Home
Latest images
Register
Log inShameless Chinese want to copy the Su-35s and then become a competition in the arms market. No deal if they do not buy atleast 10-12 dozen 35s.
+27
Kimppis
Giulio
GunshipDemocracy
medo
max steel
sepheronx
RTN
collegeboy16
Sujoy
magnumcromagnon
Vann7
Firebird
flamming_python
Flyingdutchman
runaway
TR1
Mindstorm
vK_man
SOC
victor7
GarryB
Russian Patriot
nightcrawler
Pervius
f-insas
IronsightSniper
Viktor
31 posters
China's copy of Russian military equipment
victor7- Posts : 203
Points : 214
Join date : 2012-02-28
GarryB- Posts : 39169
Points : 39667
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
They can't even copy its engine, I rather suspect its other good bits will be too hard too, but I agree with Russias stance... buy lots or none.
I rather suspect that when the US starts introducing F-35s to the region that China might change its tune... unless the Europeans get so desperate for money they offer to sell some Euro canards for knock down prices... but then after China cancels the deal after 4 have been delivered they will have burned all their bridges.
I rather suspect that when the US starts introducing F-35s to the region that China might change its tune... unless the Europeans get so desperate for money they offer to sell some Euro canards for knock down prices... but then after China cancels the deal after 4 have been delivered they will have burned all their bridges.
victor7- Posts : 203
Points : 214
Join date : 2012-02-28
Chinese will outright copy the technology. Indians demand a tech exchange openly. That is why they refused Mig-35 because a) Rafeal was stealthy b) total technology transfer where Russia would offer only kit assembly c) 50% reinvestment into Indian industries where as Russia was offering only 30% but then Mig35 was nearly half the price too.
Fine, if Indians learn a new trick or two from Rafeal technology and apply it on PakFa then good for both Russia and India. They might need stealthy planes to have force multiplier type advantage over Pak or China.
Anyone going after Rafeal or EFT and overlooking Su-35 is just throwing money away. Good training and tactics make up alot more than any 10-20% difference in the total complex capabilities.
Fine, if Indians learn a new trick or two from Rafeal technology and apply it on PakFa then good for both Russia and India. They might need stealthy planes to have force multiplier type advantage over Pak or China.
Anyone going after Rafeal or EFT and overlooking Su-35 is just throwing money away. Good training and tactics make up alot more than any 10-20% difference in the total complex capabilities.
GarryB- Posts : 39169
Points : 39667
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Chinese will outright copy the technology. Indians demand a tech exchange openly. That is why they refused Mig-35 because a) Rafeal was stealthy b) total technology transfer where Russia would offer only kit assembly c) 50% reinvestment into Indian industries where as Russia was offering only 30% but then Mig35 was nearly half the price too.
If China could copy that easily why do they import Russian engines for their YF-17s... the engines they import are RD-33s with the gearbox shifted. The RD-33 entered Soviet service in the mid 1980s but the Chinese are unable to copy it themselves.
Regarding the Indian MRCA competition... a) there was not stealth requirement in the competition so that is irrelevant. The so called stealth of the Rafale requires minimum external weapon carriage so it is largely irrelevant anyway. B) if that were true how did Mig make it to the later stages of the competition? AFAIK Mig were offering joint development and production as per the requirements. Mig has dealt with the Indians before and know what they want.
The real reason that the Mig was rejected is because it is Russian and Mig could hardly change that.
I have no problem with the Indians saying they want diversification of products, my problem is that they waited till Mig had spend a lot of time and money before telling them they were wasting their time... which I do have a problem with.
Mig already have contracts for upgrading in service Indian Mig-29s to UPG level, and of course they have the contracts to make the naval K models for India and Russia.
Anyone going after Rafeal or EFT and overlooking Su-35 is just throwing money away.
Politics and fashion have more influence on military purchases than you seem to give credit for.
An example is South Korea buying F-15Ks instead of Su-35s... there is no chance for South Korea to buy Su-35s because they are Americas btch and if you cross the US like that you end up like Iran or Venezuela...
victor7- Posts : 203
Points : 214
Join date : 2012-02-28
Politics and fashion have more influence on military purchases than you seem to give credit for.
