COIN aircraft export restrictions

Greetings,

I think that everyone here has at least once heard or read about a country imposing export restrictions on an aircraft. So, seeing how the AT-6 Wolverine has been having kind of a hard time getting an export order and how some people have wondered how much weight State Department restrictions had on it, I’m now curious about what kind of export restrictions some of the COIN aircraft on the market and in development might face in comparison to a AT-6.

To start off, here a list of a few COIN aircraft:
OV-10 Bronco, USA
IA-58 Pucará, Argentina
Beechcraft AT-6, USA
Pilatus PC-7 and PC-9, Switzerland
Embraer Super Tucano (both Brazilian- and US-built), Brazil
TAI Hürkus, Turkey
KAI KA-1 Woongbi, South Korea
Air Tractor AT-802U, USA
UTVA Kobac, Serbia
UTVA Lasta 95N, Serbia
Cessna AC-208 Combat Caravan, USA
AHRLAC, South Africa

All these aircraft also include components sourced from another country, which might lead to further restrictions from that country depending on the type of components (think engine vs. weapon systems) or just politics in general.

An example of this is the Super Tucano has US-made components and how the USA was able to prevent them from being sold to Venezuela in the past. However, the US seems to be very selective with their restrictions and impositions, because while you might see them not opposing the sale of the Super Tucano to some African and Middle Eastern countries (mainly in the past), it actually appears that they would oppose the sale of an aircraft like the AT-6 to those same countries. From the top of my head I can think of a few reasons for this difference in policy:
1. AT-6 has more US content than the Super Tucano or any another foreign competitor;
2. AT-6 has more advanced combat systems (i.e. the Lockheed Martin mission computer that is also used on the A-10C) or at least more vital systems (avionics or combat systems);
3. The fact that the AT-6 is an American “brand” and, as such, it’s impossible to hide the fact that the US approved its sale;
4. To prevent the foreign company from thinking that replacing US-made components is worth it and, as such, continue to be involved in any deals involving that aircraft.

As for the other aircraft, we have the Turkish Hürkus which aims to almost entirely use Turkish-developed and -made components and the South Korean KA-1 which also uses a lot of locally supplied content.
One would at least think that these aircraft would be less vulnerable to US politics than the AT-6 and Super Tucano.

Meanwhile we have the South African AHRLAC which just recently decided to choose Boeing to develop its mission systems. To me that seems like a sure way to reduce that aircraft’s list of possible customers.

What’s your feedback on this and do you know any good examples of restrictions being imposed on aircraft capable of performing COIN and light attacks missions?

Cheers,