Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Share
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3906
    Points : 3937
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sat Nov 28, 2015 10:37 pm

    Kimppis wrote:Keep underestimating China. Chinese electronics, avionics, etc. are superior to current Russian ones and they have AESA radars in active service, but suuureee... they are only comparable to Soviet aircraft from 1988.

    Although I do agree that it's probably somewhat more advanced than the Chinese Flankers currently in service. That said, J-11D (and J-16?) should be comparable and it will probably be finished in a few years. Not to mention that J-20 is going to enter service quite soon too.

    But the main thing is that they can replace additional 24 J-7s with modern fighters, a little sooner. And Su-35 is going to be superior to all the other 4th gens in the region.

    With which engines is the J-20 going to fly? Chinese electronics aren't more advanced than Russian current, but in a sense they don't need to be, quantity is a quality on its own. The fact that the chinese want to contract for more Sukhois in order to sample them, is telling.

    For the rest I agree, these planes need to keep coming.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1494
    Points : 1528
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  Zivo on Sat Nov 28, 2015 11:00 pm

    The thing about the Su-35 and the J-20 is that they don't need to be the best, they just need to be better than 90% of the aircraft out there.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  Guest on Sat Nov 28, 2015 11:17 pm

    Kimppis wrote:Keep underestimating China. Chinese electronics, avionics, etc. are superior to current Russian ones and they have AESA radars in active service, but suuureee... they are only comparable to Soviet aircraft from 1988.

    Although I do agree that it's probably somewhat more advanced than the Chinese Flankers currently in service. That said, J-11D (and J-16?) should be comparable and it will probably be finished in a few years. Not to mention that J-20 is going to enter service quite soon too.

    But the main thing is that they can replace additional 24 J-7s with modern fighters, a little sooner. And Su-35 is going to be superior to all the other 4th gens in the region.
    Not an underestimation by any means. If the J-11D was even comparable to the Su-35, they wouldn't need to buy the Su-35. It doesn't make sense to buy an aircraft that supposedly only has better engines. Even more so, the Su-35 can't use Chinese weapons nor can it interface with Chinese AWACS or other radars. Either the Chinese Military Command isn't very competent with how they are spending their money or they have serious doubts about the J-11D's abilities when they still go ahead and procure approximately 2 squadrons of Su-35s. And before the "China needs engines" excuse is pulled to justify the purchase of the Su-35, the 117S is export approved and I doubt Russia would object if China just ordered a large batch of 117S engines instead of the Su-35.

    As for the J-20. It is pretty cool seeing how a fully matured MiG 1.44 may have looked like along with other stolen technology from the US. Like the F-35's EOTS. I am starting to doubt that I will ever see the day when the Chinese produce a fighter without "referencing" someone else's design.
    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 306
    Points : 312
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  Kimppis on Sat Nov 28, 2015 11:32 pm

    And here we go again...

    Yes, I've read that Su-35s radar is not necessarily worse even though it's not AESA and that its detection range is excellent. Fair enough.

    But the issue is that a lot of people keep underestimating Chinese tech (and Russian tech too) and it feels like it's still 2001 (or heck, even 2010), even though their advancements have been huuuuge. Read Sinodefence forums, people.

    So overall, maybe I went too far when I said that their electrionics and avionics are simply better than the Russian ones. But they are not much worse, and certainly not in around 2020. That's common sense when you look at the size of the economy, R&D spending, military budget, 052D, 055, J-20, J-31, J-10B/C, J-11D, J-16, improving tech in general...

    Regarding J-20s engines... Well it seems that it's going to enter service with interim engines (WS-10 or AL-31) and then they'll move on to WS-15 once that is ready (maybe around 2020?). So yeah, engines are probably China's biggest weakness, but it seems they are making great strides and in any case, underpowered 5th gen is better than no 5th gen at all.

    China is going to have atleast around 1000 4th (and 5th) gen fighters in 2020. So yes, that is going to keep the US "busy". I'm sure Russia is happy about that.

    And thanks for your kind words Sepheronx. Atleast I don't talk about things that I know nothing about (I have no really detailed knowledge about military equipment or tactics, for example), so it should be fine. But I think I have a pretty good overall picture of different militaries and their strength, geopolitics, economies and military history. The big picture.

    This forum is full of BS too, even without me. Smile There are quite a few conspiracy theorists, "the west is going to collapse tomorrow, it's all fake", anti-semitism, racism, absolutely blatant Russia fanboyism... MP.net was really pro-US and pro-west, but this place isn't much more objective. And to me that is usually OK (I guess)... just saying.
    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 306
    Points : 312
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  Kimppis on Sat Nov 28, 2015 11:52 pm

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:Keep underestimating China. Chinese electronics, avionics, etc. are superior to current Russian ones and they have AESA radars in active service, but suuureee... they are only comparable to Soviet aircraft from 1988.

    Although I do agree that it's probably somewhat more advanced than the Chinese Flankers currently in service. That said, J-11D (and J-16?) should be comparable and it will probably be finished in a few years. Not to mention that J-20 is going to enter service quite soon too.

    But the main thing is that they can replace additional 24 J-7s with modern fighters, a little sooner. And Su-35 is going to be superior to all the other 4th gens in the region.
    Not an underestimation by any means. If the J-11D was even comparable to the Su-35, they wouldn't need to buy the Su-35. It doesn't make sense to buy an aircraft that supposedly only has better engines. Even more so, the Su-35 can't use Chinese weapons nor can it interface with Chinese AWACS or other radars. Either the Chinese Military Command isn't very competent with how they are spending their money or they have serious doubts about the J-11D's abilities when they still go ahead and procure approximately 2 squadrons of Su-35s. And before the "China needs engines" excuse is pulled to justify the purchase of the Su-35, the 117S is export approved and I doubt Russia would object if China just ordered a large batch of 117S engines instead of the Su-35.

    As for the J-20. It is pretty cool seeing how a fully matured MiG 1.44 may have looked like along with other stolen technology from the US. Like the F-35's EOTS. I am starting to doubt that I will ever see the day when the Chinese produce a fighter without "referencing" someone else's design.

