• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Shenyang J-11 as an unlawful copy of Su-27 - discussion

S

sublight

Guest
sferrin said:
sublight said:
Is there any particular reason why they wouldn't just opt for the T-50?
Why would Russia sell it to them?

Because they have a long history of buying or licensing from Russia/Soviet Union.
Even the newest Shenyang J-11 is basically made by the Ruskies and then assembled in China with Chinese avionics.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
977
Shenyang J-11 is unlawful copy of Su-27
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
flateric said:
Shenyang J-11 is unlawful copy of Su-27

I don't think they are "unlawful" ... since the Chinese were allowed to produce the Flanker by licence after a certain number of aircarft built from kits ... and as far as I understand the situation China decided to proceed alone without taking all kits (but that will bring us to far off topic).

Deino
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
977
http://www.arms-tass.su/?page=article&aid=53875&cid=121
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
... but that's only the Russian point of view !

Sadly I've nevers seen the real content of the original contract or a list which states, how many aircraft were to be delivered by kits ... what content of Chinese-made parts is permitted until what aircraft manufactured (or how this content percentage will rise during the whole production block of all 200 J-11) .... and until when is China "allowed" for 100% licence manufacturing besides that avionics + powerplant !? ???

But again it seems (honestly only as far as I understand that conflict) that China requested for several improvements regarding avionics and or powerlant, which was either refused by Russia or at least they requested for additional negotiations on prize. And finally China decided to proceed alone with improved indegenious avionics + the (still stroubled) WS-10A.

As such IMO China is allowed to produce as many as 200 J-11, but the original contract demanded to use the Russian avionics + powerplant.


Or did I miss anything completely; any correction or clarification is very wellcome.

Thanks in advance,
Deino
 
R

rivetspacer

Guest
No... The only thing china has ever cared about is stealing technology and beating their nationalist drum. The j10 (lavi), j11 (su27), the new heavy lift based off stolen c17 info .. The list is endless. If china is developing a "stealth" fighter it's almost garanteed to be either stolen info from the Russians or design copies/stolen info of the f22 & f35, about 50 percent as capable of either. Time will only tell, but history shows the pattern
 
S

sublight

Guest
rivetspacer said:
No... The only thing china has ever cared about is stealing technology and beating their nationalist drum. The j10 (lavi), j11 (su27), the new heavy lift based off stolen c17 info .. The list is endless. If china is developing a "stealth" fighter it's almost garanteed to be either stolen info from the Russians or design copies/stolen info of the f22 & f35, about 50 percent as capable of either. Time will only tell, but history shows the pattern

Got some documentation of that?
 
R

rivetspacer

Guest
Try searching though the forums, we've already been around this mountain a few times, no need for me to do all the work for you. It's pretty well documented
 
S

sublight

Guest
rivetspacer said:
Try searching though the forums, we've already been around this mountain a few times, no need for me to do all the work for you. It's pretty well documented
Really? If you have only ever posted twice, then how have you been around it several times?
 
R

rivetspacer

Guest
I've been around this forum for years, a great resource I might add. I think it's quite clear where Chinese innovation comes from. In any case, my opinion is my own... As you are entitled to yours. I don't need to rehash well documented examples. I hope they do develop something organically, I think that would be a huge step in improving their capability.

I remember a lecture I attended from Burt Rotan once. He ripped US aviation progress over the past 40 years as unexciting and uneventful. The innovation was targeted on systems and electronics, with very little real invention in aerodynamics or capability. Wright bros. - moon, 60 years, moon - ?f22, where's the advance?

I'm of fan of organic development, not status quo, and certainly not poor copies of the status quo.
 
S

sublight

Guest
rivetspacer said:
I've been around this forum for years, a great resource I might add. I think it's quite clear where Chinese innovation comes from. In any case, my opinion is my own... As you are entitled to yours. I don't need to rehash well documented examples. I hope they do develop something organically, I think that would be a huge step in improving their capability.

I remember a lecture I attended from Burt Rotan once. He ripped US aviation progress over the past 40 years as unexciting and uneventful. The innovation was targeted on systems and electronics, with very little real invention in aerodynamics or capability. Wright bros. - moon, 60 years, moon - ?f22, where's the advance?

