I know that it was not designed in the least for air to air combat
but was wondering whether it could be used for that …esp. against low tech adversaries like F-5E /mirage 5 etc by third world operators
assuming its armed with R-60 and /or other IR weapons

It might be able to fight other fighters in self defence but not a designed interceptor, later upgrades allowed it to have some air to air capability but still is not a dedicated fighter.

There was no such thing as licensing when the Soviet Union provided plans and blueprints of the MiG-21 to China, just like it provided blueprints for AK-47s to every Communist ally. The SU itself had no problems directly copying whatever it could lay its hands on any Western equipment, such as the AIM-9 Sidewinder. Exactly why Russia could not collect royalties for the AK-47s.

How is the J-8 a copy of a MiG-21? Just because it has the same general layout of a tailed delta wing with a round inlet nose? Every dimension of the J-8 is greatly different from a MiG-21. The wings are much larger, have a higher angle or sweep, the fuselage is not just elongated, but made to support two engines, with the requisite fuel storage, air volume and air flow redesigned and recalculated needed to feed the two engines.

A lot of these are simplistic opinion from people who cannot do the math, that you cannot simply stuff two engines into a MiG-21 airframe and expect it to fly. The entire airframe and structural stress and calculations have to be redesigned and redone from top to bottom and that goes with the wings.

FYI, the J-8II only shares 30% commonality with the J-8I.

The J-10 only shares a general similarity of configuration with the Lavi; not a single part of both aircraft are interchangeable.

And what’s that BULL**** from Star49 about FBW? FBW are completely customized to every aircraft it is designed for and cannot be interchanged. They are that strictly tailored to each and every particular aircraft, which will have very different C/G, Reynold Numbers, L/D ratios, etc,.. Nothing is more peculiar, unique, particularly individualistic of any component inside an aircraft than its FBW. The F-16’s FBW will not work with the Lavi’s and neither will the Lavi’s work with the J-10. The L-15 is done in partnership with Yakolev, but the FC-1 is not. As a matter of fact, the J-11B’s FBW—a digital system as a matter of fact—is a new system that shares nothing in common with the Su-27SK’s analog system. The changes in the J-11B would have meant redrafting its flight behavior, and already have required a new FBW system.

As far as legal action is concerned, tough luck. No international court has any jurisdiction with inter country arms trade. Your hope is to file a court case within the courts of that country. Except that both Russia and China do not have reliable legal systems. Countries that are unhappy with their purchases from Russia, e.g. India and Venenzuela, actually have very little legal recourse when dealing with the issues they have with Russian systems, hence why India has begun shifting to the West.

The Soviet Union did grant licenses, being communist does not mean you do not grant licenses, only means the profit is not for a single individual but for the collectivity, China broke the license and it was broken because it broke its political and economical commitments with the Soviet Union, Russia granted the license of the SU-27 but the Soviets of the MiG-21

Here i brought you a fact that you know multirole brought to life last time here is the case

辉：我国的航空工业与苏联航空似乎有着千丝万缕的关系，您认为苏联航空技术对我国都产生了哪 些影响呢？

王老：如果没有苏联手把手教，我们完全是空白的。＂东风＂１０７的设计队伍里还有苏联专家呢，包括歼８的一 些气动特性，我们都参考了苏联的一些设计成果。当然，＂师傅领进门，修行在个人＂（笑了）。

Translation:

Wong Hui (journalist): Our aviation industry and Soviet aviation seem to have a thoroughly intertwined relationship. What influences do you think Soviet aviation technology have had in our country?

Wong Nanso: We wouldn’t have anything without hand-in-hand tutelage from the Soviets. Even the Dongfeng 107 (early Chinese supersonic fighter) design team included Soviet experts. Also regarding some aspects of the J-8 aerodynamic characteristics, we studied some results from Soviet design. Of course, “the abbot can open the door to the monastery, but spiritual achievement is up to the individual”. (laughs)

source http://bbs.meyet.com/dispbbs_24_146814_1_116.html

from the original thread http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=78280&page=5

this supports the russian assertion that the Ye-152 was the base for the J-8 as it was claimed by different russian sources
Документация по Е-152А (без двигателей, ракет и РЛС) была передана Китаю, который использовал ее при создании истребителя-перехватчика J-8.
It simply says the documentation for the Ye-152A was transfered to China which in turn the chinese used it to build their own J-8I fighter interceptor
http://www.testpilot.ru/russia/mikoyan/e/152/a/e152a.htm

In fact in page 19 of this article they say that the Shengyang aircraft factory did build several aircraft among them several licensed Russian models such as the Yak-18, MiG-15, MiG-17, Mi-4 and some engines and later in page 20 they say с конца 70-х гг. выпускает J-8 (на основе Е-152А) or in few words they started building in the late 1970s the J-8I aircraft based upon the Ye-152A

http://orel3.rsl.ru/enciklop/avia/sh-ya.pdf
в 1959 году лётчик-испытатель Г.К. Мосолов осуществил первый полёт истребителя-перехватчика Е-152А, с двумя двигателями Р11Ф-300 (устанавливались на МиГ-21 и Як-28). Позже документация по Е-152А (без двигателей, ракет и РЛС) была передана Китаю, который использовал её при создании истребителя-перехватчика J-8.

