China Flanker Thread II

Discussion in 'Air Force' started by sumdud, Jan 12, 2008.

  1. HKSDU
    Offline

    HKSDU Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2009
    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    6
    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 http://www.thehindu.com/2009/08/20/stories/2009082061901100.htm. "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.
     
  2. cloyce
    Offline

    cloyce Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    37
    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.
     
  3. ZTZ99
    Offline

    ZTZ99 Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    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 (Russia may sue China over pirated fighter). 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.
     
    #703 ZTZ99, May 23, 2010
    Last edited: May 23, 2010
  4. Maggern
    Offline

    Maggern Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    560
    Likes Received:
    4
    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?
     
  5. plawolf
    Offline

    plawolf Brigadier

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,214
    Likes Received:
    12,886
    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. :rolleyes:

    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?

    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.

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

    lilzz Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    442
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
    #706 lilzz, May 23, 2010
    Last edited: May 23, 2010
  7. ZTZ99
    Offline

    ZTZ99 Banned Idiot

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2010
    Messages:
    186
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. J-11 [Su-27 FLANKER] China Aircraft Special Weapons Delivery Systems

    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.
     
  8. optionsss
    Offline

    optionsss Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    177
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  9. tphuang
    Offline

    tphuang Brigadier
    VIP Professional Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,551
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    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.

    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.
    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?
     
  10. rhino123
    Offline

    rhino123 Pencil Pusher
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,937
    Likes Received:
    179
    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.
     
Loading...

Share This Page