China Flanker Thread II

[HKSDU]

This is just unnecessary obfuscation. Whether the designation of "A" and "B" are official is COMPLETELY irrelevant. The A version is the one under contract that China is legally able to license produce. The B iteration is the "indigenous" version which uses the stolen intellectual property of the Sukhoi company to manufacture a modified aircraft that is more suited to PLAAF's current requirements. That you are even arguing about this is simply astonishing to me.


What makes you think I don't know the actual story behind it? Don't put words in my mouth. What does the fact that the J-11A contract wasn't finished have anything to do with anything? Again, this is just noise rather than signal. If China didn't want to build all 200 J-11A's, that's its own business. What's NOT its business is to then take the intellectual property of Sukhoi, modify it without permission, and make several hundred more aircraft. The Israeli F-15 example is completely irrelevant. The Israelis are not building additional F-15's, modified or not. The Chinese ARE building modified Su-27's in the form of the J-11B. Just because you add your own components doesn't mean you somehow acquire the right to use the Sukhoi design, tweak it, and then call it your own.


So according to you as long as the sum total of J-11A's + J-11B's = 200 or less, China is legit? What's the likelihood of J-11B production being less than 200? Probably zero. There are already probably that many J-11B's in service, being certified, or on the production lines, with many more to come, to speak nothing of J-11A's that have been flying around for years.

China stole Russian intellectual property. It's kind of shameful that you people are trying so hard to make it not so. You would be the same ones sh&tting bricks if China gave license production of the J-10 to Pakistan, who then decided to modify the design out of contract and produce 500 more on its own without permission.

The designation just J-11 is the one given for the Su-27SK license production, adding B as you said and everyone knows is the Chinese modified variant of the J-11. If you feel that the designation is pointless then F-15 and F-15E are then the same thing, which it isn't. It makes a lot of difference saying the J-11 is illegal copy, compared to saying J-11B is illegal copy. When one is completely under license. When people say J-11 is an illegal copy that statement isn't correct, if they say J-11B yes then maybe so.

What words did I put in your mouth, my statements are question asking you to go further and prove your arguments. Emphasis the ? after each statement, in english this ? means a question. Putting words into your mouth is "you said this/you claimed this" without ?

No need for that kind of language in this forum. Its not about picking a side, or being Chinese supporter its about learning and distinguishing from all the international nonsense BS media.

So you expect China to continue to manufacture the Su-27SK with its obsolete package from 90's? Even the proposed Russian upgrade kits weren't even up to standard, with the initial Flankers that were sold to both India and China had to be sent back cause of issues. So if India wants to attach some items onto their license Su-30MKI and then give it and add on letter to distinguish it from the orginal one produced to the add on alter one, its a violation to agreement or illegal copy?

Going back further one has to look at both sides of the picture instead of the side who's issuing the China only copies. This would be single minded and taking a side.

Until China produces more than 200, exports, claims as new design which is their own fighter instead of saying "a chinese modernize flanker."

To add onto plawolf India Su-30MKI statements from

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. "HAL also expects that total indigenisation of the SU-30MKI program will be in 2010. V. Balakrishnan, general manager of the Aircraft Manufacturing Division stated that “HAL will achieve 100 per cent indigenisation of the Sukhoi aircraft — from the production of raw materials to the final plane assembly." Same contract agreement as the J-11 indigenize the aircraft.

 

[cloyce]

China stole Russian intellectual property. It's kind of shameful that you people are trying so hard to make it not so. You would be the same ones sh&tting bricks if China gave license production of the J-10 to Pakistan, who then decided to modify the design out of contract and produce 500 more on its own without permission.

There is not such a thing like Intellectual Porperty or Copyright when applied to military industry. This is not WTO.
Everyone can copy each other if they feel capable of it.

The russians are not that good either concerning the respect of contracts.

 

[ZTZ99]

And you would know this because you saw the original contract?

If not, kindly stop trying to pass off your own opinion as fact.

The fact is that the licensing agreement has always stated that there would be an ever increasing share of Chinese made components used in the aircraft, and the Russians never had any problem with that until the J11B came out.