Another logic of Indians was they wanted to diversify the political handshakes with everyone, US, Russia and EU. However, they forget that handshakes are good only till the real test arrives and then people start avoiding even eye contacts. India-Russia friendship is well tested over years and decades, but it seems they wanted to chum upto the French also.
ps: Anybody remember Gaddhafi? how horribly he was back stabbed by both French and his beer buddy Silvo Berluscuni of Italy.
GarryB- Posts : 39169
Points : 39667
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Certainly buying political support is part of the deal when you buy military equipment, but the problem is that the US can be quite fickle and self centred... notice their reaction to India testing a nuclear weapon?
That raises another point... the MRCA competition probably never would have come up if France had agreed to sell India some more Mirage 2000s. The logic behind diversification is to improve stability and reliability in case someone lets you down.
To integrate a Rafale into Indias air defence network France will need access... and it was French input in Syrias air defence network that allowed the Israeli Suder to work... Once bitten?
But I am sure India can trust France... but if France leaks things to their NATO ally the US is it possible that the US might leak these things on to Pakistan? Or for Chinese spies in the US intel community to find out...
India-Russia friendship is well tested over years and decades, but it seems they wanted to chum upto the French also.
That raises another point... the MRCA competition probably never would have come up if France had agreed to sell India some more Mirage 2000s. The logic behind diversification is to improve stability and reliability in case someone lets you down.
To integrate a Rafale into Indias air defence network France will need access... and it was French input in Syrias air defence network that allowed the Israeli Suder to work... Once bitten?
But I am sure India can trust France... but if France leaks things to their NATO ally the US is it possible that the US might leak these things on to Pakistan? Or for Chinese spies in the US intel community to find out...
victor7- Posts : 203
Points : 214
Join date : 2012-02-28
The French also virus infected the Iraqi IADs in 1991 with similar 'regular servicing' type request and at the time of attack, the screens were blank, so as to speak.
Indians fear the spare parts unavailability from the Russians. But they seem to forget that 1990s were a very different times. However, Indians themselves are bad in managing their own shops. In 1999 border war with Pak, Indian diplomats were running around with suitcases full of hard currency, to places like Romania and South Africa. Romania to buy 100,000 Ak-47s and South Africa to buy artillery shells for their guns. Some 'unimpressive' defense planning.
Indians fear the spare parts unavailability from the Russians. But they seem to forget that 1990s were a very different times. However, Indians themselves are bad in managing their own shops. In 1999 border war with Pak, Indian diplomats were running around with suitcases full of hard currency, to places like Romania and South Africa. Romania to buy 100,000 Ak-47s and South Africa to buy artillery shells for their guns. Some 'unimpressive' defense planning.
GarryB- Posts : 39169
Points : 39667
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Indians fear the spare parts unavailability from the Russians.
Spare parts and support don't just happen... it needs planning and preparation and investment.
Taking 5 years to negotiate a deal and then the product arrives and it has a low service rate because you saved money by agreeing to an on demand spares agreement that leaves aircraft grounded while new spares are negotiated and bought is a false saving. Money needs to be spent on a spare parts pool that is kept topped up in case of problems... that is something that needs to happen on the customer side. The alternative is to pay for a customer service centre to be set up in country that can produce parts and overhaul and maintain equipment... it is not cheap but it means reduced repair costs overall and also better operational performance.
runaway- Posts : 417
Points : 430
Join date : 2010-11-12
Location : Sweden
An improved domestic Chinese helmet mounted sight (HMS) system first appeared on J-11A(SU-27), not clear if its mounted on J-15.
"TAIPEI — In an unusual departure for mainland Chinese-language media, the Beijing-based Sina Military Network (SMN) criticized the capabilities of the carrier-borne J-15 Flying Shark as nothing more than a “flopping fish.”
On Sept. 22, the state-controlled China Daily Times reported the new aircraft carrier Liaoning had just finished a three-month voyage and conducted over 100 sorties of “various aircraft,” of which the J-15 “took off and landed on the carrier with maximum load and various weapons.” This report was also carried on the official Liberation Army Daily.
Contradicting any report by official military or government media is unusual in China given state control of the media.
