Honeywell gets hit with $13M fine for defense export violations(defensenews.com)
defensenews.com
Honeywell gets hit with $13M fine for defense export violations
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2021/05/04/honeywell-fined-13-million-for-defense-export-violations/
193 comments
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.
It's not that much of an advantage.
The most powerful, highest range stealth plane in existance is already Chinese.
The biggest factors in aircraft range and kinematic performance nowadays is doctrine. The US decided vertical landing is more important than range in performance.
The most powerful, highest range stealth plane in existance is already Chinese.
The biggest factors in aircraft range and kinematic performance nowadays is doctrine. The US decided vertical landing is more important than range in performance.
You might be forgetting the F-22... and only one of the three F-35 variants has VTOL capability.
The F-22 is not in production anymore, clearly the US decided its advantages are not that important.
That being said, it might surprise you to learn the J20 is more powerful than the F22 with a slightly longer range and an almost identical dry weight.
All of the F35 variants are hampered by the necessity for vertical takeoff. Commonality between the three planes is incredibly high and tradeoffs crossfeed.
That being said, it might surprise you to learn the J20 is more powerful than the F22 with a slightly longer range and an almost identical dry weight.
All of the F35 variants are hampered by the necessity for vertical takeoff. Commonality between the three planes is incredibly high and tradeoffs crossfeed.
What exactly does "more powerful" mean?
The F-22 can supercruise (without afterburners) above Mach 2, and has nearly all the same avionics package as the F-35. Both the F-22 and F-35 have thrust vectoring, and the most advanced stealth coatings, materials, and shaped airframes. If we compare just the F-22 and the J-20, the F-22 has a better TWR, can out-climb, out-run and out-maneuver the J-20, and has a larger payload capacity. The J-20 seems to indeed have better ferry and combat range, however US strategy does not require the same range due to air bases being present around the world and possesses advanced aerial refueling capability - making static range a moot point. I also highly doubt the J-20 matches the F-22 or F-35 in avionics.
The F-22 production line was discontinued nearly entirely because - at the time - the DOD, and more importantly Congress, believed the F-35 would be cheaper and replace most of it's disparate fighter/attacker aircraft (which turned out to be far from the truth, unfortunately). However, the US operates nearly 200 of these fighters and plans to maintain them for decades.
> All of the F35 variants are hampered by the necessity for vertical takeoff. Commonality between the three planes is incredibly high and tradeoffs crossfeed.
This is sort of true, but not entirely. If you look at the three F-35 variants, they are pretty much three different airframes at this point, only really sharing avionics and the shape of the aircraft. It was indeed foolish to think you could build a one-size-fits-all multi-role fighter/attacker to replace purpose-built aircraft like the A-10, F-15, F/A-18 and F-22... but that doesn't make the F-35 a complete turkey.
The F-22 can supercruise (without afterburners) above Mach 2, and has nearly all the same avionics package as the F-35. Both the F-22 and F-35 have thrust vectoring, and the most advanced stealth coatings, materials, and shaped airframes. If we compare just the F-22 and the J-20, the F-22 has a better TWR, can out-climb, out-run and out-maneuver the J-20, and has a larger payload capacity. The J-20 seems to indeed have better ferry and combat range, however US strategy does not require the same range due to air bases being present around the world and possesses advanced aerial refueling capability - making static range a moot point. I also highly doubt the J-20 matches the F-22 or F-35 in avionics.
The F-22 production line was discontinued nearly entirely because - at the time - the DOD, and more importantly Congress, believed the F-35 would be cheaper and replace most of it's disparate fighter/attacker aircraft (which turned out to be far from the truth, unfortunately). However, the US operates nearly 200 of these fighters and plans to maintain them for decades.
> All of the F35 variants are hampered by the necessity for vertical takeoff. Commonality between the three planes is incredibly high and tradeoffs crossfeed.
This is sort of true, but not entirely. If you look at the three F-35 variants, they are pretty much three different airframes at this point, only really sharing avionics and the shape of the aircraft. It was indeed foolish to think you could build a one-size-fits-all multi-role fighter/attacker to replace purpose-built aircraft like the A-10, F-15, F/A-18 and F-22... but that doesn't make the F-35 a complete turkey.
What it means is simple. The J20 produces more thrust than the F-22, and has essentially the same dry weight.
If you compare a fully loaded J20 to a fully loaded F-22, then yes the F22 has a higher TWR. That's because the J20 carries more fuel, payload capacity of the J20 is however not known but assumed to be larger due to the larger and heavier Chinese missiles it carries in similar numbers.
However at the same loading the J20 has higher thrust than the F22, both with and without afterburners.
The J20 probably cannot supercruise yet, correct.
