Russia infuriated with Chinese export copies of Su-27 jet fighters

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[ROCK45]

Begun unlicensed assembly of the Mi-171

I wasn't sure if I should have started a new thread but unlicensed assembly was one of the main focuses in this thread.

I know Roy’s isn’t safest source but I'll throw it out there. I can’t believe Russia would allow this the Hip8/17 line of helicopters to be copied and supply parts for it. The Hip-171 is a money maker for Russia with good sales on the last few years alone. I was wondering if anybody heard of this or should I just shake it off as rumor?

Chinese Military Plant Begins Unlicensed Assembly of Mi-171 Helicopter
A Chinese military plant has begun unlicensed assembly of the Mi-171 helicopter, one of the primary Russian military exports. In case of success, the Chinese will be able not only to pressure Russia in the export markets, but even interfere by leaps and bound in the growing domestic orders for the helicopters, the Vedomosti newspaper reports today.

Following on the Su-27 fighter, China began reproduction of the second most significant Russian aircraft industry export, the Mi-8/17 helicopter family. True, this time with Russia's permission.

Information on the manufacture of the Mi-171 in China was published on the site of the Uhou region authorities, city of Chengdu, site, the capital of Sichuan province ((all Chinese place names phonetic.)) It states in the report that officials helped the Sichuan Lantian helicopter building company go through the formalities necessary for start of the assembly of the helicopters, Vedomosti reports.

Assembly of the Mi-171 helicopter will be unfolded at the base of military factory Number 5701 which is situated in Chengdu. In 2008, it is planned to assemble 20 aircraft, and the enterprise's full capacity will be 80 helicopters a year.

At first the Chinese will assemble the helicopters from parts delivered from Russia's Ulan-Ude, where the Ulan-Ude Aircraft Plant is located, the manufacturer of the Mi-171. Afterwards it is planned to build-up on-site production, the newspaper writes.
Source: 12.05.08, AVIA.RU

Link
http://www.royfc.com/acft_news.html

 

[Feanor]

True, this time with Russia's permission.

So it's not really unlicensed.....

 

[Viktor]

So it's not really unlicensed.....

Again copy-paste, how odd.

 

[crobato]

Your claim was that the H-6 in PLAAF service is superior to the Su-34 being accepted into service right now. Then you pulled the JH-7 out. Which is when I said that your claim of superiority was with the H-6. To which you replied accusing me of glorifying the TERCOM capabilities of the Fullback. Sooo..... now do we have that point clear?

Wrong. Did I ever said about it being superior? I said that the H-6K fits the requirements of the PLAAF far better than any Su-34. Likewise for the JH-7A as well.

It has one buyer so far. The VVS. Time will show if any others emerge.

And in very limited numbers too. Sounds to me more like a try out.

So you suggest being able to overwhelm the AD network with cruise missiles?

No, the cruise missiles will do a much better job of sneaking up past the AD than any low level strike bomber. Each cruise missile is much stealthier, flies lower to the ground, and in greater numbers to confront. That's much better for me than an Su-34 loaded with bombs trying to past the AD.

I think that having the tac-strike capability is a good idea, yes. I'm not saying that it should prevent other areas from developing.

Let me add that the Su-34, the aerodynamics derived from a fighter platform, is far from an optimal design for a low level strike bomber. You got a fairly open sweep, and a triplane configuration that means quite a bit of drag, than say a VG plane fully swept where all the aerial surfaces are combined into one. At the same time, the Su-34 is not something you would want for air to air combat, because of the side by side seating configuration that has its issues with all around cockpit visibility.

So.... no reliable info? Do you happen to know the range of the Crotale?

I do but that's French and they're more open into selling stuff. The 100km figure for the HQ-9 was supposedly taken from a 1998 Zhuhai air show brochure on the FT-2000 (export HQ-9 with passive guidance), and that figure is slant range, not ballistic ranges which manufacturers quote to exaggerate the numbers. "Slant range" describes what is really useful as oppose to the missile flying from point A and finally landing in point B. The slant range of the SM-2 is supposedly around 75km.

Again read what I wrote. You're getting offended at something that wasn't there. I was interested in seeing the original material because I almost always am. Not because I didn't believe you.

Then go to the CDF and check it up with the people who bother with it. You probably won't be able to read the "original" stuff anyway. To follow the numbers, we follow the orbat.

Yes. So if you think China needs to prepare to fight another WWII then I guess you're right. I think future conflicts will look very different.

And so that justifies weapons systems that would break your economy in the bank eh? Comes to the next war, your gold plated systems will be 20 to 30 years old, and you're too broke to afford the next generation.

 

[Feanor]

For your comments on the su-34, I'm not in the league to be able to argue. I'll take your word for it, and just would like you to keep in mind that VVS procurement choices are not random. So while I can't argue on this level why it was chosen, or for that matter why China should choose it (though to me a specialized CAS and SEAD platform always seemed to make more sense then fighter planes in the same role) time will show which one of us is right.

I do but that's French and they're more open into selling stuff. The 100km figure for the HQ-9 was supposedly taken from a 1998 Zhuhai air show brochure on the FT-2000 (export HQ-9 with passive guidance), and that figure is slant range, not ballistic ranges which manufacturers quote to exaggerate the numbers. "Slant range" describes what is really useful as oppose to the missile flying from point A and finally landing in point B. The slant range of the SM-2 is supposedly around 75km.

So.... 100km is the actually useful range? Then the figure would indeed be more or less accurate? Why I asked for the Crotale range is because I ran into multiple mentionings of the HQ-9 being based on the Crotale.

And so that justifies weapons systems that would break your economy in the bank eh? Comes to the next war, your gold plated systems will be 20 to 30 years old, and you're too broke to afford the next generation.

How do you know when the next war will be? And perhaps you should scale down your acquisition of arms to keep pace with your economic growth? After all double digit military budget growth can't be covered by single digit GDP growth for long.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[weasel1962]

Deleted

 

[Skywatcher]

Can't see how the Crotale could possibly be based on the HQ-9, when the former is a short ranged SAM while the latter is definitely long ranged.

 

[tphuang]

I wouldn't be so quick to use the word "confirmed". Its not that difficult to repaint an aircraft with a different regiment number and its not like China doesn't reassign aircraft between regiments.

These are however still as good an estimate as one can get, without being in the PLAAF and taking into account, the different corroborating evidence to support it eg engine manufacturing rates.

in the case of jh-7 series, it's pretty easy to tell due to the amount of news available and the photos that continue to come out. Remember, only 2 are in plaaf and the other 4 in planaf. The latter are spread amongst the 3 fleets and are of different variants, not hard to distinguish.

I wasn't sure if I should have started a new thread but unlicensed assembly was one of the main focuses in this thread.

I know Roy’s isn’t safest source but I'll throw it out there. I can’t believe Russia would allow this the Hip8/17 line of helicopters to be copied and supply parts for it. The Hip-171 is a money maker for Russia with good sales on the last few years alone. I was wondering if anybody heard of this or should I just shake it off as rumor?

Chinese Military Plant Begins Unlicensed Assembly of Mi-171 Helicopter
A Chinese military plant has begun unlicensed assembly of the Mi-171 helicopter, one of the primary Russian military exports. In case of success, the Chinese will be able not only to pressure Russia in the export markets, but even interfere by leaps and bound in the growing domestic orders for the helicopters, the Vedomosti newspaper reports today.

Following on the Su-27 fighter, China began reproduction of the second most significant Russian aircraft industry export, the Mi-8/17 helicopter family. True, this time with Russia's permission.

Information on the manufacture of the Mi-171 in China was published on the site of the Uhou region authorities, city of Chengdu, site, the capital of Sichuan province ((all Chinese place names phonetic.)) It states in the report that officials helped the Sichuan Lantian helicopter building company go through the formalities necessary for start of the assembly of the helicopters, Vedomosti reports.