"The breakthrough in engine manufacturing technology allowed China to increase its share of domestically developed components and technologies from 70-75% to over 90%," the newspaper cited an official from the Russian state-controlled arms exporter, Rosoboronexport, as saying."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The use of demostically made parts will begin after the first 60 are assembled using Russian kits and eventually 60-70% of the parts will be manufactured in China

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That means the original license agreement allowed China to add their own domestically made components onto the Russian designed airframe so there is blatantly no breach of the original contract.

The only reason the Russians are trying to make a problem now is because of they fear that the J11B is superior to their own latest flanker derivative and so might take their diminishing share of the world fighter market were it ever offered for sale. But since China has neither exceeded the original contracted production numbers nor offered any J11 version for export, China has done nothing wrong.



Again you make guesses and assumptions and pass them off as fact.

China signed a license agreement with Russia that allows China to manufacture 200 Su27 airframes with increasing Chinese components as I have already established. The deal was for the airframes and never included engines or radar as Russia did not allow those technologies to be transfered. Thus China continuing to manufacture the airframes when the original contracted number has not been reached is in no way a breach. And since the original contract clearly allowed Chinese components to be used in the J11s, putting Chinese made engines and radars on the airframes is no breach either.



And you are resorting to down right lies here.

Where are these 'several hundred more aircraft' you claim China has made?



SAC is still building J11s because they still hold the license to build more. Its in their contract and perfectly legal for them to continue to do so until the 200 units limit has been reached.

And since when has China ever claimed that the J11 was Chinese designed? More lies.



And you of course have proof that there are 'already more the 200 J11s'?



Keep repeating something will never make it true.

China purchase the production license to the Su27 airframe so there was nothing 'stolen'. The fact that all this BS is about China putting in completely indigenous components makes it ever more ridiculous that anyone can claim that China is violating Russian IP.

Russia never had a problem with China making Su27s using knock down kits while gradually increasing the percentage of components made in China. They even sent people over to help teach SAC how to make some of the components. That was fine, but as soon as China puts in Chinese designed engines and radar onto the airframe it becomes a violation of IP? Do you even understand what the concept of IP is? As your argument has it entirely backwards.

Duplicating Russian tech without permission is violation of IP. Replacing Russian made components with entirely indigenously designed ones is not. At the very most the Russians can claim that such unauthorized mods would void any warranty. But that's hardly a violation of IP.

This is the most laughably indefensible post I've seen yet. Your whole argument hinges on the hope that China does not produce more than 200 J-11A's and J-11B's. That's a joke for an aircraft that the PLAAF plans to use as the backbone of its current and near future capabilities. Not only that, unfortunately for you the contract calls for the purchase of 200 aircraft kits, not just the license to produce 200 aircraft. The contract also stipulates that AT LEAST 30% of the parts come from Russia, NOT 30% of the 'technology'. As we all know, after about 100 J-11A's were produced, China stopped taking deliveries of the kits and suspended the contract (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

). That means every J-11 produced after that date is built out of contract and thus in violation of contract. And while you may have had hope to weasel '30%' out of the AL-31F engines in the past, you no longer have that hope with the advent of the WS-10A. The J-11B is essentially a fully domestic, contract-violating aircraft that constitutes a theft of Sukhoi intellectual property. You denying the facts a thousand times doesn't make it not so.

 

[Maggern]

J-11: Locally assembled Su-27 kits
J-11A: Pure indigenized copy of Su-27/J-11
J-11B: Much improved version of J-11A (purely Chinese jet at this point)

No?

 

[plawolf]

This is the most laughably indefensible post I've seen yet. Your whole argument hinges on the hope that China does not produce more than 200 J-11A's and J-11B's. That's a joke for an aircraft that the PLAAF plans to use as the backbone of its current and near future capabilities.

What a joke. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that China will exceed the 200 unit limit. Your future telling aside, you have zero evidence to support your claim that China is in breach of any contract with Russia.

Not only that, unfortunately for you the contract calls for the purchase of 200 aircraft kits, not just the license to produce 200 aircraft. The contract also stipulates that AT LEAST 30% of the parts come from Russia, NOT 30% of the 'technology'.