    Honestly, it's probably mostly about the engines. If Chinese tech is so inferior why are they only buying 24 of them? And I've read that Su-35 must be able to interface with Chinese AWACS and radars. Otherwise it would make absolutely no sense to buy them. All in all, it seems to me that the importance of this deal should not be exaggerated to one way or another.

    J-20 is not a copy of MiG 1.44, WTF! And yes, J-20 has an EOTS too, so it must be a copy! It's these fucking "double standards" that piss me off... When Chinese weapon systems have some similar characteristics as some of their foreign counterparts, they must automatically be copies! You know... competing systems often tend to look quite similar throughout the history... OMG! How can that be! Chinese designers have to follow the same laws of aerodynamics (and physics) as everyone else... How dare they! And there's absolutely no fucking proof about copying in most cases. It's all media speculation and anti-Chinese propaganda. Of course the Chinese Flankers (or rather, their airframe) were originally copied from Su-27, that is blatantly clear. But J-20? Or even J-31? Total BS. It's so funny... Mitsubishi ATD-X, the Korean KF-X and Saab 2020 are not copies of F-35, but J-31 is? Logic!

    These Chinese advancements are totally logical and expected when you look at the overall strength of the country, the size of its economy, R&D and military budget. It should not come as a surprise to anyone, FFS.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3906
    Points : 3937
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Nov 29, 2015 12:05 am

    Kimppis wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:Keep underestimating China. Chinese electronics, avionics, etc. are superior to current Russian ones and they have AESA radars in active service, but suuureee... they are only comparable to Soviet aircraft from 1988.

    Although I do agree that it's probably somewhat more advanced than the Chinese Flankers currently in service. That said, J-11D (and J-16?) should be comparable and it will probably be finished in a few years. Not to mention that J-20 is going to enter service quite soon too.

    But the main thing is that they can replace additional 24 J-7s with modern fighters, a little sooner. And Su-35 is going to be superior to all the other 4th gens in the region.
    Not an underestimation by any means. If the J-11D was even comparable to the Su-35, they wouldn't need to buy the Su-35. It doesn't make sense to buy an aircraft that supposedly only has better engines. Even more so, the Su-35 can't use Chinese weapons nor can it interface with Chinese AWACS or other radars. Either the Chinese Military Command isn't very competent with how they are spending their money or they have serious doubts about the J-11D's abilities when they still go ahead and procure approximately 2 squadrons of Su-35s. And before the "China needs engines" excuse is pulled to justify the purchase of the Su-35, the 117S is export approved and I doubt Russia would object if China just ordered a large batch of 117S engines instead of the Su-35.

    As for the J-20. It is pretty cool seeing how a fully matured MiG 1.44 may have looked like along with other stolen technology from the US. Like the F-35's EOTS. I am starting to doubt that I will ever see the day when the Chinese produce a fighter without "referencing" someone else's design.

    Honestly, it's probably mostly about the engines. If Chinese tech is so inferior why are they only buying 24 of them? And I've read that Su-35 must be able to interface with Chinese AWACS and radars. Otherwise it would make absolutely no sense to buy them. All in all, it seems to me that the importance of this deal should not be exaggerated to one way or another.

    J-20 is not a copy of MiG 1.44, WTF! And yes, J-20 has an EOTS too, so it must be a copy! It's these fucking "double standards" that piss me off... When Chinese weapon systems have some similar characteristics to some of their foreign counterparts, they must automaticallybe copies! You know... competing systems often tend to look quite similar throughout the history... OMG! How can that be! Chinese designers have to follow the same laws of aerodynamics (and physics) as everyone else... How dare they! And there's absolutely no fucking proof about copying in most cases. It's all media speculation and anti-Chinese propaganda. Of course the Chinese Flankers (or rather, their airframe) were originally copied from Su-27, that is blatantly clear. But J-20? Or even J-31? Total BS. It's so funny... Mitsubishi ATD-X, the Korean KF-X and Saab 2020 are not copies of F-35, but J-31 is? Logic!

    These Chinese advancements are totally logical and expected when you look at the overall strength of the country, the size of its economy, R&D and military budget. It should not come as a surprise to anyone, FFS.    

    It will will be always about the engines and the armament. Basically the computing power and radar can be dealt with, like the Koreans with their own auto engines. They were poor and classic but with a little beefing up, you wouldn't make a difference between them and german cars.

    So baasically, they need the sampling, it will be always about the sampling. Now the J-20 has a lot of things going through the 1.44 lineage. Off course that doesn't mean much. But the fact is though that the J20 has possibly worse engines than the 1.44. There's also the fun part about chinese weapons, so far, the Chinese armament has been conservative, taking from foreign systems what it needed. The best example is the HJ-12 (Javelin Tse Toung). Which doesn't mean it is a bad thing, just showing that on many aspects the Chinese will be conservative and will wait for someone else to break through. They weren't copied, they were reverse engineered for the most part on the J11's from C on. And they didn't need to copy, they just exceeded the licence they had. So yeah, the Chinese play dirty sometimes, and I understand that they need to, because of their relative need to catch up.

    Well as for the rest, the size of the economy doesn't explain much there. There are vast domains in which the Chinese with all those trillions roll in 1980 level tin boxes or have the equivalent of Desert Storm era radios. Now let's not get ahead of our times here. China is catching, granted, but they have a huge amount of consolidation to do.

    For instance they have to make up their mind about their infantry rifles, infantry doctrine and overall have some fighting experience.

    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 306
    Points : 312
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  Kimppis on Sun Nov 29, 2015 12:24 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:Keep underestimating China. Chinese electronics, avionics, etc. are superior to current Russian ones and they have AESA radars in active service, but suuureee... they are only comparable to Soviet aircraft from 1988.

    Although I do agree that it's probably somewhat more advanced than the Chinese Flankers currently in service. That said, J-11D (and J-16?) should be comparable and it will probably be finished in a few years. Not to mention that J-20 is going to enter service quite soon too.