I'm of fan of organic development, not status quo, and certainly not poor copies of the status quo.

I think you mean "domestic" development. Organic would mean its a plane made out of plant matter....
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
rivetspacer said:
No... The only thing china has ever cared about is stealing technology and beating their nationalist drum. The j10 (lavi), j11 (su27), the new heavy lift based off stolen c17 info .. The list is endless. If china is developing a "stealth" fighter it's almost garanteed to be either stolen info from the Russians or design copies/stolen info of the f22 & f35, about 50 percent as capable of either. Time will only tell, but history shows the pattern

Sorry ... but this is just again the old repeating of - even sometimes correct - phrases and when You still think the J-10 is a Lavi-copy, the there's no need to discuss any further.

Regarding older types You are correct for sure:

MiG-19 = J-6
MiG-21 = J-7
PL-8 = Python III
Il-28 = H-5
Tu-16 = H-6
...
But to cry out „AHh … it’s a copy“ is sometimes to simple. You have to look what’s behind and why it’s a “copy”. All the older types are licensed types in nearly the same way as the Japanese F-4EJ or F-15J are copies of the F-4E or F-15C. Agreed, one big difference is that Japan never exported them.

But to call the J-11 just a Flanker copy is plain stupid, since it is a licensed Flanker. The problem now is just – similar to the J-7-comparison – how many licensed J-11 were contracted and by what content of original parts. So at least IMO, until no more than the originally contracted and paid for 200 examples were built, there’s nothing wrong.
The problem starts, when more are rolling off the production line at SAC and – what I think won’t happed – China will export them.

So just please stop posting old “thinking” and even if there’s written a lot about that, not all is true.

Deino
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
I hope not to start yet another political discussion or even a flame war, but I split this part of the discussion into a new tread, since this question spins around for some time and actually since I only know the "Chinese" point of view vs. the "Russian" version ... I want to try to find out, what's really behind that story.

Any help and discussion based on facts is appreachiated...

So long, Deino
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,563
Reaction score
3,845
Without a team of lawyers and the original contract to hand, "facts" will be hard to verify.

As far as I understand, the original contract was for 200 Su-27SK, delivered initially as knock-down kits but with gradually increasing local production up to 70%. The engines and radar (+ other key parts) were not included in the local production agreement, so these items would always have to be bought from Russia (increasing Russian profits), as did compatible AAMs.

China assembled about 100 J-11s as straight Su-27SK copies but decided it did not meet modern requirements so stopped production. Russia offered various "upgrade" options, but this meant continuing to buy radars and engines from Russia (more capable models, sure, but more expensive and still needing Russian missiles too).

China decided it wanted indigenous radars and engines to be fitted to the J-11. Hence the J-11B.

This is a clear violation of the original licence agreement, which stipulated that Russia would supply engines and radars for J-11. Legally speaking, I can't see any justification for China to build J-11B without permission from Sukhoi, as it does not meet the terms agreed in the contract.

China presumably felt that the Russian offers did not meet their requirements but were designed to maximise revenue for Russia selling more old stuff to China. They may argue that they are merely marrying the 70% of Su-27SK parts they are licensed for to 30% indigenous content so they are not reverse engineering and illegally producing the radar and engine which was prohibited.

I would say if they rebuilt existing J-11s to J-11B, they would be legally sound ("its an upgrade!"), but if they make new airframes and marry them to Chinese components, thats definitely violating the production agreement.
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
overscan said:
...
China decided it wanted indigenous radars and engines to be fitted to the J-11. Hence the J-11B.

This is a clear violation of the original licence agreement, which stipulated that Russia would supply engines and radars for J-11. Legally speaking, I can't see any justification for China to build J-11B without permission from Sukhoi, as it does not meet the terms agreed in the contract.

China presumably felt that the Russian offers did not meet their requirements but were designed to maximise revenue for Russia selling more old stuff to China. They may argue that they are merely marrying the 70% of Su-27SK parts they are licensed for to 30% indigenous content so they are not reverse engineering and illegally producing the radar and engine which was prohibited.

I would say if they rebuilt existing J-11s to J-11B, they would be legally sound ("its an upgrade!"), but if they make new airframes and marry them to Chinese components, thats definitely violating the production agreement.

