China Flanker Thread II

[EDIATH]

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?


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:

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.

I'm sorry but the "30%" quote must be read in line with the contractual contexts to validate your claim. We are not sure if the original contract stipulated that "at least 30% of the components must come from Russia" etc., if the "30%" is indeed quoted from the contract I mean.

Even if the contract was breached by the Chinese party, it does not necessarily lead to the violation of intellectual property, simply because Sukhoi didn't file any patents for its fighter design in China. Is it a violation of copyrights for FC1 to adapt DSI inlet which was initially developed for F35? Or how about T50? It bears strong resemblance towards F-22 in my opinion.

Btw, after 200 aircrafts SAC can easily claim the follow-ups are all based on indigenous design, judging from the departure from the original S27SK frame. Similarly, the origin of many post-war Soviet weapon designs can be traced back to what they received directly from western allies after all.

 

[alopes]

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.

I don´t know about the legalities involved, but that don´t make much sense.

It´s like, for example, a person that buys a computer with windows and with the license to use it. But then you buy a new Graphics Processor Card, new memory, new own developed operating system and the seller of the computer says you can´t upgragde your computer because it was not in the contract of the deal.

After i bought the computer, it´s mine, i do what i want with it, including improvements.
In the same line, they, Russia, also could claim that the J-7 is a theft of the Mig-21 technology?

And, also, what court would judge China, as said before, since it is a defence matter, not a trade one.
And what about the spy agencies of the world for which the job is also the theft of military technology?

 

[ZTZ99]

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.

You're complaining about my sources when you yourself are quoting from Sinodefence? This is surreal.

Do you have any other sources that imply Russia would eventually allow completely domestic production of the Su-27? Sinodefense is not an independent source. Its articles are written by posters on SDF who themselves gleaned info off websites and other sources. If you can furnish those sources, your points may receive more credibility. Until then, I rate Sinodefense FAR lower than Russian media sources or FAS. Far far lower.

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.

I said 200 for the sake of argument. What actually happened was that China suspended the contract after about a hundred kits arrived from Russia. The contract stipulated licensed production based on both Russian and domestic content. Thus in fact producing ANY J-11's after China terminated the agreement constitutes a violation of the previous contract and a theft of intellectual property. Whether a potential lawsuit can be successfully prosecuted or where the case could be tried are completely irrelevant to whether a violation has actually occurred, or similarly, whether intellectual property was stolen. Russia counted on its own industries continuing to supply parts for all 200 aircraft under contract, as part of the contract. At this point, there are probably NO parts on the J-11B being supplied by Russians.

As for the 200 itself, unless China caves into heavy Russian pressure, I seriously doubt it has any intention to give any further money to Russia for any aircraft produced above 200, as flimsy and as mostly irrelevant as this number already is.

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.

The plain language of the text clearly states Russia is to supply 30% of the parts. If you want to somehow insinuate that it doesn't HAVE to be the case, YOU need to provide separate credible sources which state that Russia doesn't actually have to supply that amount.

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?

Who said China paid for all the technology? Russia required 30% of the parts to be Russian. At least those parts were not part of any TOT. I'm not even sure much of the rest of the 70% was transferred so much as self-learned. I believe that Russia probably anticipated that China would eventually be able to self-produce many of the parts and built that into the contract, but kept the 30% as a minimum to continue to provide profit for its own domestic industries.

 

[rhino123]

I don´t know about the legalities involved, but that don´t make much sense.

It´s like, for example, a person that buys a computer with windows and with the license to use it. But then you buy a new Graphics Processor Card, new memory, new own developed operating system and the seller of the computer says you can´t upragde your computer because it was not in the contract of the deal.

After i bought the computer, it´s mine, i do what i want with it, including improvements.
In the same line, they, Russia, also could claim that the J-7 is a theft of the Mig-21 technology?

And, also, what court would judge China, as said before, since it is a defence matter, not a trade one.
And what about the spy agencies of the world for which the job is also the theft of military technology?

What you say is true to a certain point. However what I am looking at is the IP issues. If Russia claimed to have IP for a certain technology, no one could use it without Russia (or Sukhoi) permission.

In China's case, J-11, J-11A had no problem with this issue, because they have paid the Russian, which I believe some of the cost involved royalties. however problem arise from J-11B onward.

You see, unless J-11B is a brand new aircraft, not using any of the patented technology of Su-27 variants, then it is alright, and as to J-11B looking alike Su-27, I believe you still couldn't sue someone which build something that look alike as long as there are credible differences.

The case is somewhat different from your computer example. Yes, by rights you could buy a computer and do whatever you want with it, even sold it off to a third party member as a second hand.

However you cannot buy a microsoft windows, do some modification to the programming and sold it off to a third party member. That is infringement of patentship and Microsoft can sue you for it.

The same is in China's J-11B case. Although you might argue that China did not sell it off to other countries, but what we must look at is this...

First China build J-11B (do not know the existing contract's content though) and the company to build it was SAC. It is a private company and the plane was sold to PLAAF and in future PLAN (which we must treat as a different entity, thus not allowable.) Even if it was China's own self who build this aircraft, PLAAF and PLAN still have to 'buy' from China to use it. Thus not allowable.

I think the Russian would have no problem if China was to buy the Su-27 from them and do their own modification to the aircrafts, like what Singapore and Israel had been doing to their F-5, F-15 and even F-16. These aircrafts are bought from the US and it is up to Singapore's and Israel's to do whatever they want with the aircraft (your computer example.)

However if Singapore and Israel started building these aircrafts out themselves without prior agreement, without paying royalties to US, then you can see US jumping and suing (my microsoft window example).

 

[Deino]

Mabe new picture ...


Deino

 

[Quickie]

.....

The plain language of the text clearly states Russia is to supply 30% of the parts. If you want to somehow insinuate that it doesn't HAVE to be the case, YOU need to provide separate credible sources which state that Russia doesn't actually have to supply that amount.


Who said China paid for all the technology? Russia required 30% of the parts to be Russian. At least those parts were not part of any TOT. I'm not even sure much of the rest of the 70% was transferred so much as self-learned. I believe that Russia probably anticipated that China would eventually be able to self-produce many of the parts and built that into the contract, but kept the 30% as a minimum to continue to provide profit for its own domestic industries.

It's quite possible that since the Chinese are not going to use the Russian's to-be-delivered parts, both parties have discussed this and have come to a conclusion that the Chinese would pay for this parts without the Russian having to actually deliver them. This arrangement would benefit both the Chinese, who gets a discount to the original cost and the Russian, who gets pay without actually producing anything. Having said that, I don't think any of us have inside information of what actually took place but I would say it's possible the above arrangement did took place.

 

[noone536]

thats definately photoshop......

 

[Deino]

thats definately photoshop......

Could You please explain or detail that ???

IMO - even if I'm not sure too - it shows a yellow prototype with the never seen before grey radome.

And to say the hook is psed ... I think the picture is too blurred !

Thanks in advanve,
Deino

 

[Orthan]

Mabe new picture ...


Deino

Too blurry. Unless we see more pictures, ill doubt it. It could well be photoshoped.

 

[challenge]

one solution, is for China to design a complete new aircraft based on what they learn from SU-27, that should settle the problem.