    But the main thing is that they can replace additional 24 J-7s with modern fighters, a little sooner. And Su-35 is going to be superior to all the other 4th gens in the region.
    Not an underestimation by any means. If the J-11D was even comparable to the Su-35, they wouldn't need to buy the Su-35. It doesn't make sense to buy an aircraft that supposedly only has better engines. Even more so, the Su-35 can't use Chinese weapons nor can it interface with Chinese AWACS or other radars. Either the Chinese Military Command isn't very competent with how they are spending their money or they have serious doubts about the J-11D's abilities when they still go ahead and procure approximately 2 squadrons of Su-35s. And before the "China needs engines" excuse is pulled to justify the purchase of the Su-35, the 117S is export approved and I doubt Russia would object if China just ordered a large batch of 117S engines instead of the Su-35.

    As for the J-20. It is pretty cool seeing how a fully matured MiG 1.44 may have looked like along with other stolen technology from the US. Like the F-35's EOTS. I am starting to doubt that I will ever see the day when the Chinese produce a fighter without "referencing" someone else's design.

    Honestly, it's probably mostly about the engines. If Chinese tech is so inferior why are they only buying 24 of them? And I've read that Su-35 must be able to interface with Chinese AWACS and radars. Otherwise it would make absolutely no sense to buy them. All in all, it seems to me that the importance of this deal should not be exaggerated to one way or another.

    J-20 is not a copy of MiG 1.44, WTF! And yes, J-20 has an EOTS too, so it must be a copy! It's these fucking "double standards" that piss me off... When Chinese weapon systems have some similar characteristics to some of their foreign counterparts, they must automaticallybe copies! You know... competing systems often tend to look quite similar throughout the history... OMG! How can that be! Chinese designers have to follow the same laws of aerodynamics (and physics) as everyone else... How dare they! And there's absolutely no fucking proof about copying in most cases. It's all media speculation and anti-Chinese propaganda. Of course the Chinese Flankers (or rather, their airframe) were originally copied from Su-27, that is blatantly clear. But J-20? Or even J-31? Total BS. It's so funny... Mitsubishi ATD-X, the Korean KF-X and Saab 2020 are not copies of F-35, but J-31 is? Logic!

    These Chinese advancements are totally logical and expected when you look at the overall strength of the country, the size of its economy, R&D and military budget. It should not come as a surprise to anyone, FFS.    

    It will will be always about the engines and the armament. Basically the computing power and radar can be dealt with, like the Koreans with their own auto engines. They were poor and classic but with a little beefing up, you wouldn't make a difference between them and german cars.

    So baasically, they need the sampling, it will be always about the sampling. Now the J-20 has a lot of things going through the 1.44 lineage. Off course that doesn't mean much. But the fact is though that the J20 has possibly worse engines than the 1.44.  There's also the fun part about chinese weapons, so far, the Chinese armament has been conservative, taking from foreign systems what it needed. The best example is the HJ-12 (Javelin Tse Toung). Which doesn't mean it is a bad thing, just showing that on many aspects the Chinese will be conservative and will wait for someone else to break through. They weren't copied, they were reverse engineered for the most part on the J11's from C on. And they didn't need to copy, they just exceeded the licence they had. So yeah, the Chinese play dirty sometimes, and I understand that they need to, because of their relative need to catch up.

    Well as for the rest, the size of the economy doesn't explain much there. There are vast domains in which the Chinese with all those trillions roll in 1980 level tin boxes or have the equivalent of Desert Storm era radios. Now let's not get ahead of our times here. China is catching, granted, but they have a huge amount of consolidation to do.

    For instance they have to make up their mind about their infantry rifles, infantry doctrine and overall have some fighting experience.


    Well, exactly. China did "copying", and they had to, in order to catch up. But now that is needed less and less. And regarding Flankers: they have mastered building them and they have hundreds built and in service. That is their main (and only) heavy 4th gen fighter. Why not keep building improved variants (J-11D) and "sampling" (or whatever you want to call it) the best versions the Russians have to offer? And yes, both MiG 1.44 and J-20 have delta-wings and canards. But does that make J-20 a copy? Hell no.

    And I didn't say that the Chinese military is 100% "modern". Of course not. I was talking about the new equipment they are procuring. And to be fair, the ground forces are not their priority.

    But this getting off-topic. The end.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3906
    Points : 3937
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Nov 29, 2015 12:45 am

    Kimppis wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:Keep underestimating China. Chinese electronics, avionics, etc. are superior to current Russian ones and they have AESA radars in active service, but suuureee... they are only comparable to Soviet aircraft from 1988.

    Although I do agree that it's probably somewhat more advanced than the Chinese Flankers currently in service. That said, J-11D (and J-16?) should be comparable and it will probably be finished in a few years. Not to mention that J-20 is going to enter service quite soon too.

    But the main thing is that they can replace additional 24 J-7s with modern fighters, a little sooner. And Su-35 is going to be superior to all the other 4th gens in the region.
    Not an underestimation by any means. If the J-11D was even comparable to the Su-35, they wouldn't need to buy the Su-35. It doesn't make sense to buy an aircraft that supposedly only has better engines. Even more so, the Su-35 can't use Chinese weapons nor can it interface with Chinese AWACS or other radars. Either the Chinese Military Command isn't very competent with how they are spending their money or they have serious doubts about the J-11D's abilities when they still go ahead and procure approximately 2 squadrons of Su-35s. And before the "China needs engines" excuse is pulled to justify the purchase of the Su-35, the 117S is export approved and I doubt Russia would object if China just ordered a large batch of 117S engines instead of the Su-35.

    As for the J-20. It is pretty cool seeing how a fully matured MiG 1.44 may have looked like along with other stolen technology from the US. Like the F-35's EOTS. I am starting to doubt that I will ever see the day when the Chinese produce a fighter without "referencing" someone else's design.

    Honestly, it's probably mostly about the engines. If Chinese tech is so inferior why are they only buying 24 of them? And I've read that Su-35 must be able to interface with Chinese AWACS and radars. Otherwise it would make absolutely no sense to buy them. All in all, it seems to me that the importance of this deal should not be exaggerated to one way or another.

    J-20 is not a copy of MiG 1.44, WTF! And yes, J-20 has an EOTS too, so it must be a copy! It's these fucking "double standards" that piss me off... When Chinese weapon systems have some similar characteristics to some of their foreign counterparts, they must automaticallybe copies! You know... competing systems often tend to look quite similar throughout the history... OMG! How can that be! Chinese designers have to follow the same laws of aerodynamics (and physics) as everyone else... How dare they! And there's absolutely no fucking proof about copying in most cases. It's all media speculation and anti-Chinese propaganda. Of course the Chinese Flankers (or rather, their airframe) were originally copied from Su-27, that is blatantly clear. But J-20? Or even J-31? Total BS. It's so funny... Mitsubishi ATD-X, the Korean KF-X and Saab 2020 are not copies of F-35, but J-31 is? Logic!