Assembly of the Mi-171 helicopter will be unfolded at the base of military factory Number 5701 which is situated in Chengdu. In 2008, it is planned to assemble 20 aircraft, and the enterprise's full capacity will be 80 helicopters a year.

At first the Chinese will assemble the helicopters from parts delivered from Russia's Ulan-Ude, where the Ulan-Ude Aircraft Plant is located, the manufacturer of the Mi-171. Afterwards it is planned to build-up on-site production, the newspaper writes.

this article is full of contradiction, plenty of other article already said it's licensed production. Same with J-11B, licensed production.

If you're referring to this:

http://www.avbuyer.com.cn/e/2006/11185.html

then its a long way from self sufficiency in relation to the AL-31. The only entity I know that is capable of producing parts for the AL-31 outside of Russia is probably India who they have set up a joint assembly line. Even then, India will still be procuring sensitive parts directly from Russia for the licensed production.

As far as I understand, Shenyang Liming never agreed a licensed production of any variant of the AL-31 although there were discussions. Even if they like India did, there are like thousands of parts within the engine.

Like Malaysia, China probably can do repairs and servicing but again availability of parts is likely to be the main impediment.

However, I do not underestimate chinese planning. They may already calculated sufficient stores of AL-31s and parts to enable them to maintain a reasonable quantity of Su-27s if an embargo happens. If even I can see it, I don't doubt that the PLAAF would have already considered such an eventuality.

that's one side of the story, the other side is that Salyut has given Shenyang the rights to local production of 99M series.

 

[crobato]

For your comments on the su-34, I'm not in the league to be able to argue. I'll take your word for it, and just would like you to keep in mind that VVS procurement choices are not random. So while I can't argue on this level why it was chosen, or for that matter why China should choose it (though to me a specialized CAS and SEAD platform always seemed to make more sense then fighter planes in the same role) time will show which one of us is right.

The Su-34 might be a good implementation of a concept, but it looks here that China do not have any need for this concept. CAS and SEAD roles do not need a plane meant for long range low level interdiction, just like you don't use F-111s to do the A-10's job. Honestly I think I find the Su-25 more interesting for the PLAAF's mission roles.

So.... 100km is the actually useful range? Then the figure would indeed be more or less accurate? Why I asked for the Crotale range is because I ran into multiple mentionings of the HQ-9 being based on the Crotale.

I say keep guessing. Real effective ranges are always classified, and you have to judge between disinformation and marketing info. And I think you're confusing HQ-7 with HQ-9.

How do you know when the next war will be? And perhaps you should scale down your acquisition of arms to keep pace with your economic growth? After all double digit military budget growth can't be covered by single digit GDP growth for long.

And for that reason, the more you don't want an Su-34 for China. China does not need a specific platform solution, it needs a general technological base instead so it can come up with a solution for unseen problems at hand.

China's GDP growth has long been double digits, padded down to look more "stable" than it actually is in real terms. How can you explain a GDP growth that is racking up over a hundred billion dollars every quarter? Put it another way. When China was buying Flankers, each order was roughly around a billion to two. Every year, the US pays China many times more than that just for the interest alone of the Treasury Bonds held by China.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[crobato]

However, I do not underestimate chinese planning. They may already calculated sufficient stores of AL-31s and parts to enable them to maintain a reasonable quantity of Su-27s if an embargo happens. If even I can see it, I don't doubt that the PLAAF would have already considered such an eventuality.

True very true.

I was just looking at the recent earthquake relief pictures, and one picture struck me is that the helicopters were Blackhawks. I mean these are the Blackhawks China obtained from the US before the embargo due to Tiananmmen, and after all these years---nearly 18 years of embargo already---these helicopters are not just still running and flying, they're impeccably maintained and doing real mission work.

http://centurychina.com/plaboard/posts/3800652.shtml

 

[Feanor]

The JH-7A is not a fighter plane but instead is a dedicated strike aircraft which fulfils the CAS (LGBs and other munitions) and SEAD (YJ-91) roles in the PLAAF. It has started to replace Q-5s which previously covered those roles.