What sounded more like a rant than analysis, SMN, on Sept. 23, reported the new J-15 was incapable of flying from the Liaoning with heavy weapons, “effectively crippling its attack range and firepower.”
The fighter can take off and land on the carrier with two YJ-83K anti-ship missiles, two PL-8 air-to-air missiles, and four 500-kilogram bombs. But a weapons “load exceeding 12 tons will not get it off the carrier’s ski jump ramp.” This might prohibit it from carrying heavier munitions such as PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles.
To further complicate things, the J-15 can carry only two tons of weapons while fully fueled. “This would equip it with no more than two YJ-83K and two PL-8 missiles,” thus the “range of the YJ-83K prepared for the fighter will be shorter than comparable YJ-83K missiles launched from larger PLAN [People’s Liberation Army Navy] vessels. The J-15 will be boxed into less than 120 [kilometers] of attack range.”
Sounds like the Chinese soon will order a few MiG29K, then copy and build 100 more..
"TAIPEI — In an unusual departure for mainland Chinese-language media, the Beijing-based Sina Military Network (SMN) criticized the capabilities of the carrier-borne J-15 Flying Shark as nothing more than a “flopping fish.”
On Sept. 22, the state-controlled China Daily Times reported the new aircraft carrier Liaoning had just finished a three-month voyage and conducted over 100 sorties of “various aircraft,” of which the J-15 “took off and landed on the carrier with maximum load and various weapons.” This report was also carried on the official Liberation Army Daily.
Contradicting any report by official military or government media is unusual in China given state control of the media.
What sounded more like a rant than analysis, SMN, on Sept. 23, reported the new J-15 was incapable of flying from the Liaoning with heavy weapons, “effectively crippling its attack range and firepower.”
The fighter can take off and land on the carrier with two YJ-83K anti-ship missiles, two PL-8 air-to-air missiles, and four 500-kilogram bombs. But a weapons “load exceeding 12 tons will not get it off the carrier’s ski jump ramp.” This might prohibit it from carrying heavier munitions such as PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles.
To further complicate things, the J-15 can carry only two tons of weapons while fully fueled. “This would equip it with no more than two YJ-83K and two PL-8 missiles,” thus the “range of the YJ-83K prepared for the fighter will be shorter than comparable YJ-83K missiles launched from larger PLAN [People’s Liberation Army Navy] vessels. The J-15 will be boxed into less than 120 [kilometers] of attack range.”
Sounds like the Chinese soon will order a few MiG29K, then copy and build 100 more..
Flyingdutchman- Posts : 535
Points : 551
Join date : 2013-07-30
Location : The Netherlands
I just HATE the chinese of copying aircraft they almost have no aircraft they madr 100% self they even copied the f-35!!!!! (Just forgot the name) so maybe an future chinese carrier has j15 and mig 29 copy! So an indian mig-29K Will be Able to destroy a J-15 thats Nice!runaway wrote:An improved domestic Chinese helmet mounted sight (HMS) system first appeared on J-11A(SU-27), not clear if its mounted on J-15.
"TAIPEI — In an unusual departure for mainland Chinese-language media, the Beijing-based Sina Military Network (SMN) criticized the capabilities of the carrier-borne J-15 Flying Shark as nothing more than a “flopping fish.”
On Sept. 22, the state-controlled China Daily Times reported the new aircraft carrier Liaoning had just finished a three-month voyage and conducted over 100 sorties of “various aircraft,” of which the J-15 “took off and landed on the carrier with maximum load and various weapons.” This report was also carried on the official Liberation Army Daily.
Contradicting any report by official military or government media is unusual in China given state control of the media.
What sounded more like a rant than analysis, SMN, on Sept. 23, reported the new J-15 was incapable of flying from the Liaoning with heavy weapons, “effectively crippling its attack range and firepower.”
The fighter can take off and land on the carrier with two YJ-83K anti-ship missiles, two PL-8 air-to-air missiles, and four 500-kilogram bombs. But a weapons “load exceeding 12 tons will not get it off the carrier’s ski jump ramp.” This might prohibit it from carrying heavier munitions such as PL-12 medium-range air-to-air missiles.