    These Chinese advancements are totally logical and expected when you look at the overall strength of the country, the size of its economy, R&D and military budget. It should not come as a surprise to anyone, FFS.    

    It will will be always about the engines and the armament. Basically the computing power and radar can be dealt with, like the Koreans with their own auto engines. They were poor and classic but with a little beefing up, you wouldn't make a difference between them and german cars.

    So baasically, they need the sampling, it will be always about the sampling. Now the J-20 has a lot of things going through the 1.44 lineage. Off course that doesn't mean much. But the fact is though that the J20 has possibly worse engines than the 1.44.  There's also the fun part about chinese weapons, so far, the Chinese armament has been conservative, taking from foreign systems what it needed. The best example is the HJ-12 (Javelin Tse Toung). Which doesn't mean it is a bad thing, just showing that on many aspects the Chinese will be conservative and will wait for someone else to break through. They weren't copied, they were reverse engineered for the most part on the J11's from C on. And they didn't need to copy, they just exceeded the licence they had. So yeah, the Chinese play dirty sometimes, and I understand that they need to, because of their relative need to catch up.

    Well as for the rest, the size of the economy doesn't explain much there. There are vast domains in which the Chinese with all those trillions roll in 1980 level tin boxes or have the equivalent of Desert Storm era radios. Now let's not get ahead of our times here. China is catching, granted, but they have a huge amount of consolidation to do.

    For instance they have to make up their mind about their infantry rifles, infantry doctrine and overall have some fighting experience.


    Well, exactly. China did "copying", and they had to, in order to catch up. But now that is needed less and less. And regarding Flankers: they have mastered building them and they have hundreds built and in service. That is their main (and only) heavy 4th gen fighter. Why not keep building improved variants (J-11D) and "sampling" (or whatever you want to call it) the best versions the Russians have to offer? And yes, both MiG 1.44 and J-20 have delta-wings and canards. But does that make J-20 a copy? Hell no.

    And I didn't say that the Chinese military is 100% "modern". Of course not. I was talking about the new equipment they are procuring. And to be fair, the ground forces are not their priority.

    But this getting off-topic. The end.    


    Now, now, there's a point you have to understand what you're talking about. There's not one that picked the 1.44 route for their 5gen plane. NO ONE. Not even the Russians. Same for the Z10, Kamov design initially, ended up being a Chinese attack helicopter with a lot of compromises (chin gun for instance, calibre etc). I understand that initial studies and ideas and blue prints do not obviously translate into outright copies. The way the F35 ended up while starting as a case study of the Yak 141, doesn't mean that the Yak 141 didn't serve as a template.


    Look at the HJ-8/9 family. They're not simple copies, but the base for their existence is Milan parts they copied. Then when they streamlined their production, they bolted up TOW missiles with Milan parts. And you have the final HJ-8.

    There's a little to get upset here, the fact is that, the Chinese will need to sort out their industrial capability, so a lot of things won't get half done, like right now for their strategical needs.
    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 306
    Points : 312
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  Kimppis on Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:05 am

    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:
    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:Keep underestimating China. Chinese electronics, avionics, etc. are superior to current Russian ones and they have AESA radars in active service, but suuureee... they are only comparable to Soviet aircraft from 1988.

    Although I do agree that it's probably somewhat more advanced than the Chinese Flankers currently in service. That said, J-11D (and J-16?) should be comparable and it will probably be finished in a few years. Not to mention that J-20 is going to enter service quite soon too.

    But the main thing is that they can replace additional 24 J-7s with modern fighters, a little sooner. And Su-35 is going to be superior to all the other 4th gens in the region.
    Not an underestimation by any means. If the J-11D was even comparable to the Su-35, they wouldn't need to buy the Su-35. It doesn't make sense to buy an aircraft that supposedly only has better engines. Even more so, the Su-35 can't use Chinese weapons nor can it interface with Chinese AWACS or other radars. Either the Chinese Military Command isn't very competent with how they are spending their money or they have serious doubts about the J-11D's abilities when they still go ahead and procure approximately 2 squadrons of Su-35s. And before the "China needs engines" excuse is pulled to justify the purchase of the Su-35, the 117S is export approved and I doubt Russia would object if China just ordered a large batch of 117S engines instead of the Su-35.

    As for the J-20. It is pretty cool seeing how a fully matured MiG 1.44 may have looked like along with other stolen technology from the US. Like the F-35's EOTS. I am starting to doubt that I will ever see the day when the Chinese produce a fighter without "referencing" someone else's design.

    Honestly, it's probably mostly about the engines. If Chinese tech is so inferior why are they only buying 24 of them? And I've read that Su-35 must be able to interface with Chinese AWACS and radars. Otherwise it would make absolutely no sense to buy them. All in all, it seems to me that the importance of this deal should not be exaggerated to one way or another.

    J-20 is not a copy of MiG 1.44, WTF! And yes, J-20 has an EOTS too, so it must be a copy! It's these fucking "double standards" that piss me off... When Chinese weapon systems have some similar characteristics to some of their foreign counterparts, they must automaticallybe copies! You know... competing systems often tend to look quite similar throughout the history... OMG! How can that be! Chinese designers have to follow the same laws of aerodynamics (and physics) as everyone else... How dare they! And there's absolutely no fucking proof about copying in most cases. It's all media speculation and anti-Chinese propaganda. Of course the Chinese Flankers (or rather, their airframe) were originally copied from Su-27, that is blatantly clear. But J-20? Or even J-31? Total BS. It's so funny... Mitsubishi ATD-X, the Korean KF-X and Saab 2020 are not copies of F-35, but J-31 is? Logic!

    These Chinese advancements are totally logical and expected when you look at the overall strength of the country, the size of its economy, R&D and military budget. It should not come as a surprise to anyone, FFS.    

