I think about it the other way around.

Whoever operates the C-27J, could have little or no interest to induct a wholly new type, when opting for the C-130J you benefit from a large logistical commonality with the existing C-27J.

Present and former users of old C-130, An-12 and so on, are the most likely customer for the KC-390, trading some rough airstrips capabilities for a native dual role transport/tanker and a more capable cargo compartment.

speaking of logistical commonality.

this airplane would be most likely be leveraged off E170/190 technology.

We should also remember that Shenyang is (probably, if what has been mucking around on the internet for the past few months is to be believed) developing some sort of single engine fifth generation light fighter aircaft program. This may be better suited for export than the J-20 but of course this would depend if this was real or not.

to shed some light.

Shenyang lost the heavies competition (theirs was a tri-surface proposal) and now is concentrating on J-15, i.e. putting Flanker on Varyag.
they have proposed a twin engined mid sized alternative trying to sell to the navy. as a follow on to J-15. but no luck so far.

oh they are in some tough days now. seeing their once protege (Chengdu was once a spin-off of Shenyang) beating them and almost dominating the fighter market.

Nearly all of today’s combat aircraft, so called 4, 4.5, 5th generation aircraft combine the roles of “bomber, fighter and intercepter” in the very same aircraft – even the F-22 can carry out a strike mission. The F-4 was a successful multirole aircraft 45 years ago…

multirole is fine with me, the question is always cost.
F-16 is designed as a good air to air fighter. but for most of its missions it dropped bombs.
same with F-4, F-4 was designed to intercept russian bombers stalking CVs, but most of its combat missions were in Vietnam dropping napalms and tangle with Mig-17s.
now if we really designed a fighter-bomber that tailored to what it eventually did, then one would need much less of it and the requirement would drive less cost.

You’re comparing Sixties technology with today’s – there was no such thing as relaxed stability ‘fly-by-wire’ in the F-111’s day.

no, I am talking about squeezing all the requirement into a single platform and its associated cost.

the cost of develope a bomber, a interceptor and a fighter. is not same as a develope a single platform that can do all three.

some times it is less, some times it is more.

people,
get serious here.

as far as 5th generation manned fighter goes.
US (Lockheed Martin) basically operate in a captive market here.
So is PAK-FA.

there is no real point to talk about export orders PAK-FA vs J20.

all the traditional chinese weapons export can fall into two categories.
1) 60-70s export to allied 3rd world countries fighting their wars of liberations. and..
2) 80s-90s defense plants to make some cash to support their grossly underfunded military industrial complex.
with sprinklings of 3). support traditional allies.

the urge to do 1) is gone. the urge to do 2) is still there but only in those smaller organization in the periphery of core-military industrial complex (big ship builders, tanks, and jets) and 3) still there, but NK,MY, and Iran axis of evil etc, will not get the goodies west presume china will give to them.

some one mentioned sukhoi sets up SSJ and nice package etc. neat.
well, sukhoi does not provide the complete infrastructure package.
we are not talking about commerical jets plus fighters combo.
we are talking about complete turn key solution to your infrastructure needs:
4G telecom, Fiber backbones, High speed and freight rail. rail stations, Ports, ships, Airports, subways link them to urban core, power plants , Roads, highways, regional jets that lands on those airports, A320 size 919s. A330 size 929s. all the way down to the trinckets they sell at airports. all backed up with below prime loan backed up by your country’s resource rights.

Royal Dutch Shell has nothing on these guys!

oh those evil chinese, oh terror. why couldn’t they just sell weapons of war like some!

ATF studies started in 1970…

F-23 probably had more weight yes, but refined aerodynamics.

actually i am a big fan of YF23.

it’s shame that the platform wasn’t developed fully to its potentials.

….

actually one the the proposal was very close to YF23 in idea: speed range stealth over manueverbility.

You made no such point. Instead, you opined about what a fighter-bomber might do if attacked. Now you have changed direction and are opining about what an escort fighter might do. Which is it?

You did, however, offer an opinion about F-4 vs F-104 high altitude combat that you have yet to explain.

context.

sens mentioned that A/G determines where in the enevelope A/A engagement will be. I simply offered that only determines the one side’s initial starting point in the envelope.

F-104 was a better energy fighter at high speed and altitudes, than comparable F-4s. do you require me to dig out charts?

I see you have a F-104 patch as your avatar. did you drive a star fighter?

I did some work with some one who was intimately involved in F-4.