let see what india choose. but i am one of the few who question what was the real need of MRCA in first place when india had an MKI with it range of capablities. What we see in large air forces is a high low mix capablity. india already had MKI in high catergery (and soon to be inducted the PAKFA) . it could have filled the LCA as in low catergery( a number 200-300). The MRCA virtually was death sign for any hopes for LCA to become the work horse of IAF in additon to being billion of dollars investment.
only reason what i can see is the IAF didnt liked the LCA even though to me LCA is a very good aircraft.
Don't see MMRCA as a simple fighter procurement! LCA development was delayed, that's why IAF wanted a foreign fighter as a stop gap and strated the MRCA competition. Back then, the focus was on a fast procurement and induction, which is why IAF prefered the Mirage 2000-5, but MoD/GoI understood that that this is a chance to not only get a new fighter, but high side benefits, be it to improve the indigenous industry, political or economical advantages. That's why
they, scrapped the initial competition and started the M-MRCA inculding more US and European contenders (to more competition, the more benefits for India)!
When you look at the procurement only from IAF point of view, the addition of Mirage 2000s would have been the perfect decision, single engine, cost-effective, good multi role capabilities, proven in IAF, fits between LCA MK1 and MKI and we would a good hi / lo mix of the fleet. With MMRCA it gets bigger and closer to MKI capabilities of course, but that is not an aim of the procurement, just a side note.
Rafale and EF are the most expensive fighters in the competition, but were always those contenders, that offered the most side benefits. Since the MMRCA rules requires high ToT and offsets in return, the expenses India has, will be returned to a high degree into JV or co-developments again, which then not only creats new jobs, but also improves Indian industry.
So the clear diplomatic and economic winner is the Typhoon.
I agree on economic terms, not on diplomatic though. Of the 4 EF partners, Spain and Italy have no important diplomatic at all, so can't be interesting for India. Germany is only strong within the EU, internationally, they are even behind India, like the election for the UNC showed and India is much closer to be a permanent member as well.
Which basically leaves the UK as a veto power, but France is a veto power as well and currently the strongest European nation when it comes to military. I am still impressed about their leadership and political influence during the Libyan conflict, because they did not only took the lead in the attacks, but influenced even the US and UK, which normally don't have the best relations to France and even Arabic countries like the UAE and Qatar to participate. None of the EF partners would have been able to do this and I didn't expected the French to still have so much influence and that's why I see them as a stronger diplomatic partner for India, next to Russia, Israel and even the US today.
