If the contract goes as Dassault wants it to, I would be surprised if the other contenders would not challenge the contract in court. It would be too easy to claim that your offer included costs for setting up the production in India fast enough to fulfill the demands of the IAF. And that you thought it was obvious that you would be responsible for the licence production as the responsible OEM as well.

P-51Ds were in use still in 1980s in some AFs.

Wit 1940ies avionics and a service ability that was unacceptable by any standards.
Apart from that you need to ask yourself what would possible users demand from a new fighter plane.

Apart from North Korea very few countries face a threat which could see a huge fleet of complex enemy fighters attacking your key cities.

For me the missions are light fighter needs to be able to handle are.

1. air policing
2. light strike support to ground forces
3. air defence
4. strike missions
5. recce

Very few countries would need stealth or rocket like climb rates to fulfill those basic missions. Many however would need range and loiter time. Most would want decent avionics, weapons load and all would want cheap operating costs.

Now I have no idea how you would try to fulfill those needs and keep the costs below an armed Turboprop trainer while using rocket engines, turbofans and stealth features. Not to speak of the operational costs of rocket engines, which are not designed for many use cycles.

You Boeing chaps are very confident.

It won’t cause anything among the F-35 partners, despite reducing numbers they’re still committed to the F-35. So if South Korea goes for anything other than the F-35 you’re expecting the likes of the UK to drop their choice and go for something that’s been painted as “Stealth”? Only in your world, Slowman/InternationalPirate. Only in your world.

There’s a reason why Boeing dropped their claim that the F-15SE (still in development) has the same RCS of the F-35. I’ll let you work that one out.

Britain no, as it needs F-35B, but Canada or Australia….

Those engine inlets won´t like much fuselage movement in relation to the airflow or high angles of attack.

There are 3 obvious solutions for countries looking to replace the F-5.

1. Gripen
2. F/A-50
3. JF-17

But the competition is way bigger, consisting of second hand jets of various types, ranging from dirt cheap (MiG-29C from former Soviet Republics), cheap (used F-16s) to not so cheap (used SU-27s, Mirage 2k, etc).

All those second hand planes have a proven track record, an existing support structure and contain no development risk. They are also more or less superior in flight performance to the 3 options listed above.

Being unable to knock out an enemy only 1/20 the strength of your forces, is not effective. Especially not if you also had the element of surprise on your side.

“Operation Bodenplatte” in a modern form.