What operational capability is lacking to qualify it as ´useless´?

So produce it in Russia possibly at Ulyanovsk.

Keep one thing in mind- the IAF’s shortlist ignored the price factor and only looked at its performance evaluation. the MoD will have to however keep price in mind otherwise the Ministry of Finance can throw a spanner in the works, as they did with the A-330MRTT tender.

Right, but if none except EF and Dassault had a product which met performance expectations, the prices of other non-qualifying offerings are as irrelevant as the price of a Grob trainer is to an air-tanking competition. MoF isn´t competent to analyze military requirements, only financial considerations.

the Indian MoD has apparently arrived at a formula for cost benchmarking that will be based on what they believe is a reasonable cost, what they knew were the commercial terms offered in other countries and accounting for inflation. Now, if the Dassault and EADS bids are significantly higher than what the benchmarked costs are, then procedurally two things can be done (and these will likely be as per procedure only)- one is to either scrap the final shortlist and invite the rejected OEMs to also submit their bids or to just negotiate with Dassault/EADS and try to arrive at a mutually acceptable price.

So what are the benchmark costs for a deal like this? Obviously, the planes of non-qualifying bidders did not meet performance requirements so those can´t be used as the compative basis, nor can the price of Grob trainers. Rafale doesn´t have any exports, though you could use the latest French purchases (though that is from the government which funded all R&D, which should reduce the price vs. a commercial sale to India, hypothetically). EF exports are a Tranche 1 with no multi-role capabilities to Austria, and a multi-role non-AESA Typhoon to Saudi Arabia… What India wants is more advanced (and thus should be more pricey), but I have a hard time believing that EF hasn´t offered India a better price than Saudi Arabia payed BAE. So I just don´t see much basis in the idea that the MoF will come up with some base-line cost that will strike out BOTH Eurfighter and Rafale. F-16 isn´t equivalently capable (that is why it was rejected) and can´t be a basis for any price comparison.

Saab is the only vendor who stook around to be played by the Norwegian Air Force tender, so the fact they are still sticking around and advertising in India doesn´t mean much to me.

BAM can operate NH-90 size helos and make more than 8000 nm at 15 n.
No doubt that L’Adroit will excel in a lot of missions, but for others (like anti-piracy along Somaly costs) seems a bit small an shortlegged. In that sense BAM are in the league of Floreals (but with a crew of 35-50)

L’Adroit is representative of the medium variant DCNS plans for the Gowind family…
I believe the largest one is planned to be 2500 tons, pretty much on par with the BAM.
They also have a range of 8000nm, so it´s not so much that they are short legged, as they are a bit slower.
They´re also touted as being able to handle a ´10 ton helo´, so NH90 seems potentially do-able,
though that may preclude also boarding a UAV like the Camcopter (at least in the small/medium versions).
Obviously, Navantia is already experienced with exactly that niche, while it remains on paper with the Gowind family.
One does wonder if the MN finds funds to actually procure this class, exactly what displacement they would prefer…

Another thing about the V2500 is how it will be stacking up against the Il-214 with PD-14 engines that is pretty much shooting for the same development schedule. AFAIK, there is no air-tanker version of Il-214/MTA being planned, and I believe KC-390`s cargo hold is a bit wider, but for it`s main job the Ilyushin should be very attractive to anybody who would consider it in the first place. Realistically, the lion`s share of either market isn`t competitive between them, but I`m sure there are some countries who would have to starkly decide whether they need air tanking from their transport planes (and extra payload room and weight) vs. cheaper planes with more efficient engines.

That’s kind of because China doesn’t release any info about the under development aircraft (and ships) they have going so they let their enthusiasm out a bit.

That´s definitely a factor, I agree…

I just don`t see 1/10th the amount of photoshop jobs from/about non-Chinese jets.
It`s a very internet phenomena obviously, leveraging the lowest common denominator ideas of what is `most advanced` (US tech) and applying those features as if on a checklist to show some imaginary `super jet` (by this rubric). Who knows, perhaps it is some plan by the ultra-patriot types to convince the world that they are low-brow hacks, so that real leaks are ignored along with the trash.

Personally, I don`t see much difference to China`s real development programs (except the being real part). I find a program like Tejas much more compelling, even if it isn`t meant to be competitive with `top notch platforms, because there is real innovation going on, aerodynamically for example.

Levsha, your whole engagement here smells rather of trolling… Why must this thread be diverted to teh C-17 and one´s opinion of how it compares to Il-76 within various time-frames/perspective? You seemed to object to C-17 not being listed on the posted graph for some reason… It seemed obvious to me that the point of the graph was comparing the comparative cargo capacities of the pictured planes, with C-130 being included more as a base-line. Including C-17 would only have made the differences between those platforms harder to discern… Maybe let´s just all agree to drop it? Or start a C-17 thread if you really want to…