IMO, no matter which fighter is chosen, re-export of any part would not be an issue for the time being. Individual countries might express their bruised egos by asking for extra money for whatever parts they are supplying-unless they are compensated in some other way-but that would be about it. As for the future, thats anyone’s guess. Geopolitical situations can and do change.

I dont know how people can equate let alone compare NG and MK.2. NG is already flying & its specs are known. As for MK.2 we dont even know for sure what changes it would include-only guesses. MK.1 needs an uprated engine. Why? Gripen C/D is considered amongst the best out there, has MTOW around 14k, and yet uses the same engine-have you heard of any issue. Sure MK.2 might shed some weight. But what of IFR, IRST, extra HPs, physical strengthning for ^MTOW. Wouldnt that add weight? So let MK.2 fly first.

Converted mirages can be used as decoys but not for effective A2A against a 5G plane. Remember the first requirement of BVR-Detect. Due to its bigger RCS, before a mirage like drone gets through detection, identification, speed/alt, an enemy missile would probably have already hit it. To take on a 5G plane effectively any UCAV would need to have almost as low RCS-read LO design, structuraj materials, internal bays etc, all of which means EXPENSIVE R&D and unit price. Now A2G is probably easier. But not A2A.

^^Even if we assume it to be externally controlled, to win over a 5G machine in BVR, it would have to be equally stealthy, be able to use supercruise-for increased endurance-etc. All this would require 5G techs-design, composites, engine etc-which would be prohibitively pricey. Considering recent chinese 5G progress, PLAAF is also likely to have similar political obstacles as in the west. And i cant imagine a private company taking such a risky multi bill dollar project even with PAF-read bad pak economy.

PLA-MKII, although the idea of a UCAV force for PAF is interesting, IMHO its a non-starter. Lack of finances. I, once, argued for something similar for IAF instead of MCA. And even though GOI has much greater financial resources, a much bigger computational & other R&D base, even with the support of a western company i recognised it a high risk approach and would only become operational around 2035 or so. An autonomous UCAV would not only require many 5G features but it would take decades for AI to mature.

A ? Though question persist & will do so for time to come, i think right NOW most would agree that there is SOME/MORE substance to china’s 5G fighter project than-lets say-before the release of these pics. But my question is not about that substance. Rather what is the chinese motivation? The release of these pics & their pace is mind boggling-surely they could have kept it under wraps-when compared with other defence projects. So what’s different this time?

Any theories?:-)

Just wondering if the chinese are trying to meet some end of the year deadline?

Calm down guys…please. And get back to the topic of the thread.
As for saudis funding PAF’s erieye programme, who knows. But unless there is more info. on this, we have to consider it as unproven claim by a journalist. Period.