No offense, but it’s more than just that! The Mig has no future and is just a re-design of the older older versions and the worst is, it is still under development only and Mig themself stated, that it will be delayed. Add the high maintaince costs of Russian fighters and most importantly, that it offers nothing really new to IAF, that is not already available through Su 30 MKI and later FGFA.
The dependence is a big issue too (the air chief himselfs stated in an interview that he don’t want to put all eggs in one basket), but there are many operational points as well and that speaks against it. Not to mention political, or offset benefits.
Many of the MMRCA contenders are still “under development”. We don’t know what the 35s maintenance cost it. The SH, Rafale and Typhoon do have the advantage of being operational for some time.
Regarding offering nothing new, the same logic could be said of essentially every contender.
I’m not offended, it is not my aircrfat :).
The operational cost argument makes sense only if IAF goes Gripen, at the end of the day another two engine fighter will not cost vastly less to operate, especially when you take into account the much higher purchase price.
Sign In