    It will will be always about the engines and the armament. Basically the computing power and radar can be dealt with, like the Koreans with their own auto engines. They were poor and classic but with a little beefing up, you wouldn't make a difference between them and german cars.

    So baasically, they need the sampling, it will be always about the sampling. Now the J-20 has a lot of things going through the 1.44 lineage. Off course that doesn't mean much. But the fact is though that the J20 has possibly worse engines than the 1.44.  There's also the fun part about chinese weapons, so far, the Chinese armament has been conservative, taking from foreign systems what it needed. The best example is the HJ-12 (Javelin Tse Toung). Which doesn't mean it is a bad thing, just showing that on many aspects the Chinese will be conservative and will wait for someone else to break through. They weren't copied, they were reverse engineered for the most part on the J11's from C on. And they didn't need to copy, they just exceeded the licence they had. So yeah, the Chinese play dirty sometimes, and I understand that they need to, because of their relative need to catch up.

    Well as for the rest, the size of the economy doesn't explain much there. There are vast domains in which the Chinese with all those trillions roll in 1980 level tin boxes or have the equivalent of Desert Storm era radios. Now let's not get ahead of our times here. China is catching, granted, but they have a huge amount of consolidation to do.

    For instance they have to make up their mind about their infantry rifles, infantry doctrine and overall have some fighting experience.


    Well, exactly. China did "copying", and they had to, in order to catch up. But now that is needed less and less. And regarding Flankers: they have mastered building them and they have hundreds built and in service. That is their main (and only) heavy 4th gen fighter. Why not keep building improved variants (J-11D) and "sampling" (or whatever you want to call it) the best versions the Russians have to offer? And yes, both MiG 1.44 and J-20 have delta-wings and canards. But does that make J-20 a copy? Hell no.

    And I didn't say that the Chinese military is 100% "modern". Of course not. I was talking about the new equipment they are procuring. And to be fair, the ground forces are not their priority.

    But this getting off-topic. The end.    


    Now, now, there's a point you have to understand what you're talking about. There's not one that picked the 1.44 route for their 5gen plane. NO ONE. Not even the Russians. Same for the Z10, Kamov design initially, ended up being a Chinese attack helicopter with a lot of compromises (chin gun for instance, calibre etc). I understand that initial studies and ideas and blue prints do not obviously translate into outright copies. The way the F35 ended up while starting as a case study of the Yak 141, doesn't mean that the Yak 141 didn't serve as a template.


    Look at the HJ-8/9 family. They're not simple copies, but the base for their existence is Milan parts they copied. Then when they streamlined their production, they bolted up TOW missiles with Milan parts. And you have the final HJ-8.

    There's a little to get upset here, the fact is that, the Chinese will need to sort out their industrial capability, so a lot of things won't get half done, like right now for their strategical needs.

    I didn't understand the first part regarding 1.44. Question And exactly... conservatism, getting inspiration and "templates" is not outright "copying". I agree with your post.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  Guest on Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:18 am

    People understand that Chinese tech is not at the same level as the West and Russia because you cannot reverse engineer something that complex to a 1:1 level and have it perform the same as the orginal. People are saying that because there hasn't been a lot of innovation out of China when talking about aircraft. There is not one figher plane being produced in China that hasn't been 'inspired' by a foreign design(s). J-10 by the IAI Lavi, J-11 obviously by the Su-27, JF-17 being a very evolved J-7 which in turn is a blatant copy a MiG-21, etc. This isn't helped by the fact that we know extremely little about anything coming out of China. Go on a compare what we know about the Su-35 to the J-11D for example. All we really have of the J-11D is a few blurry pictures and 'rumors.'

    I would also want to look at the J-20 and the MiG 1.44 airframes and tell me with a straight face that the J-20 is a unique and innovative design made by divinely inspired Chinese engineers. As for the EOTS, first we hear that China has stolen a ton of American technology and the next thing we know is that the J-20 is equipped with its own EOTS. That must be quite the coincidence and surely those two events have nothing to do with each other. Not saying that other stealth fighter attempts from other countries are not 'influenced' from the big players (Russia and America), but to say that China's own stealth fighters are completely unique in design just makes you look stupid especially with their previous history of copying designs and the case of industrial sabotage in the US.

    Drowning your defense sectors with money doesn't guarantee that you will surpass all your rivals. If anything, it just means there is a lot of money going to waste. Just look at Russia and the US. Russia has kept up remarkably to the US despite having a budget that is a fraction of the size. At least the US still innovates, something I have yet to see on a normal scale from China.

    If you don't think the Sinodefense is just as bad as Russian and American forums you have a lot to learn.
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3906
    Points : 3937
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:20 am

    Kimppis wrote:

    I didn't understand the first part regarding 1.44. Question And exactly... conservatism, getting inspiration and "templates" is not outright "copying". I agree with your post.


    Which other 5th Gen plane had that external layout than the J20? The J20 has huge polyedric issues and we don't know why they picked up such and elongated design with such exposed surfaces. One of the ideas is that indeed they had the structural blueprints of the 1.44. So they started from there.
    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 306
    Points : 312
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  Kimppis on Sun Nov 29, 2015 1:54 am

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:People understand that Chinese tech is not at the same level as the West and Russia because you cannot reverse engineer something that complex to a 1:1 level and have it perform the same as the orginal. People are saying that because there hasn't been a lot of innovation out of China when talking about aircraft. There is not one figher plane being produced in China that hasn't been 'inspired' by a foreign design(s). J-10 by the IAI Lavi, J-11 obviously by the Su-27, JF-17 being a very evolved J-7 which in turn is a blatant copy a MiG-21, etc. This isn't helped by the fact that we know extremely little about anything coming out of China. Go on a compare what we know about the Su-35 to the J-11D for example. All we really have of the J-11D is a few blurry pictures and 'rumors.'

    I would also want to look at the J-20 and the MiG 1.44 airframes and tell me with a straight face that the J-20 is a unique and innovative design made by divinely inspired Chinese engineers. As for the EOTS, first we hear that China has stolen a ton of American technology and the next thing we know is that the J-20 is equipped with its own EOTS. That must be quite the coincidence and surely those two events have nothing to do with each other. Not saying that other stealth fighter attempts from other countries are not 'influenced' from the big players (Russia and America), but to say that China's own stealth fighters are completely unique in design just makes you look stupid especially with their previous history of copying designs and the case of industrial sabotage in the US.

