Joint ventures are created to transfer technology for access to the local market.

If you want access to the Chinese market you are required to partner and transfer skills. If you are not willing then forgo the market. Any company that forgo the Chinese market is at a distinct disadvantage to the company who is in there. If GM or Boeing lost the Chinese market then their competitors who are in there would be in a dominant position in the global market.

If you are afraid of the Chinese violating your IP right then stay away from the market. It’s that simple.

man please do not be so simplistic, Joint Ventures are not desigend so China break the licenses.

India builds the AL-31 and the RD-33 why? simply the Indians are far more reliable than the Chinese for the Russians, the Americans installed in Mexico a factory that makes the MD-500 helicopters why? simple Mexicans won`t break the licenses. in Fact already China is paying the prices Beechcraft also went to Mexico to build fuselages, Cessna the same, Goodrich went to Mexico to build the nacelles for Boeing and Airbus aircraft why? simple in mexico there is little chance of piracy, Honeywell went to Chihuahua Mexico to build engine blades and Tijuana Mexico to design parts of the A-350 and Boeing 787 why Mexicans won`t break licenses

India, Brazil, Mexico, and Russia outnumber the Chinese market easilly and already China is paying the price and China needs markets and jobs who is benefiting simple other nations other than China;)

see

MESA, Ariz., Feb. 23, 2007 – MD Helicopters’ new production facility in Monterrey, Mexico, (MDM) delivered its first single-engine fuselage in January and is rapidly ramping up to full production of 23 fuselages in 2007

Working with fuselages from Monterrey, and other components from various providers, MD 500s and MD 600s are assembled in Mesa and completed at MDHI subsidiary Hertiage Aviation in Texas, or in Mesa, depending on the requirements.

http://www.mdhelicopters.com/popup.php?sid=02.23.07

When the 350,000-square-foot plant opens late next year, Mexican workers will start fabricating Goodrich nacelles and thrust reversers for Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliners. The company also has its sights on the upcoming Airbus A350 XWB.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexico/20071228-9999-1b28bcair.html

In fact in mexico components for the F-22 and F-16 are build even for missiles like the TOW

You are missing the mark.
The Russians only had limited engines for choice at that time. The MiG-21 was minimum airframe around maximum engine, like the F-104 was. Both had different design philosophies, while the F-104 was in some areas “better” than the MiG-21, in some worse. The MiG-21 suited its customer more than the Starfighter did its intended customer, who actually didn’t want it. If you compare F-104A/C versus an MiG-21F-13 (both 1960), there is a clear gap in technology, which doesn’t mean, that a Starfighter could have performed the mission of the MiG better.

Anyways, engine technology was always a limiting factor for the aircraft designer. Funny you mention the R-15. That is a designated supersonic engine. If you really take a look at engine technology, you see that designing such engines is actually easier than making engines that work well subsonic and supersonic.

Schorsch

The Soviet Union had plenty of engine design however like any nation it can not have all the superiority at one time, in the 1960s Russia had several engines available for fighters, not one or two, it had the R-29, R-11, R-13, R-15, AL-21, AL-7 and other engines

The closest engine in 1960 to the J-79 was the AL-7, however it was far more powerful and slightly heavier and already offered a slightly better TWR but also had a slightly worst SFC, by the time the F-4E was flying in 1968 the Russians already had the R-29 and the AL-21 which were far more powerful and had better TWR and SFC than the J-79

http://aviaros.narod.ru/al-21f.htm

For example the Ye-152A had two R-11 but the T-5 had two AL-7s

here we have one of the few LA-250 Anaconda it also was powered by the AL-7

as did the Tu-128, whcih was also powered by the AL-7

.

The MiG-21 was better in terms of dogfighting ability simply because it was designed as a dogfighter and not like a missile carrier as the F-104 was

True but I doubt they care. all they’re interested in right now primarily is gathering the technology by stealing when possible or paying when it’s the only choice. Once they’ve brought themselves up to the standards of those they pilfer from they won’t need to worry about it because they’ll be making their own- and selling their products back to those the stole from in the first place because they can make it cheaper.

The Chinese can continue defrauding companies forever? no they can not, the example i gave you about Mexico is a good example where the Chinese have lost and they will continue to loose simple because as other nations reap the benefits of getting the investment China needs the competition will become fiercer.

True they can continue doing the same practices, however it does not mean always the firms and companies will accept those measures, as the west did with Russia, the west will do with China, the standards of Clones will be considered lower than the original product, if you need sell things in the west you need western standards and that is a good way of stablising barriers, the west is not crying too much when the products coming from china are cheap and built by Chinese labour but undoutedly a jet or a car will find sooner or later barriers as the Toys already have found

Good luck. We’ve seen how much luck the US has had over the software piracy issue and Microsoft’s a hell of a lot bigger than Sukhoi. If China wants to copy it it will.

It is impossible now to stop science and technology being transfered to different countries, China for sure will develop newer aircraft with or without foreign help, however China will pay the price of not respecting the licenses.

