Basically, the Chinese are saying “we built it on our own,”while UTC has paid a $75 million fine for supplying an engine in addition to hundredsof other arms export violations.
Here is what the Chinese have to say (full text here):
A Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Thursday refutedreports that China’s military attack helicopter Z-10 pirated U.S. technologies,saying the helicopter’s manufacturer had used independent intellectual propertyrights…
“China’s attack helicopters and their engines are allself-developed, and have proprietary intellectual property rights,” saidYang, adding that the so-called piracy “is far from truth.”
What gives? I was going to write a formal story about thisstatement, it was even on the day’s to-do list, but I just cannot bring myselfto take these comments at face value. And then, halfway through the release,the spokesman drops this bomb:
Yang said the development of China’s military equipment hasalways followed the principle of independent innovation, and relied on its owncapability in research and production.
Where do I start? Reverse engineering the Su-27 to create theJ-11B? The use of Lavi blueprints in the development of the J-10? Guys bustedtrying to smuggle fighter components from Russia to China? And why does the Z-9look exactly like the Dauphin?
Either Yang has a very, very dry sense of humour or he’s beenhitting the party-line Kool Aid very hard indeed. Perhaps UTC can use thesecomments to tender an appeal?