[HN Gopher] Honeywell exported technical drawings of B1 Bombers,...
___________________________________________________________________
Honeywell exported technical drawings of B1 Bombers, F-35 and F22
to China
Author : belter
Score : 235 points
Date : 2021-05-07 17:34 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.defensenews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.defensenews.com)
| anonymousiam wrote:
| Seems far less serious than the LM infiltration.
| https://eurasiantimes.com/did-chinese-cyber-spies-broke-into...
| (Interesting how it's hard to get details of this hack from
| mainstream sources. It seems to be classified.)
| russfink wrote:
| It's fine to disclose /that/ they did it, but /why/ did they do
| it? Repeatedly?
| alexfromapex wrote:
| Isn't this worth more than $13 million? Is anyone going to go to
| jail?
| sct202 wrote:
| The article mentions it was for specific parts that are
| commercially available. The headline makes it sound like a
| whole plane's schematics were leaked.
| oefrha wrote:
| The headline is editorialized, and very inaccurately at that.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| My understanding is that the drawings were very high-level
| illustrations, not technical schematics.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| It sounds like it may have been a little more specific.
|
| > Honeywell allegedly used a file-sharing platform to
| inappropriately transmit engineering prints showing layouts,
| dimensions and geometries for manufacturing castings and
| finished parts for multiple aircraft, military electronics
| and gas turbine engines.
| jjk166 wrote:
| > Between 2011 and 2015, Honeywell allegedly used a file-
| sharing platform to inappropriately transmit engineering
| prints showing layouts, dimensions and geometries for
| manufacturing castings and finished parts for multiple
| aircraft, military electronics and gas turbine engines.
| Lendal wrote:
| No, because of the new rule. If you voluntarily disclose your
| crimes, (or better yet brag about them on social media), it's
| not a crime anymore.
| stormtv wrote:
| Honeywell reported their violation to the government. It is in
| the governments best interest to not overly punish them as it
| could lead to companies being incentivized to hide violations
| instead of reporting them as soon as they become aware of them.
| Although I do think $13 million is a bit low even when
| accounting for this.
| aerostable_slug wrote:
| * The documents were not classified, they were export-controlled.
|
| * Honeywell voluntarily reported their violations.
|
| I was an ITAR Empowered Official. What they did was bad,
| especially in light of the fact that at least one other time they
| got nailed for something I would consider a willful violation,
| but this isn't on the order of disclosing the manufacturing
| secrets behind a turbine blade or the composition of various
| coatings on the F-35.
|
| That $5M likely goes into web-based training hell for all their
| employees, where they spend a few hours clicking through a
| refresher on ITAR and various export control acts.
| walrus01 wrote:
| While all those things are true, if they disclosed ITAR
| controlled jet turbine technical schematics to potential
| adversaries, that's a real problem... Having the most reliable,
| fuel efficient, high performance engines in current generation
| military aircraft is a major advantage.
| edge17 wrote:
| But then why not make them classified instead of ITAR?
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| So you can use contractors that don't have a Secret
| clearance. The government calls a lot of things Controlled
| Unclassified Information (CUI), its unclassified but its
| controlled and there are strict requirements on
| transmission and storage of CUI. See CMMC.
| kryogen1c wrote:
| this is made up information.
|
| cmmc is not in effect, v1.02 is like 2 months old, and v2
| is rumored to come out in a month or two.
|
| nist 800-171, which is where the majority of cmmc comes
| from, didnt even require formal external attestation
| until like 6 months ago when dfars 252.204-7019 required
| posting in SPRS to continue doing business with the DoD.
|
| ive never seen, nor heard of, anything actually marked as
| CUI.
| 5555624 wrote:
| > ive never seen, nor heard of, anything actually marked
| as CUI.
|
| It's been around for more than 10 years. See CFR 2018
| Title 32 Vol 6 Part 2002 (https://www.govinfo.gov/content
| /pkg/CFR-2018-title32-vol6/pd...) if you want details.
| DoD implementation ramped up about a year ago.
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| I've recently seen documents marked CUI. And yes, I went
| with the most recent information. However, there are many
| possible markings,
| https://www.archives.gov/cui/registry/category-marking-
| list.
|
| You might have seen documents marked 'Controlled' in the
| past.
|
| 800-171 has been required since 2017.
| tediousdemise wrote:
| > ive never seen, nor heard of, anything actually marked
| as CUI.
|
| That's because CUI is a recent label. Per DoDI 5200.48,
| effective March 6, 2020, CUI is is replacing legacy
| labels such as For Official Use Only (FOUO), Sensitive
| But Unclassified (SBU), and Law Enforcement Sensitive
| (LES). [0]
|
| [0] https://www.dodcui.mil/
| walrus01 wrote:
| While I have never been involved in jet engine
| manufacturing, probably because those same engines and
| their repair parts are sold to a number of US allies and
| temporary-allies-of-convenience who use US/NATO spec
| aircraft and systems, where having a classified piece of
| technology would be impossible to maintain chain of custody
| on. I'm thinking specifically of all the foreign military
| sales for the F16, F15, etc.
| goatinaboat wrote:
| _having a classified piece of technology would be
| impossible to maintain chain of custody on. I 'm thinking
| specifically of all the foreign military sales for the
| F16, F15, etc_
|
| Being in physical possession of a turbine blade doesn't
| give you the secrets of how to manufacture it, which are
| extremely tightly controlled.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| They did, with the next gen.
| [deleted]
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| At this point in time, it seems illogical to assume that
| Americans adversaries do not have all the detailed plans on
| building secret planes. In fact, I would be genuinely shocked
| if they didn't know everything at this point.
| cptskippy wrote:
| Engines are one place the Chinese are lacking. The
| innovations in fly-by-wire we see in the Chinese knockoff
| of the Blackhawk was out of necessity because they lack an
| engine powerful enough to support a platform with hydraulic
| controls that meets operational requirements.
| nradov wrote:
| If our adversaries actually knew everything then we would
| see it flying today. Obviously that isn't the case. The
| Chinese are still struggling to successfully copy previous
| generation Russian designs, which are themselves a step
| behind the latest US and European models in terms of
| efficiency and reliability.
| vanattab wrote:
| >If our adversaries actually knew everything then we
| would see it flying today.
|
| Well maybe they know so much about our F35 design... they
| choose not to build them ;)
| JohnJamesRambo wrote:
| It hurts, because it is true.
| 1cvmask wrote:
| The F35 is an engineering disaster and a hangar queen.
| Meanwhile the Raptor and Warthog are the epitome of
| engineering excellence.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thu
| nde...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
|
| Edit:
|
| Since I am being downvoted here are some facts on the
| universally acknowledged disastrous F-35:
|
| https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/320295-the-us-air-
| force-...
|
| https://www.businessinsider.in/defense/hardware/how-
| the-f-35...
|
| https://acqnotes.com/news/bigest-acquisition-disaster-
| histor...
|
| https://eurasiantimes.com/inside-americas-trillion-
| dollar-di...
|
| ---
|
| and here on the excellence of the Warthog:
|
| https://www.wired.com/2014/12/a10-warthog-isis/
|
| and the excellence of the F-22 Raptor:
|
| https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-
| tactical/why-f-22-neve...
| FpUser wrote:
| >"The F35 is an engineering disaster and a hangar queen."
|
| It might very well be but it does not mean that it does
| not have some technologies / components that are highly
| advanced. The participants would like to keep those
| strictly to themselves.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| As a software engineer, I aspire to build software as
| well-engineered as the A-10.
| Nimitz14 wrote:
| Fighter pilots seem quite positive about it.
| inanutshellus wrote:
| I once read an article about how the US spread
| misinformation about spectacularly expensive programs
| they were pretending to work on, hoping that the Russians
| would follow suit and waste govt money.
|
| Over the years as I have read about the F-35 and its, uh,
| challenges, I've wondered if it's a revenge project. ;)
| api_or_ipa wrote:
| I don't think you're being downvoted for criticizing the
| F-35 and instead, being downvoted for thinking the A-10
| and F-22 programs were epitomes of engineering
| excellence. The A-10 suffered from wing cracks; the F-22
| continues to suffocate it's pilots. In terms of
| engineering excellence, I'd say the F-16 or F/A-18
| programs were far more successful at developing a
| successful, useful, adaptable and delivered on-time
| warplane.
| le-mark wrote:
| The f-22 was a budget disaster until production was
| halted, and then the previously on budget and on schedule
| f-35 went off schedule and over budget. These planes are
| jobs programs for Congress pure and simple.
| grepfru_it wrote:
| F-22 and A-10 were the most aesthetically pleasing
| aircraft. hands down
| hellotomyrars wrote:
| Your subjective appraisal of their aesthetic appearance
| has virtually nothing to do with how well engineered they
| are and is not the issue being contested.