To further complicate things, the J-15 can carry only two tons of weapons while fully fueled. “This would equip it with no more than two YJ-83K and two PL-8 missiles,” thus the “range of the YJ-83K prepared for the fighter will be shorter than comparable YJ-83K missiles launched from larger PLAN [People’s Liberation Army Navy] vessels. The J-15 will be boxed into less than 120 [kilometers] of attack range.”
Sounds like the Chinese soon will order a few MiG29K, then copy and build 100 more..
collegeboy16- Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 27
Location : Roanapur
Id rather have them copy than innovate, one time they did it was gunpowder- and we all know the rest.
flamming_python- Posts : 9055
Points : 9117
Join date : 2012-01-30
Everyone copies everyone if they have an advanced enough industrial base. If any advanced foreign military technology enters Russia; no way it's going to be left alone. Why should it be any different for China?
The USSR and US copied each others designs and ideas during the Cold War; the USSR in fact made a direct copy of the B-29 (i.e. Tu-4) and several other vehicles in the late 40s. As soon as one came up with a new idea - it was copied; for instance - America took the Soviet implementations of the ICBM, IFV, Anti-ship missiles and created its own versions. Of course the whole anti-ship missile thing was actually first tried out by Nazi Germany; the Soviets merely popularised it.
In more modern times; NATO managed to get its hands on the newest Soviet tech and engineers; T-80s, Yak-141 designs, early S-300 & MiG-29 versions, etc... and has taken them apart for all that they were worth and absorbed everything useful into its own designs.
Russia is following suit - UAVs, light armoured vehicles, radios, electronic systems, etc... all bought from abroad with the agreement of the host countries; sometimes only in the single digits, which are then taken apart and learned from by Russian engineers and specialists; or otherwise just produced under license; with the eventual aim to incorporate these technologies into the next generation of Russian products anyway.
China's only real crime is not doing this legally so to speak; with the agreement of the host country. I'm sure that Russia was more than happy to have China pick apart its Su-27 designs.. as long as China bought the 100 Su-27s or so that it promised to buy as per the contract.
The trouble was that China cancelled after only a few deliveries; and this is what's really responsible for the Russia indignation over that episode; not the actual fact that the Chinese were going to try to learn everything they could from weapon systems that they fully paid for.
The USSR and US copied each others designs and ideas during the Cold War; the USSR in fact made a direct copy of the B-29 (i.e. Tu-4) and several other vehicles in the late 40s. As soon as one came up with a new idea - it was copied; for instance - America took the Soviet implementations of the ICBM, IFV, Anti-ship missiles and created its own versions. Of course the whole anti-ship missile thing was actually first tried out by Nazi Germany; the Soviets merely popularised it.
In more modern times; NATO managed to get its hands on the newest Soviet tech and engineers; T-80s, Yak-141 designs, early S-300 & MiG-29 versions, etc... and has taken them apart for all that they were worth and absorbed everything useful into its own designs.
Russia is following suit - UAVs, light armoured vehicles, radios, electronic systems, etc... all bought from abroad with the agreement of the host countries; sometimes only in the single digits, which are then taken apart and learned from by Russian engineers and specialists; or otherwise just produced under license; with the eventual aim to incorporate these technologies into the next generation of Russian products anyway.
China's only real crime is not doing this legally so to speak; with the agreement of the host country. I'm sure that Russia was more than happy to have China pick apart its Su-27 designs.. as long as China bought the 100 Su-27s or so that it promised to buy as per the contract.
The trouble was that China cancelled after only a few deliveries; and this is what's really responsible for the Russia indignation over that episode; not the actual fact that the Chinese were going to try to learn everything they could from weapon systems that they fully paid for.
GarryB- Posts : 39169
Points : 39667
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
I almost totally agree FP, but the thing is that often the Chinese directly copy, whereas most others adapt the copied area of technology to improve their own technology.
For instance at the start of the cold war the Soviets had not focussed on long range strategic bombers... the west will say they copied the B-29 because they had no four engined bombers which is pure ignorance because in the 1930s the Soviets had more four engined bombers than the rest of the world combined... their problem was that they rapidly became obsolete as technology rapidly moved forward during WWII and it would have taken 5-10 years to develop their own modern design... the faster option was to copy what landed in their lap and they didn't have time for anything else.
