With the latest news.. the Golden Eagle will be flying with four air forces, with over 80 built so far. Although its a trainer, all of the export customers have ordered the combat version
the jf-17, about 50-60 built and in service with just Pakistan.

I could argue that the JF-17 is the the better performing aircraft with greater potential for combat roles, less restrictions than KAI, but what has been limiting its export success?
why Koreans can, and Chinastan can’t?

Not sure it’s accurate to say T-50 has been more successful. More T-50s have been built because the South Koreans acquired them for their needs. Total export to date is 10 delivered to Indonesia, while China has exported 50 to Pakistan. Although the T-50 currently has more operators, total numbers ordered so far still fall well short of projected builds for PAF. Also the Indonesian and Iraqi orders are all trainer/light attack versions.

Having said that the T-50’s American engines and western avionics makes it attractive for those looking for a stepping stone to more sophisticated western aircraft down the road. JF-17’s Russian engine is a significant handicap.

I just plain disagree with all the anti B-70 posts. Look logically at a couple of facts. The SR-71 was NEVER shot down by missles, even tho fired at several thousand times. SAMs are short range, and the B-70 would run them out of fuel before they could get to the B-70. Also we are still flying the B-52 as a viable weapon system. So tell me if the AF thinks a B-52 flying at 45,000 feet and 600 mph, why wouldnt a B-70 flying at 80,000 feet and mach 3 be more surviable? Remember these days a B-52 does not fly directly over the target, they stand off and fire weapons at the target hundreds of miles away. A B-70 would do the same thing except higher and faster and closer, and still be able to get away.

I contend that an enemy would have to fill their country with SAM sites every 10 miles all over the country to be able to shoot down a B-70. So many sites that a country would go broke doing so.

Is this a world where budget constraints only the enemy and is unlimited for your side? To afford one squadron of B-70s you may have to scrap seven squadrons of B-52s. Buying a big fleet of B-70s would deprive other critical systems like cruise missiles and submarines of their funding.

Lastly a MIG-25 was mentioned, as the USSR response to the B-70. When one was handed over to us in Japan, it was found out that it was so poor quality there was a placard on the panel that said “dont exceed mach 2.8”. Also its maneuverablity was in question. So how was a plane that was much slower and less maneuverable going to shoot down the B-70?

The MiG-25 has peacetime speed limitations which would be ignored in wartime. And a bomber interceptor hardly needs much maneuverability. One must also keep in mind had the B-70 gone into service it would’ve driven further investment in interceptors and SAMs in ways the unarmed SR-71 did not.

Switching to low altitude and stand off attack was a brilliant solution against a Soviet defense network that was over specialized with high altitude. It saved money by using existing platforms. The Soviets had a huge problem responding, and it took a lot of money and time to develop new systems to solve. In the end that was one of the things that DID bankrupt them. So I don’t buy your argument McNamara should’ve spend more money on riskier projects to do a job that was accomplished without it.

So there is the theory that the UCAV uses an afterburning engine to help it on a carrier, but why else would they do it?

I won’t go so far as to say its wrong, but it certainly looks out of place with the rest of the design. How about they wanted to get the system up in the air but lacked an engine small enough to give it enough power so opted for the after burning beast in order to get flight rials underway?

Don’t shout at me…..

Maybe the afterburner acts like ballast the way the Tornado first flew with a concrete bloc in place of radar.

Hmm J85 engines, el cheapo midget fighter, asymmetric warfare concept. Are you pitching to Iran or what?

Su-35 and J-10B would make for a good hi-lo mix, or perhaps a step lower in the form of MiG-35 and JF-17. A diversified mix is desirable to limit the impact of future supply disruptions — western sources are out of the question. Ok, maybe accept some hand-me-down F-16s like Iraq as part of some diplo deal for the cameras, but don’t spend too much on them, don’t rely on them for air intercept, and back them up with non-western aircraft too.

MiG-35 and JF-17 is a smart short term fix. Maybe J-31 at some point.

Iran has an urgent need to replace it’s Boeing 707 tankers as well. Not sure who would sell them any.

How can anyone dogfight in a F-106? It’s forward view is worse than the rear view of most fighters.

Pretty sure the Egyptian army has shot at least as many protestors by now and yet no one is even considering an embargo. But I digress…

In terms of American arms sells, those would come to an end with or without the massacre. In the post-Cold War world US had no further use of arming the Chinese against the Soviets. They would slow walk and then slap an unofficial embargo on China in the end. The formal embargo itself was useful in so far as getting the Europeans to comply. The only sales from the US would probably involve dual use machines for the civilian market, ala more Blackhawks, possibly Chinooks.

The French were the big losers in this. Mirage 2000 was high priority for the PLAAF. Aerospatiale would possibly license the Puma along with the other choppers they already licensed. I could see interest in the Breguet Atlantic and Scorpene class subs. Who knows China might have been a buyer of the Airbus A300 MRTT. They would at least look into the possibility of buying Rafaels instead of building J-15s for their carrier.

This may be a bit OT but I was just thinking the F-5 is such a excellent design, I can’t understand why a scaled up one was never tried (beyond the F-20). The J-8 was basically an enlarged MiG-21, why couldn’t someone, say the Iranians do this with the F-5? The powerplants could be Tumansky R-13s or Chinese equivalents which would be easy to find on the global market, maybe upgrade to RD-33 turbofans at some point. A GSh-30-1 would fit nicely in the nose.