A multirole, supersonic copyright violation
Showing that they can alienate pretty much anyone, the People's Republic of China has recently angered trading partner Russia by making home-made knockoffs of the the Russian Su-27 fighter aircraft.
An original 1995 deal between the two countries for the sale of 200 Sukhois to the PRC was structured such that all the parts for the planes would originate in Russia, then be assembled into the final product under Russian supervision in Chinese plants. Things have not gone as planned, however, with the PRC refusing Russian access to construction sites and, much more dramatically, suddenly canceling a substantial portion of their parts order in 2004. Following a series of incidents involving Chinese attempts to acquire plans and parts for the Su-27, the PRC put in a final order for engines...and then began manufacturing its own knock-off version of the Russian fighter.
Dubbed the J-11B, the fighter is clearly a Sukhoi, despite the PRC's risible claim that it's entirely home made. What does this all mean?
The Russian military industry has not made clear what legal action it will take if it is convinced that China violated Russian intellectual property rights. However, a civil aviation technology analyst based in Moscow says that the J-11B incident will surely have a major impact on cooperation between China and Russia in the aviation industry.
Russia is now conducting a full assessment of the importance of the Chinese arms market to the Russian military industry. Some analysts believe that Russia is already switching its priority to other markets because of China's failure to fulfill its commitments. Under this circumstance, the likelihood that Russia will export Su-35 and Su-33 fighters to China is growing smaller. New obstacles may also interrupt the export of additional AL-31F engines and Su-27SK component parts to China.
Russia's economic recovery in the past few years means that money is no longer the only consideration in deciding where to export its military technology.
Indeed.
(I originally saw this in Pravda, of all places. But I can't imagine ever actually citing Pravda.)