Of course in the end the Tu-4 was a relative failure and apart from circular pressurised fuselage design lent little to future Soviet and Russian bombers.
The irony... well look up the ANT-25 and find out about the state of Soviet long range aircraft in the 1930s.... flight range of 12,500km...
The Chinese on the other hand tend to completely copy something so it is clear what it is derived from, whereas the Soviets only copied when it was necessary... The B-29/Tu-4 was time, the Sidewinder missile was also time as the sidewinder was so radically different... it was simple and basic and modular whereas previous Soviet missiles were hand built and complicated messes.. the sidewinder had a seeker in the nose, then forward controls and servos to move those controls, then the warhead , and then rocket motor and then rear controls. The AA-1 Alkali had rocket exhausts between its main fins with the warhead in then front area and transmit/receive unit in the rear for the command guidance system and everything else crammed in where it fitted.
Regarding the Shlem:
This is it here and the Chinese version looks rather a lot like it in my opinion...
For instance at the start of the cold war the Soviets had not focussed on long range strategic bombers... the west will say they copied the B-29 because they had no four engined bombers which is pure ignorance because in the 1930s the Soviets had more four engined bombers than the rest of the world combined... their problem was that they rapidly became obsolete as technology rapidly moved forward during WWII and it would have taken 5-10 years to develop their own modern design... the faster option was to copy what landed in their lap and they didn't have time for anything else.
Of course in the end the Tu-4 was a relative failure and apart from circular pressurised fuselage design lent little to future Soviet and Russian bombers.
The irony... well look up the ANT-25 and find out about the state of Soviet long range aircraft in the 1930s.... flight range of 12,500km...
The Chinese on the other hand tend to completely copy something so it is clear what it is derived from, whereas the Soviets only copied when it was necessary... The B-29/Tu-4 was time, the Sidewinder missile was also time as the sidewinder was so radically different... it was simple and basic and modular whereas previous Soviet missiles were hand built and complicated messes.. the sidewinder had a seeker in the nose, then forward controls and servos to move those controls, then the warhead , and then rocket motor and then rear controls. The AA-1 Alkali had rocket exhausts between its main fins with the warhead in then front area and transmit/receive unit in the rear for the command guidance system and everything else crammed in where it fitted.
Regarding the Shlem:
This is it here and the Chinese version looks rather a lot like it in my opinion...
flamming_python- Posts : 9055
Points : 9117
Join date : 2012-01-30
Generally speaking yes, but there are perfectly good reasons for that too. The Chinese are not yet at the technological level of US, Russian and European arms producers in many areas; engines, sensors/electronics, materials, etc... It's far quicker and safer to take an advanced proven design and copy it, enabling it to be rapidly introduced for their own forces; rather than:GarryB wrote:I almost totally agree FP, but the thing is that often the Chinese directly copy, whereas most others adapt the copied area of technology to improve their own technology.
a. Attempt to improve upon and extensively modify the original design into their own version
b. Try and fit lessons from Western/Russian designs or systems into their own programs
Simply put - due to their lesser experience and technology such options are unlikely to yield something as good as the original version of that weapon system, much less better. The direct copy thus makes far more sense; you can learn a lot just from taking something apart and copying it too; no need to reinvent the wheel as they say
Of course; this only really applies to the latest designs. When all the Chinese can acquire are old examples of obsolete Soviet or Western hardware; they are just as likely to start their own indigenous programs (e.g. the WZ-10; started/accelerated when the Chinese attempts to get hold of the Mi-24 in 90/91 from Russia or Bulgaria, Mi-28 in mid-90s and Ka-50 in 2000 failed), or make extensive modifications and improvements upon existing designs rather than carbon-copy them (e.g. the Chinese Shenzhou, an enhanced, heavily improved re-design of the Soviet Soyuz)
They are catching-up however; so whatever they're doing seems to be working; copy a whole load of gear, saving money on R&D that can be used to copy more things instead. Over the next 10-20 years I would expect that they develop more and more of their unique product lines, and copy less; already they are starting to progress into JVs with Russia such as with the new superheavy helicopter they want to make; and are chiefly interested in importing the very latest tech such as Su-35s and S-400s; but it looks like the technology from those systems is more likely to go into their own fighter and air defense programs, rather than being copied bolt for bolt.