Hmmm ... first of all THANKs for that explanation, but again seen from the Chinese side, they already paid for and just with You last remark, they could build them all as J-11A-models until the 200. airframe - lay the Russian radars + engines beside - and then "upgrade" them with their own parts.

IMO the more problematic part is to redesign some certain parts, put in a higher percentage of composits and so on ...

What I never found is an info from which aircraft, they were allowed to manufacture them by 100% ? ???


Deino
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,563
Reaction score
3,845
Deino said:
Hmmm ... first of all THANKs for that explanation, but again seen from the Chinese side, they already paid for and just with You last remark, they could build them all as J-11A-models until the 200. airframe - lay the Russian radars + engines beside - and then "upgrade" them with their own parts.

Erm, yes, in which case the Russian companies would have got paid for their engines and radars, as per the agreement. And that makes all the difference.

Its really quite simple - if you break the terms of the contract, then you are not licensed.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
557
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Will Sukhoi negotiate new license agreements with Shenyang Aircraft Corporation for other Sukhoi products such as the new T-50?
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
IMO ... never again !!!

Deino
 

saintkatanalegacy

Little Miss Whiffologist
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
718
Reaction score
2
I don't think they would want to waste their development time, blood, sweat and tears just for somebody else to "replicate" it :-\
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
overscan said:
Erm, yes, in which case the Russian companies would have got paid for their engines and radars, as per the agreement. And that makes all the difference.

Hmmm ... but here again the question remains: Was that payment only for the "kits" ... or the whole package including avionics and engines ??

If the contract was an "all-inclusive" one, then the Chinese J-11 could have taken them as spares or for whatever and could modify these J-11A-models to J-11B models, which are then unlawful if the contract included a "Sukhoi has to agree" clause.

Its really quite simple - if you break the terms of the contract, then you are not licensed.

O.k. ... strictly taken in this sense, YES !

Deino
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
977
Deino said:
IMO ... never again !!!
Sukhoi has eat it enough, but brave guys from Russian Helicopters, JSC, are going to sell to China a license to build Mi-171s
that's how making your own sales grave with your own hands looks like
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
311
Not sure about that, if they are confident that they can shape up the Mi-38 in the near future, why not? The Mi-171 is older, so if Russian Helicopters feels able to offer a fairly mature successor at a reasonable price they should be fine. Sooner or later the Mi-171 would probably be challenged by a Chinese competitor anyway, by selling the license Russian Helicopters at least makes some profit in the process and might well delay development of an indigenous helo from China in the same size class a bit.

It's a case of competition being healthy for the market and could turn out to be a good thing for languishing helo projects in Russia - if Russian Helicopters does not become complacent and short sighted.

The same reasoning holds true for Sukhoi (and - perhaps to a lesser degree - Airbus' Tianjin plant), BTW - I'm sure the lost J-11 income is a source of some annoyance to them, but they have bigger fish to fry. Which is probably why, having voiced their disapproval, they are now letting it be. At the same time, it follows that I agree with Deino's prediction at least for the forseeable future: the T-50 represents the backbone of Sukhoi's military business and so they cannot afford to hand it over to what is rapidly becoming a major competitor on the world market.
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
flateric said:
Sukhoi has eat it enough, but brave guys from Russian Helicopters, JSC, are going to sell to China a license to build Mi-171s
that's how making your own sales grave with your own hands looks like

You are right, I've never seen this from this point of view; Thanks.

Do You have any more info about "what was included" in the original contract ? ... to be honest, the link (http://www.arms-tass.su... ) You posted is - if I understood it right - based on information "sourced" by KANWA, which itself is not known for beeing objective !


Trident said:
Not sure about that, if they are confident that they can shape up the Mi-38 in the near future, why not? The Mi-171 is older, so if Russian Helicopters feels able to offer a fairly mature successor at a reasonable price they should be fine. Sooner or later the Mi-171 would probably be challenged by a Chinese competitor anyway, by selling the license Russian Helicopters at least makes some profit in the process and might well delay development of an indigenous helo from China in the same size class a bit.

It's a case of competition being healthy for the market and could turn out to be a good thing for languishing helo projects in Russia - if Russian Helicopters does not become complacent and short sighted.

