I have been reading this thread with interest. I just like to chip is some related experience.

My job involves negotiating contracts for research projects, and I along with my tech transfer colleagues deal with a lot of IP negotiations. While I am no lawyer I do need to understand contract law and the causes of conflict in contracts. The biggest one is where one party thinks their contract means one thing and the other party thinks it means something else. This is especially true when you are negotiating under a different countries legal system.

In most contractual disputes there is a period of both sides claiming they are right, and when it goes to arbitration or court it is then up to the arbitrators or the judges to decide. Rarely in those situations is anyone happy with the outcomes.

Not saying that this applies here, but one possible argument is we are simply seeing a contractual dispute between Sukhoi and the Chinese Government where the contract is not clear enough about IP rights. I am guessing that the Chinese Government were granted a license for the source code and any dispute is likely to centre around if this allowed them to modify source code just for weapon integration or to allow the integration of new avionics.

I agree with you, it is possible each side understood something different, that is the reason the Russian side notified China their point and were willing to have friendly talks at the highest political level to solve the issue.
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.
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-04-20/russian-arms-copycat-china.html?fullstory
However you have to consider like any contract both sides have to define what was really said in the contract, if the Russians prove the chinese broke the license then, legal action has to be taken, If it is proven the contract really allows China to build then Russia and Sukhoi have lost the case.

This is only if we consider the Chinese were acting in good will, without any real desire of piracy, however we have to consider the other possibility, that China willingly broke the contract.

If we look at cases in the car industry you can see the Chinese willingly have made copycats of US and Japanese cars. see
Other US firms claim they are also hurt by Chinese sales of counterfeit drugs, car parts and other goods. The US has already complained to the WTO that China is essentially subsidising some of its industries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6367419.stm

The plain similarities between automobiles such as Mercedes C vs Geely Merrie 300(above) sparks debate whether the Chinese designs are just blatant copies of their more established counterparts. Judge them by yourselves with 11 more pics after the jump.
http://www.hemmy.net/2007/05/18/automobile-industry-chinese-copycats/
We have to consider that probability because the russians are making that acusation

China uses production licenses to create helicopters and airplanes. France’s helicopter SA-365 Dauphin 2 has been upgraded to the WZ-09 combat chopper. However, the clearest example of “licensed copying” is the Chinese J-11 fighter jet, based on Russia’s Su-27. In 2006, Moscow and Beijing struck a deal on licensed production of the Su-27SK (Chinese designation J-11A). The agreement only provided for licensed assembly of components provided by Russia. The Chinese, though, studied the aircraft while assembling it and ended up producing a similar fighter, the J-11B, only with a Chinese-made engine and avionics.
http://rt.com/Politics/2010-02-09/copycat-weapons-threat-russia.html?fullstory

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.

http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-04-20/russian-arms-copycat-china.html?fullstory

Beijing has been accused of illegally using designs before, with claims that it previously cloned the Russian Su-27SK long-range combat fighter jet.

China bought the aircraft from Russia in the 1990s, and later licensed the production on its own territory. Eventually Russian-produced components in the jets were substituted with Chinese, and finally the deal was called off by Beijing. Then China presented its version of the Sukhoi fighter called J-11B, which Moscow called a violation of its rights for intellectual property

http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-04-20/russian-arms-copycat-china.html?fullstory

Earlier, Russia has accused China of violating international agreements in connection with forgery of Russian Su-27

Напомним, ранее Россия обвиняла Китай в нарушении международных договоренностей в связи с подделкой российских истребителей Су-27http://telegraf.by/2010/06/kitaj-skopiroval-istrebitel–su-33.html

well, I think Crobato’s post on SDF was really good on this, so I will just repost it.

now, to our lovely friend who seems to do nothing but repost Russian shouts.

that’s not happened. Since as I explained, they are still delivering the parts as per the contract. So obviously, China has paid for the ToT and all the parts as per original contract. Why else would Russia still be delivering the parts of the contract for the remaining 95 aircraft?

that’s clearly false since China has shown no intention to export it. And China has already paid for 200 copies.

They don’t want to build according to the original su-27sk configuration. And how can you blame them, it stinks.

so different Russians news sources claimed at different point in 2004, 2006 and 2008 that China or Russia canceled the contract. Can they even be consistent? One says China and canceled, the other says Russia. They can’t agree on the year. Need I say more.

And more importantly, the Russians are still delivering parts to China even now as per original contract.

if Russia really believes that China is violating the contract, take it up in arbitration with China. But has it done any of that other than having sukhoi complaining in a bunch of articles? No.

again, there is no evidence China is offering J-11 to any country. It only unveiled it to the public last year in the 60th year national pride parade. They can’t produce enough J-11 for pla, what makes you think they will export?

they bought the design, the tools needed, they sourced the parts from the Russians. They had the right under original agreement to source domestic parts. They are doing that. Because su-27sk specifications stink.