I haven't said the F35 is a turkey. Just that the US decided that other matters are more important than thrust and range for the F35. It may very well have been a correct decision.
As far as maneuverability of the J20 nothing is known. As J20s with thrust vectoring engines were installed and with the presence of canards, it may well be a highly maneuverable engine, or it might not be. None of us have hard data on this.
In a conflict with a peer power, the US will need range just as much if not moreso than China - outside of aircraft carriers - as all relevant US airbases are vulnerable to being struck and disabled, and the F22 requires advanced bases to operate correctly.
If you compare a fully loaded J20 to a fully loaded F-22, then yes the F22 has a higher TWR. That's because the J20 carries more fuel, payload capacity of the J20 is however not known but assumed to be larger due to the larger and heavier Chinese missiles it carries in similar numbers.
However at the same loading the J20 has higher thrust than the F22, both with and without afterburners.
The J20 probably cannot supercruise yet, correct.
I haven't said the F35 is a turkey. Just that the US decided that other matters are more important than thrust and range for the F35. It may very well have been a correct decision.
As far as maneuverability of the J20 nothing is known. As J20s with thrust vectoring engines were installed and with the presence of canards, it may well be a highly maneuverable engine, or it might not be. None of us have hard data on this.
In a conflict with a peer power, the US will need range just as much if not moreso than China - outside of aircraft carriers - as all relevant US airbases are vulnerable to being struck and disabled, and the F22 requires advanced bases to operate correctly.
I still feel you're missing some key aspects here.
Pure thrust isn't really what is required to win an air-to-air battle. The US found that out with the F-4 in Vietnam (still one of the fastest fighters ever built). Straight line speed is mostly irrelevant today - being hard to see and target is far more important, followed by launch detection, maneuverability and countermeasures (the latter two of which only matter if you can detect a missile launch in time).
Air battles today will be fought well outside line-of-sight - and it's unquestionable the US has more advanced air-to-air missiles at this point in time.
That said, the J-20 might have more thrust, but it's heavier, larger, and has less capable armaments. The Chinese are not known to possess advanced aerial refueling capabilities either, which is why they have to incorporate more fuel capacity and range into their designs.
None of this takes into consideration that F-22's and F-35's do not operate alone in theater. The US also possesses advanced AWACS capabilities, which can spot and designate targets for fighters from hundreds of miles away from the AO.
> I haven't said the F35 is a turkey. Just that the US decided that other matters are more important than thrust and range for the F35. It may very well have been a correct decision.
I think the US is learning an expensive lesson, and will have to expedite it's Gen5+ or Gen6 aircraft programs to compensate for the very expensive and hobbled F-35's that are being produced today. The F-35 program tried to achieve the impossible, and failed. It's not a horrible aircraft, it just isn't a good enough replacement for all the roles it's trying to fill...
Today, the US has unparalleled experience in operating modern warplanes - lessons that have mostly been applied to Gen5 fighters like the F-22 and F-35 - lessons other nations have to borrow or steal to compete. I feel it's very unlikely either the latest Gen5 Russian or Chinese aircraft can really compete toe-to-toe with a wing of F-22's complemented by F-35's and E-3 Sentry's.
As an aside, Wikipedia and other online sources only list US aircraft's unclassified capabilities. True capabilities will far exceed what is publicly released in nearly all cases - meaning the data provided should be considered a low-bound for capabilities.
Pure thrust isn't really what is required to win an air-to-air battle. The US found that out with the F-4 in Vietnam (still one of the fastest fighters ever built). Straight line speed is mostly irrelevant today - being hard to see and target is far more important, followed by launch detection, maneuverability and countermeasures (the latter two of which only matter if you can detect a missile launch in time).
Air battles today will be fought well outside line-of-sight - and it's unquestionable the US has more advanced air-to-air missiles at this point in time.
That said, the J-20 might have more thrust, but it's heavier, larger, and has less capable armaments. The Chinese are not known to possess advanced aerial refueling capabilities either, which is why they have to incorporate more fuel capacity and range into their designs.
None of this takes into consideration that F-22's and F-35's do not operate alone in theater. The US also possesses advanced AWACS capabilities, which can spot and designate targets for fighters from hundreds of miles away from the AO.
> I haven't said the F35 is a turkey. Just that the US decided that other matters are more important than thrust and range for the F35. It may very well have been a correct decision.
I think the US is learning an expensive lesson, and will have to expedite it's Gen5+ or Gen6 aircraft programs to compensate for the very expensive and hobbled F-35's that are being produced today. The F-35 program tried to achieve the impossible, and failed. It's not a horrible aircraft, it just isn't a good enough replacement for all the roles it's trying to fill...