Here they claim again the Ye-152 was the base for the J-8
http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/kakula/post44317331/

here we have another source even a video about the J-10 being a LAVI clone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJoTNOqFrNk&feature=related

[В дальнейшем стало известно, что в формировании облика нового самолета J-10 принимали участие специалисты израильской фирмы IAI, передавшие Китаю технологию своего истребителя «Лави in a later phase was known that Israeli IAI specialists did participate in the J-10 program transfering Lavi technology to China

http://www.testpilot.ru/china/chengdu/j/10/j10.htm

При этом планер J-10 разработан с учетом конструкции израильского истребителя Lavi. The J-10 airframe was based upon the IAI lavi

http://www.avia.ru/press/6270/

Как добавляет сайт Lenta.ru, истребитель J-10 разработан в Китае на основе израильского экспериментального самолета Lavi, документация по которому была передана Китаю в 90-х годах прошлого века.
The J-10 was based upon the IAI Lavi technical documentation that was sold to China in the last part of the XX century in the decade of the 1990s

http://cursorinfo.co.il/news/novosti/2007/10/24/iran/3/

Why you quote Japan and India when China’s own practice on other license built aircraft and aviation product always follows the same pattern of what we see in J11B case?

When license building of Eurocopter AS 365N Dauphin II, the initial number is 48 sets, after which the Harbin Aircraft manufacturing Co gained the AS365N Dauphin II airframe design. And keep building more under the Z-9 designation. Have French made it an issue? Because all the technologies involved are properly settled with Eurocopter. Also R&R’s Spey engine, after Xian assembled certain number of Spey Engine kits from UK, then it managed to fully indigenize the engine under WS-9 turbofan engine designation. And WS-9 is currently under production to power JH-7A, Does R&R make it an issue?

What we see now is the similar license building case involves the same AVIC companies. Why you want to use irrelevant countries’ irrelevant cases to make your points?

man all that you have said is unaccurate, The Europeans have already settled everything with China what China can and can not sell or do, the theory of yours is simply China can not be punished, the facts are more complex, all nations have to comply if not the international order is broken.

China or for the matter any nation has to comply with the international order and avoid international conflicts

China and Russia or China and Europe have more or less common sense and the Chinese know they can not infringe the law beyond a certain limit, Sukhoi has already warned the Chinese that is the reason the Russian media has reported that.

Up to what level China has broken the agreement and up to what level Russia warned China is still a matter of debate, but the article says that the Russians already informed China about their dissatisfaction if the J-11B breaks the agreement they signed in 1996

in fact here is another report from a different news outlet

Россия официально уведомила КНР о том, что изготовление истребителей J11, копирующих российский Су-27СК, является нарушением межгосударственных договоренностей. Москва пообещала приступить к юридическим процедурам защиты интеллектуальной собственности

Russia officially informed China that manufacture fighter J11, copied the Russian Su-27SK, is a violation of interstate agreements. Moscow promised to begin legal procedures to protect intellectual property

http://www.vsesmi.ru/news/1627527/2881979/

and here we have more ripples of the news

http://polit.ru/news/2008/04/22/pirate.html

http://www2.polit.ru/news/2008/04/22/pirate_print.html

http://www.headlines.ru/go.php?http://www.polit.ru/news/2008/04/22/pirate.html

http://www.webplus.info/index.php?page=37&news_block=2_11_n805736#read

Flogger, the key point is neither us nor the media you like to quote has seen the contract ( if there’s any) signed between Sukhoi & SAC, so we can’t say the said contract is breached or not because both parties-Sukhoi & SAC involved in the said contract so far don’t make any complaint to each other. The silence of Sukhoi towards this matter is the best proof so far for me because if like what you said, the SAC has breached the said contract between itself & Sukhoi, then the latter definitely won’t keep quiet. If so hard for you to understand the simple logic involved ( which is always the case), let me assume some one borrow 10000 bucks from you and both of you signed proper agreement but end of the day the one doesn’t return the money to you which breaches the agreement between you and him, will you keep quiet? If he does return the money to you, will you still shout he owns you 10000 bucks?

Even Sukhoi indeed goes to the court, most likely will reveal the contract if there’s any, we still have to see ourselves the SAC indeed breached the agreement or not.