| dplavery92 wrote:
| >The Chinese are still struggling to successfully copy
| previous generation Russian designs
|
| This is certainly not true. If anything, the Chinese are
| very successfully copying current generation American
| designs.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_FC-31
| nradov wrote:
| Nonsense. Those are superficial copies of some aspects of
| the airframes. It's the engines and avionics inside that
| count. What is the efficiency in terms of thrust per unit
| of fuel burned? How many hours can they run between
| overhauls?
| trhway wrote:
| looks like you didn't read your own links -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_FC-31#Engines ,
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20#Engines
|
| Look at those round vector controlled engines. It is
| Russian 4th (mostly 4+ as of today) gen engines. That is
| the reason Russia hasn't so far been able to build an
| F-22 competitor - for PAK-FA, out of the 3 key component
| of the 5th gen, they built body, not bad of a radar, yet
| they haven't been able to build a 5th gen engine as of
| today. China has as of today almost been able to
| replicate that 4th+ gen engine, yet still very far from
| the 5th gen.
|
| Even more - Russia has actually officially given up on
| building the 5th gen. They decided to go straight to the
| 6th gen which is supposedly all about
| AI/networking/sensors/drones/etc. with engines playing
| only secondary role. Not that they have much hopes to
| succeed at the 6th gen game too, it is just recognition
| of reality that the 5th gen F-22 level engine isn't
| happening in the near future and thus they need a plan B.
| In some sense that leaves China totally on their own when
| it comes to the 5th gen, and that means like at least 10
| years from the current state, and by that time the air
| will be dominated by the AI/drones/etc. In that sense AI
| engineers going to work in China may be more
| strategically important than the Honeywell drawings :) As
| an example - the current drone powerhouse dominating the
| region - Turkey - got their drones built by a returned
| MIT graduate
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sel%C3%A7uk_Bayraktar .
| grepfru_it wrote:
| >That is the reason Russia hasn't so far been able to
| build an F-22 competitor
|
| The Su-57 would like to have some words with you. Granted
| it is a bit late to the party..
| trhway wrote:
| that is my point - the 5th gen Su-57 doesn't exist. The
| prototypes flown are with old engines. And in general -
| India, who really wanted to buy the 5th gen Su-57,
| basically having huge pile of cash ready on the table,
| has basically dropped out of it as declared capabilities
| of Su-57 just weren't there when it was tested - in
| particular while the radar is still great compare to
| previous generation, it is just half the declared range.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"the 5th gen F-22 level engine isn't happening in the
| near future and thus they need a plan B"
|
| Accordingly to online sources they are actually testing
| second stage 5+ gen engine for SU-57 and are hoping to
| deploy it sometime in 2022. Will they succeed is a
| different question of course.
| trhway wrote:
| right, and the best estimates of having a meaningful
| operational force is by the end of the decade:
|
| https://eurasiantimes.com/russian-su-57-fighter-soars-
| high-i...
|
| "The Russian military will be supplied with 76 jets by
| 2028, 22 of which will be operational by 2024."
|
| Even if they deliver on those estimates, i think the
| skies will be different in 2030-ties (imagine the
| thousands of Starlink like satellites managing the army
| of drones - each drone is easy to shoot down, yet no
| human carrying plane can defend itself from a large group
| of drones simultaneously firing beyond-visual-range
| missiles) Anyway, i don't believe those estimates for a
| lot of reasons. In particular most of the Russian new
| military hardware - i mean generationally new, not just
| modernizations - that has been shown and planned for
| deliveries starting in the last decade hasn't yet
| materialized, with the money being one of the key
| reasons. Another is that Russia is still not going to be
| able to project power anywhere beside its own vicinity,
| and thus will be focusing on protecting its shores which,
| given limited financial resources, favors as the first
| priority ground based advanced anti-aircraft defense and
| MiG-31 style approach (ie. like SU-35 with advanced radar
| and missiles instead of going all the way with Su-57).
| [deleted]
| mint2 wrote:
| Having plans versus actually manufacturing something is a
| big step. There's a lot of knowledge needed that's not in
| plans.
| [deleted]
| thechao wrote:
| Right. I have _plans_ for a reusable Mars rocketship. It
| 's the implementation details I'm needing some help with.
| [deleted]
| 3327 wrote:
| Well.... regardless of the circumstances if an individual had
| done this it would be 20-life.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| Unlikely - for someone to be prosecuted for releasing export
| controlled material on an individual level and end up with
| prison time you'd have to demonstrate willfull disclosure of
| materials - in this scenario it doesn't appear Honeywell did
| anything willfully, they just messed up.