Today, the US has unparalleled experience in operating modern warplanes - lessons that have mostly been applied to Gen5 fighters like the F-22 and F-35 - lessons other nations have to borrow or steal to compete. I feel it's very unlikely either the latest Gen5 Russian or Chinese aircraft can really compete toe-to-toe with a wing of F-22's complemented by F-35's and E-3 Sentry's.
As an aside, Wikipedia and other online sources only list US aircraft's unclassified capabilities. True capabilities will far exceed what is publicly released in nearly all cases - meaning the data provided should be considered a low-bound for capabilities.
I'm not making any statements on overall fighting ability. I'm making a statement on the performance of the power plants, which is what was the scope of the comment I replied to.
Debating the overall abilities of each airplane in the scope of their doctrine and battlespace is probably out of scope for an HN comment and involves much more than the aircraft themselves. All I'm gonna say is that in the context of the engagements the J20 is meant to fight it in it has a few aces up its sleeves that the US cannot match in large part due to differences in doctrine.
Debating the overall abilities of each airplane in the scope of their doctrine and battlespace is probably out of scope for an HN comment and involves much more than the aircraft themselves. All I'm gonna say is that in the context of the engagements the J20 is meant to fight it in it has a few aces up its sleeves that the US cannot match in large part due to differences in doctrine.
> and only one of the three F-35 variants has VTOL capability.
But they all share the same airframe hobbled with the tradeoffs for VTOL. The F-35 is a great example of trying to do a good job at everything instead of focusing on one thing and being great at it. The end result is it ends up being uncompetitive.
Ironically making a super expensive super complex weapon was a mistake the Germans made in WWII with their tanks. The Tiger tanks cost over $200000 each and took forever to build. They were plagued with reliability problems. The American Sherman tanks cost about $20000 and were mass produced. The Tiger was terrifying and easily won, even outnumbered, but the ability to deploy the Sherman quickly with enough numbers was far more effective. So I find it ironic that the US basically forgot their own lesson there with the F-35.
But they all share the same airframe hobbled with the tradeoffs for VTOL. The F-35 is a great example of trying to do a good job at everything instead of focusing on one thing and being great at it. The end result is it ends up being uncompetitive.
Ironically making a super expensive super complex weapon was a mistake the Germans made in WWII with their tanks. The Tiger tanks cost over $200000 each and took forever to build. They were plagued with reliability problems. The American Sherman tanks cost about $20000 and were mass produced. The Tiger was terrifying and easily won, even outnumbered, but the ability to deploy the Sherman quickly with enough numbers was far more effective. So I find it ironic that the US basically forgot their own lesson there with the F-35.
> The most powerful, highest range stealth plane in existance is already Chinese.
Source?
Source?
Range for the J20 and the F22 is available from Wikipedia.
From Wikipeia again the F119 engine of the F22 can deliver a maximum of 35 000lb of thrust.
Thrust figures for the WS-10C are harder to come by however. I had found a source giving a figure of 167kN but I don't believe this source is accurate upon further review. We can thus settle on a current figure of 35 000lb = 155kN for the older WS-10G, with the J20 now being only equal to the F22 for lack of a better source on the most recent engines. The source for this figure is Deagel.
Much more powerful engines for the J20 are under development (180kN = 40 500lbf) but they are not reliable enough for fielding yet.
So as of yet the J20 is most powerful ex aequo with the F22 but has a longer range.
To note however, thrust is probably not a very important factor in the era of beyond visual range fights.
From Wikipeia again the F119 engine of the F22 can deliver a maximum of 35 000lb of thrust.
Thrust figures for the WS-10C are harder to come by however. I had found a source giving a figure of 167kN but I don't believe this source is accurate upon further review. We can thus settle on a current figure of 35 000lb = 155kN for the older WS-10G, with the J20 now being only equal to the F22 for lack of a better source on the most recent engines. The source for this figure is Deagel.
Much more powerful engines for the J20 are under development (180kN = 40 500lbf) but they are not reliable enough for fielding yet.
So as of yet the J20 is most powerful ex aequo with the F22 but has a longer range.
To note however, thrust is probably not a very important factor in the era of beyond visual range fights.
[deleted]
But then why not make them classified instead of ITAR?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Edited to add link to DoD CUI Training https://www.dodcui.mil/Portals/109/Documents/Training%20Docs...
You might have seen documents marked 'Controlled' in the past.
800-171 has been required since 2017.
Edited to add link to DoD CUI Training https://www.dodcui.mil/Portals/109/Documents/Training%20Docs...
> 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/
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/
> 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.
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.
CUI is replacing FOUO. It is not made up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Unclassified_Inform...
I actually received documents marked CUI last week.
I actually received documents marked CUI last week.
This is one of tge more annoying aspects of the Executive branch that just rubs me the wrong way the older I get. The whole infor.ation control aspect.
I do not like perception management, and for the definition of a set of public services, the Federal government sure does seem to do a hell of a lot of it. Nat Sec be damned, it isn't a blank check.
Furthermore, once you start doing things like creating mew classifications to ease up the logistics of getting people who can actually work with it, that sure sounds like you're abusing classification (using the word in the "bucketing info for special treatment" sense) far beyond the realm of what you should be.
Nevermind that it makes questions about the current state of DoD classification minutiae the best Fed bait on the planet.
I do not like perception management, and for the definition of a set of public services, the Federal government sure does seem to do a hell of a lot of it. Nat Sec be damned, it isn't a blank check.
Furthermore, once you start doing things like creating mew classifications to ease up the logistics of getting people who can actually work with it, that sure sounds like you're abusing classification (using the word in the "bucketing info for special treatment" sense) far beyond the realm of what you should be.
Nevermind that it makes questions about the current state of DoD classification minutiae the best Fed bait on the planet.
So if you're a suspect in a federal case, that should be public record? I should be able to get law enforcement's version of events and prejudge you based on a FOIA request, before you have a chance to defend yourself?
And in return should you be able to get the name and contact information of the confidential informant in your case? All the witnesses against you and their CLEOC reports? Vehicle registrations, license plates, home phone numbers, home addresses?
I think your position is untenable.
And in return should you be able to get the name and contact information of the confidential informant in your case? All the witnesses against you and their CLEOC reports? Vehicle registrations, license plates, home phone numbers, home addresses?
I think your position is untenable.
It's a quite frustrating phenomenon on HN that when someone speaks from a position of expertise and experience, but it runs counter to the GRAR consensus, legitimate attempts at engagement get downvoted without response.
If you don't think this is the kind of information that "Law Enforcement Sensitive" applies to, you are incorrect. If you do think this information should be released unfettered to the public, you should justify that position.
If you don't think this is the kind of information that "Law Enforcement Sensitive" applies to, you are incorrect. If you do think this information should be released unfettered to the public, you should justify that position.
Spot on - Glad to see others from the cooey world on HN as well!
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.
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.
Being in physical possession of a turbine blade doesn’t give you the secrets of how to manufacture it, which are extremely tightly controlled.
It gets you maybe 1/3 of the way there in the sense you have a work product to compare to for your own efforts to figure out how-to. Falls apart a bit if you're trying to nail down chemistry or something like an IC production process though where the equipment itself is built by people who will neither talk nor possibly sell to you.
Look into the Soviet konkordski tire counter-intel effort. If I recall correctly, NATO found out the Soviets were trying to get their hands on the rubber formulation for the tires of the landing gear, and counterintelligence worked with manufacturers to leak the formula for the "worst rubber for the job ever". Keep trying to find where I stumbled on that, but it seems to be lost to the all seeing eye of the Internet now. Closest I get is references to Pavlov smuggling the plans for the landing gear assembly out of France.
Give me two copies of something that you don't want to tell me how to make, one for destructive analysis, and one to compare against as a finished product, and I can at least filter out some false starts from the get-go.
Look into the Soviet konkordski tire counter-intel effort. If I recall correctly, NATO found out the Soviets were trying to get their hands on the rubber formulation for the tires of the landing gear, and counterintelligence worked with manufacturers to leak the formula for the "worst rubber for the job ever". Keep trying to find where I stumbled on that, but it seems to be lost to the all seeing eye of the Internet now. Closest I get is references to Pavlov smuggling the plans for the landing gear assembly out of France.
Give me two copies of something that you don't want to tell me how to make, one for destructive analysis, and one to compare against as a finished product, and I can at least filter out some false starts from the get-go.
Falls apart a bit if you're trying to nail down chemistry or something like an IC production process though where the equipment itself is built by people who will neither talk nor possibly sell to you.
Turbine blades are like ICs in the sense that the secret sauce is in the materials and the manufacturing processes. You can imitate the exterior shape perfectly and it still be completely useless.
Turbine blades are like ICs in the sense that the secret sauce is in the materials and the manufacturing processes. You can imitate the exterior shape perfectly and it still be completely useless.
Agreed, bit for this crowd I think a better metaphor would be possession of a microprocessor. Having one doesn't tell you much in terms for duplicating the technology needed to make it unless you're already at that level.
It does not, but it certainly helps no?
They did, with the next gen.
[deleted]
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.
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.
China is not struggling because they don't have access. They paid for the Russian designs and it came with engineering support.