    Drowning your defense sectors with money doesn't guarantee that you will surpass all your rivals. If anything, it just means there is a lot of money going to waste. Just look at Russia and the US. Russia has kept up remarkably to the US despite having a budget that is a fraction of the size. At least the US still innovates, something I have yet to see on a normal scale from China.

    If you don't think the Sinodefense is just as bad as Russian and American forums you have a lot to learn.

    What is inspired and what is not? I mean, where do you draw the line? J-11 has the same basic airframe as Su-27, that is of course clear. Although the insides should be quite different and Chinese, on the newer variants. Chinese military is very secretive in general and J-11D is not even ready yet, so it's not a surprise there's not a lot of info.

    And of course we keep hearing about that. You also keep hearing a lot of things about Russia in the western media. Is China spying the US and stealing information? Well of course, but that doesn't mean that they are simply copying all American designs they can get their hands on. There's also no proof that copied EOTS. Both 5th planes have the same feature... So what? That shouldn't be surprising. If copying is so easy why aren't others doing it better? Why is China so suddenly so succesful at it? Because they are not outright copying. It's because their economy and technology has massively improved. It's as simple as that.

    I didn't say there's no inspiration. There certainly is and that makes perfect sense to learn from the US and F-22 and F-35, for example. And again, how do you define innovation? That can be pretty "double standardistic" (if that's a word) too. Many Soviet innovations didn't count in the west, because they were not known or implemented there. How about the anti-ship ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles and so on? And the thing is, we haven't seen anything yet. Their capabilities are growing very quickly still. Of course you can't expect them to massively innovate before they have catched up, which was the case before 2010 or so. Come on.

    Sinodefence is strictly moderated and the most respected posters are no fanboys. They just know what they are talking about when it comes to the Chinese military. They acknowledge the Chinese achievements. I'm not saying it's perfect. Russiadefence is more comparable to defence.pk, although I'm not saying that that is only a bad thing.

    And more or less "unique" Chinese fighter aircraft: J-8, JH-7 (more of a bomber), J-10, JF-17, J-20 and J-31. There you go. Smile There's a few.


    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:

    I didn't understand the first part regarding 1.44. Question And exactly... conservatism, getting inspiration and "templates" is not outright "copying". I agree with your post.


    Which other 5th Gen plane had that external layout than the J20? The J20 has huge polyedric issues and we don't know why they picked up such and elongated design with such exposed surfaces. One of the ideas is that indeed they had the structural blueprints of the 1.44. So they started from there.

    That doesn't mean it's bad. Smile And I think the Soviets/Russians didn't implement that layout because the USSR collapsed. Otherwise the Soviets would have developed 1.44 further. Am I mistaken? There are of course multiple theories, but I remember reading that there are many "myths" regarding the non-stealthiness of that layout. Again, I'm not an expert, but I believe the Chinese designers know what they are doing.

    Guest
    Guest

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  Guest on Sun Nov 29, 2015 3:26 am

    Kimppis wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:People understand that Chinese tech is not at the same level as the West and Russia because you cannot reverse engineer something that complex to a 1:1 level and have it perform the same as the orginal. People are saying that because there hasn't been a lot of innovation out of China when talking about aircraft. There is not one figher plane being produced in China that hasn't been 'inspired' by a foreign design(s). J-10 by the IAI Lavi, J-11 obviously by the Su-27, JF-17 being a very evolved J-7 which in turn is a blatant copy a MiG-21, etc. This isn't helped by the fact that we know extremely little about anything coming out of China. Go on a compare what we know about the Su-35 to the J-11D for example. All we really have of the J-11D is a few blurry pictures and 'rumors.'

    I would also want to look at the J-20 and the MiG 1.44 airframes and tell me with a straight face that the J-20 is a unique and innovative design made by divinely inspired Chinese engineers. As for the EOTS, first we hear that China has stolen a ton of American technology and the next thing we know is that the J-20 is equipped with its own EOTS. That must be quite the coincidence and surely those two events have nothing to do with each other. Not saying that other stealth fighter attempts from other countries are not 'influenced' from the big players (Russia and America), but to say that China's own stealth fighters are completely unique in design just makes you look stupid especially with their previous history of copying designs and the case of industrial sabotage in the US.

    Drowning your defense sectors with money doesn't guarantee that you will surpass all your rivals. If anything, it just means there is a lot of money going to waste. Just look at Russia and the US. Russia has kept up remarkably to the US despite having a budget that is a fraction of the size. At least the US still innovates, something I have yet to see on a normal scale from China.

    If you don't think the Sinodefense is just as bad as Russian and American forums you have a lot to learn.

    What is inspired and what is not? I mean, where do you draw the line? J-11 has the same basic airframe as Su-27, that is of course clear. Although the insides should be quite different and Chinese, on the newer variants. Chinese military is very secretive in general and J-11D is not even ready yet, so it's not a surprise there's not a lot of info.

    And of course we keep hearing about that. You also keep hearing a lot of things about Russia in the western media. Is China spying the US and stealing information? Well of course, but that doesn't mean that they are simply copying all American designs they can get their hands on. There's also no proof that copied EOTS. Both 5th planes have the same feature... So what? That shouldn't be surprising. If copying is so easy why aren't others doing it better? Why is China so suddenly so succesful at it? Because they are not outright copying. It's because their economy and technology has massively improved. It's as simple as that.

    I didn't say there's no inspiration. There certainly is and that makes perfect sense to learn from the US and F-22 and F-35, for example. And again, how do you define innovation? That can be pretty "double standardistic" (if that's a word) too. Many Soviet innovations didn't count in the west, because they were not known or implemented there. How about the anti-ship ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles and so on? And the thing is, we haven't seen anything yet. Their capabilities are growing very quickly still. Of course you can't expect them to massively innovate before they have catched up, which was the case before 2010 or so. Come on.

    Sinodefence is strictly moderated and the most respected posters are no fanboys. They just know what they are talking about when it comes to the Chinese military. They acknowledge the Chinese achievements. I'm not saying it's perfect. Russiadefence is more comparable to defence.pk, although I'm not saying that that is only a bad thing.



