4 ms·
> I remember reading years ago how much trouble the company was having getting the US Defense Department to even consider using their ejection seats The US cou
by peteretep 7y ago
> I remember reading years ago how much trouble the company was having getting the US Defense Department to even consider using their ejection seats
The US counter-intelligence chief who approved a Russian supplier in US military jets would need firing from a large cannon, largely because the Russian intelligence chief who didn't use it as an opportunity for all sorts of mischief would also need firing from a large cannon for gross incompetence.
- jacquesm 7y agoOf course you could also simply do incoming QA.
- cm2187 7y agoYou don’t really want to rely on suppliers with who you have regular beefs for critical infrastructures.
- peteretep 7y agoYeah? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)
- jacquesm 7y agoRight, that's a horse that has been beaten to death by now. The point is: if you are unable to do incoming QA on a device as important as an ejection seat on whose functioning your pilots lives will depend then you should not be building aircraft to begin with.
- GVIrish 7y agoWe're talking about a very clever adversary here though. If QA was was enough to catch every instance clandestine sabotage/spying there would never have been any incidents of successful covert action by foreign intelligence services. You can inspect something all you want but there's always the risk your adversary has developed something sneaky you haven't thought of yet and aren't looking for.
- jacquesm 7y agoEjection seats are about as functional as it gets. Any part that can't be readily explained by physics or requirements has no business being there. I know about all the 'cool' spy stories, the IBM typewriter one is still the best example (much better than The Thing, in spite of Theremin being lightyears ahead of the game) because it shows that when you are actively looking for something you might still overlook it. But the point is: typewriters and Great Seals do not have a whole lot in common with fighter plane ejection seats.
- DuskStar 7y agoThe computer, gyroscopes and accelerometers are all required for the seat to adapt properly to different situations. Maybe even a connection to the plane's telemetry data, too. Are you sure you couldn't fit a mic in there with the air pressure gauge? A radio with the computer? Because I'm not.
- lakisy 7y agoForget about microphone. How about a small radio receiver inside the explosives that the seat has. If the correct signal come, the ejection seat fire. No more worries that the place is coming to attack you ;-)
- krzyk 7y agoThere are numerous ways to hide backdoors or some other equipment that would benefit the enemy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)
- CapitalistCartr 7y agoWe did that. The Thing (0) hung in the US ambassador to the Soviet Union's office for 6 years, exposing his every conversation to the enemy. It was carefully inspected before and during that whole time, yet they fooled us. Don't underestime your opponents intelligence. They might be smarter than us. Reminds me of the Bruce Schneier quote, "Anyone, from the most clueless amateur to the best cryptographer, can create an algorithm that he himself can't break." (0) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thing_(listening_device)