Russia actually offered upgrade package along the line of su-27SM (but downgraded for export purposes obviously) and China would not expect it, because it stinks.

again, you’ve posted multiple copies of the same news that has no basis.

it’s not fake, it’s local version and they are still legal under original agreement.

TPHUANG

I do respect your right to have your position, it is okay, with me, you have the right to believe what ever you want, but you do not convince me.

Sukhoi has all the rights, the Russian media has reported all that, now if you think i will believe Crobato, well man i do not, i prefer RIA Novosti, why i will believe some one who has no experience in Russia, i have to tell you that personaly i have Russian family, that personaly i have met Russians who did work in the russian media, one of my best friends did work for a russian TV in Irkutsk and met with Sukhoi people at least once.

Now do you think i think RIA Novosti does not talk to people in Sukhoi or Russia today does not cover the PAK FA project or MASKs with russian defence specialists, well no i do think that way, what the Russians are claiming is true from their perspective.

Now my nation has been recieving many aerospace investment, Mexico was even offered by Israel once the Kfir license and Antonov and Mil offered their aircraft to be built in Mexico too.
i know any license or investment has IP restrictions, all what you say is just a way to justify something wrong.

Mexico also has done licenses, from engines in the 1920s to aircraft in the 1930s and today we do the same things with the Stella and Learjet 85, but i know my country has to respect those licenses and investments. You are not going to convince me unless you bring Russian sources saying China did not break the license, statements from Pogosyan saying China has not broken the license or at least that russia has lost its case in the WTO or in a binational trade comission by China and Russia where Russia accepts China did not violate the agreement and they were wrong.
Besides that i do not accept any of your explanations as valid.

I would like to add two interesting comments from SDF … esp. since “kiwinopal” still can’t or don’t want to answer simple questions.

The first one from “crobato” …

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

And another comment from “tphuang” … following this question:

Only for the completeness of this discussion.

Deino 😉

Deino

I think you are free to believe what ever source you think is more reliable, my opinion is Russia Today, Lenta, Itar tass, Ria Novosti are more reliable than your forum quotes, by seeing what is going on in the world tells me, your assertions are wrong, in my opinion, you are trying just to justify a wrong practise.

The Chinese sooner or later will need to respect and honor the IP rights if they want investment, as long as they do not do it, they will lose potential investment in aerospace manufacturing.

Russia at this moment is creating new rules in order to enforce the IP rights of Russian military exports.
But definitively quoting people of other forums over Pogosyan, well is a bit wierd to me, i prefer Pogosyan over your forum sources that have no real contact with the Russian defence Industry and Sukhoi as Pogosyan does.

:confused: Exactly my impression. From the bottom the engine cowlings do look more or less in-axis with the intakes. From top, they look totally off..

i think that is a result of the way the forebody shape blends with the engine nacelles, but from the bottom view it is obvious the are not so off axis


in my opinion it uses a really good radar blocker

the only reason is because kiwinopal have a personal agenda against canards….not that anyone else cares 😉

come on sign the article says the south korean military prefer the aircraft with tailplanes and on the internet they showed it with canards, why do you think it is that? we do not need to repeat the canards stealth thread unless we have something new, but definitively the tailed version is prefered by the military, i was just trying to explain why and what is the most likely reason for that.

The KFX was originally canceled a few months ago due to concerns over funding and possibly technology. However the recent situation with North Korea has made the government re-evaluate the program, along side with interest from Indonesia in possibly joining the program.

There is generally two designs for it

KFX-101, the conventional lay out planform and less riskier and more accepted lay out.

KFX-201, canard delta. Not preferred by the military, yet is often used on internet sites as representing the KFX design.

both design have a small bay and will use two engines for maritime role. to enhance stealth, it will use a true s-duct design. some problems will remain on if the US will export the engine, and the type of contribution Indonesia can give.

wind tunnel model video can be watched here

KFX-101

http://www.sendspace.com/file/segie8

KFX-201

http://www.sendspace.com/file/hwgde0

the tailplane version is prefered i guess just because canards have more constraigns at the moment of being designed, the best canard position is above wing level, its best shape is high aspect ratio with a trapezoidal form.
There is another thread named canards and stealth take a look at it you might guess why the tailplane version is prefered

Many internet-sources – most likely also some in portuguese – do also say that there are little green men on mars, that there are aliens right that moment on earth !
Please do not use only the part, which fit Your opinion, esp. when the same source is otherwise wrong.

Deino 😀

PS: Besides just one last question … and hopefully You could answer this one: What’s Your opinion on the latest Combat-Aircraft report about the Chinese history “haavarla” quoted ?? It is also something written, published and printed in an IMO most respected magazine … so what do You think ?

I have given you quotations by Pogosyan, very much he said on the J-11B is an illegal copy in AeroIndia 2009.

