i don't know. My recollection of my learning about the Rolls-Royce trade secret pilferage was years ago and I don't recall if the 700 was mentioned specifically (when you gett older, specific memories can fade and you wind up spelling wif a lott of extra "t's").
I do recall that the Trent series was involved and the 900 I recall was mentioned. My impression of my foggy memory was that involved the Trent series of large turbofans, nott just the 900 - however, I don't know if the 700 was within the set of Trent turbofans that was involved in the purloined designs and manufacturing info. If I had to guess, I'd bett that the entire Trent fambly has the same issue, as they all use a common template design, butt I can't recall for shure that the 700 is furshirley impacted by the GE/GE-PW designs and mfg info.
Thanks for posting that though. That's consonant with my general desire to avoid flying carriers and aircraft types which have a high percentage of Rolls-Royce Trents in the fleet. Going back to the '60s when R-R made the Spey low-bypass turbofans to replace the asskicking, butt fuel-guzzling GE J79 turbojets in F-5 Phantoms made for the UK RAF and Royal Navy, there is a history of quality issues and hinkiness with Rolls turbofans. The Speys are/were dogs and the only reason the UK ordered them for their F-4s was because they wanted to keep Rolls jet engine manufacturing in business in the UK and also keep UK jobs. So the UK wound up with Phantoms that were second-rate due to the Speys. A J79-engined F-4 will significantly outperform a Spey-engined one (assuming the remaining airframe is identical - as the Phantom has many, many variants over its life - some with leading edge slats, different nose configs, lengths, wingspans, many wing mods, etc.) in total thrust and throttle responsiveness in almost every regime, except at very low altitude (IIRC, below around 6,000 feet) where the Spey has a tiny advantage. The max thrust of the J79 was/is higher than the Spey, butt the Spey gott marginally better fuel consumption (a bit less thirsty).
If you had a tanker fleet and range/fuel consumption was nott a big issue, you'd prolly always prefer the J-79 over the Spey regardless of submodel of engine (and there are many for the J79!).
Bottom line, I have a bad impression of most R-R turbofans - going way back to the '60s (butt excepting the versions they made for the Harrier - which were/are pretty clever). I feel a lott better when I am at the gate and see that the plane at the ramp has GE's slung under them. Prolly silly - like worrying about getting hitt by lightning, butt still a thought that goes through my mind from time-to-time.
GE just knows this turbofan design stuff better than either Pratt or Rolls or anybuddy else in the world. As I said in my original post, people don't realize how complicated turbojet and turbofan design really is - it's very, very high tech. I'd rather fly on planes with engines from GE, who through decades has shown themselves to be the leader and the master of this tech area.