GarryB- Posts : 39169
Points : 39667
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
- Post n°40
An improved domestic Chinese helmet mounted sight (HMS) system first appeared on J-11A(SU-27), not clear if its mounted on J-15.
GarryB Mon Oct 21, 2013 9:52 am
But they need to formulate their own needs and requirements and develop weapons and systems to meet those needs, because then they will be formulating their own tactics as well... if you copy my weapons and therefore also my way of fighting I am far more likely to understand how to defeat you... because if I know anything it is my own strengths and weaknesses which I can exploit to beat you.
I agree they can do more than just copy, though they still do that it is often for the export market.
I agree they can do more than just copy, though they still do that it is often for the export market.
Firebird- Posts : 1731
Points : 1761
Join date : 2011-10-14
- Post n°41
Why the hell is Russia even considering selling Su-34 and S-400 to China?
Firebird Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:58 pm
Why the hell is Russia even considering selling Su34 and S-400 to China?
Surely, Russia's key ally must be India? India has a huge popln, increasing capital and tech. And most importantly, there's nothing for Russia to fall out with India over.
China on the other hand is the sleeping dragon. Aggressive ambitions everywhere, including who knows.. someday on Russian terrritory. Its also big friends with Uncle Sam, and all that entails.
China might be ok for civillian cooperation, but military? No thanks!!
Surely, Russia's key ally must be India? India has a huge popln, increasing capital and tech. And most importantly, there's nothing for Russia to fall out with India over.
China on the other hand is the sleeping dragon. Aggressive ambitions everywhere, including who knows.. someday on Russian terrritory. Its also big friends with Uncle Sam, and all that entails.
China might be ok for civillian cooperation, but military? No thanks!!
Vann7- Posts : 5385
Points : 5485
Join date : 2012-05-16
Firebird wrote:Why the hell is Russia even considering selling Su34 and S-400 to China?
Surely, Russia's key ally must be India? India has a huge popln, increasing capital and tech. And most importantly, there's nothing for Russia to fall out with India over.
China on the other hand is the sleeping dragon. Aggressive ambitions everywhere, including who knows.. someday on Russian terrritory. Its also big friends with Uncle Sam, and all that entails.
China might be ok for civillian cooperation, but military? No thanks!!
My only negative view of China is that they buy Russian weapons , later reverse engineer them and later offer to sell them back much cheaper to the same customers that Russia usually sell. IS like a major slap in the face of Russia , no idea how Chineese people do not see that as WRONG and very unprofessional . CHina never produced a Sam on its own from zero ,they always used Russian ones..
They bought many S-300s for example and reversed engineer them ,added a different warhead and now offering those missiles to anyone who can buy it.. including Russia enemies. Same with SUkhois jets.. So Russia ,i don't see it anytime soon ditching Europe and moving 100% to China. Europe give many security problems to Russia ,but when it comes to business they are not reversing engineering things to later compete against Russia... There is more business ethics.. (as crazy at this sound.).between US-Europe and Russia when it comes to intellectual property.
TR1- Posts : 5435
Points : 5433
Join date : 2011-12-06
China has never offered rip-off Flankers for sale, people just keep assuming they do.
GarryB- Posts : 39169
Points : 39667
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Why the hell is Russia even considering selling Su34 and S-400 to China?
Why not?
They have the money, and they want to buy weapons.
Russia sells weapons.
If Russia doesn't sell them weapons they will just develop their own and Russia will know little about them...
Surely, Russia's key ally must be India? India has a huge popln, increasing capital and tech. And most importantly, there's nothing for Russia to fall out with India over.
India doesn't seem to want S-400 or Su-34.
China on the other hand is the sleeping dragon. Aggressive ambitions everywhere, including who knows.. someday on Russian terrritory. Its also big friends with Uncle Sam, and all that entails.
China could make the same unsubstantiated claims against India.
China can be an ally or an enemy... the west went to great lengths to make China an enemy of the Soviet Union which greatly weakened both parties.
Russia vs China or indeed India vs China is a US wet dream... don't give in to US propaganda.
