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.

….

O.k … again YOUR claim !

But all I ask for is a confirmation – and again PLEASE NOT, “the Russian said so !” … 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 !

Then, we can end that debate.

Thanks in advance,
Deino

The PRC fanboys don’t seem to get it. Let me spell it out as simply as I can.

The J-11 is a reverse engineered copy of the Su-27 just like the Soviet Tu-4 Bull was a reversed engineered copy of the Boeing B-29 Superfortress was (to use an example we all would be familiar with).

Yes it is an impressive technical achievement to reverse engineer such a complex piece of kit.

Yes it is impressive that the PRC has developed the subsystems, avionics and the like to equip it.

But at the end of the day the Chinese illegally copied the design of a plane they had no legal right to copy.

And not a single PRC fanboy can point to an agreement, a document, a source or a handshake that proves that the Russians gave permission for such a blatant rip off of their intellectual property.

It is a rip off. Plain and simple.

Nearly in every point … Yes & No:

Just an attempt of comparison to the Airbus facility in China:
If Airbus delivered the blueprints, established the facilities, instructed the Chineses engenieers, received the money for that and China only produces as many aircraft as contracted (and payed for), whould You also call it a “rip-off” or “copy cat” ??

So is more or less the same with the Flanker deal if they stick to the 200 airfames.

I agree with You that with each part not of original Russian origin we depart more and more from the contract. As such the original J-11 was a legal “copy”, the J-11A with its updated cockpit and other minor systems maybe still a tolerated legal one … and the J-11B is – strictly spoken – no longer legal, but if they only build 200 airframes it would be the same as if the Airbus-facility in China would some day fit them with a Chinese powerplant.
The only one, who could complain is the powerplant deliverer … but not Airbus, who received the payment.

That’s why I still try to get an answer for the BIG, RED or whatever question:

If China paid only for the right to build them and has additionally to pay for each aircraft … then everything’s fine, You are correct and I admit, that I’m wrong.

But if the deal includes the manufacture & delivery of 200 aircraft to be made from a certain number of airframes completely built in China, then only Lylka/Saturn and the radar-manufactor could complain, since Sukhoi received its payment.
Additionally they could also use the undelivered but paid “kits” and sell them to another country. So why blame SAC !?

Hope this was clear …

i won`t expeculate, because RT and RIA Novosty have interviewed the Russian defence stablishment, your question has to be answered by the Russian reports otherwise is pure speculation that fuels irrealities such as the J-11B has not broken any contract.

I answered with the Russian version because they have more authority than me in terms of veracity.

O.k … then we can end this debate, if You really don’t want to answer . Sad, especially since You lost Your Your authority here to discuss. 🙁

Deino

Sorry …. maybe in Mexico You have another logic, but would it be possible just simply to answer a simple question … and no blablabla around. 😡

I know what Russian “sources” say and I know what Chinese “sources” say … I know the Russians are complaining and the Chinese are breaking copyright issues, but – again – back to the question, since You are the first one, who turns the story that way and esp. since that could give a new insight to that issue: 😮

Did China only buy the right to build the 200 Flankers under licence or did they pay for them (without engine + radar) ???

Please leave everything else aside – we both won’t reach an agreement in that issue – but I’m interested in that simple question.

I think easier I cant ask.

Deino

Russian aerospace authorities have confirmed what has been speculated upon publicly for years 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 programme coordination, Russian Aircraft Corp., during a press conference here at the AeroIndia 2009
trade show.

…

Once again no agreement. We all know what the Russian side, Sukhoi and esp. the Russian media is complaining … so to give then as a “source” is not the fact for – once again – the RED QUESTION:

Did China only buy the right to build the 200 Flankers under licence or did they pay for them (without engine + radar) ???

…

Chang does not believe China will honor the intellectual property agreement, or any agreement with Russia, and will continue to develop the J-11B as a totally indigenous aircraft. However, China will move cautiously until it secures deals for the Su-33 carrier-based fighter. China is beginning to build its first aircraft carrier and needs Russian technology and experience, Chang said.

Any idea, who’s that “Chang” is … I do not hope, he Andrej Chnag from KANWA … if YES, You can forget that as a souce !

