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.

RD-93 engine is the only positive thing in JF-17 that give it fighter like characteristic of acceleration/climb rates. otherwise it is low g and low airframe hrs fighter.

The Saudis have agreed that at least nos. 25 to 48, & possibly 49 to 72, should be assembled in the UK. BAe has been assembling aircraft past no. 24 for some time, & IIRC some have been delivered to & accepted by the Saudis. The Saudis have been making payments towards the cost of UK assembly. From what I’ve gleaned, it looks as if the areas not yet settled are exactly how much the Saudis should pay BAe for the assembly work which was scheduled to be done in SA but is now being done by BAe in the UK, exactly what spec, & at what price, the last 24 will be (they may be delivered to a higher spec than originally contracted for) & some stuff about the Saudi assembly plant, which is now supposed to be completed as a maintenance facility.

Agreed but at what price? price is big problem . they are going to lose $400m of profits in 2013 alone without new price.
infact that Saudi deals have very negative impact on UAE.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/10529382/David-Camerons-Typhoon-debacle-a-sign-of-Britains-declining-Arabian-influence.html

Once in a time, I nave to agree with JSC: most likely duties for RuAF’s tankers will be related either to low intensity conflicts around CIS’ borders or in support of contingency limited deployments for disaster relief missions or, last but not least, to support SOF operations, none of them requiring very large tankers and instead requiring a distributed network of medium tankers.

Distributed network means ability to maintain operations in two or three different geographic regions simultaneously.
One is Middleast. see the permanent presence of Navy. IL-478 based tanker is sufficient for that task. second will be Arctic. rough field performance and short take off very important. All other aircraft are simply uncompetitive and unworkable solutions.

On the contrary, the tanker force is a primary component of a nations ability to project force, unless you discount pretty much every major conflict since the Falklands war.

Falkland war was in past. Any airforce that can afford so many tankers can practically afford all other capabilities like seizing landing strip.
Tanker force is not primary component unless you built airforce deliberately around short range fighters. There is long range cruise missiles, nuclear subs with permanent presence, bombers etc.
Infact in future subsonic UCAV and subsonic bombers will have greater range.
I would rather prefer 100 IL-478 than 40 A330MRT same price. as 100 IL-478 can be geographically more distributed. that’s huge advantage. Pilots get more rest from repeated long sorties. there is no point of more than 12hr operation. infact Fighters like Su-34/Su-35 you can only refuel one time each way realistically after that it will become too many hours of flight.

Yup, past Soviet/Russian doctrine basically left out the KC-135’s part of the tanker spectrum. It is only quite recently that a substantial part of their tactical aircraft fleet even became capable of receiving fuel in flight and this development was in no small part export driven. When the USSR fell apart, there were a grand total of two such types in their air force inventory (the Su-24M and late-model MiG-31s) and both these sit at the “strategic end of the tactical spectrum” (as opposed to the Su-25, MiG-27, MiG-29 and Su-27), if you will. Next, there came a number of export-oriented efforts, most notably to cure the severe range-deficiency of the MiG-29 which hampered its utility to any customer that deviated even slightly from its rather specific operational role. Even quite recently, the Russian air force was taking delivery of Su-27SMs, complete with off-set IRST but still lacking refueling probes! The corollary of this primarily strategic task is that the much misinterpreted rough field capability of the Midas is likely entirely coincidental – it would use the same infrastructure and basing as the strategic bomber fleet and I don’t think an Il-96 would have trouble operating anywhere a Tu-95 or Tu-160 could.

IMHO, the only reason they do not already operate an “Extenderski” is that at the time when the platform for what would become the Il-78 was selected, the Il-76 was in fact the closest thing to a DC-10 their aerospace industry could muster – not that there is anything special about the Candid airframe that would make it preferable to a more conventional tanker. Finally, quite apart from Russia’s own requirements, it is pretty clear the Il-96 would be much closer to what the export market demands. Case in point, all of the three largest potential customers for a tanker variant of the Il-476 are now looking elsewhere – China will likely go straight to a Y-20 derivative to increase self-sufficiency, India has already ordered the A330MRTT and there are indications that Algeria will eventually do the same.

India hasn’t ordered A330 yet. It is still debating its higher price. Any airforce that orders high price A330 will definitely see cuts everywhere else in capabilities. tanker is not some thing you want to put a lot of capital expenditure.

No JSR you can’t change your tune now, you were wrong and back peddling won’t change that. You were stating clearly that the Czech republic has no experience with engines and transmissions. Not only that you were effectively saying it was almost totally not industrialised. You have been shown to be wrong in all respects, the Czech republic is a very well established industrial nation. It is well known that Tatra has struggled over the years as your Google-fu attempt shows, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are producing engines and transmissions now. Also I notice you studiously avoid talking about Czech success in the automotive industry or Skoda heavy. Inconvenient for your narrative that isn’t it. Now we can argue the toss over the influence of Soviet era R&D but the fact is the Czech republic is a major exporter of equipment right now.

Oh the fun of showing up JSR and his Myopic world view.

so It is 2nd tier manufacturer and even that needs external supply chain for finished product. most of indigenous products are pre cold war era. so how it can be classified modern industrialized. Industrialzed does not mean assembly.

Don’t know who this Fedykin is, you on the other hand haven’t got a clue about anything.

By the way the Czech republic is famous for engines and transmissions as well. Skoda, Skoda Heavy (ship engines/transmissions) and Tatra just name a few all do it. As for the L159 critical components as you say, none were on any form of restricted list in respect of Iraq as far as I am aware. Sorry I realise these are things that can be difficult for you to grasp with your myopic RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA world view.

I don’t know why you keep bringing this up. it is some past things they made that were very simpler in R&D and supply chain.

http://www.opinicus-sro.com/Tatra-et-son-futur-en-point-d
An old company having great trouble adapting itself to modernity

That’s a bad analogy to make regarding the development of avionics and microelectronics among the various different countries. I read somewere that the latest Flankers to enter Russian AF service Su-30SM are fitted with Indian designed (and produced?) mission computers. I believe the ‘back end’ of the SM’s radar is essentially Indian?

That deal with half is barely few million dollars. It is highly likely it is. Outdated compared to Su-35/su-34 systems so may not be viable to manufacture small production run.