Russia probably has more in common with China as it has with the west... China isn't funding coloured revolutions in eastern europe and former soviet republics... Russia and India would be better to seek better relations with China than to enter into a meaningless and expensive arms race.
China might be ok for civillian cooperation, but military? No thanks!!
Why?
My only negative view of China is that they buy Russian weapons , later reverse engineer them and later offer to sell them back much cheaper to the same customers that Russia usually sell. IS like a major slap in the face of Russia , no idea how Chineese people do not see that as WRONG and very unprofessional . CHina never produced a Sam on its own from zero ,they always used Russian ones..
everyone bases their designs on what they know works... when the only rifle design you know is an AK why design something else till you know what you are doing?
BTW the current Chinese service rifle is not an AK or an AR.
There is more business ethics.. (as crazy at this sound.).between US-Europe and Russia when it comes to intellectual property.
Europe-US wont buy Russian weapons systems. It is about selling products and the Chinese are buying while the west is trying to work out trade sanctions against Russia because their own plan to move NATO closer to Moscow backfired and handed Russia the Crimea.
China has never offered rip-off Flankers for sale, people just keep assuming they do.
Their copies tend to be rather simplified and lower tech which means they really don't compete for the same customers.
China selling Flanker rip offs to eastern european NATO countries is as pointless as Russia trying to sell Flankers to those same countries... they want worn out F-16s to show US Strong.
Most of the competitions they could take from Russia they wont simply because if the customer wants as cheap as then Russia tends to have that too even though quality and performance have increased... Metis-M1 without the thermal imager is probably the cheapest anti tank guided missile available and Chinese made versions might be a little cheaper but also likely higher dud rates make them not more appealing.
Even the Chinese military seems to prefer Russian aircraft engines over Chinese made knockoffs.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Vann7 wrote:Firebird wrote:Why the hell is Russia even considering selling Su34 and S-400 to China?
Surely, Russia's key ally must be India? India has a huge popln, increasing capital and tech. And most importantly, there's nothing for Russia to fall out with India over.
China on the other hand is the sleeping dragon. Aggressive ambitions everywhere, including who knows.. someday on Russian terrritory. Its also big friends with Uncle Sam, and all that entails.
China might be ok for civillian cooperation, but military? No thanks!!
My only negative view of China is that they buy Russian weapons , later reverse engineer them and later offer to sell them back much cheaper to the same customers that Russia usually sell. IS like a major slap in the face of Russia , no idea how Chineese people do not see that as WRONG and very unprofessional . CHina never produced a Sam on its own from zero ,they always used Russian ones..
They bought many S-300s for example and reversed engineer them ,added a different warhead and now offering those missiles to anyone who can buy it.. including Russia enemies. Same with SUkhois jets.. So Russia ,i don't see it anytime soon ditching Europe and moving 100% to China. Europe give many security problems to Russia ,but when it comes to business they are not reversing engineering things to later compete against Russia... There is more business ethics.. (as crazy at this sound.).between US-Europe and Russia when it comes to intellectual property.
Your concern is much-ado-about-nothing, Russia and China has already signed a intellectual property rights agreement within the arms trade between the 2 nations:
Talk of a potential deal with China drew concerns from Russian security officials who worried that it may not only affect the supply of the system to Russia's own military but also that China could back-engineer the technology to produce its own systems. The system's manufacturer Almaz-Antei has eased the former concerns by delivering the first batch of the system. Moscow also announced a plan in January to build three new plants for the contractor in order to build more air defense and anti-guided missile systems. An intellectual property rights agreement that China and Russia signed with regard to the arms trade has also come into effect.
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140329000166&cid=1101
Sujoy- Posts : 2314
Points : 2474
Join date : 2012-04-02
Location : India || भारत
macedonian wrote:
Sorry to be brutally honest here guys, but India is flirting with THE SAME PEOPLE that treated it like a....well...not exactly as a lady (to say the least).
And seems they still do if you take the Devyani Khobragade incident to account.
Do read about this recent incident .
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/time-to-get-past-tensions-and-move-on-us-on-ties-with-india/
Also , you probably know by now that the US Ambassador to India resigned earlier this month without stating any reason .