    And more or less "unique" Chinese fighter aircraft: J-8, JH-7 (more of a bomber), J-10, JF-17, J-20 and J-31. There you go. Smile There's a few.  


    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:

    I didn't understand the first part regarding 1.44. Question And exactly... conservatism, getting inspiration and "templates" is not outright "copying". I agree with your post.


    Which other 5th Gen plane had that external layout than the J20? The J20 has huge polyedric issues and we don't know why they picked up such and elongated design with such exposed surfaces. One of the ideas is that indeed they had the structural blueprints of the 1.44. So they started from there.

    That doesn't mean it's bad. And I think the Soviets/Russians didn't implement that layout because the USSR collapsed. Otherwise the Soviets would have developed 1.44 further. Am I mistaken? There are of course multiple theories, but I remember reading that there are many "myths" regarding the non-stealthiness of that layout. Again, I'm not an expert, but I believe the Chinese designers know what they are doing.

    By inspired I mean some sections were "copied and pasted." Most Chinese aircraft are fully "copied and pasted" such as the IAI Lavi and Su-27. Since the Chinese fail to provide any info that the J-11D is "da ultimate Flanker." Keep in mind that even the AESA radar is not confirmed and there is reasonable doubt that the supposed WS-10 engines don't produce enough power for the AESA radar. With the purchase of the Su-35, it is safe to assume that it will be the best fighter the PLAAF will have for a while.

    Of course we have no proof that China copied the EOTS from the F-35 and pasted it on their J-20. After all, would the proud Chinese Government ever say they needed the American's help for something? All we know is that China was involved in industrial espionage that included theft of the F-35 designs and there is a system that looks exactly identical to the EOTS on the J-20. Given the fact that the J-11 is also structurally the same as a Su-27SK doesn't help the Chinese claim that the J-20 system below the nose isn't an unlicensed built EOTS. Also, becoming economically affluent and pumping money into defense research doesn't mean you will achieve the same thing that a rich country made a decade ago.

    I suppose you didn't read my message fully. The J-8 has the same layout as the Su-15. The JH-7 is the only exception and that is a bomber not a fighter like you said. The J-10 based off the IAI Lavi (unfinished light fighter from Israel which China bought plans off), JF-17 is a greatly evolved J-7 which is a MiG-21 copy nonetheless. The J-20 is obviously the MiG 1.44 (don't know how can you deny the similarities). The J-31 is an F-35 adapted to use two RD-93 engines because the Chinese can't produce a F135 engine. So there you go.

    I suppose you haven't met posters such as Berkut and Franco. We have some very high quality posters here (better than the well worded respected Chino-Bot posters there I might add).

    The widely accepted version coming from some UAC executives was that the MiG 1.44 project wasn't continued by Russia because huge economic uncertainty during the time. The designs were most likely compromised back then too. There are also rumors denied by MiG and by the Chinese Government that the Chinese engineers received design input from MiG just like the Kamov designed WZ-10.

    EDIT: We are really driving this discussion off topic. I won't continue polluting this topic even further.


    Last edited by Ivan the Colorado on Sun Nov 29, 2015 3:28 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : See above)
    avatar
    Cyberspec

    Posts : 1938
    Points : 2103
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  Cyberspec on Sun Nov 29, 2015 4:43 am

    What are arguing about?

    The Chinese are relative newcomers to aircraft design so obviously their designs are based/inspired by foreign developments....but no one can deny the huge leaps they've made in recent times.

    Also their production capacity is huge...once they master a certain technology they can crank it out in large numbers pretty quickly
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3906
    Points : 3937
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:00 am

    Kimppis wrote:

    I didn't understand the first part regarding 1.44. Question And exactly... conservatism, getting inspiration and "templates" is not outright "copying". I agree with your post.


    Which other 5th Gen plane had that external layout than the J20? The J20 has huge polyedric issues and we don't know why they picked up such and elongated design with such exposed surfaces. One of the ideas is that indeed they had the structural blueprints of the 1.44. So they started from there. [/quote]

    That doesn't mean it's bad. Smile And I think the Soviets/Russians didn't implement that layout because the USSR collapsed. Otherwise the Soviets would have developed 1.44 further. Am I mistaken? There are of course multiple theories, but I remember reading that there are many "myths" regarding the non-stealthiness of that layout. Again, I'm not an expert, but I believe the Chinese designers know what they are doing. [/quote]

    Never said it was bad, It just shows China isn't ready to take on a ground up study regarding aeronautics. There's no judgement here. It has nothing to do with it being stealthier or not. Just explaining that the design has some disadvantages. However, as we said, even with those disadvantages, if the plane is viable as a threat, the numbers might simply crutch it to victory. So again, not dissing China, just saying they need a far more robust strategic engineering sector.
    avatar
    Kimppis

    Posts : 306
    Points : 312
    Join date : 2014-12-23

    Seems it is claimed that China purchased 24 Su-35's for $2B.

    Post  Kimppis on Sun Nov 29, 2015 2:30 pm

    Ivan the Colorado wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:
    Ivan the Colorado wrote:People understand that Chinese tech is not at the same level as the West and Russia because you cannot reverse engineer something that complex to a 1:1 level and have it perform the same as the orginal. People are saying that because there hasn't been a lot of innovation out of China when talking about aircraft. There is not one figher plane being produced in China that hasn't been 'inspired' by a foreign design(s). J-10 by the IAI Lavi, J-11 obviously by the Su-27, JF-17 being a very evolved J-7 which in turn is a blatant copy a MiG-21, etc. This isn't helped by the fact that we know extremely little about anything coming out of China. Go on a compare what we know about the Su-35 to the J-11D for example. All we really have of the J-11D is a few blurry pictures and 'rumors.'

    I would also want to look at the J-20 and the MiG 1.44 airframes and tell me with a straight face that the J-20 is a unique and innovative design made by divinely inspired Chinese engineers. As for the EOTS, first we hear that China has stolen a ton of American technology and the next thing we know is that the J-20 is equipped with its own EOTS. That must be quite the coincidence and surely those two events have nothing to do with each other. Not saying that other stealth fighter attempts from other countries are not 'influenced' from the big players (Russia and America), but to say that China's own stealth fighters are completely unique in design just makes you look stupid especially with their previous history of copying designs and the case of industrial sabotage in the US.