| 38294473920 wrote:
| Frankly we need to be sharing more with China and I'm glad to see
| the first step in place. China is not our enemy. ITAR is an
| xenophobic encroachment on science. t's ethical and moral
| imperative that the US shares it and I support Honeywell in this
| new corporate social activist role.
| fjdncncndb wrote:
| Throwaway for obvious reasons, but I'm really shocked how the US
| isn't doing more to prevent foreign state actors from operating
| inside our borders. I've had the chance to work with people who
| were openly aligned with the CCP, and I watched them do some
| pretty shady things. We as a country need to clarify that there's
| a difference between being critical of the CCP as a government
| vs. sinophobia/racism.
| yhoneycomb wrote:
| The problem is it all boils down to sinophobia/racism. At the
| end of the day, white people in America can't bear the thought
| of a non-white country surpassing them as the world leader.
|
| Bring on the downvotes.
| moistbar wrote:
| Yeah, it sure is racist to be critical of a country that's in
| the midst of a nationwide ethnic cleansing.
| yhoneycomb wrote:
| You mean the US? Have you seen what's going on in the
| middle east? And that just scratches the surface.
|
| Not sure where you're getting your news of a "nationwide
| ethnic cleansing" from, other than western news sources
| that intentionally feed propaganda to rile people up for
| war.
|
| There's only one country in the nation with literally
| hundreds of military bases all over the world, and it's not
| China.
| fouric wrote:
| > Not sure where you're getting your news of a
| "nationwide ethnic cleansing" from, other than western
| news sources that intentionally feed propaganda to rile
| people up for war.
|
| Wikipedia begs to disagree with you. This is a real
| problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang_internmen
| t_camps#Reac...
| moistbar wrote:
| Oh neat, the wu mao is actually confronting me. Was your
| blatant attempt at misdirection worth the fifty cents?
| yhoneycomb wrote:
| Seems obvious that your comments are not in good faith. I
| feel like I'm talking to a kindergartner with their
| fingers in their ears, yelling "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR
| YOU."
|
| I guess it can be hard to accept that all the propaganda
| we learned in school - about the US being the greatest
| country ever, spreading freedom to all, etc. is just
| blatantly false.
|
| For the record, I was born and raised in the US, but I
| have come to understand that we are the problem.
| moistbar wrote:
| Point out where I said the US was the greatest country in
| the world, please. Again, you can't actually address the
| problems people have with China, so you deflect back to
| the US. Meanwhile, countries other than the US, ones that
| _don 't even like us_, are running the same stories about
| the Uighur genocide.
|
| If anyone's acting like a kindergartener with their
| fingers in their ears here, it's the one who's rejecting
| every ounce of evidence that's placed in front of them
| that China does, in fact, have problems. That seems to be
| a point you're critically unable to accept.
| fouric wrote:
| Please don't name-call, or set up straw-man attacks.
| Neither of those is appropriate for HN.
| fouric wrote:
| > We as a country need to clarify that there's a difference
| between being critical of the CCP as a government vs.
| sinophobia/racism.
|
| That distinction shouldn't need to be made in the first place -
| it's pretty blindingly obvious to anyone with basic thinking
| skills that "the government of a county" and "the
| people/nationalities/culture of a county" are two totally
| different things.
|
| Even American county dwellers, who tend to be less educated,
| can understand this pretty easily - most of them identify as
| being "Americans", but are still critical of their government
| (and associated politicians).
| missosoup wrote:
| > obvious to anyone with basic thinking skills that "the
| government of a county" and "the people/nationalities/culture
| of a county" are two totally different things.
|
| The CCP has invested a lot of energy into making the people
| of China conflate these two concepts. The party IS China and
| the two are inseparable according to the CCP.
|
| This is where the topic becomes contentious and not so black
| and white. The CCP has successfully influenced millions of
| people into doing its bidding abroad. And the CCP is fully
| aware of the West's strong aversion to racism in any form,
| and has been able to weaponise it.
|
| Relevant reading: Silent Invasion: China's influence in
| Australia (2018)
| fatjokes wrote:
| Yet that is not what we see happening. Indeed this is
| affecting those who look Asian, let alone Chinese. (The rise
| in anti-Asian hate crimes is now well reported and easily
| Google-able in both right- and left-wing media).
|
| The issue is called out-group homogeneity bias:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity
| wilsonthewhale wrote:
| You have really high hopes for the standard American. The
| offhand racism against Chinese people (not the PRC) I see in
| online communities, even supposedly liberal ones like Reddit,
| is very telling.