Since the PLAAF has already adopted the same as mentioned, I fail to see how there can be any right or wrong in this equation.

btw, I make no comparisons on the ability of the JH-7A vis a vis the Su-34. But I can understand why China would prefer a domestically produced/cheap bomb truck.

I think he just resolved our argument here.

Interesting too that Israel now survives without dedicated CAS and SEAD bombers whilst placing its reliance mainly on multi-role fighters.... I think the issue is a lot more complicated than a matter of right/wrong.

With a much smaller air force and against far inferior opponents. Yes. You make do with what you can field/get.

The Su-34 might be a good implementation of a concept, but it looks here that China do not have any need for this concept. CAS and SEAD roles do not need a plane meant for long range low level interdiction, just like you don't use F-111s to do the A-10's job. Honestly I think I find the Su-25 more interesting for the PLAAF's mission roles.

You mean the Su-25UTG variant that's Kuznetsov based?

And for that reason, the more you don't want an Su-34 for China. China does not need a specific platform solution, it needs a general technological base instead so it can come up with a solution for unseen problems at hand.

So perhaps a deal involving full technology transfer? Like those signed with India?

China's GDP growth has long been double digits, padded down to look more "stable" than it actually is in real terms. How can you explain a GDP growth that is racking up over a hundred billion dollars every quarter? Put it another way. When China was buying Flankers, each order was roughly around a billion to two. Every year, the US pays China many times more than that just for the interest alone of the Treasury Bonds held by China.

Do you have a source? I would be very interested to see it.

 

[Thery]

Phoenix News said:
According to Mikhail Pogosyan J-11B is not Su-27 and Sukhoi never have copyright problem with China. And he also said that Russia already TOT Su-27SK to China at 1996.

http://itv.ifeng.com/vplay.aspx?id=14f834c3-4f16-4771-9248-bf36426a9003

 

[swerve]

...
Do you have a source? I would be very interested to see it.

For Chinese economic growth rates or the interest on US Treasury paper owned by China? Both are easily come by. There's this thing called Google . . .

China had $490.6 bn in March this year. http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

The interest rates are a matter of public record, & you can work out the total interest easily.

 

[Feanor]

Actually I was more interested in the Chinese economic growth rates which you claimed were double digits.

Btw, the Su-34 isn't actually a tactical bomber like I thought originally. It's a multi-role fighter with emphasis on strike missions. It can fire both the R-73 and R-77.

 

[swerve]

Actually I was more interested in the Chinese economic growth rates which you claimed were double digits...

Not my claim, but the Chinese governments. In the high single-digit/low double-digit range for quite a long time. Even those economists (& there are many highly respected economists in that camp) who believe official Chinese growth rates are over-estimated believe that they've averaged high single digits for many years, & sometimes been in double digits. It isn't disputed. The area of disagreement is exactly what high single/low double digits.

Look on the World Bank, IMF, UN Statistics Division & Chinese national statistical office websites. Some links for you, since you seem unwilling to use a search engine -

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/inter-natlinks/sd_natstat.asp
http://www.worldbank.org/
http://www.imf.org/external/index.htm
http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/
http://pwt.econ.upenn.edu/papers/Delhi1c.pdf

We're way off topic, so I suggest you leave it there. Follow those links for information.

 

[PrOeLiTeZ]

Actually I was more interested in the Chinese economic growth rates which you claimed were double digits.

Btw, the Su-34 isn't actually a tactical bomber like I thought originally. It's a multi-role fighter with emphasis on strike missions. It can fire both the R-73 and R-77.

Su-34 more of a mid to long range strike fighter....dunno what the big deal is. Its not like the Chinese are selling the J-11B, and besides only thing retained from Su-27 is the airframe...