The same reasoning holds true for Sukhoi (and - perhaps to a lesser degree - Airbus' Tianjin plant), BTW - I'm sure the lost J-11 income is a source of some annoyance to them, but they have bigger fish to fry. Which is probably why, having voiced their disapproval, they are now letting it be. At the same time, it follows that I agree with Deino's prediction at least for the forseeable future: the T-50 represents the backbone of Sukhoi's military business and so they cannot afford to hand it over to what is rapidly becoming a major competitor on the world market.


Again a point of view I never took. ! Thanks and woth some thoughts.

Deino
 

alertken

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
607
Reaction score
184
Licensor takes the views: a) some royalty/parts income is better than none; b) the other guy will do it if I don't; c) a longer term mutual-benefit deal might follow (ground floor, "grandfather"). Licensee, paying royally for the intangible of Intellectual Property, takes the views: a) quick way to competence without the pain of trial and error; b) maybe I can spring from this old hat technology into a lead role on the new generation. I watched the Designer of Sundstrand JT3D-3B CSD as he examined a Chinese device reverse-engineered, without benefit of legal drawings, from the first 707-3J6B and its engines, which spent a decade in Shanghai before delivery to CAAC. "It doesn't work", they said. "I can see why", he said. "Why, why?" they cried, sharpening their pencils. "That will be $3M", he said. Another word for Joint Venture is marriage. If licensee is able to exploit, "unlawfully", that is licensor's poor contract draftsmanship; if licensee is able to digest his mentor's data and build on it, then that is his definition of success: if licensor extracts $, parts in and out, and new market presence, then that is his.

MDC put much effort into SAIC MD80/90; part of payback was sourcing nicely-priced nose structure into Long Beach. Aerospatiale Helos put ditto into Harbin S.Frelon: part of payback has been repeat business; part of cost was, ah, Chinese copy variants, for which you and I do not know the financial deal. The key point, like in marriage, is: eyes wide open, no rose spectacles. If:
- in 1939 Douglas had been able to handle France's DB-7 order in house, they would not have subbed it to bankrupt Boeing, who would have died;
- in 1947 UK had the $ to allow Bristol to build L-849, then: no more squander on Brabazon, no diversion into Britannia; production of Theseus; Bristol eventual leadership in BAC and RR;
- in 1937 Airspeed had moved quicker on their sub-licence from Fokker for DC-2/3, then that little firm might have done more, better, longer, as partner of, not shop for DH.

Good marriage: good; bad marriage: bad.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
977
Trident said:
Not sure about that, if they are confident that they can shape up the Mi-38 in the near future, why not?
you can't be confident in something that postponed again and again, 2007...2009...2011...now for 2013 as P&W Canada disappeared in darkness with their PW127T/S after it became clear that their engines would be used for Mi-383, a military Mi-38 version. And replacement - Klimov TV7-117V - is not on hands still.

So, you are giving to China a license to build your bestseller (80% of choppers produced here in 2008 - lion's share of them sold abroad - were Mi-8 and its derivatives), while average price for it has grown from 3,5 mln USD to 8 mln (and still attracts customers). Should such an action be considered wize? Don't forget, Mi-38 will be MUCH MORE expensive (now est. 12-16 mln USD, but all we know these figures has tendency to grow - coming close to S92 and EH101 with their 20-25 mln pricetag).
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,040
Reaction score
311
Yes, if they DON'T turn around the Mi-38 giving the Mi-171 license to China could be a big mistake - if. We don't know yet, we'll have to wait and see :)
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
977
hardly advise to read
http://oboronprom.narod.ru/text/st9.htm - of Mi-38
http://www.oboronprom.narod.ru/text/st2.htm - of Mi-171/China

in fact, I was wrong - not selling a license, but selling Mi-171 assembly technology as well as technology of assembly of some subcomponents.
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
Hmm .. this discussion is getting more and more interesting ! (and to admit much more rationale than in any other tread possible)

But let me look back to the Su-27SK/J-11 discussion ... are there any Russian sources right from the origin of the contract ? I think these then were the most reliable ones to find out was "allowed" and what was not, what was included in that contract and what was strictly forbidden (like the export to third countries).

