What's new

China suspected of copycatting Russian naval jet

The problem us that indians forget there place. Living in biggest pile of dirt whose height even beat mount everest i dont see where they get courage to point at other people works.But i can understand your feelings as china is operating there own indigenous aircrafts while you have non.yeah NON. you talk about chinas indigenous capabilities and forget yours like lockheed martin and sukhoi are indian owned companies.
Now i know you will start to bash on pakistan but tell you what this is the best you people are at.Try exporting some of these.
 
.
The problem us that indians forget there place. Living in biggest pile of dirt whose height even beat mount everest i dont see where they get courage to point at other people works.But i can understand your feelings as china is operating there own indigenous aircrafts while you have non.yeah NON. you talk about chinas indigenous capabilities and forget yours like lockheed martin and sukhoi are indian owned companies.
Now i know you will start to bash on pakistan but tell you what this is the best you people are at.Try exporting some of these.

LOLLL, You guys are funny as hell.

There is nothing left to bash. You guys are hitting self-goal.Its :pop: time for us. Your feudal landlords, aka. Politicians, have got you by the balls.
 
.
There are always difference between "Internet banana Indian idiots" and the "Knowledgeable sane Indians" check it out.

IAF vice-chief prefers reverse engg to build defence systems

Bibhu Ranjan Mishra / Bangalore April 11, 2010, 0:56 IST

IAF Vice-Chief Air Marshal Pranab Kumar Barbora today suggested India should go the Chinese way by gathering technical data to produce defence equipment through reverse engineering. :rofl:

Addressing a gathering at a convention of The Frontiers of Aeronautical Technologies and 61st AGM in Bangalore, Air Marshal Babora said, “Do reverse engineering. Don't be scared. Our neighbours are already doing it. If someone does not give you, and you want it, do reverse engineering.”:rofl:

His comments, however, might not go down well with Americans and Europeans, who are finding it hard to protect their intellectual property rights.

Reverse engineering is a process of analysing a technology to ascertain how it was designed. The knowledge is then used to build the equipment or system or make improvements to it without using any physical part of the original.

Critical of the defence industry’s inability to be self-reliant in producing indegenous systems for defence and aerospace requirements, Air Marshal Barbora said, “We have got the best brains, but it has to be focussed to get the product.” :rofl:

Prodding the defence establishment and manufacturers to go for joint ventures and get the technological knowhow of systems, Barbora said: “No country has produced fighter aircraft on its own. It has been a joint effort of like-minded countries.”

Barbora said India was technologically less literate than Russia and China because it had no access to middle-level technologies following World War-II. “Now, a lot of private players have emerged in India, but they are playing rough because of rules and regulations.” :rofl:

He also asked the private sector to focus on core competence instead of trying to manufacture the entire aircraft from scratch. “We must not dilute our core competency,” he said.

Citing China’s efforts, the Air Marshal said while the country was already producing entire airbuses, Indian companies were proud and satisfied to produce a few small parts like doors and undercarriages.:yahoo:

“When China can manufacture an Airbus, why not India? Though we are a major economic power to reckon with in South Asia, we have not leveraged it to bargain for greater access to aerospace technologies or attracting overseas investment through joint ventures to develop our state-run or private industry,” he rued.

The Indian Air Force is buying equipment worth billions of dollars every year. However, the benefits of these are not reaching the private sector in the absence of a “national policy framework or national technology plan”.


“A sound national policy will enable stakeholders to work within a timeframe and deliver the equipment required for the armed forces, especially the IAF,” Barbora said.
IAF vice-chief prefers reverse engg to build defence systems
 
.
we like to copy and we proud of it
we like to make cheap low quality products too we also proud of it.
:chilli::chilli:
 
.
the thing that really scare me is them indians just love our cheap low quality products , they just couldnt get enough of them looooooooool
Sooooooooooooo scarey.:china::pakistan:
 
.
the thing that really scare me is them indians just love our cheap low quality products , they just couldnt get enough of them looooooooool
Sooooooooooooo scarey.:china::pakistan:

And you are the same scums who make a hullabaloo when the Indian govt wants to verify "who are we " aka huawei :angry:
 
.
that's embarrassing, actually. the company that is strong enough to comprise a 1.1 billion population country's security..umm
 
.
Russian scientists and engineer's r black sheeps thy sold their classified documents to various countries ,
 
.
Apparentlly you made mistake.China didn't buy or copy any su33s directlly from Russia,it bought T10k3 from Ukrain which is a Su 33 prototype.Then China studied and developed its navy aircraft based on the T10k3.Clearlly now the Russian Federal and Ukrain are two counties.We bought an aircraft prototype from Ukrain which is a Ukrain property and we don't need to pay to the Russians. .

I'm not the one that made the mistake, you are. China cound have perchased the T-10K from any country that still doesn't make it any less Russian. To sum it up Ukraine has nothing to do with Sukhoi, it's a Russian company, thus it doesn't matter if you purchase a Sukhoi from Russian or abroad the intellectual properties still belong to Russia. Let me make it more clear:

the intellectual property rights for the aircraft belong to Sukhoi, not Ukraine.

Is China Stealing Russia's Su-33? - Defense News

For an axample, F-16's were produced in Europe but they were still Lockheed Martin's property, in other words no one can produce without Lockheed permission.


Prove it by a trustable link.I would prefer a professional jounal,not some news from a Iran paper.

Iran paper? It was a Russian link, there is literally dozens of links that all say the same thing.

The story I heared is we rejected a lot of offers from the Russians including su35bm and T50 projects.

Wrong again, the Chinese wanted the avionics from the SU-35BM but Russia would only sell the whole aircraft.
 
Last edited:
. .
Wrong again, the Chinese wanted the avionics from the SU-35BM but Russia would only sell the whole aircraft.

Chinese want to have Russian avionics? You must be still living in 1990s. Maybe aerodynamic design, some type of composite and engines, not other stuff.

What exact Russian IP has J-15 violated? You have any patent numbers? If not what is your definition of IP with Su-33?
 
.
Mr sanchez dont tell me now that chinese avionics better than russian avionics. That will be joke of century. Russia 2nd most powerful military power after america.
 
. .
Mr sanchez dont tell me now that chinese avionics better than russian avionics. That will be joke of century. Russia 2nd most powerful military power after america.

Right on, forget about J-15, China should import LCA navy version from India may be with TOT will be the best bet.:lol::D
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom