The Russians have proven to be the most reliable arms suppliers to India,followed by the French.So the chances of India needing Russians to come service the Migs are lower than the chance of having Americans come & service the Hornets.
The Super Hornet’s range is pretty weak for an aircraft it’s size when compared to the F-15 or SU-30,which India operates.It’s avionics would be the only price,provided that the US releases those for export.The Super Hornet & the Gripen cannot be compared because the latter is roughly half the size of the former!!
US planes may have shown combat reliability,but the US cannot match the Europeans or the Russians in offering offsets.If flexibility alone was what counted,the Rafale & Gripen would probably be favourites.
Not to mention, the Russian offerings would make for a much easier transition for Indian pilots and maintenance folk. Also, I’d bet our offerings would be export versions with reduced capabilities. With Russia, India has a deal where they get the real deal, not some watered down version IIRC. On the other hand, Russia is infamous for its terrible after purchase support. However, I don’t know if this applies to India, and in any event, I’d expect the Indians would have their own means of supporting their aircraft. Since the MiG-35 is just a souped-up MiG-29, I’d expect it make for a real easy transition for the Indians. But, then again, Russian avionics are somewhat sub-par, and even with French or Izzie technology, don’t the MiG-29s have short legs?
IMHO, the better U.S. offering would be the F-16 Block 60. Unlike the F-18. it’s proven itself in air-to-air and air-to-ground combat (although I guess the F-18 hasn’t really had the opportunity to prove itself in an air superiority role). Also, IIRC, the early Hornet (not Super Hornet) enjoyed a rather lackluster reputation in the air-superiority role—and I don’t know if that was one of the things looked at with the Super Hornet.
If India seeks to have a decentralized deployment , as is customary in Sweden, the remotely deployable Gripen is a plus in its smallness. Canada is faced with similar strategy choices in defence of its North in the face of Russian expansionism. But Canada is beset by the political need to keep its military hardware cenbtralized in the SOuthern marches of Canada, a strategic blunder, that India should not repeat on the frontiers of Chinese expansionism, in Buthan, Sikkim and Nepal, originating in Tibet.
The Gripen STOL characteristics would make them forward deployable in the short mountain passes and mountain shelves in ways no other aircraft could imitate.
The f-18 does need an air arm of refuling support. I do not know the state of Indians ability there, but suspect it is weak , as is the AWACs function necessary for maximum effectiveness of the F-18.
My overall favorite is the Gripen, which has the potential to be a modern "Spitfire" should it come to the necessity of air superiority over the Himalayas or the Kyber Pass.