything to lose

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 02 Aug 2010 06:53

^^ haha -- Good one Cosmo -- But we are also smart enough to realize that you dont have anything to lose

That is exactly the the point. Anyone can make the odds because it's just a post. But if one puts one's mouth where one's posts are, one would think a little harder no? IOW, these comments are ==IB4TL stuff.

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 02 Aug 2010 09:36

IAF is short of aircrafts and Indian defense Ministry is trying to be good to the foreign countries to show how just they are ....

India must quickly order more than 200 aircrafts preferably F18 or Rafael.

Go either all American or all non-american, but atleast order the aircrafts. Going American will be better than trusting french.

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 02 Aug 2010 10:35

not sure why every one is betting on F/A-18. Its basically a naval aircraft (remember twin engine usage over oceans) and a bomber for long range mission. Funny thing is only eight countries have acquired this plane so far, if India selects this it will be purely controversial

In dogfight German Mig29 proved superior to F/A-18

[youtube]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j2bCmC-nUp4&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j2bCmC-nUp4&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 02 Aug 2010 10:51

Bhy for are we taking bets. Iz the day oph judgement near?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Aug 2010 11:21

well the F-18A/B/C is a far cry from F-18E/F a much bigger and more powerful a/c with the advantage of a powerful 414 engines and aesa radar. at bvr range, a full-spec usn apg79 + aim120d will eat up almost anything for a meal. remains to be seen what is on the thali for us.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 02 Aug 2010 11:40

aditya.agd wrote:IAF is short of aircrafts and Indian defense Ministry is trying to be good to the foreign countries to show how just they are ....

India must quickly order more than 200 aircrafts preferably F18 or Rafael.

Go either all American or all non-american, but atleast order the aircrafts. Going American will be better than trusting french.

Rafael will probably cost the most among all of the aircraft in the tender. With F-16 and F-18 there are two problems. One the restrictive american inspections and second singular lack of advantage. F-16 is already flown by Pakistans and the chinks have thier own variant of F-16. If Americans had offered F-35 then it would have been different. I certainly hope that we do not select F-16 or FA-18.

krish.pf · Post by **krish.pf** » 02 Aug 2010 16:56

^ +1

How short people's memories are. I don't want some U.S politician deciding one fine day that India is too close to Russia or Iran or Myanmar and tries to change our policy by threatening sanctions with this huge leverage of MMRCA. It's already bad enough we are buying some of the other American toys. I don't care which plane wins as long as it's not American. I hope long term thought takes more precedence among the IAF top brass.

My bets are on Rafale & Mig-35.

There are a lot of errors in the table posted before. Mig-35 & Eurofighter has the same weight and almost the same engine power, but the Thrust to weight ratio difference is too high.

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 02 Aug 2010 19:35

Thomas Kolarek wrote:not sure why every one is betting on F/A-18. Its basically a naval aircraft (remember twin engine usage over oceans) and a bomber for long range mission. Funny thing is only eight countries have acquired this plane so far, if India selects this it will be purely controversial In dogfight German Mig29 proved superior to F/A-18

[youtube]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j2bCmC-nUp4&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j2bCmC-nUp4&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]

The Hornet wins in that video

. In a close quarter knife fight the Hornet (legacy and super) will give all non TVC platforms a hard fight.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 02 Aug 2010 19:52

^^ One thing that worries me most is, until 2006 MRCA used to mean M2K only, then suddenly SH's AESA radar started getting mentioned. The cost also used to be 6 billion until then. Then slowly slowly other planes entered and price got first to 8 and then 10 billion. So probably US has made enough arrangements for SH to win.

sawant · Post by **sawant** » 02 Aug 2010 20:22

Considering IN is already buying Mig 29Ks, NLCAs it really wud be a waste to buy SHs... its another matter that considering we are a peninsular country we dont have adequate Naval fighters... if we do end up with the SH then hopefully we shd take as much ToT as possible and use it on LCA and other legacy fighters...

johnny_m · Post by **johnny_m** » 02 Aug 2010 21:27

IN buying whatever they want will not have an effect on IAF's decision on MRCA. Even if the SH wins the MRCA it is not like the IAF will let the Navy use them. May be some of them will be used to support Naval operations armed with Harpoons operating from land. Just like Jaguar IMs, flown by the IAF.

Jamie Boscardin · Post by **Jamie Boscardin** » 02 Aug 2010 22:17

If we look at the trend (aka before the curtains are drawn on this deal):
1. France won the expensive Mirage Upgrade contract even with a higher quote.
2. USA gets P-8i, C130J's, Howitzers etc
3. Russia gets our money for PAK-FA even though what we contribute at this stage is another big discussion.
So, Rafale, F-16IN, F-18 and MIG 35 are all out and will not be selected. The above deals were to keep the discontent among these imp international players in check.

So, it has to be either the Grippy or the Typhoon.
My 2 cents for the Typhoon for its capability + technology and also something which our adversaries may not gets hands on sooner.

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 02 Aug 2010 22:42

johnny_m wrote:
Thomas Kolarek wrote:not sure why every one is betting on F/A-18. Its basically a naval aircraft (remember twin engine usage over oceans) and a bomber for long range mission. Funny thing is only eight countries have acquired this plane so far, if India selects this it will be purely controversial In dogfight German Mig29 proved superior to F/A-18

[youtube]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j2bCmC-nUp4&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j2bCmC-nUp4&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/youtube]
The Hornet wins in that video . In a close quarter knife fight the Hornet (legacy and super) will give all non TVC platforms a hard fight.

This was although a good dog fight training mission it was rather a self serving setup for the western aircraft. During the sequence there were multiple times the MiG was on the Hornet's tail and could have shot it down. Considering how close behind the Hornet's tail the MiG was I would rather doubt that the MiG's radar or infrared sensors and weapons would not have had a lock-on. If this were a real situation, the Hornet would be laying in pieces on the mountains.

aditya.agd · Post by **aditya.agd** » 02 Aug 2010 22:51

biggest worry is the lack of aircrafts. we need numbers to fight. If this is the case then we should just get 200 more lCAs to take on Pakis.

Indranil · Post by **Indranil** » 02 Aug 2010 22:59

aditya.agd wrote:biggest worry is the lack of aircrafts. we need numbers to fight. If this is the case then we should just get 200 more lCAs to take on Pakis.

So what is the case? What should we worry about?

GeorgeWelch · Post by **GeorgeWelch** » 03 Aug 2010 03:10

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/ ... -f18f.html

The MoD has already received confirmation from Boeing that it could make the improvements to the Super Hornet that the navy needs to produce the Silent Hornet.

The Silent Hornet will have a new internal weapons bay to reduce the radar signature of the aircraft and improved fuel tanks that would give it a longer range than JSF.

The aircraft is already able to carry more bombs and missiles than JSF and could be produced in time for the first of the two new aircraft carriers which is due to come into service in 2015.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 03 Aug 2010 03:32

^^ +100 for the SH

Avid · Post by **Avid** » 03 Aug 2010 03:34

Jamie Boscardin wrote:If we look at the trend (aka before the curtains are drawn on this deal):
1. France won the expensive Mirage Upgrade contract even with a higher quote.
2. USA gets P-8i, C130J's, Howitzers etc
3. Russia gets our money for PAK-FA even though what we contribute at this stage is another big discussion.
So, Rafale, F-16IN, F-18 and MIG 35 are all out and will not be selected. The above deals were to keep the discontent among these imp international players in check.

So, it has to be either the Grippy or the Typhoon.
My 2 cents for the Typhoon for its capability + technology and also something which our adversaries may not gets hands on sooner.

If you are going to count out approximate large contracts based on value - why are you counting Howitzers? If you do that, then Akula, Vikramaditya, Talwar-Class, etc. should also be counted. Not to mention the orders for nuclear reactors for power generation that Russians bagged recently (a huge deal that might and will put to shame the numbers for MMRCA). Oh, and the approval of second line of submarines which is bigger than the MMRCA also. Want to guess who will be getting that? I will bet it is not going to be an EU member (no strategic leverage there at all).

Let us limit to simply aircraft orders (if indeed that is the theory) and even then let us do a little more thorough job of it:
a) Russia got PAK-FA, order for additional 40 SU-30MKI, Mig-29 Upgrade Deal, Additional order for 2 more IL-76 for the AWACS.

b) US got P8I, C130J

c) French got the M2K Upgrade

d) British got the new order for Hawk AJT (a $1Billion+ order after the fiasco is a pretty big deal)

So, that leaves Sweden -
But since Bofors is not Swedish anymore but American

That leaves only Grippen as the contender.

Problem with that is -- $10Billion with Sweden gets you no strategic leverage, no matter how hard Sweden wants to give you that leverage.

If you breakdown your analysis by manufacturers instead of countries, you will see the same pattern again.

If strategic leverage is central to this, the $10B contract will go to -- a powerhouse who has the levers to pull and will pull differently because of the order. Wonder who in the pool can be influenced to change their behavior? How such a change (subtle rather than blatant) will be influenced.

Alternatively, the contract is going to be used to signal great displeasure (a strategic leverage in itself)

Thomas Kolarek · Post by **Thomas Kolarek** » 03 Aug 2010 04:28

Avid wrote:
Jamie Boscardin wrote:If we look at the trend (aka before the curtains are drawn on this deal):
1. France won the expensive Mirage Upgrade contract even with a higher quote.
2. USA gets P-8i, C130J's, Howitzers etc
3. Russia gets our money for PAK-FA even though what we contribute at this stage is another big discussion.
So, Rafale, F-16IN, F-18 and MIG 35 are all out and will not be selected. The above deals were to keep the discontent among these imp international players in check.

So, it has to be either the Grippy or the Typhoon.
My 2 cents for the Typhoon for its capability + technology and also something which our adversaries may not gets hands on sooner.
If you are going to count out approximate large contracts based on value - why are you counting Howitzers? If you do that, then Akula, Vikramaditya, Talwar-Class, etc. should also be counted. Not to mention the orders for nuclear reactors for power generation that Russians bagged recently (a huge deal that might and will put to shame the numbers for MMRCA). Oh, and the approval of second line of submarines which is bigger than the MMRCA also. Want to guess who will be getting that? I will bet it is not going to be an EU member (no strategic leverage there at all).

Let us limit to simply aircraft orders (if indeed that is the theory) and even then let us do a little more thorough job of it:
a) Russia got PAK-FA, order for additional 40 SU-30MKI, Mig-29 Upgrade Deal, Additional order for 2 more IL-76 for the AWACS.

b) US got P8I, C130J

c) French got the M2K Upgrade

d) British got the new order for Hawk AJT (a $1Billion+ order after the fiasco is a pretty big deal)

So, that leaves Sweden -
But since Bofors is not Swedish anymore but American

That leaves only Grippen as the contender.

Problem with that is -- $10Billion with Sweden gets you no strategic leverage, no matter how hard Sweden wants to give you that leverage.

If you breakdown your analysis by manufacturers instead of countries, you will see the same pattern again.

If strategic leverage is central to this, the $10B contract will go to -- a powerhouse who has the levers to pull and will pull differently because of the order. Wonder who in the pool can be influenced to change their behavior? How such a change (subtle rather than blatant) will be influenced.

Alternatively, the contract is going to be used to signal great displeasure (a strategic leverage in itself)

If the so called strategic leverage makes India award contract to USA, Indian leaders are going to be the dumbest in the World, USA never cares, what leverage others are trying for, it always does things for its own national interests.
F-16, F/18-A are sooner going to be target practice aircraft for USAF.

Carl_T · Post by **Carl_T** » 03 Aug 2010 05:02

Does it give India "leverage" over other nations or does it give other nations "leverage" over India? If we buy US planes, I don't think we get "leverage" over them, but if we buy Swedish planes we do. Depends on who's bigger. JMT

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 03 Aug 2010 15:04

Avid wrote:
Jamie Boscardin wrote:If we look at the trend (aka before the curtains are drawn on this deal):
1. France won the expensive Mirage Upgrade contract even with a higher quote.
2. USA gets P-8i, C130J's, Howitzers etc
3. Russia gets our money for PAK-FA even though what we contribute at this stage is another big discussion.
So, Rafale, F-16IN, F-18 and MIG 35 are all out and will not be selected. The above deals were to keep the discontent among these imp international players in check.

So, it has to be either the Grippy or the Typhoon.
My 2 cents for the Typhoon for its capability + technology and also something which our adversaries may not gets hands on sooner.
That leaves only Grippen as the contender.

Problem with that is -- $10Billion with Sweden gets you no strategic leverage, no matter how hard Sweden wants to give you that leverage.

How about non-strategic leverage ?
1) Sweden assures us that it will build and design a 5th Generation Grippen, over which we will have a significant say. This way India is not beholden only to Russia for a 5th Generation fighter aircraft.
2) Sweden gives us access to its next generation submarine, the A-26. (http://www.defencetalk.com/sweden-next- ... ect-24473/)
3) Sweden assures us that Griffen fighter technology will not be shared with Pakistan or China. This is something which cannot be done with Rafael/Mig-35/Eurofighter Typhoon. Eurofighter Typhoon is in service with saudi arabia. Saudis will share its performance capabilities with Pakistan/China. Russia will sell a technology to anybody with cash. Ditto for French, who only have their own commercial interests in their hearts.
4) Sweden agrees, that Griffen will be modified to fly with Kaveri engine when it finally comes online. This way we will not have to depend on US for Griffens engine.