30% of all defense & aerospace start ups in the US are started by Indians & India buys from them as well .
Fact remains that China purchases weapons from Russia , then remakes them and sells them in the international market .
So Su 33 becomes J 15 , Su-27SK becomes J 11 and S 300V becomes HQ 9 .
I am not suggesting even for a second that India is populated by individuals who are honest to a fault . Far from it . That being said , none of the weapons that India has purchased from Russia ( or any other country) have been remade in house without permission and subsequently exported to a third country .
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 8138
Points : 8273
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Sujoy wrote:macedonian wrote:
Sorry to be brutally honest here guys, but India is flirting with THE SAME PEOPLE that treated it like a....well...not exactly as a lady (to say the least).
And seems they still do if you take the Devyani Khobragade incident to account.
Fact remains that China purchases weapons from Russia , then remakes them and sells them in the international market .
So Su 33 becomes J 15 , Su-27SK becomes J 11 and S 300V becomes HQ 9 .
This is an unsubstianeted claim for these reasons:
1.) China has never sold a J-15 or a J-11 on the international market.
2.) The HQ-9 was designed with Russian help, why do you think that the Turkish $3 billion tender for air-defense (that both had the HQ-9 and the future export version of the S-400) that the Russians never complained once that the HQ-9 was in the competition? Most likely because with the help to design the HQ-9, The Russians stand to make a percentage of the money off the portion of the sales!
3.) Russia and China just recently signed a legally binding intellectual property rights agreement dealing in defense technology:
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140329000166&cid=1101
collegeboy16- Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 27
Location : Roanapur
Plus its a good way to make money out of last-gen stuff, you know for funding the next,next gen. stuffs.
Sujoy- Posts : 2314
Points : 2474
Join date : 2012-04-02
Location : India || भारत
magnumcromagnon wrote:
This is an unsubstianeted claim for these reasons:
1.) China has never sold a J-15 or a J-11 on the international market.
First , I never said that China sold J 15 or J 11 in the international market . I said China copied Russian designs without taking prior permission .
http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20080425/105928822.html
Second , China has already offered the J 11 to Pakistan .
magnumcromagnon wrote:2.) The HQ-9 was designed with Russian help
It wasn't . It has component's from the S 300P and is just an imitation of the S 300 PMU . If China indeed can produce effective SAM in house why does it need to purchase SAM systems from Russia at regular intervals ? And why does a Chinese clone appear only after a purchase has been made from Russia ?
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=krLeSI6vayoC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=hq+9+missile+copied+from+S+300&source=bl&ots=urbWrfwHiH&sig=r42r7uJz0sQRrbDbf-sXbmWY3Io&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fqFHU8asGYL38QWkrYLwBw&ved=0CHMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=hq%209%20missile%20copied%20from%20S%20300&f=false
The Chinese are using HQ-9 missiles with the S-300 command posts and radars, which reduces the need to buy the Russian SAM systems .
magnumcromagnon wrote:why do you think that the Turkish $3 billion tender for air-defense (that both had the HQ-9 and the future export version of the S-400) that the Russians never complained once that the HQ-9 was in the competition?
You need to get your facts right . The S 400 was never offered to Turkey . Rosoboronexport had offered the export version of S 300 to Turkey .
http://thediplomat.com/2013/09/why-turkeys-buying-chinese-missile-systems/
magnumcromagnon wrote:3.) Russia and China just recently signed a legally binding intellectual property rights agreement dealing in defense technology:
Only after Russia had threatened legal action against China
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/Sukhoi-piracy-Russia-threatens-to-sue-China/articleshow/2973405.cms
collegeboy16- Posts : 1135
Points : 1134
Join date : 2012-10-05
Age : 27
Location : Roanapur
if india is that concerned with russia's relationship with china, well clearly she must do more to assert her relationship with russia.
start by dropping rafales, c-17s, apaches, and juice ADS, etc.. then go gaga on russkie products. im sure they would be willing
to do business at friendly prices esp. since its india.
start by dropping rafales, c-17s, apaches, and juice ADS, etc.. then go gaga on russkie products. im sure they would be willing
to do business at friendly prices esp. since its india.
Scorpius likes this post
|
|
|