And thats a big thing to start with if IAF is serious about rationalisation of its assets , need less to mention the Ground Infrastructure , Weapons and Logistics similarity , Maintenance/BRD Facility for Aircraft & Engine , similar facility built over 1 and half decades to operate this type from most airbases including FAB.

The IAF and IN can share and pool in these resources making is a far cheaper and available aircraft to operate when needed , the Mig-29K operation cost have been reduced by half compared to the Mig-29 that IAF operates

If it takes time and money to customize it so be it , this effort will help us during the long run , the IAF had put this urgent needs since the end of Kargil war , so there is no urgent need.

The point is what do we need a advanced aircraft with loads of black boxes and some source code with many billion dollar spent in initial purchase and far more billion $ developing the entire ground infrastructure and logistics , weapons and the tail.

Or an aircraft where we can integrate maximum of Indian developed system , the least amount of black box and entire source code available and customise it according to our needs as and how we need with no restrictions.

And no need to spend the billion plus on Ground infra and other facility , and facility that can be shared with sister service the IN

If we want to integrate Tejas Mk2 Avionics , System and Weapons suite to the maximum possible and keep it evolving with Tejas , then Mig-35 represents the best bet in medium and long run

Not true , Mig itself has mentioned that one of the USP of Mig-35 is 90 % and above commonality , even if it is at a pessimistic 50 % common with Mig-29 and 29K its well worth , there is no need to build any new billion dollar ground infra and new logistics , spares supply , Mig-35 is a cost effective plug and play solution for IAF.

Sorry but that doesn’t hold water and I don’t believe a second that there is anything like 90% or not even 50% commonality between the MiG-29B and the MiG-35. And setting up the infrastructure is still required, regardless of the IN operating the K or not. Have IN and IAF ever shared their resources in that direction?
And the urgent need is stronger than before as the age of those fighters to be replaced is showing more than ever before. Wait another few years and you’ll see real cuts in numbers of aircraft and squadrons.

When it comes to the MiG-35 we have to keep some facts in mind.

1.) The MiG-35 is a paper plane right now, as a representive prototype has yet to be flown. There is a certain degree of commonality with the MiG-29K/KUB such as FCS, engines, cockpit, basic systems and even some airframe commonalities, but that’s it.

2.) The avionics suite of the MiG-35 has yet to be finalised and that fact alone allows you no definitive conclusions, albeit you can make assumptions and you can compare the proposed systems. RAC MiG has fitted several prototype devices of mission equipment, but this has yet to be fully developed and proven that it lives up to the expectations. One advantage of the MiG offer is that the avionics can be customised, that might interest the IAF but has its drawbacks as well. Developing a customised avionics suite takes time and costs money and by that includes certain risks. Most other competors come up with developed and integrated solutions which is far less risky, albeit it will limit the development opportunities at least at the beginning. As I understand the IAFs urgent need for a new aircraft, can they afford to wait even longer than they have already done at the risk of even further delays?

3.) The so called commonality with the MiG-29 as an argument is somewhat incorrect as the MiG-35 is an almost new aircraft which shares almost nothing with the baseline model of the MiG-29 as it is operated nowadays. So while there are the links between RAC MiG and the IAF in place, those MiG-29s (even upgraded ones) won’t share much with the MiG-35 and that means you still have to establish all the support structure, additional spares etc.

i believe it’s lower than the EF and Rafale

Doesn’t change the fact that it is expensive and probabley more so than the Gripen, F-16 or MiG-35.

unless ‘growth potential’ is a code word for ‘immature’, i don’t see where it has more growth potential than the other twin competitors

Did I say the other don’t have growth potential?

pretty sure all competitors can say that

Well for some competors certain technologies are more immature and not enough funded yet.

[I] So, if F22 at M1.5 launches an AMRAAM, it’ll have significantly increased range against a 40,000ft flying target, indeed. However, if the same F22 launches against a target at 500ft, the range could get reduced to as much as 1/3, meaning a 100km figure would go down to 30km figure. At that range F22 becomes visible and it complicates escape window (and survivability) exponentially and then there are still 4 enemies, to solve.

If the missile is lofted and just decends during the terminal phase I see no reason why the range would reduce by 30%. While air density is higher at low heights increasing drag, lift is also better at that altitudes and it should be easier for a missile to maintain energy while decending than keeping in level flight or even climbing to the target.

What tank? In this table, for the 250 Nmiles SC scenario, it states clearly internal fuel.

True the document speaks about internal fuel, but 8 and not 6 AAMs. No speed is mentioned there either just the range/endurance for a specific mission profile.

The inclined seat is just part of the concept, but no definitive solution to the problem. The side controls and limited travel stick help to reduce the arm pain often reported by pilots and allow him to remain control. Then there’re pneumatic anti-g trousers and I expect that a positive pressure mask is used as well. The F-16 has an equally inclined seat, yet in the early days a lot of Viper pilots suffered G-LOC and a lot of crashes were related to it, despite side controls and an inclined seat.
Is there any g-sustainment requirement for french Rafale pilots? Luftwaffe pilots which want to be selected for the Eurofighter for example have to be able to sustain at least 15 sec on 9 g.
Another factor which has to be taken into account is the speed of the aircraft, many 9g capable fighters can sustain 9g at high subsonic speeds without a lose in speed. It length just depends on the pilot here. Best turn rates and cycles are achieved at lower speeds however where the AoA builts up to a larger extend increasing drag and causing the lose of speed.

And they would pull 10.5g on air show ?

Who knows. Maybe they came to the conclusion (due structural testing) that just 8 g could ensure the intended airframe life cycle of 7000 h? Exceeding that limit from time to time might be acceptable, but not on a regulare base.