All this does not distract us from various advantages which Grippen has
1) It has the lowest cost of operation and procurement among all of its contenders.
2) It can take off from small airfields, suitable for northeast and our borders with china.
3) It is very similar to LCA. So IAF should not have any big headaches in flying it or maintaining it.

parshuram · Post by **parshuram** » 03 Aug 2010 15:18

Well Seems Suman Sharma is doing arihant again .. This is what she is saying in chindits

Coming Up MMRCA Series, Chindits Accesses Copy Of RFP, Details Of Tech Eval Report !!.... She Could be next bond girl i believe

Link

saurav.jha · Post by **saurav.jha** » 03 Aug 2010 16:06

^^^and as expected she is doing elusive maneuvers since the COMING UP sign...
Even SHIV AROOR had put on same title and all he did was a sum up story...

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 04 Aug 2010 20:43

IAF submits combat jet trials report, expects selection within a year

Chief of Air Staff Air Chief Marshal P V Naik told India Strategic in an interview that the exhaustive report covered all the aircraft, and that once the selection has been made, he expected the chosen MRCA to be in service within three years, say by 2014.

As for the M-MRCA selection process, the Air Chief apparently gave no indication as to how each of the six aircraft in the fray performed during the trials. He only observed that the IAF had completed its assignment, and submitted the report to the Ministry of Defence July-end, and on time as promised.

The Russian Mig 35 (initially designated Mig 29M2), Europe’s Eurofighter Typhoon, Swedish Gripen, French Rafale, and the US Boeing F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet and Lockheed Martin’s F 16IN Super Viper are in the fray. The RfP was for 126 aircraft with an option for 63 more.

andy B · Post by **andy B** » 07 Aug 2010 07:42

X posting from ze Intl Aerospace dhaga:

andy B wrote:Luftwaffe and ze Typhoon: http://ifile.it/e1vjuxh/JG%2073%20and%2 ... yphoon.jpg
Hot damn this is me second most favourite fraulein onlee....
Typhoon and ze Magic Carpet Ride: http://ifile.it/ol9w8tv/TYPHOON_S%20Mag ... 20Ride.zip

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Aug 2010 08:18

looks like US is not interested in developing the typhoon for a2g role. pirate irst is also not operational. how soon is captor-aesa expected to clear trials. if we go typhoon these questions need reliable resolutions.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 07 Aug 2010 10:37

Well it only means that for they themselves UK could do without a2g only because they are going to get F35s soon and not because they doubt phoon's potential as A2G. It just means that if a customer like India orders it, they will go ahead and develop a2g but without our order a critical mass of orders may not be generated to justify A2G version economically. What they will do if we don't order typhoons should NOT in any way deter our decision about Typhoons.

Besides it would have the optimum a2g payload and agility combination that will give much survivability than an overloaded, rcs-enhanced(due to extra stores), sitting duck for sams trying to cross over into our rival's territory. The term "Bombtruck" is a wet-dream sold by superbug arms-dealers to MoD and IAF. India would not have as much asymmetry over its rivals' ground defences as Unkil has had, atleast against dragon. There will always be dangers of lurking and semi-active ground based defences inspite of destroying some of them. In such a situation, the question of IAF flying fighters in a kinematically-retarded rcs-enhanced bombtruck configuration anyways does not arise. Fighters will be optimally loaded with a2g stores for Kinematics-vs-Payload tradeoff. In that sense Typhoons will have realistically sufficient a2g carrying capability though it may not carry as much as "bombtruck"superbug.
To be able to fly in a rcs-enhanced bomb-truck config fearlessly over enemy territory IAF would have to have already won the war with its rival in which case why would they need to fly their planes like a bombtruck anyways ?

Ideally would like to see all 200 mmrca as Typhoons but since it could be unrealistic for budget, a split of 126 Typhoons with 74 Mig35s makes sense OR 126Mig35s with 74Typhoons should be fine. Not a big lover of Mig35s but it has right compensatory effect to the overall price of procurement and it does not add a new variety to IAF inventory inspite of the split order. Besides the presence of Migs in mmrca means IAF will be much more favourably disposed to Tejas than if let's say gripen or superbug were purchased.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 07 Aug 2010 11:19

Christopher Sidor wrote: That leaves only Grippen as the contender.

Problem with that is -- $10Billion with Sweden gets you no strategic leverage, no matter how hard Sweden wants to give you that leverage.

I hope Sweden stands a chance as well.

Of all the countries, they are the most suitable partner for India to cooperate with on fighter plane development for the future. Russia, US or France are unlikely to cooperate closely with India on any future combat aircraft development. Basically we would be just junior partners bank-rolling their R&D base and buying the completed product with little R&D development of our own.

