Didn't I say "...if the pricing above is correct..." and I still stand by my saying "...of all 6 entrants, the F-18 & F-16 are very well proven in extended wartime operations while..." the others are not and that is not a typo.
BTW which of the above do you favor?
While I'm not saying the French, Euro, Ruski or Swedish aircraft are not worth the effort, but it is rigorous pilot training and a well trained mechanical/support/logistics element that makes any aerial combat force effective, deadly and worth the cost. Neither of the other four have the combat experience or combat track record that the F-16 & F-18 have.
But then again, it is the Indian pilots and civilian's lives they protect that are at stake here if it comes down to war, isn't it?
I don’t think I said anything to descredit your post, did I!!!
About being proven in combat, well no one will dispute that. The question is would you want to buy a platform (the F-16) which will go out of service with its main customer in about 20 years. The Super Hornet is a better fit in that respect, but it’s sluggish as an airframe compared to the Eurofighter or Rafale. There are plenty of Freepers who hate the thing.
About what I favour-all of the six probably make the cut going by the IAF’s minimum requirements. In an ideal world, the Gripen would be the best best. Affordable, advanced and would keep the Americans and Euros happy.
On a more practical level, it’d probably be the Eurofighter vs the Super Hornet.