Thanks in advance,
Deino
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
Sorry guys for bringing this topic back on the agenda, but - in line of a quite strange but interesting discussion - at the Key-Forum there's one item new on the agenda and so far I never found any info on that.
Could anyone here help me out ?? PLEASE !

kiwinopal;1593130 said:
Deino

The issue is simple, China paid for the right to build the Su-27, not for each Su-27 individually, they paid for the right of building Su-27 in China and up to 200 was the limit imposed by the contract.

Do you think China paid for the titanium, aluminun and steel used in each Su-27? no or course not, China just paid for the right to build it.

China notified Russia they were not going to build the 200 aircraft, just a fraction of them so they were not going to need all those 400 Al-31 they were allowed to use as part of the contract on their J-11s/Su-27.

Since the contract said China needed to use russian components they notify the russians, we do not need more russian radars and engines.

Once China built the J-11B with WS-10s, they were breaching the deal legal boundaries, since they were not using Russian components so Russia and Sukhoi complaigned to China.

China just paid for the right to build the aircraft and the limitations of that contract was up to 200 they can build and they had to use Russian components.….

Nothing really new but all I ask for is a confirmation ... a link, a report or open source, where it is noted that they:

- only paid for the right to build it !
- have additionally to pay for each delivered Su-27 individually !


Thanks in advance,
Deino
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
977
may be of help
http://www.sukhoi.org/news/smi/arch/index.php?id=2203
http://vpk.name/news/15998_kitaiskaya_programma_vyipuska_istrebitelya_j1b_mozhet_sderzhat_razvitie_rossiiskokitaiskogo_vts.html
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
flateric said:
may be of help
http://www.sukhoi.org/news/smi/arch/index.php?id=2203

First of all THANKx ... without time to look thru !

Is there any other info - I think we should look at the earliest published reports - about what was included in the original contract ??

Cheers, Deino
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
Hu ... I think I have to admit I was wrong .... :-\ I stand corrected (but still searching for a real source !) !

Following "crobato" - one of the big-shrimps on that topic ...

crobato;121072 said:
They licensed to build the Su-27. All that intellectual property and licensing, I believe, was bought for 2 billion US$.

The 200 kits are actually a separate agreement meant to support the first. They are not part of the 2 billion for the license and are paid separately.

So, I have to admit, that I was wrong ! :(

But now the next step: Is there any information available about the price of such a "complete kit" ?? and even more the % of Russian parts / Chinese parts of each block, which - and even here are most information are contradicting - from which aircraft a complete 100% Chinese license was planned (of if ever so), since some sources say at least 60% of Russian parts were emanded for the whole production of 200 ac.

Thanks in advance for Your help,
Deino

... oh I love these forums and discussion ! :-*
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
977
Deino, I presume that exact terms of contracts are classified info
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
flateric said:
Deino, I presume that exact terms of contracts are classified info

Yes ... and therefore another challenge to find out more for the next years !

However with each discussion I've learned a lot (that I was even wrong in some points) ... and since some guys here, at CDF, SDF and so on are really "authorities" on that topic I will try again to get the information I'm looking for. :D

This is the list as such ... Very intersting, mysterious for example is, ... :

- that even if there's a lot of noise in the open media, it seems that China is still receiving parts for their Flankers from Russia (which indicated at least for the moment not a 100% Chinese Flanker),
- that Russia in return gets the payment as contracted (therefore no official complains or even call for a court),
- that the only one who really lost financially was most likely the Russian manufactor of the replaced avionics + Lylka/Saturn
- the price of such a "complete kit" ??
- the contracted % of Russian parts / Chinese parts of each block.
- the point if ever of from what aircraft on a complete 100% Chinese license was planned (since some sources say at least 60% of Russian parts were demanded for the whole production of 200 ac)

.... alltogether that most of the real terms of the contract will remain secret (hopefully not too long !)

Anyway, a more than interesting topic.

Cheers, Deino
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
Just received another post from crobato at the SDF:

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/air-force/china-flanker-thread-ii-55-3720.html#post121144

crobato;121125 said:
To begin with, we need to clarify how the Sukhoi organization works. Its not like Boeing or Lockheed.