Sweden on the other hand is a small country that needs to preserve its aerospace industry. There is much greater scope for joint R&D and India has the market to absorb the final product and the economy of scale to bring the price down to push the exports.

The Swedes however need to *push* their product and talk about this aerospace alliance a whole lot more.

paramyog · Post by **paramyog** » 07 Aug 2010 13:11

Ask the Americans for F-22s.
The US Congress isnt givin it to anybody, not even the Brits.
But if India can fight it out for that kind of Tech, its truly a strategic partnership.
F-35s are still under research, however, in the present times, if we have to fight on two fronts, the only bird that can fill the gap isnt any of the 6, but only the F-22 Raptor.
It doesnt get any better than that. If the Mandarins of MEA are good, they better ask the US Congress to prove their trust in India.
Thats how a "strategic partnership" begins.

Luxtor · Post by **Luxtor** » 07 Aug 2010 13:36

^^^

We will always be junior partners until we invent, design and make things from scratch on our own. I made a comment on the naval thread about why should India go to Russia to design a shore based training facility for aircraft carrier training if we are building the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier in India. People commented rather pointedly that the shore based training facility is for Vikramaditya which is really Gorshkov and it was built in Russia, etc., etc.; and then another person commented that the arrestor landing system is complex, etc. They're missing the point. With all due respect, I disagree. We have to start doing somethings on our own. You don't have to build a shore training facility that exactly matches a particular ship you're buying from a foreign country. You can design your own that is generic so it can be used for training for all the different carriers that you may be operating in the future. As far as complexity goes, arrestor landing system of a carrier is not that complex, when compared to LCA, Arjun or our space launch vehicles and other ventures, that India can not take on the task itself. If we don't even try then how are we supposed to become self sufficient in anything? In the West many of the military systems were mandated by the governments but developed by private industry with the prospect and dreams of huge financial rewards. I think that's what is lacking in India. We need to allow private industry to develop these types of systems with the mandate that it be done in country, by our own resources and talent with the promise of handsome profits to the companies who take on the challenge.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 07 Aug 2010 14:49

Nish,how can you make a statement that Russia,etc. will not collaborate with us on a fighter project,when the most important project,the 5th-gen fighter JV has been signed! We want a two seat version which should come out a little later than the single-seat version expected in service in Russia as early as 2016.Along with "Super-Flankers" in the future,the 5th-gen fighter will be the mainstay of the IAF's arir-dominance/stealth figure for the next decade or two.This aircraft expected at around $80-100 million,may just be marginally more than existing 4++ fighters from Europe.An affordable, rugged,easy to maintain multi-role fighter should be chosen to replace our older MIG-21s,etc.From oiur sad track record in developing aviation technology-just look at the Kaveri programme for one,we still are unable to produce a world class engine,aand are struggling to keep pace with AAMs/BVR systems,etc.,apart
from cutting edge avionics,etc.

In view of recent scandals like the CWG.etc., be sure that price is going to be a major factor.

Indeevar · Post by **Indeevar** » 07 Aug 2010 15:29

We should not opt for Grippen, because its more or less same like LCA, almost same technology, Same engine[ Single ]. If LCA is our target fighter to be developed indegenously and to become self reliant then no point going for Grippen. Actaully we have very little options left.. It doesnot matter whether India has awarded contracts to France for Mirage, Russia for SU-50 PAK FA, INS Vikramaditya etc, US for P-8i Orion / CJ130 etc. What matters is the technology trasfer and reliability.

1. If we go for F-18 super hornet [ F-22 cannot be delivered, US will never allow to sell F-22 to India, because they afraid can be passed to Our old Friend Russia ] then, we have to think about the price, which is high. And overall, we cannot rely on them. You never know about the policy makers in US and the senators, when they will back fire and stop all the support and spares for these huge expensive aircrafts. Its a different issue that US economy is facing bad times and their banks have become bankrupt. So dealing with US is always very risky.
2. Russians are still better option for IAF. Their technology is well known to Indian Air Force and we are operating Russian fighters right from SU30 MKI to Migs. Their price is cheap[ For MIG35] and technology is good. On the top, we can rely on Russians at crucial times, right from supply of spares to Technology transfer and Diplomatically they will stand by with us.
3. Rafale is a good option as IAF is using French fighters and they are cooperative also. This can also be the another option.
4. Eurofighter is the most expensive fighter and India cannot take risk by involving four countries at a time.. This is again very crucial. Not worth it. In any case, we are using UK AJT and French Mirages. Why to buy a fighter where four Countries are involved and price is too high.

Reports are already submitted to Defence ministry. I feel that French Rafale or Russian MIG 35 will get the contract.