|
| As an American of Chinese descent, I honestly have very real
| concerns about my own safety in the next decade or two going
| forward. Japanese internment camps happened not too long ago,
| they can happen again. Or worse.
|
| Even if it weren't government sanctioned, violence against us
| is still on the rise[1].
|
| [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56218684
| Aunche wrote:
| >I've had the chance to work with people who were openly
| aligned with the CCP
|
| What's wrong with someone openly having opinions different from
| yours? If they were really a threat to the US, then they would
| remain as inconspicuous as possible.
| fjdncncndb wrote:
| It was more than that, and looking back, it was such a
| strange situation that I'm not sure I would believe it if I
| heard about this from someone else. From what I can tell,
| this person assumed the identity of someone who went to
| Cornell in order to get hired. Her Cornell email account had
| the photo of a completely different person associated with
| it. Her company ID and username on the internal company chat
| had a different chinese name associated with it than the
| person we hired, and when asked about this, she said she
| legally changed her name the week before starting her new
| job. While she worked for us, she said she moonlights for
| China United Front to fight disinformation against the
| Chinese government on Chinese social media. She worked for us
| for three months before giving us four days notice that she
| was quitting to go full time with her Chinese social media
| job. We were both working as data scientists for a large US
| corporation, and we had access to all sorts of really
| sensitive internal company data.
| sidlls wrote:
| China (CCP) is an adversary; an enemy. Full stop. "Being
| critical" isn't enough. We ought to treat them as what they
| are: an adversary to be thwarted and fought.
| ben_w wrote:
| An enemy to be fought and a mere adversary are _very_
| different levels.
|
| I certainly hope I'm no longer on Earth if and when the USA
| and China treat each other as actual _enemies_ rather than
| rivals.
| sidlls wrote:
| We already are "actual enemies," but the US isn't acting
| like it. And that's problematic. We should consider China
| of today the same way we considered Germany in WW2. They're
| that bad, and we should be acting like it.
| yhoneycomb wrote:
| Yikes. What's problematic is equating China to Nazi
| Germany. If you're talking about military aggression and
| lack of a moral compass, look no further than the US,
| which has hundreds of military bases all around the world
| spreading "freedom."
| moistbar wrote:
| What's problematic is your modern form of holocaust
| denial.
| fouric wrote:
| Please don't name-call. Even if the person you're
| responding to is making invalid points, or being
| aggressive, that doesn't excuse aggression yourself.
| [deleted]
| sidlls wrote:
| Tu quoque arguments aren't very compelling. Currently
| there is only one world power throwing entire populations
| in internment camps, and that's China. And you're quite
| naive if you think military bases are required to use
| threats of military and economic violence to assert a
| country's desire.
| yhoneycomb wrote:
| China has re-education camps, while the US is literally
| ravaging nations with their military. I'm not making a
| "tu quoque" argument, because that would imply that the
| two nations are on the same level.
| fouric wrote:
| "Re-education camps" which are closer to detainment
| camps, repeated IP theft from the US, blackmailing US
| companies into falling in line with CPC policies, and
| _also_ invading other nations (Hong Kong) with their
| military.
| lucian1900 wrote:
| Why shouldn't a country fight back against US coercion on
| its soil? And Hong Kong has been a part of China for
| centuries.
|
| How many countries had the US invaded and is still
| occupying? How many were threatened into extreme
| exploitation? How many people are in the ICE run
| concentration camps?
|
| The two countries don't even remotely compare.
| xtian wrote:
| > How many countries had the US invaded and is still
| occupying? How many were threatened into extreme
| exploitation?
|
| The people you're asking couldn't begin to answer these
| questions. They don't know the uncontested grisly facts
| of the US empire because they're not talked about on any
| of their favorite TV shows.
|
| Anyone who's interested, here's a short book on one small
| facet of that history:
| https://www.amazon.com/dp/1583679065
| fouric wrote:
| > Why shouldn't a country fight back against US coercion
| on its soil?
|
| What "coercion"? China employs internet commentators to
| influence online opinion[1] - whereas the US does not (as
| far as anyone can tell).
|
| > Hong Kong has been a part of China for centuries.
|
| You're misdirecting. China signed the Sino-British Joint
| Declaration[2], which stated that "Hong Kong's existing
| capitalist system and way of life would be unchanged for
| 50 years until 2047"...which China is now blatantly
| violating, making this an effective invasion - or some
| form of hostile action - take your pick of words.
|
| > How many countries had the US invaded and is still
| occupying? How many were threatened into extreme
| exploitation?