So have you read the contract then? Because I never heard of this supposed 30% requirement anywhere before. Or is this yet another example of you trying to pass off your own assumptions off as fact by taking the 70% figure from my link and assuming there is some sort of contractual requirement for China to use 30% Russian made parts?

As we all know, after about 100 J-11A's were produced, China stopped taking deliveries of the kits and suspended the contract (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

). That means every J-11 produced after that date is built out of contract and thus in violation of contract. And while you may have had hope to weasel '30%' out of the AL-31F engines in the past, you no longer have that hope with the advent of the WS-10A. The J-11B is essentially a fully domestic, contract-violating aircraft that constitutes a theft of Sukhoi intellectual property.

Your argument is about as ridiculous as your link. China has never offered Pakistan J11s and you need to show a contractual requirement for China to buy Russian kits or have a minimum amount of Russian components in the planes. Otherwise your claims of contract violation is nothing more then BS.

You denying the facts a thousand times doesn't make it not so.

Lol, for someone who seems to care so much about IP you certainly had no problem ripping off my earlier words.

 

[lilzz]

The J-11B is essentially a fully domestic, contract-violating aircraft that constitutes a theft of Sukhoi intellectual property.

Can you give an example if Sukhoi trying to sue China's SAC, where would the court being held?

Talking of IP protection is useless when there's No enforceable court system.

1)Suing in Russia? SAC is not selling anything in Russia SAC would care less.
2)Suing in China? lol, China court probably throw it out.

WIndow OS being copied alot of places in the world, but microsoft can't do anything, because there's no enforceable system.

The only teeth microsoft will have is when on US soil, suing a company that's operating in US for infringing on microsoft on US soil...

Like I said before, SAC is not selling in Russia therefore, it's NOT enforceable, it's useless talk about IP theft in this case.

Even if SAC has stolen and continue to steal alot IP from Suhkoil in the future, Nothing will happen.

 

[ZTZ99]

What a joke. Your entire argument is based on the assumption that China will exceed the 200 unit limit. Your future telling aside, you have zero evidence to support your claim that China is in breach of any contract with Russia.

You're right, I'm "future telling". We both know you have only a limited time to gloat, but when the PLAAF stands up its 200th J-11, I will remember to stuff this thread down your throat. I may even be merciful and wait until the 300th J-11 rolls onto the tarmac. You may cream your pants all you want now, but to be honest we both know what the future holds for the J-11 series, don't we?

So have you read the contract then? Because I never heard of this supposed 30% requirement anywhere before. Or is this yet another example of you trying to pass off your own assumptions off as fact by taking the 70% figure from my link and assuming there is some sort of contractual requirement for China to use 30% Russian made parts?

Nobody except the direct parties involved have laid eyes on the contract, so don't be stupid about it. The evidence we have is from 2nd hand sources. Like FAS, for example.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And I quote:

The total cost of the contract is $1.5 billion, including $650 million for technical documents and $850 million for parts, instruments and equipment provided by Komsomolsk-on-Amur Aviation Enterprise imeni Yuriy Gagarin [KnAAPO], which is to deliver around 30 percent of all completing parts for 200 Chinese SU-27SK jets.

Your argument is about as ridiculous as your link. China has never offered Pakistan J11s and you need to show a contractual requirement for China to buy Russian kits or have a minimum amount of Russian components in the planes. Otherwise your claims of contract violation is nothing more then BS.

Who said anything about Pakistan buying J-11's? If you can't even read my posts correctly, you should have the common sense to shut up. The contractual requirement to buy 200 Russian kits is well known and your denial of it is ludicrous. The contractual requirement to buy 30% Russian parts has been demonstrated.

 

[optionsss]

The J-11B is essentially a fully domestic, contract-violating aircraft that constitutes a theft of Sukhoi intellectual property.

I am sorry, change part suppliers does not constitute as IP right infringement. You cannot claim that a whole airplane is your IP, what you can do is actually copyright or patent certain design features. I seriously doubt that Sukhoi did any of that, and the exterior design feature is available through public domain. In addition, Sukhoi certainly did not invent things like EBW.