What China is/was struggling with is the actual know-how of how to make the engines. But by all measures they've almost caught up already.
What China is/was struggling with is the actual know-how of how to make the engines. But by all measures they've almost caught up already.
>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 ;)
Well maybe they know so much about our F35 design... they choose not to build them ;)
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_Thunde...
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...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunde...
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...
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.
F-22 and A-10 were the most aesthetically pleasing aircraft. hands down
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.
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.
I think it is one of those situations where hindsight results in overly rose-colored views. The F-16 (as with a number of single-engined aircraft) was nicknamed "lawn-dart", and the F-18 required a mid-career SuperHornet upgrade into a different aircraft. The F-14 was a hangar-queen, etc. etc.
The 16 outgrew lawn dart once it got out of the prototype phase, and given the need for the computers that kept the bloody thing stable to stay operating in the event of engine out (and loss of alternator/prime mover for any pumps, plus any damage to control surface actuators by an uncontained turbine blade etc) it's not a surprise it had issues in the early days. It was still a damn good machine for what it did, and a good part of that from it's inherent instability once FBW invariants were violated.
The 14 reguired a higher degree of maintenance due to the consequences of the swing-wing mechanism, but that mechanism also enabled uncompromised performance in both flight regimes it was desired to be performant in. It didn't pretend that you could make a machine that can be a VSTOL, and a carrier aircraft at the same time. The radar systems were superb. The electronics were lackluster. I'm aware of issues with the quality of fire indicator lights though.
The 15 I hear surprisingly little complaint about actually. It just kinda is, and is given endless shit because it can't land or take-off from a boat.
The 14 reguired a higher degree of maintenance due to the consequences of the swing-wing mechanism, but that mechanism also enabled uncompromised performance in both flight regimes it was desired to be performant in. It didn't pretend that you could make a machine that can be a VSTOL, and a carrier aircraft at the same time. The radar systems were superb. The electronics were lackluster. I'm aware of issues with the quality of fire indicator lights though.
The 15 I hear surprisingly little complaint about actually. It just kinda is, and is given endless shit because it can't land or take-off from a boat.
As a software engineer, I aspire to build software as well-engineered as the A-10.
Fighter pilots seem quite positive about it.
They do, but they don't have to maintain or pay for them.
The brass seem to think that the F-35 is too expensive to fly to maintain right now.
The brass seem to think that the F-35 is too expensive to fly to maintain right now.
Agreed; The F-35 was the "low" mix of "high-low", and has now transformed into the "Ferrari you don't take out every day".
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/02/23/the-us-air-...]
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. ;)
Over the years as I have read about the F-35 and its, uh, challenges, I've wondered if it's a revenge project. ;)
>"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.
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.
The A10 is incredible. I've watch pilots do things that should not be possible and are most probably against the rules. Obscenely short near-stall landings for one.
It hurts, because it is true.
>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
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
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?
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 .
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 .
>"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.
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.
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).
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]
>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..
The Su-57 would like to have some words with you. Granted it is a bit late to the party..
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 (for example, beside the engine, while the radar is still great compare to previous generation, it is just half the declared range) and by the time it realistically may reach the true 5th gen capabilities India is already planning to be pretty close to having their own advanced development.
Kinematics wise, the J20 and Su-57 are already better in every single way to the F35.
Where they lag behind isn't range or power, but (maybe for the J20) in stealth.
Where they lag behind isn't range or power, but (maybe for the J20) in stealth.
>Where they lag behind isn't range or power
no. The Russian and Chinese planes with those engines can't supercruise. Thus they either use afterburner - short range - or go slow.
>, but (maybe for the J20) in stealth.
exactly - the engine for stealth plane needs to be stealth itself. That means a bunch of technical solutions and limitations (like hiding the turbine from the radars looking from behind the plane, lowering IR signature, etc.) which complicates the engine construction and may clash with for example the power requirements to supercruise.
no. The Russian and Chinese planes with those engines can't supercruise. Thus they either use afterburner - short range - or go slow.
>, but (maybe for the J20) in stealth.
exactly - the engine for stealth plane needs to be stealth itself. That means a bunch of technical solutions and limitations (like hiding the turbine from the radars looking from behind the plane, lowering IR signature, etc.) which complicates the engine construction and may clash with for example the power requirements to supercruise.
>no. The Russian and Chinese planes with those engines can't supercruise. Thus they either use afterburner - short range - or go slow.
The WS-10C engines for the J20 are of equal power to the F119 engines of the F22. They cannot supercruise indeed, yes, but neither can the F35. The J20 is however larger and less aerodynamic and the engine probably has different trans-sonic characteristics and thus cannot supercruise despite being as powerful as the F22.