Sukhoi, and so is MiG, are design bureaus. This means they're a company whose main product is brain work. If you're familiar with Silicon Valley, many companies are this way. IP companies with no manufacturing.

Within Sukhoi's orbit are a number of large satellite companies that actually do the manufacture of their products. The big three is NAPO, KnAAPO and Irkut. These companies are independent from Sukhoi; independent and yes, with self serving goals for themselves too. These firms even compete with each other on the market. Sukhoi licenses the designs for them to make:

NAPO does the Su-34 type

KnAAPO does the Su-27 single seaters along with variants thereof, such as Su-35, and Su-33 carrier jets.

Irkut does the Su-27 double seaters along with variants thereof, aka Su-30MKI. Note how NAPO, KnAAPO and Irkut are forking off their own Flanker variants, to the point that these variants compete against each other, Irkut's Su-30MK vs. KnAAPO's Su-35. KnAAPO has gone to the point of hatching their own double seaters - Su-30MKK and the double seater Su-35.

So, Shenyang AC licenses the design from Sukhoi itself, but to get the single seater kits, they have to have a separate deal with KnAAPO. And to get the double seater kits, they have to make another deal with Irkut.

For the parts themselves, China has to deal with other manufacturers separately, Salyut and Saturn for engines, NIIP for the radar and so on.

Note: if China licenses the Su-27 design, it does not mean they have licensed the radar, the engines, the opto-mechanical sight and so on and on. So China has to purchase these separately on separate contracts until China can fill in the blanks with domestic IP equivalents.

If this is a license, China pays Sukhoi a fee for every J-11B made. Even if the plane is 100% Chinese parts. That's not the problem. The problem is that the Russians think they make better money selling their own home grown and made variety. I believe Sukhoi may get a commission cut from the Russian parts contractors themselves from Chinese deals related to the J-11. Nothing bad about that. That's just business. So if China, lets say, buy engines from Salyut for the J-11, Sukhoi gets a cut. Of course, if China buys engines from Salyut for the J-10, Sukhoi doesn't. That's why the engine contracts are always separate, specific to the plane, and may not have the same unit price.

The Russians also do not understand the global IP business, coming from their Communist background. That's why they went around trying to sue countries for the AK-47 "patents". Which as you know, didn't hold. When their defense industries were at the brink and desperate for money, you can understand why they would patent troll.

The Chinese side is this: they believed that the J-11 deal is like the Harbin Z-8 deal, which they always hold as the model for licenses. They will take the basic design and modify for their own use, substituting domestic parts if needed and use foreign parts if necessary. The licensor gets a cut for every unit made. The Chinese have been mentioning the Z-8 model for a long time.
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
And another comment from "tphuang" ... following this question:

ZTZ99;121127 said:
Where is the evidence that Russia is getting any kind of cut on the J-11B production, or that the license cost included a 100% technology transfer from Sukhoi, or that the Chinese military modeled the J-11 deal to be like the Z-8 deal?


tphuang;121163 said:
This doesn't get discussed a lot in the English press, but it does get discussed a lot among the people with no-hows on Chinese bbs. Basically, when Soviet Union disbanded, the Russian military industry was in a disarray. They gave away a lot of technology to China without much organization. According to what I hear from people really involved in the Chinese aero industry, they basically got away with robbery in the deal they signed with Russia. The package they signed for J-11 was really comprehensive. I think what happened is that it took a while for the Russians to realize that they got totally ripped off on the deal by China, so they are regretting and making a lot of noise about it. And from kanwa's January issue, it's clear that they are still delivering parts to China and getting paid (or have already been paid) for that. Of course, Russians want to stop China from doing that for a variety of reasons:
1) they don't know what kind of modifications China is putting on flankers, so they can't make sure that what China has is not better than what Russia has. And remember, there is still risks in the long term of Russian/China conflict

2) they want China to use their proposed upgrades which would use components like the ones on Su-27SM (except downgraded). It's costing their suppliers money that China is not using the Russian proposed weapons upgrade package

3) they want to make noise to prevent China from exporting flankers

4) they want to make sure that China will pay for royalty once the 200 units have been produced. And part of their concerns is that they have no clue how many flankers China is producing right now.