Man you are just saying non sense, Russia and China signed a contract why?
simply nothing will be sold if you do not pay, all the SU-27 sold by Sukhoi have to be paid even the technology to build the Su-27, you can not use a logic of show us the contract because when the Chinese government transfered the money to the Sukhoi account it was specified why and what was purchased, this meant an agreement specially a license.

Now the Russians have specified they might sue China, however remember Russia belongs to the G8 and there they can take some measures to stop China doing many swindles and scams to the G8 nations

I’m not denying Sukhoi can’t sue SAC, as long as Sukhoi thinks SAC blenched contract then it can do so. However, you seem to be English illiterate, all you need to do now is either show us the contract which you claim that specifies SAC can’t use the Su27 airframe design for J11B or show us OFFICIAL announcement from SUKHOI which says it will seek legal action against SAC. Now I think whole world should know SAC is manufacturing the J11B, of course Sukhoi, we need to see Sukhoi’s solid action instead of some irrelevant media fantasia which you like to spam.

Now you play the tough proof demand, please man all shows you have no proof of your own statements at least i have a Russian article what do you have? nothing, only your fantastic position where China can copy russian aircraft breaching agreements and calling the aircraft an indigenous aircraft all that is real fantasy not what i said before specially when each Su-27 costs several million dollars

LoL, only I know country can sign treaty with country but what contract? Only business entity can sign contract with another, which in this specific case is Russia’s Sukhoi and China’s SAC. This is the basic you need to know when you like to talk aloud.

Again, one year on but still the old question, can you show us what contract you refer to that specifies SAC can’t use Su27 aerodynamic design for its own J11B? If you still fail to show, please shut up and stop spamming like last time and just wait and see Sukhoi’s official response, which at present is just mute.

Now at least, the public know China’s aviation industry is manufacturing J11B, which against your previous claim that China won’t manufacture further J11B after the Su27 kits provided by Russia. But yet we see No official complaint or lawsuit raised by Sukhoi so far. Action speaks louder than yelling. It could well be the case that Sukhoi has already given tacit consent to SAC for the latter to use Su27 airframe design for J11B.

KEYWORDS: SHOW US THE CONTRACT OR SHUP UP

Yeah yeah yeah spam yeah spam i will give you a taste of your self, i said in other thread that russian sources do claim a relation between the Ye-152 and the J-8 was i wrong? here we have a link in chinese that goes along with my view
http://bbs.meyet.com/dispbbs_24_146814_1_116.html

I said the J-11 can not break the license and here we have a link that claims Russia (sukhoi) will sue (china) Shenyang if they do no respect the contract and here we have reports claiming Russia might do it

http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c_online.php?leftnm=10&bKeyFlag=IN&autono=36059

at the end man i am not wrong is you who have bet the wrong side.

In fact i will show you you were very wrong here is the original russian report where they state Russia has already informed China about the illegality of making illegal copies of the SU-27 and the illegality of their sales

Россия официально уведомила Китай о том, что производство истребителей J11, копирующих российский Су-27СК, является нарушением межгосударственных договоренностей. Москва пообещала приступить к юридическим процедурам защиты интеллектуальной собственности

http://www.ng.ru/economics/2008-04-22/1_sushki.html

I think this topic is hotly debated before:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=71218&page=3

As a summary, J11B got nothing in common with the Russian Su27SK except the aerodynamic features. The radar/avionics/Weapon system/powerplant/sensors of J11B are all indigenous. Even the airframe of J11B as reported by Jane’s is greatly improved over the Russian Su27SK. The same Jane’s report also mentioned that J11b manages to reduce weight over Su27SK.

Commercial lawsuits only happen between two or more business legal entities, not between nations. In this case, the entities will be Sukhoi which holds the aerodynamic design & AVIC 1 SAC which manufactures J11B. Have you seen any complaints so far from Sukhoi? A nation shouldn’t intervene business deals agreed by two business firms under common conditions.

The mood can be seen as a frustration by some Russians who witness the sharp decline of military sales to China. But in a business world, only if you can provide better deal, no one going to guarantee money forever flows to you.

Furthermore, there’s no any news imply/confirm/suspect any J11 series fighter exports to 3rd country, again, it’s just a pathetic illusion back in Russia.

Nevertheless, China is manufacturing J11B and will do so till its own Gen 5 fighter comes in.

To be indigineous you need to take the su-27 out of the J-11`s airframe and China should do their own aerodynamic shell, the aircraft is not indigenous at all, and it is good Russia proves wrong all the lies many internet users spread about the J-11 production i love this article.

Shenyang can be sued by Sukhoi by the way there is not such thing like the chinese company can not be sued