>exactly - the engine for stealth plane needs to be stealth itself. That means a bunch of technical solutions and limitations (like hiding the turbine from the radars looking from behind the plane, lowering IR signature, etc.) which complicates the engine construction and may clash with for example the power requirements to supercruise.
There is no rear-aspect stealth for any aircraft. The F22 has a 20-25dB higher RCS from the rear than the front, enough to make it plainly detectable. The same will be for any airplane, including the J20 that seems to have a similar drop in RCS from the rear. As for IR signature, this is simply not known. Modern IR sensors can already detect heat emissions from air friction, and lock onto planes even with their engines fully turned off.
The WS-10C engines for the J20 are of equal power to the F119 engines of the F22. They cannot supercruise indeed, yes, but neither can the F35. The J20 is however larger and less aerodynamic and the engine probably has different trans-sonic characteristics and thus cannot supercruise despite being as powerful as the F22.
>exactly - the engine for stealth plane needs to be stealth itself. That means a bunch of technical solutions and limitations (like hiding the turbine from the radars looking from behind the plane, lowering IR signature, etc.) which complicates the engine construction and may clash with for example the power requirements to supercruise.
There is no rear-aspect stealth for any aircraft. The F22 has a 20-25dB higher RCS from the rear than the front, enough to make it plainly detectable. The same will be for any airplane, including the J20 that seems to have a similar drop in RCS from the rear. As for IR signature, this is simply not known. Modern IR sensors can already detect heat emissions from air friction, and lock onto planes even with their engines fully turned off.
>They cannot supercruise indeed, yes, but neither can the F35.
F35 is able to supercruise at 1.2 M. The issue is that its stealth coating gets damaged.
>There is no rear-aspect stealth for any aircraft. The F22 has a 20-25dB higher RCS from the rear than the front, enough to make it plainly detectable. The same will be for any airplane
Not the same for any. While the rear aspect situation is naturally worse, it is still very different for "normal" vs. stealth airplanes - i.e. distances at which it can be detected and how well a missile can lock are still significantly decreased by stealth measures like those for F22 and F35 for example :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135#Design
"Like the F119, the F135 has a stealthy augmentor where traditional spray bars and flameholders are replaced by thick curved vanes coated with ceramic radar-absorbent materials (RAM). Afterburner fuel injectors are integrated into these vanes, which block line-of-sight of the turbines, contributing to aft-sector stealth. "
F35 is able to supercruise at 1.2 M. The issue is that its stealth coating gets damaged.
>There is no rear-aspect stealth for any aircraft. The F22 has a 20-25dB higher RCS from the rear than the front, enough to make it plainly detectable. The same will be for any airplane
Not the same for any. While the rear aspect situation is naturally worse, it is still very different for "normal" vs. stealth airplanes - i.e. distances at which it can be detected and how well a missile can lock are still significantly decreased by stealth measures like those for F22 and F35 for example :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F135#Design
"Like the F119, the F135 has a stealthy augmentor where traditional spray bars and flameholders are replaced by thick curved vanes coated with ceramic radar-absorbent materials (RAM). Afterburner fuel injectors are integrated into these vanes, which block line-of-sight of the turbines, contributing to aft-sector stealth. "
From the RCS curves I find, it's 20-25dB for both planes in augmentation in the rear aspect. Enough for the F22 to simply not be stealthy from the rear.
As for the F35 supercruise, this is simply wrong. The engine overheats without the afterburner at supersonic speeds and thus supercruise cannot be done for more than a few seconds. Afterburners must be used, but the afterburners in turn damage the RAM.
The RAM in the F35 is not actually destroyed by air friction. It's destroyed by the afterburners : https://www.defenseworld.net/news/26992/Swiss_Internal_Repor...
From this one concluded that the F35 cannot sustain Mach 1.2 without using afterburners.
This is actually even worse than not being able to supercruise - it cannot sustain supersonic flight, full stop.
As for the F35 supercruise, this is simply wrong. The engine overheats without the afterburner at supersonic speeds and thus supercruise cannot be done for more than a few seconds. Afterburners must be used, but the afterburners in turn damage the RAM.
The RAM in the F35 is not actually destroyed by air friction. It's destroyed by the afterburners : https://www.defenseworld.net/news/26992/Swiss_Internal_Repor...
From this one concluded that the F35 cannot sustain Mach 1.2 without using afterburners.
This is actually even worse than not being able to supercruise - it cannot sustain supersonic flight, full stop.
[deleted]
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.
Owning up to it out of the gate probably saved them a lot of money. A defense supplier I used to work [1] for tried to cover it up and ended up getting nailed with a $100m fine.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-itt-fine-justice-idUSWAT0...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-itt-fine-justice-idUSWAT0...