Already has paid one, Bombardier before stablishing in Mexico pondered the possibility of making that Queretaro Plant in China, why they did not transfer it to China? simple, they saw there were more risks in China and less advantages in terms of transport, many companies trust more Mexico than China when it is respecting the Intelectual rights

If China does not change its policies nations like India or Mexico will reap more benefits same was the Su-30MKI for Russia, they knew china could not comply with the contract.

MD helicopters also stablished the plant in Mexico a few hundred kilometers away from their main plant in Meza Arizona Why? simple if you do not respect licenses you will loose investments at the end.

First, you need the infrastructure to actually clone such an aircraft. Most countries outside of Europe, North America and the Far East (Japan, Korea and China) simply can’t build a fighter, cloned or not.

A tribe of bushmen or pygmies can’t make a refrigerator even if you gave them all the drafts and instructions. They just don’t have the infrastructure in place.

That is a total lie, in Argentina and Brazil there is enough technology to build a fighter in fact see these two example of argentina`s helos and Brazil`s aircraft
Argentina can make its own indigenous helos

http://www.helis.com/timeline/cicare.php

http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/cicare.html

See not clones niether copies but domestic designs

and Brazil has the technology to make awacs

making aircraft is not as difficult as you think mexico is already assembling fuselages of Helos and aircraft here is a challenger 850 being built in mexico

Workers build a plane in a Bombardier Aerospace plant in Queretaro, March 2, 2008

http://working.canada.com/regina/resources/story.html?id=03e08cd6-36f4-450a-8c9e-2d0a7a492f24

In fact Mexico, Argentina and Brazil were pioneers in fighter designs, the only difference between Brazil and China or Mexico and Argentina and China is we haven`t focused our energies in fighters but in civil aircraft and by 2020 we will have enogh technology in Latin America to be leaders in civil airliners

in fact China has always licensed built aircraft see this curtiss modified in China

http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/xpo.html
and compared to these argentine original designs

See in Latin america we built first than China a jet fighter

and here is more facts about designing in Latin america

Brain work

It’s not just aerospace manufacturing moving south of the border. Foreign firms are snapping up Mexican engineers and mechanics, as well. Honeywell Aerospace, a Phoenix-based electronics maker, opened a $40 million testing center in Mexicali in 2006. General Electric plans to add 600 engineers to the 1,000 employed at its Querétaro design center. The center designs jet engines and turbines for electrical generators.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust…erospace_N.htm

May 3, 2006

Honeywell’s Aerospace division has broken ground in Mexicali on a $40 million systems integration lab where Mexican engineers will develop technologies for future commercial aircraft.

The lab represents a significant jump up the technological ladder for foreign investment in Baja California. Instead of manufacturing, like that performed by more than 1,000 maquiladora factories in the state, the Honeywell lab will develop and test a wide range of airplane flight systems.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m…3mexicali.html

so you’re suggesting that its perfectly alright for one nation to reverse engineer another nation’s weapons, and that too none less than a fighter jet, just because the contract did not specifically say so?

so henceforth, anyone selling any weapons to China needs to add “DO NOT COPY AND BUILD ON YOUR OWN” clauses to contracts?! do you have any shame at all trying to say that such a ridiculous argument even works in a civilized world where IP is respected?! oh I forgot, we’re referring to China here..IP is for losers as far as China is concerned I guess..national security indeed ! there’s another core aspect to arms trade and that is related to respect of IP- you cannot just copy someone else’s stuff, not pay royalties for that, compete in the same markets that the other nation that sold you the equipment competes in and name it something Chinese for it to become Chinese..

this is blatant cheating, nothing less. and the fact is that in most people’s eyes, actions like this make China a nation to never ever trust.

The Russian specified the number of fighters China can build only 200, China later did not want to continue with the 200 number and they stoped at 105 aircraft, Russia has warned China about suing the Chinese government and shenyang simply becasue if the J-11B is produced it will break the contract they stablished

The Russians also do not want copies of the Su-27 in the international market without any royalty.

Taking test bench and static sea level data still doesn’t serve your point, only if you want to assess the taxi performance. Publically available data indicates that Russian turbojets weren’t first class in the early 60ies. Google “Have Doughnut” for an opinion about the MiG-21F13’s engine.
The overall pressure ratio tells you the story much better, but again: Engine performance in supersonic jets is not really accessible from single point, static data.

All those reports are bias if they do not see the other side of the coin, Russian engines had good qualities, many reports will exagerate the pros of western engines and cons of Russian ones and overlook the cons of western engines and the pros of russian ones.

This is simple a propaganda war that is accepted in the west as a sign of patriotic fidelity.

You can not demostrate the TWR of the J-79 is better than the R-11, as you claimed in the first place, you affirmed that the J-79 had a better TWR, but it does not.
I have shown you the R-35 has better TWR and same SFC in an engine with the same weight.

Of course the Western reports usually compare the F-16 with the MiG-21 or MiG-23 and usually overlook that the Russian engines were designed as easy to make products.
However if you look the real facts, the J-79 was a late 1950s design, same the R-11 so both engines were more or less comparable, while the R-29 is a 1960s design and the R-35 is a 1970s design, so if you are fair all those engines reflect their time period, and as a conclusion are comparable none is superior or inferior all have cons and pros and none is really the best