![ROFL :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@14.0.2/assets/72x72/1f923.png)
You Know in Real life the First one to Come out is called Original.
BTW I don't think TED-BLUFF will be ready by 2035-40.
My meaning is different, because we have already decided on TEDBF. The choice was between a Rafale-design and an AMCA-design, and IN chose the Rafale-design. Both TEDBF and Rafale will be operational for 40-50 years, so even if TEDBF comes in 10 years later, both jets will basically be similarly capable for the next 30 years. And any capability enhancements will be a duplicate of each other, and we will have to pay for the same thing twice.
While the timeline is in favour of the Rafale versus TEDBF, an alternative jet can be found to replace the Rafale M with a similar timeline. That's either the SH or F-35, that come with a bunch of other advantages.
The IAF needs the Rafale, but IN needs American tech; very different operational environment. For the IN, wartime logistics is more important than peacetime logistics. When the IN is fighting PLAN in the Timor or Java Sea, American, Singaporean and Australian logistics centers and supply warehouses will be more important than India which will be thousands of Kms away. And compared to a future IN budget, the small fleet of American jets over a 30/40-year period will be a very minuscule part. The IN's need for superior logistics probably stems from the poor aftersales service record of the Russians, which shouldn't be a problem with the Americans, or the French, so peacetime logistics should not become a primary factor.
Timeline isn't a factor between Gripen E and LCA Mk2, both will be ready around the same time. 2 or 3 years difference doesn't matter over a 40-year timescale.
Sensors + Avionics is what will make the most difference.
Any Idea How MK2's Avionics, Sensors will fare against Grippen E?
Radar is probably the same, probably the EW suite as well. But IR sensors are a bit more advanced, 'cause Mk2 uses DC MAWS and IRST. Cockpit should be far more IAF-specific than Gripen E as well. Then we can introduce our own technologies much faster, even during production if necessary, like how Mk1A is getting both Israeli and Indian radars in the middle of production. Doing the same on Gripen will be practically impossible.
Gripen E's future potential is questionable as well due to the small orders and the habit of the Swedes to operate as a single-jet air force. We need a 40-year operation cycle. Meaning, the Swedes could get rid of their jet before 2060, whereas we need it until 2070-80. Otoh, FCAS delays should see the French buying Rafales until the 2040s thereby retiring their jets alongside ours.
In 10-15 years or so, due to sheer size and money power, our technology will be ahead of what the Europeans can produce. So it doesn't make sense to get stuck with another duplicate.
Hope this post clears a bunch of other questions that may pop into your head.