    Drowning your defense sectors with money doesn't guarantee that you will surpass all your rivals. If anything, it just means there is a lot of money going to waste. Just look at Russia and the US. Russia has kept up remarkably to the US despite having a budget that is a fraction of the size. At least the US still innovates, something I have yet to see on a normal scale from China.

    If you don't think the Sinodefense is just as bad as Russian and American forums you have a lot to learn.

    What is inspired and what is not? I mean, where do you draw the line? J-11 has the same basic airframe as Su-27, that is of course clear. Although the insides should be quite different and Chinese, on the newer variants. Chinese military is very secretive in general and J-11D is not even ready yet, so it's not a surprise there's not a lot of info.

    And of course we keep hearing about that. You also keep hearing a lot of things about Russia in the western media. Is China spying the US and stealing information? Well of course, but that doesn't mean that they are simply copying all American designs they can get their hands on. There's also no proof that copied EOTS. Both 5th planes have the same feature... So what? That shouldn't be surprising. If copying is so easy why aren't others doing it better? Why is China so suddenly so succesful at it? Because they are not outright copying. It's because their economy and technology has massively improved. It's as simple as that.

    I didn't say there's no inspiration. There certainly is and that makes perfect sense to learn from the US and F-22 and F-35, for example. And again, how do you define innovation? That can be pretty "double standardistic" (if that's a word) too. Many Soviet innovations didn't count in the west, because they were not known or implemented there. How about the anti-ship ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles and so on? And the thing is, we haven't seen anything yet. Their capabilities are growing very quickly still. Of course you can't expect them to massively innovate before they have catched up, which was the case before 2010 or so. Come on.

    Sinodefence is strictly moderated and the most respected posters are no fanboys. They just know what they are talking about when it comes to the Chinese military. They acknowledge the Chinese achievements. I'm not saying it's perfect. Russiadefence is more comparable to defence.pk, although I'm not saying that that is only a bad thing.



    And more or less "unique" Chinese fighter aircraft: J-8, JH-7 (more of a bomber), J-10, JF-17, J-20 and J-31. There you go. Smile There's a few.  


    KoTeMoRe wrote:
    Kimppis wrote:

    I didn't understand the first part regarding 1.44. Question And exactly... conservatism, getting inspiration and "templates" is not outright "copying". I agree with your post.


    Which other 5th Gen plane had that external layout than the J20? The J20 has huge polyedric issues and we don't know why they picked up such and elongated design with such exposed surfaces. One of the ideas is that indeed they had the structural blueprints of the 1.44. So they started from there.

    That doesn't mean it's bad. And I think the Soviets/Russians didn't implement that layout because the USSR collapsed. Otherwise the Soviets would have developed 1.44 further. Am I mistaken? There are of course multiple theories, but I remember reading that there are many "myths" regarding the non-stealthiness of that layout. Again, I'm not an expert, but I believe the Chinese designers know what they are doing.

    By inspired I mean some sections were "copied and pasted." Most Chinese aircraft are fully "copied and pasted" such as the IAI Lavi and Su-27. Since the Chinese fail to provide any info that the J-11D is "da ultimate Flanker." Keep in mind that even the AESA radar is not confirmed and there is reasonable doubt that the supposed WS-10 engines don't produce enough power for the AESA radar. With the purchase of the Su-35, it is safe to assume that it will be the best fighter the PLAAF will have for a while.

    Of course we have no proof that China copied the EOTS from the F-35 and pasted it on their J-20. After all, would the proud Chinese Government ever say they needed the American's help for something? All we know is that China was involved in industrial espionage that included theft of the F-35 designs and there is a system that looks exactly identical to the EOTS on the J-20. Given the fact that the J-11 is also structurally the same as a Su-27SK doesn't help the Chinese claim that the J-20 system below the nose isn't an unlicensed built EOTS. Also, becoming economically affluent and pumping money into defense research doesn't mean you will achieve the same thing that a rich country made a decade ago.

    I suppose you didn't read my message fully. The J-8 has the same layout as the Su-15. The JH-7 is the only exception and that is a bomber not a fighter like you said. The J-10 based off the IAI Lavi (unfinished light fighter from Israel which China bought plans off), JF-17 is a greatly evolved J-7 which is a MiG-21 copy nonetheless. The J-20 is obviously the MiG 1.44 (don't know how can you deny the similarities). The J-31 is an F-35 adapted to use two RD-93 engines because the Chinese can't produce a F135 engine. So there you go.

    I suppose you haven't met posters such as Berkut and Franco. We have some very high quality posters here (better than the well worded respected Chino-Bot posters there I might add).

    The widely accepted version coming from some UAC executives was that the MiG 1.44 project wasn't continued by Russia because huge economic uncertainty during the time. The designs were most likely compromised back then too. There are also rumors denied by MiG and by the Chinese Government that the Chinese engineers received design input from MiG just like the Kamov designed WZ-10.

    EDIT: We are really driving this discussion off topic. I won't continue polluting this topic even further.

    All of those are debatable, except the Su-27 and the J-11, especially if we are talking about more or less direct copies. Again, you have these double standards: When Chinese aircraft have similar layouts and charachteristics as some other foreign designs, they are automatically copies or the design documents have been compromised. Even the J-31, which has probably been inspired by the F-35 to some extent, yes, doesn't actually look like the F-35! Are they both light 5th fighters? Yes! And as I said earlier, all the other light 5th designs (like the Korean, Japanese, Swedish...) look very similar to J-31. You are clearly very biased ("Chino-Bot posters"... WTF?) against the Chinese tech. So this isn't getting anywhere. And yes, I agree that we have some great posters here.

    Cyberspec wrote:What are arguing about?

    The Chinese are relative newcomers to aircraft design so obviously their designs are based/inspired by foreign developments....but no one can deny the huge leaps they've made in recent times.

    Also their production capacity is huge...once they master a certain technology they can crank it out in large numbers pretty quickly

    Exactly!

    And this is getting off-topic, so I'll finally stop here.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Chinese copyright of russian weapons

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:38 am