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.
“don’t the MiG-29s have short legs?”
That has been corrected in the new Mig 35.
“IMHO, the better U.S. offering would be the F-16 Block 60.”
F-16 IMO has even shorter legs then F-18s or Mig 35s and its payload is far less then any of the planes in the race except for the Gripens. F-16s are old tech and suck big time, only good for the Pakis.