China’s problem is they are trying to substitute a high grade commercial steel for titanium and their clones end up acting as if they are flying with a lead butt.

This is the first time I’ve heard that … any source for this ?? PLEASE:

Deino

@ Deino

You’re right. Kiwinopal has every right to continue posting anything he likes.

Hey … that’s fine ! We have an agreement !

But what’s about an answer to my questions or a confirmation to his claims ?
But again You are right … since that is not possible we both will most likely stick to “our” point of view … end.

Deino

Deino
Any manufacturer will always demand some rights, Sukhoi demanded something logic, China was granted the rights to build the aircraft but they should had russian components and could only build certain numbers.

Why is it forbidden to replace some certain parts – maybe at Your car ?! – when You have better available … and that’s what they are doing … they are building the certain numbers like agreed in the contract and for which they already paid, they take the Russian parts … lay them aside and use their own. So, what’s up ? Do You really think Russia can demand to use the AL-31F, when the delivered ones – and here I think they were not even delivered but paid for ?

But let us go bit by bit:
Sorry, but if it’s meant like You wrote it, then this is non-sense:

All of this you are talking is non sense, why China builds J-11Bs when they said we do not want more J-11s from Russia, from the moment they said we do not want more Su-27s means they can not build any more.

They build them, since they paid for the license to build them ! Just that simple. … and so they don’t want more from Russia as agreed in the contract.
And why does “we do not want more Su-27s means they can not build any more.” ??? … This is non-sense, since they build them.

However they are doing it, you and most posters who say No one knows the terms of such contact are just saying non sense, you are defending a wrong practice, something wrong.

India shows an excellent way of doing the Su-30MKI license, they renegociated the agreement with Sukhoi they even say as a MLU the Su-30MKI will recieve new russian equipment.

Here I may agree with You in a very, very strict sense, if – and really only IF – the original contract demands that each Flanker build in China has to contain a certain number of Russian parts.
But since I don’t know the contract and by all I’ve read (esp. when it was signed, since then the sources are the most reliable) it was contracted to build them in China by 100% Chinese parts … only the engines + radar were denied to be build by license.

But on the other side: If I buy an airliner from Boeing or Airbus … You pay for that plane and then decide later to re-engine them or attach and add some certain items of Your own whish … why should this be a break of the contract You once signed and paid for !????

When you buy something you pay and you get the good, you stop paying you can not get the good, the only reason you say the Russian media does not know is simply to avoid you the reality that China is doing something wrong and allow you to deny the reality.

Exactly … I completely agree with You, especially since China PAID for the license manufacturing of at least 200 Flankers !!!

The Russian media knows the contract terms because the Russian defence industry is the one complaigning.

They know more than me and you simply because they interview the people working in the russian defence industry and Sukhoi.
Also i can tell you because in Mexico we are building now aircraft and jet engine parts, but at no moment we are allowed to do things that might harm the manufacturer, Sukhoi is being damaged if China builds Su-27 without their authorization.

No … the Russian media knows only the contract terms, the Russian defence industry – which is complaining – let them know and surely not the parts, which would give China right. I would call that a one-sided point of view like so often published in advertisement magazines like Kanwa or AIRFleet.

The Su-33 has different prototypes and Ukraine sold one, this prototype that China bought very likely has older technology than later Su-33s have and did no solve problems, solved on later Su-33s, that is the reason the Russians are saying it will be hard for China to solve them too quickly.

That may be true … but it doesn’t matter, since SAC surely will know what to correct. If this will happen … I don’t know esp. given the latest record of SAC being able to deliver on time and on performance. However … just let that be the problem of the engineers at SAC.

The airfleet magazine never said the F-22 was positively shot down by a J-10, they only asked the question is it possible it might had happened? and they answered it saying it is very unlikely it ever happened and it belongs to the realm of fake reports.

But they started an article about the J-10 with such a stupid story … if that is the best way to prove to be a reliable magazine … I don’t know.

Deino 😀

upppssss … double post

That’s really funny – and new to me – … but to admit, ome years ago I had a subscription of AIRFleet … and thought it was a quite reliable magazine !

Dumb Deino … :diablo: