[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)