The aircraft was supposed to have Al-31s and russian subsystems.

And as you can see there are plenty of news saying that.

is the J-11 exported to Pakistan? no at least there are no aircraft there.

could had been they offered? yes they could, were not the Russian and Indian intelligence services aware of that? probably yes they were.

Did not Pogosyan say they were going to discuss the issue with China ? yes he did. where not the Russian afraid China might export the J-11B yes they were.

So far it seems China and Russia are discussing the Issue. but i have proven you my points you just simply disregard them but do not present me a single russian link contradicting me.

hmm, according to the Russians on the January 2010 edition of Kanwa. They are still sending all relevant parts of the original contract to China. They said that they might stop doing so, since the parts could well be going toward the construction of J-11B. However, they have not done so yet. So obviously, China has not stopped paying for the original contract. They are still buying all the parts and have paid for the rights for the 200 su-27s. Nothing was said about engine that we knew of. Even the Russians have not complained about engines. In fact, they stopped selling AL-31F to China (only AL-31FN) with the fear that it might be used on J-11B. That’s why you see J-11B using only WS-10A. Do people here actually think China is so prideful that it would not get AL-31F and put it on their own plane? It took a good 2 years before they sorted out the production problems with WS-10A. You think PLAAF want to see J-11Bs parked outside SAC without engines or flying in the air with imported engines.

They continue to use AL-31FN on J-10A with no stoppage in sight.

Russians have done a media blitz against China on the entire su-27 issue. It’s too bad that so many people just believes everything they read.

see what RIA Novosti has to say
Several years ago, Beijing bought a license to assemble 200 Su-27SK fighters at the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation. But China suspended the contract after producing just 105 aircraft.

here they explain why the J-11B is an illegal product

China has not signed a copyright agreement with Russia and is producing the J-11B aircraft, effectively a carbon copy of the Su-27SK Flanker. Beijing even exports the plane to Pakistan without getting a permit from Sukhoi, which holds the patent for the Su planes, or paying royalties to it.

China said we do not want more J-11s
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080527/108566309.html

now see what else they say
Russian Defense Ministry sources confirmed that the refusal was due to findings that China had produced its own copycat version of the Su-27SK fighter jet in violation of intellectual property agreements.

later they say
In 1995, China secured a $2.5-billion production license from Russia to build 200 Su-27SKs, dubbed J-11A, at the Shenyang Aircraft Corp.

The deal required the aircraft to be outfitted with Russian avionics, radars and engines. Russia cancelled the arrangement in 2006 after it discovered that China was developing an indigenous version, J-11B, with Chinese avionics and systems. The decision came after China had already produced 95 aircraft.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090310/120493194.html
Now if you do not like RIA Novosti

we have more from others

Russia is trying to protect the technology from the “pirates”

After the incident with J-11, copying the Russian Su-27SK, Russia has officially notified China that the production of copies of fighters is a violation of international agreements and pledged to begin legal procedures to protect intellectual property.
In March of this year, Russian Ministry of Justice has finalized amendments to the Law on Military-Technical Cooperation of the Russian Federation with foreign states “, which aims to other states in the sphere of military-technical cooperation (MTC) was added and the protection of intellectual property to sell weapons.
http://www.newsru.com/world/04jun2010/kopija.html

see now Lenta

The fate of the popular Russian small arms is not the sort of special exception. This is just the most glaring example. Copying, direct theft of technical solutions, in violation of all norms to thrive in the global arms market. What is the story of the creation of Chinese engineers “their” J-11 aircraft. In 1995, Beijing has concluded with Moscow an agreement on the licensed assembly of 200 Su-27SK. After receiving about 100 kits for assembly, the Chinese side from the other refused, firing under the name J-11 is practically a copy of the Russian fighter. And the new product was offered to the world market, making competition “parents”. China has generally set copying equipment into the stream.
http://www.lenta.ru/articles/2009/05/01/kalash/

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
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-04-20/russian-arms-copycat-china.html?fullstory

Defense analysts across a broad spectrum are claiming that China is exporting the J-11s to Pakistan. This chagrins many in the Bharati defense establishment because the J-11 is a very modern fighter comparable to the Sukho Su-27Sk. The head of the Chinese Air Force and the Defense Minster of China are in Pakistan right now and the Foreign Minister is arriving a weeks time.
http://rupeenews.com/2008/04/22/chinese-j-11s-for-pakistan/

China shamelessly steals fighter jet technology from Russia

http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/22-04-2009/107437-fighter_jet-0

BANGALORE, India – After years of denial, a Russian defense official conceded that China had produced its own “fake” version of the Su-27SK fighter jet in violation of intellectual property agreements.

“We are in discussions with China on this issue,” said Mikhail Pogosyan, first vice president on program coordination, Russian Aircraft Corp., during a press conference here at the Aero India trade show.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3947599