|
| In self-defense. China has _no_ excuse for invading HK,
| which poses absolutely no threat to them.
|
| > How many people are in the ICE run concentration camps?
|
| Not remotely comparable. ICE detains illegal immigrants
| for breaking a rather reasonable law - "you don't enter
| our borders without permission" - and then _returns_ them
| to their country. China detains _existing_ citizens for
| thoughtcrime, speaking out against the state, or merely
| _being Uyghur_ - none of which are reasonable.
|
| > The two countries don't even remotely compare.
|
| Yes - every shred of evidence paints China as being
| incomparably worse.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-
| British_Joint_Declaration
| xtian wrote:
| > What "coercion"? China employs internet commentators to
| influence online opinion[1] - whereas the US does not (as
| far as anyone can tell).
|
| There are many examples of the US working to influence
| the internal politics of other countries through media,
| for instance Radio Free Asia or the National Endowment
| for Democracy.
|
| https://www.telesurenglish.net/analysis/National-
| Endowment-f...
| lstodd wrote:
| What's wrong with influence?
|
| There is a thing called Radio Liberty / Radio Free Europe
| since 1949. It still exists.
| tinfoilheadsock wrote:
| or "frenemies". Analogous to most individuals'
| relationship with google. We get stuff for cheap, but
| give up our secrets.
| pcbro141 wrote:
| After seeing how the US performed against the Taliban
| with trillions of dollars spent, good luck actually
| 'fighting' against China.
| fouric wrote:
| I would argue that the Taliban was different - a
| guerrilla battle (similar to Vietnam - which we also
| lost) rather than a direct conflict. I believe that the
| US, while not very good at the former, is still among the
| best at the latter - although I would rather not find
| that out through direct experience...
| jonnybgood wrote:
| > similar to Vietnam - which we also lost
|
| Vietnam wasn't lost militarily. It was lost politically
| due to the war's unpopularity.
| fouric wrote:
| If America had been able to win it quickly, then wouldn't
| the unpopularity not have mattered?
| xtian wrote:
| Will you enlist?
| xxpor wrote:
| Why would anyone need to enlist? We have nukes, they have
| nukes, there won't be a massive ground war.
| [deleted]
| zentiggr wrote:
| It won't be nukes.
|
| It'll be the biggest naval / air / amphibious battle
| since the Pacific theater of WW2.
|
| Just resolved a LOT faster.
| [deleted]
| baybal2 wrote:
| > I've had the chance to work with people who were openly
| aligned with the CCP
|
| How does it surprise people these days?
|
| China had 20 years of relatively good relationships with US,
| and the world's biggest spy service.
|
| Take a look at Russia, a supposed ally of Beijing. Annually,
| there are dozens, and dozens of people who are given life for
| espionage for China. And those are only cases which go public.
|
| Russia is a closed, militarist society, with secret police
| sticking its nose into everything.
|
| USA is an open country, with open borders, immigration system,
| freedom to do whatever business you want, and an open society,
| with a few million people strong entrepreneur class exuberant
| at the opportunity of doing business even with a place like
| China.
|
| It is rational to believe that there are way more than just a
| few random communists who got into your biggest companies, and
| much likely that there been a many decades long concerted
| infiltration, and recruitment campaign. This is just what those
| guys do.
|
| For example, a former "student activist" from Maoist Kharagpur
| is now running one very big Californian Internet company.
| vmh1928 wrote:
| This wasn't foreign state actors operating inside our borders
| it was a sloppy, DIY file sharing system that shipped the files
| all over.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| I'm shocked for the opposite reason. If our politicians and the
| people they place in charge of government services are examples
| of the same type of people who run the government contractor
| companies, I'm shocked that this isn't a rampant problem.
| tomcam wrote:
| From a cost-benefit analysis that is a dirt cheap violation. I
| imagine someone at Honeywell made off like a bandit in a private
| transaction. $13 million is a drop in the bucket to Honeywell,
| it's absolutely nothing to China, and the turncoat at Honeywell
| had a life-changing financial transaction, all on the US
| taxpayer's nickel. Nice work if you can get it.
| slashdot2008 wrote:
| >The State Department alleged some of the transmissions harmed
| national security, which Honeywell acknowledges with the caveat
| that the technology involved "is commercially available
| throughout the world. No detailed manufacturing or engineering
| expertise was shared."
|
| If the engines and electronics are used in commercial
| applications as well as military then does it matter?
| some_random wrote:
| Parts can be commercially available but still export
| controlled, which appears to be what's going on here
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| That sounds like a silly contradiction of regulations and
| reality. Maybe I am missing something. If something is
| commercially available do export controls actually stop that
| thing from getting to prohibited countries? Or, is this a
| case of regulation not adjusting to the current reality?