Well.... regardless of the circumstances if an individual had done this it would be 20-life.
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.
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(2)
sidlls(2)
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.
> 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).
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).
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
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
Dude, America has come a long way since internment. America is by far the least racist large country and levels of violence against Asian Americans, although being hyped in the news are neither statistically higher than other races or than they were in the past. It’s just people making you afraid for money.
> 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)
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)
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
The issue is called out-group homogeneity bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-group_homogeneity
>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.
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.
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 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 was with us for three months before giving us four days notice that she was quitting to go full time with her 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.
> 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.
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.
The student activist's father was also a Communist leader in Madurai.
This wasn't foreign state actors operating inside our borders it was a sloppy, DIY file sharing system that shipped the files all over.
[deleted]
Oh man I was an intern at a defense contractor, and that ITAR training is no joke. I'm surprised stuff like this still happens after all of those videos they force feed you.
It's fine to disclose /that/ they did it, but /why/ did they do it? Repeatedly?
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.
Manufacturering defense items overseas is a mistake for a xenophobic nation.
Defense spending is largely a waste of money.
Defense spending is largely a waste of money.
Isn’t this worth more than $13 million? Is anyone going to go to jail?
My understanding is that the drawings were very high-level illustrations, not technical schematics.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
All that amounts to $13M in fines, $5M of which Honeywell is allowed to spend? Yikes.
I feel like a blunder (or perhaps not?) of this magnitude would get you the electric chair during the Cold War.
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)
>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?
If the engines and electronics are used in commercial applications as well as military then does it matter?
Parts can be commercially available but still export controlled, which appears to be what's going on here
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?
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.
This is a clear, concise post. I'm a scientist -- an academic medical physicist. I use phase stable, digitally controllable, powerful microwave sources. 99% of the companies who sell such things and waveguides in my frequency range have pretty pictures of the latest fighter jet on their catalogue covers, as they're used there for phased-array radar, and I've come across ITAR ordering spares to a hospital!
To some degree, yes ITAR (or similar export controls) do make it harder to get controlled items, especially in large numbers.
There are screening processes when selling export controlled goods.
Guess it's the same as why we have locks on doors. Won't stop someone determined, but raises the bar a bit.
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.
It doesn't take very many steps to make tracking sales untenable.
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.
You'll find this interesting then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
>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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...
>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
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.
Sounds like it's talking about some sort of dual use technology that has an export control applied.
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.
In a race to the bottom, lowest bidder world? I think we're all doomed.
"China knows everything we know, and many things we do not"
https://steve-yegge.medium.com/hurricane-china-how-to-prepar...
https://steve-yegge.medium.com/hurricane-china-how-to-prepar...
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.
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.
I’m not sure who’s engaging more in hyperbole - you or Yegge. China eliminating poverty to a greater degree than the US isn’t a controversial statement - China accounts for 75% of global poverty reduction from the 70s to now. Regardless if they were struggling to eat a generation ago, the Chinese have made a complete turn around in the past 40 years. Finally even if Chinese health care today isn’t exceptional (I can’t say for sure as I haven’t looked into it), the Chinese are at least currently transitioning to a national healthcare system. I can understand Yegge’s frustration - in the long run worse system that is improving will eventually beat out a better system that is stagnating.
All in all, China has already “risen”. To pretend that China is still 3rd world ghetto of the 90s is to ignore that fact at our own peril
All in all, China has already “risen”. To pretend that China is still 3rd world ghetto of the 90s is to ignore that fact at our own peril
OP said the fringes of China are basically third world ghettos, and having seen it first hand, he/she is not far off.
International/military supremacy is a completely different story though.
International/military supremacy is a completely different story though.
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.
It baffles me that people skip over their ongoing demographic crisis/population pyramid inversion which will have been the largest and most rapid in human history. Only 900 million people and 1/3 of them are over 65 in 2050? We're rapidly approaching the closing stage of the second consecutive Century of Humiliation, and the CCP will not exist at the end of it.
The US and western liberal democracies just need to keep their shit together for another 29 years. (which, I admit, is easier said than done)
The US and western liberal democracies just need to keep their shit together for another 29 years. (which, I admit, is easier said than done)
> Only 900 million people
So the USA can dominate the entire planet and most of space with 330 million, but China is dead in the water if they drop to a mere 900 million?
If you look at China's problem from a third world perspective like mine, ALL of their issues get easier with less people.
So the USA can dominate the entire planet and most of space with 330 million, but China is dead in the water if they drop to a mere 900 million?
If you look at China's problem from a third world perspective like mine, ALL of their issues get easier with less people.