I think 2) is probably the largest reason
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,084
Reaction score
977
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-04-20/russian-arms-copycat-china.html?fullstory

Chinese version of Russian jet endangers bilateral relations
20 April, 2010, 07:58

Despite holding the position as one of the world’s biggest economies, China seems unwilling to shed its reputation for producing cheap replicas.

And one of their more ambitious copycat efforts may put a strain on Russia-China relations.

“This Chinese plane is simply a Russian design stuffed with local electronics,” says Maksim Pyadushkin from the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technology about the Chinese J11B jet’s resemblance to the Russian Su-27. “It's a knock-off.”

Last year, Russian aircraft sales internationally topped $3 billion – second only to the US. But others too want a slice of the aviation pie.

Vadim Kozyulin, program director for conventional arms from the Russian Center for Policy Studies, says that fake Su-27s are widely offered in the world arms market. “Sooner or later, Russian arms traders will face competition from the Chinese colleagues,” he told RT.

China was given the design plans for the Russian fighter jet in 1995, when it promised to buy 200 kits and assemble them domestically. After building 100 planes, the Chinese said the Russian plane did not meet specifications, only for a copycat version soon to appear – "Made in China" – without copyright.

The threat from China is real, and it will be difficult for the Russian aviation industry to maintain its lofty position, and soar further unless it manages to better protect its intellectual rights and also find new ways of co-operating with its eastern neighbor.

Although it made its maiden flight over 30 years ago, the Su-27 remains the bedrock of the Russian air force, and is highly popular abroad.

“I don't think anyone who's flown on the SU-27 can ask for a different plane, unless we are talking about a new generation jet,” believes Lt. Colonel Andrey Alekseyev, Air Force Pilot. “It's maneuverable and has a huge range.”

Some are calling for calm over the controversy. While the similarities between the two planes are clear, experts say the Chinese J11B does not have the latest Russian high-tech features and will be no match for it on the international market.

The best way to fight copyright violations is to be technologically ahead of your rivals, claims Maksim Pyadushkin from the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technology. “The biggest problem for Russia is that it has been living off the legacy of the Soviet Union, and soon its technology may no longer be the world leader,” he asserts.

Rather than a continuing dogfight over the copycat plane, it is possible that Russia and China may yet settle the matter amicably – at the highest political level.

But in the shady world of international weapons copyright, similar cases are sure to follow.
 

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
A glimpse at SAC ...
 

Attachments

  • J-11 old at SAC.jpg
    J-11 old at SAC.jpg
    317.7 KB · Views: 204
  • J-11BS at SAC 1.jpg
    J-11BS at SAC 1.jpg
    413.3 KB · Views: 187
  • J-11BS large at SAC.jpg
    J-11BS large at SAC.jpg
    415 KB · Views: 180
  • J-11BSH - engine smaller 1.jpg
    J-11BSH - engine smaller 1.jpg
    58.9 KB · Views: 170

Deino

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
2,781
Reaction score
589
Just some new pictures right from SAC of the J-11BS and BSH twin-seater !
... an interesting report from the Farnborough airshow ..

http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=178078

FARNBOROUGH. July 19 (Interfax-AVN) - China is using Russian and Soviet know-how to develop and build aircraft, Alexander Fomin, first deputy head of the Federal Military-Technical Cooperation Service, said at a news conference at the Farnborough air show.

"It is an accomplished fact. China is vigorously developing its defense industry, not without Russia's assistance, of course," he said.

The Soviet Union built about 3,000 enterprises, while Russia handed China licenses to make aircraft and components," he said.

"We handed over a large amount of know-how to China, including information related to the defense industry. It is not surprising that it repeats itself in Chinese products," he said.

Asked whether China has developed a fighter jet which it claims excels Russia's Sukhoi Su-33, Fomin said, "I can neither confirm, nor deny this."

"Concerning the Su-33, Russia did not deliver such planes to China. If our Chinese partners have them, they were not received from Russian sources," he said.

Fomin said Russia has no questions to China so far. "We have an agreement on the protection of intellectual property rights. If we uncover copyright violations, we will deal with this within the framework of the agreement," Fomin said.

Deino
 

Similar threads

Top