>>64238091 (OP)
Looks like a 70s design but that's not a bad thing, we should keep the NATO hardware superiority but also have a shitty cardboard plane like that just on case. A kinda pipegun of planes. That seems to be useful in attrition wars
>>64238115
Technically it is a 70s design. Lots of Chinese planes were designed in the 70s-80s (except the latest stealth fighters) but they couldn't be materialized until the 90s-00s because of a lack of technology that couldn't be imported from the outside and China had to develop from the ground up.
>>64238091 (OP)
I admire the fact that they were srunning and brave enough to put out a late 70s/1980s design in the mid-90s. Imagine this shit or the Mirage 2000D competing with the F-15E and Su-34
>>64238231
I hate to break this down to you but there's nothing particularly special about neither the f-15e not the su-34. well the su-34 has the pilots sitting side by side but that's to save money