Hi Dash, there are many things in your post that doesn't really fit, but it would take too long to answer them 1 on 1, if i get you right your main issue here is costs right?
Yes, what you are pointing out here is cost v/s availablity, present v/s future costs.
Now, My point is if we ever have to consider cost V/s tech i think cost will play a major role in deciding who is going to be the winner. tech is not everything and thats what EJ-2000 rejection tells us (also knowing they forged the deal), but tech wasnt considered at all.
Now if we look at the cost of life cycle, compared against, cost for upgrades, maintainance, and mostly the life of the plane, then cost runs parallaly with everything. Now my point is the acquisition price is capped at $10-12 billion . Obviously thats the price for flay away and TOT, plus maintainace and support for 5-6 years. Im sure the price of each plane will get down drastically when they are made in India with TOT as oppesed to being made in respective countries. so to say whatever the price offered to other countries will not be applicable to us. The best reference we can take is of Brazil coz they are also dealing on the similar lines. So whatever price they are offered the same or even lower saying this is a much bigger deal and Indian production prices will be on offer to us. So if $78 million for a Rafale for Brazil may become $ 72-73 for India.
As I showed in the comparison with the SH, the Rafale offered in MMRCA has a higher tech level than the F18SH Block 2 and which can be equalised only with the Block 3 upgrade, so with additional costs. Not to mention that the SH needs more costs for new weapons and logistics that are not available in IAF now. So the F18SH for IAF can turn out costlier and with with less difference to Rafale than the pure fly away cost difference tells us.
My question is F-18 SH can be decided without the EPE engine, but its a wait to see if we are getting that engine for LCA, if not the same engine with the current AESA can be opted. As this will reduce the logistical challenge for IAF.
cosz they will maintain 200 LCAs and 126 F-18 with ease. and the same comes to Gripen too...So that saves cost here. and GE no where mentioned about additional pricing for EPE or EDE for LCA engine bid and deal price was still lower. Americans can save a you a of money when it comes to their fighters.
EF is undeniably the most expensive fighter in the competition, but I always said don't look at costs only, look at what we get in return for it! The partnership offer, is obviously one of the most interesting one and their offset offer will be good for sure too. But imo, EF doesn't fulfill our technical needs as a fighter, be it for IAF, SFC, or IN. That's why it offers not enough in return for all the money we have to spend, because we have to add costs for integration of new weapons an capabilities too, not to mention that we still need 2 different fighters for SFC and IN. The costs would have been better if we had opted for EJ 200 for Tejas too, but we didn't and that's imo a clear sign against the EF too.
EF doesnt have a chance and we both know that so not talking abt EF.
What I am trying to understand here is How Rafale will fare considering its still an expensive plane when we come down to the same analysis.
cost of life cycle, compared against, cost for upgrades, maintainance, and mostly the life of the plane, then cost runs parallaly with everything.
and cost v/s availablity, present v/s future costs. Though it is difficult to predict that now, but this will help us get close to know who can be the closest when it comes to MRCA winner.
YOU MEAN THIS
"Rafale eater"...don't ya just love it 
and Meteor in 2018? Oh!I didn't realize the Meteor was co-developed by the US 