1 US citizen is worth about 5 PRC citizens in terms of economic activity. The PRC's GDP per capita is roughly the same as Brazil's (this situation is unlikely to improve either [1]). Imagine Brazil scaled up to 900 million people and 1/3 of them are over 65. Social welfare systems start to buckly/collapse, and retirement benefits must be cut or the retirement age raised.
The only thing the PRC could do right now is force people to reproduce at gunpoint, and they even shot themselves in the foot there with the One Child Policy and now having 30 million more young men than women.
It's going to be scary to see Japan, the PRC, the ROC (Taiwan), etc. lose 1/4 of their populations in the next 30 years. The US is the only developed country with okay demographic projections through 2050, and that's only because of immigration. Not sure where you're from, but if you're in a developing country you'll probably be doing okay in 2050.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_income_trap
The only thing the PRC could do right now is force people to reproduce at gunpoint, and they even shot themselves in the foot there with the One Child Policy and now having 30 million more young men than women.
It's going to be scary to see Japan, the PRC, the ROC (Taiwan), etc. lose 1/4 of their populations in the next 30 years. The US is the only developed country with okay demographic projections through 2050, and that's only because of immigration. Not sure where you're from, but if you're in a developing country you'll probably be doing okay in 2050.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_income_trap
the current China is like the late Ming dynasty
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)
(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)
Excellent post. Thank you for sharing.
They can throw the F35 drawings in the trash
Only 13 million?! Those programs have costs in the billions to trillions of dollars.
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... -
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... -
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.
Historically Canada didn't really protect itself against foreign adversaries performing IP Theft. They might be based there due to the lax immigration system. [0] [1]
[0] https://globalnews.ca/news/7275588/inside-the-chinese-milita...
[1] https://www.blogto.com/city/2013/01/that_time_toronto_went_s...
[0] https://globalnews.ca/news/7275588/inside-the-chinese-milita...
[1] https://www.blogto.com/city/2013/01/that_time_toronto_went_s...
>IP Theft
Imaginary Property Theft
Imaginary Property Theft
Generous/humane immigration system.
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.
Or it's basic misdirection.
I did say "suggest" - although Occam's razor suggests that my answer is more likely to be right.
How does that change things with regard to the status of controlled information?
Wait, commercially available means that (AFAICT) anyone with a bit of money in any country can buy it, right? E.g. off the shelf stuff. Like screens,switches, pumps, brackets, etc.
I wonder if this is an operation somewhat like what the US did against the Soviet Union by supplying subtly flawed hardware and software designs when it was discovered that the Soviets were using espionage to obtain technology from the West.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/r...
Unless you have a lot of knowledge about the technology, you may have issues figuring out if something has subtle flaws. For high performance fighter jets, there are a lot of ways you can make it go bad. Maybe tolerances are off a little, or the materials are too brittle in some conditions, etc. There are all sorts of ways you can make stuff that will fail.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/r...
Unless you have a lot of knowledge about the technology, you may have issues figuring out if something has subtle flaws. For high performance fighter jets, there are a lot of ways you can make it go bad. Maybe tolerances are off a little, or the materials are too brittle in some conditions, etc. There are all sorts of ways you can make stuff that will fail.
We should sabotage the chinese by giving them the plans for the F-35
There's an interesting story about how the CIA got wind that the Soviet Union was trying to steal the US's space shuttle plans in the late 70's/early 80s. So, they mixed in some fake formulas for the heat shield tiles, among other defects, which Russia copied and built. Their "Buran" shuttle made 1 flight and mostly burned up on reentry due to the faulty heat tiles. If you ever see any pictures of the Buran's, they look identical to the US's shuttles, because they were using stolen designs. My aunt was actually directly involved in uncovering this. It would actually make a great movie.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/real-life-rogu...
Edit: Here's a really cool video some guys made when they broke into the facility in Kazakhstan where the Burans currently sit, slowly falling apart. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7ZVXOU3kM
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/real-life-rogu...
Edit: Here's a really cool video some guys made when they broke into the facility in Kazakhstan where the Burans currently sit, slowly falling apart. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7ZVXOU3kM
I wish there was a centralized repository of interesting Cold War stories, it seems like there would be a lot.
Also need to emphasize the absolute necessity of VTOL
We should sabotage the Chinese by giving them Boeing and Lockheed.
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.)
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.
You also will not believe how much US military hardware have major parts made in China.
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"
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"
OK, we've changed the title to the article's title, which is what the site guidelines ask people to use (except when misleading or baity- but certainly not to make it more misleading or baity).
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.
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.”
According to Honeywell the technology involved “is commercially available throughout the world. No detailed manufacturing or engineering expertise was shared.”
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.
* 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.