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Guess it's the same as why we have locks on doors. Won't
| stop someone determined, but raises the bar a bit.
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| Does it really raise the bar that much? Are secondary
| sales tracked well enough to penalize one country from
| buying restricted export items and selling to a
| restricted country?
|
| It doesn't take very many steps to make tracking sales
| untenable.
| some_random wrote:
| It's the difference between being able to get 20 units of
| XYZ though a middleman in the US and being able to order
| 20,000 units direct from the manufacturer.
| some_random wrote:
| To some degree, yes ITAR (or similar export controls) do
| make it harder to get controlled items, especially in large
| numbers.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| You'll find this interesting then:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_t
| h...
|
| >As of 2009, non-military cryptography exports from the
| U.S. are controlled by the Department of Commerce's Bureau
| of Industry and Security. Some restrictions still exist,
| even for mass market products, particularly with regard to
| export to "rogue states" and terrorist organizations
| tastyfreeze wrote:
| I'm aware of restrictions on cryptography. I just
| question the effectiveness of export restrictions. For
| commercially available products it seems like we are
| saying that we will only allow green crayons to be sold
| to countries we like even though everybody knows how to
| make green crayons.
| stagger87 wrote:
| There are screening processes when selling export
| controlled goods.
| moftz wrote:
| The vendor asks for your information before selling you the
| part. There's two different regulations when it comes to
| this kind of stuff. ITAR is for pretty much anything
| defense related. It's not easy buying something ITAR as a
| regular person as most companies would probably just refuse
| to sell it to you unless you worked for a company doing
| defense work. People have gotten caught in the past by
| buying things in the name of their employer (or a fake
| shell company) and then selling it to places like China.
| EAR is easier to get a hold of as these parts are
| considered commercial dual-use technology. For example, a
| new microprocessor has a temperature range that exceeds the
| typical milspec range (-55-125C) so it's great for high
| temperature environments like downhole drilling equipment
| where it can get really hot but this chip would also work
| well inside the engine of an F-35. The govt has a list of
| specifications that if your commercial product meets them,
| it's classified as EAR. EAR is much more lax than ITAR as
| the govt doesn't want to hamper the commercial sector
| simply because a technology is new and better but the sames
| rules apply as to where these products can be exported to.
| coward76 wrote:
| Manufacturering defense items overseas is a mistake for a
| xenophobic nation.
|
| Defense spending is largely a waste of money.
| mjevans wrote:
| Secrecy, and security, require that everyone who could leak the
| secret, or breach security, understand and actively guard the
| interest.
|
| In a race to the bottom, lowest bidder world? I think we're all
| doomed.
| [deleted]
| guilhas wrote:
| They can throw the F35 drawings in the trash
| baybal2 wrote:
| American military hardware is known to regularly popup in
| scrapyards in China.
|
| You also will not believe how much US military hardware have
| major parts made in China.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Only 13 million?! Those programs have costs in the billions to
| trillions of dollars.
| eh8 wrote:
| The headline is true but suggests a far more sinister implication
| than what is actually going on.
|
| A few things that need to be taken in context here.
|
| - The materials in question were sent to China, Taiwan, Canada
| and Ireland.
|
| - As others have mentioned, Honeywell sent commercially-available
| schematics to the above countries, not classified information.
| The article mentions that Honeywell sent parts relating to the
| engine, this could literally just be a valve or bearing
| component. I doubt this kind of information is usable unless you
| have a ton of additional documentation describing their function
| and utility as a sub-assembly.
|
| - Honeywell reported this themselves. A bunch of articles on this
| topic use the phrase 'Honeywell admits...' as if this was some
| kind of smoking gun.
|
| The knee-jerk reaction claiming that Honeywell has committed
| treason or something like it is unreasonable. Methinks
| incompetence from the sales department is to blame here rather
| than malice.
|
| See Reddit threads discussing same topic:
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/n5vglg/honeywell...
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/n5tcqg/honeywel...
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/n4gwma/honeywell_...