So, China did not break any law by just borrowing previous available design ideas. This actually happens all the time, just look at some of the new IFVs.

 

[tphuang]

This is the most laughably indefensible post I've seen yet. Your whole argument hinges on the hope that China does not produce more than 200 J-11A's and J-11B's. That's a joke for an aircraft that the PLAAF plans to use as the backbone of its current and near future capabilities. Not only that, unfortunately for you the contract calls for the purchase of 200 aircraft kits, not just the license to produce 200 aircraft. The contract also stipulates that AT LEAST 30% of the parts come from Russia, NOT 30% of the 'technology'. As we all know, after about 100 J-11A's were produced, China stopped taking deliveries of the kits and suspended the contract (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

). That means every J-11 produced after that date is built out of contract and thus in violation of contract. And while you may have had hope to weasel '30%' out of the AL-31F engines in the past, you no longer have that hope with the advent of the WS-10A. The J-11B is essentially a fully domestic, contract-violating aircraft that constitutes a theft of Sukhoi intellectual property. You denying the facts a thousand times doesn't make it not so.

most articles I've seen on Russian websites haven't been accurate. And this Indian article is based on that, so your source really isn't good.

As for your point, I don't know of anything in the original contract that stipulated 30% of content from Russia.
If you read sinodefence's passage on this:
"In 1992, China became the first non-CIS country to operate the Sukhoi Su-27 fighter. In 1995, Russian agreed in principle to allow the PRC to build the Su-27SK single-seat fighter locally under license. In 1996, Sukhoi Company (JSC) and SAC entered into a contract worth US$2.5 billion for the co-production of 200 Su-27SK fighters as the J-11. Under the terms of the agreement, Sukhoi/KnAAPO would supply the aircraft in kit form to be assembled in SAC. It was reported that Russia also agreed to help the PRC gradually increase the portion of Chinese-made content on the J-11, so that SAC could eventually produce the aircraft independently."
As far as I understood it, China could try to produce more and more domestically until it is capable of producing all. This is consistent with all of China's other industries' TOT contracts. This is consistent with the one that Russia signed with India for Su-30MKI. So in this case, China has reached close to 100% indigenization.

As for your argument that China will produce more than 200 flankers. That may happen, but it has not reached that point. And China is certainly more than capable of negotiating for more licenses once it reaches that point.

Nobody except the direct parties involved have laid eyes on the contract, so don't be stupid about it. The evidence we have is from 2nd hand sources. Like FAS, for example. J-11 [Su-27 FLANKER] China Aircraft Special Weapons Delivery Systems

you are using fas, which no self-respecting PLA followers should be using. Now, as for your point of 30%, it stated in there that "which is to deliver around 30 percent of all completing parts for 200 Chinese SU-27SK jets" It says those are to be delivered, but didn't say they must be used.

As far as I know, the Russians are completing the delivery of those parts. This is according to Kanwa's latest interview with Sukhoi.

This is just unnecessary obfuscation. Whether the designation of "A" and "B" are official is COMPLETELY irrelevant. The A version is the one under contract that China is legally able to license produce. The B iteration is the "indigenous" version which uses the stolen intellectual property of the Sukhoi company to manufacture a modified aircraft that is more suited to PLAAF's current requirements. That you are even arguing about this is simply astonishing to me.

how can it be stolen if China paid the full amount for the technology? If you paid for the technology, are you saying you can't apply and improve it?

 

[rhino123]

how can it be stolen if China paid the full amount for the technology? If you paid for the technology, are you saying you can't apply and improve it?

Actually I agree with most of what you have said... except the last part... which was a bit shady.

As you see, even if you pay the full amount for the technology, depending on the contract, you would still have to pay the royalty for using that technology or basing on the technology to develope and use a technology that you claimed to be your own. That rights could be waived unless, you bought over the entire IP... which I doubt China did.

However, unless J-11B is an entirely new technology (not basing on any current technology of SU-27), then I believe they can use it.