Time will tell, for now, all you do is speculating with zero facts related o this particular choice

What I’ve posted about the Reliance’s technical capabilities is just plain reality not speculation. That there’s already an established pvt sector aviation major that is the obvious choice for every foreign OEM, also plain reality not speculation.

Its like Saab going to Brazil and then signing an agreement with Petrobras as a local partner instead of Embraer. Sure that too can be defended with ‘time will tell’ & ‘Saab wanted it done its own way’, it still wouldn’t normalize it.

what’s more, we’ve seen already loads of defamation in India around MMRCA choices… fact is you have plenty of people not afraid to spit anything they can with their own agenda, and who cares about it being plain lies… with so much money at stake you can’t trust anything you read… so, once again, once the facts are there, one can speak.. until then, if you make judgements, you have nothing to base them upon except your personal liking or disliking

None of the money has been earmarked for me, and I’m in any case stating commonly known facts (that you can Google) not the opinion of some journalist/writer, so I have no idea what you’re on about.

actually, I look at the reality. Dassault delivers on time excellent aircraft unless asked to delayas the Rafale, for the french, that was supposed to be introduced in the mid-90’s and french state delayed orders because they were broke after the collapse of warsaw pact. If they decide to do things one given way, I won’t go and imagine god only knows what obscure (and illegal) reasons as to why they did it. I’ll look what and how they do it and judge on facts… on the other hand, you spend your time bashing the Rafale (some problems with the french? or just jealous that your own pet plane, whatever it is, can compete?) and putting accusations you have no way to support in any way… who has his blinders on?

The quality of Dassault’s aircraft or the schedule of delivery is not the issue in contention. Trumpeting that is merely an attempt to distract from its chosen partner Reliance’s record and skill-set. As is the whining about Francophobia. Plenty of pro-Rafale commentators are ‘uncomfortable’ with the decision as well.

And, for the record, I’m sure Dassault will ensure their deal with Reliance will pass the regulatory bar. Fortunately, the regulatory framework governing offsets is rather nebulous.

That doesn’t change the answer to Coffee_Bean’s question –

What a fail…. I dont understand why Dassault would want to partner with a company with no engineering background and which is one of the most corrupt companies in India.

To recycle offsets and ‘leverage’ Reliance’s political influence.

you accuse, it’s up to you to bring proof for your statements… otherwise anybody can post anything… an example: MMRCA deal failed? BAe at fault, corrupted indian officials to prevent it… no need for proof, it’s easy to deduct as they were pushing for the Typhoon… no?

I don’t need to prove that Reliance had little to no core engg./technical expertise and oodles of political influence. Its a widely known fact.

Either Dassault was super impressed with Reliance’s passion or it was interested in its own bottom-line. Take the nationalistic blinders off and the answers will be obvious.

Vnomad obviously doesn’t want to undrstand what he’s being told… I said that maybe Dassault did no want a partner who does things his own way simply vecause the “indian way” of doing things doesn’t appel to them… having a partner who has zero experience will allow you to built your installatyions and make them work the way you want them to function… without having to deal with “I know it alls” that they’d encounter without a doubt with any of the companies who did something with aircraft before…

Oh I understand and agree completely. All the majors Boeing, Airbus, LM, BAE, etc. partnered with prominent local pvt. engg. coys on major projects – L&T, Mahindra, Tata, Bharat Forge etc.

Dassault tied up with Reliance instead because it wanted things done ‘its own way’. Like I said, birds of the same feather.

in any case, you can spit your deception all you want, in the end, Dassault deliver aircraft as asked to, if they are ordered to deliver a given number of Rafales for a given date, they most certainly know much better than a forum fan how to do it (as they already do it IRL… not just on discussion boards)

Sure sure. As long as the aircraft are delivered ‘as asked’ and the offset boxes are ticked away on paper, it doesn’t really matter where some $1 billion of the taxpayer’s money (~10%) actually goes.

when they were forced to try to setup things with HAL, it was a complete mess… now, they can do things their way: build their aircraft as it was supposed to be built

it depends: if you don’t care about schedule, quality, reliability… HAL. If you do: see my answer above

And they could have gone with Tata/TASL. Or Mahindra. Or L&T.

Instead Dassault went with Reliance. Birds of the same feather…

thanks, thats another tempered simulation that goes to prove my assumption,
F-35 are given imaginary meteor that fit in the bay,
all the while Su-35 gets standard armament at best,
you could get similar result if you gave even an F-15 actual existing meteor,
but, i’m taking a wild guess such a simulation wont be published

You’re really not getting the point, are you?

This wasn’t a unclassified Pentagon/LM simulation. The parameters are within the user’s control. You want to change them, you can change them.

The author, a Brit, opted for the Meteor because the Meteor is to phase out the Aim-120 as the RAF/RN’s standard AAM. You want to take the Aim-120D instead, go ahead. Though only a thorough misreading of the simulation (or a ‘wild guess’) would suggest a different outcome.

And if these simulators are available to the general public, they’re available to all the air forces that backed the F-35 over competing types. And to the long-retired Lt. Col. Sorenson.

interesting….this is how you tamper simulations to prove a predefined opinion

War-gaming simulators aren’t exactly some DARPA-type unobtainable technology.

I’m sure, if asked nicely, Tim Robinson would lend his copy of CMANO to Col. Sorenson who can vary then vary the parameters of the fight to his heart’s content.

based on the responses here, it seems many want the boeing/saab model to win.
my answer is why?

the Lockheed T-50 variant and the Leonardo certainly seem the most low risk and perhaps the cheapest option

The T-50 & M-346 are already in service. Another new type is something any Keypubber ought to look forward to.

That aside, from a domestic perspective, the Boeing is still the best option. As a clean sheet design, it’ll skew close to the USAF’s requirements. And more importantly, it’ll keep the St. Louis line going after the Super Hornet production winds up.