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/n5n1jc/honeywell_admi... -
| fouric wrote:
| The fact that they sent the designs to _Canada_ , of all
| places, should suggest that their actions were unintentional -
| Canada is one of our closer military allies.
| vmh1928 wrote:
| You could probably chalk it up to a home-grown file sharing
| repository. Instead of buying a quality commercial product
| they lashed together something built of free and cheap parts.
| It probably replicated the files to all the mentioned
| countries to cache them in case they were needed and the DIY
| system didn't check whatever security level flags were set.
| seneca wrote:
| Or it's basic misdirection.
| fouric wrote:
| I did say "suggest" - although Occam's razor suggests that
| my answer is more likely to be right.
| eeegnu wrote:
| For wrongly distributed non-readily available military
| schematics, I think it's safe to say that Occam's razor
| isn't a great axiom to take.
| fouric wrote:
| I don't see how any of those qualifiers have anything to
| do with my point. Mistakes happen all of the time.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| > All together, the materials pertained to the F-35 Joint Strike
| Fighter, the B-1B Lancer long-range strategic bomber, the F-22
| fighter, the C-130 transport aircraft, the A-7H Corsair aircraft,
| the A-10 Warthog aircraft, the Apache Longbow helicopter, the
| M1A1 Abrams tank, the tactical Tomahawk missile; the F/A-18
| Hornet fighter, and the F135, F414, T55 and CTS800 turboshaft
| engines.
|
| All that amounts to $13M in fines, $5M of which Honeywell is
| allowed to spend? Yikes.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| I feel like a blunder (or perhaps not?) of this magnitude would
| get you the electric chair during the Cold War.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| FWIW, I looked at a list of ITAR consent decrees from during
| the cold war. They mostly resulted in fines in the
| $10,000-$100,000 neighborhood. OTOH those were for sales to
| relatively friendly countries (West Germany, Canada, France,
| Ireland)
| smilekzs wrote:
| The title is currently: "Honeywell exported technical drawings of
| B1 Bombers, F-35 and F22 to China"
|
| Written this way it appears as if substantial drawings have been
| disclosed, while in reality quoting the article (emphasis is
| mine):
|
| "it exported technical drawings of *parts for* the F-35 fighters
| and other weapons platforms to China and other foreign countries"
| ch33zer wrote:
| It's funny, if an individual self reported that they'd shared
| classified documents to China they'd be in jail. A multi billion
| dollar company gets a slap on the wrist. Seems unfair.
| Godel_unicode wrote:
| ITAR controlled is (very) different than classified.
|
| According to Honeywell the technology involved "is commercially
| available throughout the world. No detailed manufacturing or
| engineering expertise was shared."
| Nux wrote:
| "China knows everything we know, and many things we do not"
|
| https://steve-yegge.medium.com/hurricane-china-how-to-prepar...
| sidlls wrote:
| There's not much of value in that screed. He's right that we
| shouldn't ignore China, but for a number of wrong reasons, and
| he's terribly wrong about how powerful and wealthy China is.
| fouric wrote:
| Yegge has spend _years_ working in the Asia region, in a
| _business_ capacity. What makes you so sure that he 's so
| wrong?
|
| (I mean, maybe you're right - but that makes me curious as to
| who _you_ are that you 're more knowledgeable than him about
| this particular topic)
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| the current China is like the late Ming dynasty
| bg24 wrote:
| Excellent post. Thank you for sharing.
| deertick1 wrote:
| Man this article is interesting and I agree with a lot of what
| he is saying, especially about people being totally ignorant of
| how deeply compromised our corporations and intellectual
| property is.
|
| But wow this guy is on somw type of high horse. Talking about
| how a third of americans believe conspiracy theories and want
| college to be more expensive cause they dont want their kids to
| be "libtards"
|
| And the part where talks about a kid in the US having a bake
| sale to pay for his brain surgery being some sort of
| embarrassment compared to China. Pardon me while I roll my eyes
| back into my skull. You think 90% of the population of china
| has access to brain surgery? Give me a fucking break. This is
| the country that not a generation ago were killing children en
| masse and forcing abortions to stop their population growth.
| Its not some utopia where all the sick are healed. The CCP
| couldn't give a fuck about some poor kid in the country side
| with a brain tumor. Gimme a fucking break. And to say they've
| eliminated poverty to a greater degree than the US is
| absolutely laughable. The fringes of Chinese society are dyed
| in the wool 3rd world levels of living. Even the living
| standards in the biggest cities are arguably shittier than
| poverty in the US. I'd rather be impoverished living on an acre
| of land in boondock Missouri than living in a 200 sqft
| apartment in Shanghai.
|
| But yeah, we can't ignore the rise of China. We do so at our
| peril.
| JoeyBananas wrote:
| We should sabotage the chinese by giving them the plans for the
| F-35
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-07 23:00 UTC)