4 ms·

But then why not make them classified instead of ITAR?

by edge17 5y ago

walrus01 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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.
  - lazide 5y ago
    It does not, but it certainly helps no?
  - lallysingh 5y ago
    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.
  - salawat 5y ago
    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.
    - goatinaboat 5y ago
      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.
metalliqaz 5y ago
They did, with the next gen.
annoyingnoob 5y ago
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 5y ago
  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.
  - tediousdemise 5y ago
    > 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/ https://www.dodcui.mil/
  - 5555624 5y ago
    > 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/pdf/CFR-2018-title32-vol6-part2002.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2018-title32-vol6/pd...) if you want details. DoD implementation ramped up about a year ago.
  - annoyingnoob 5y ago
    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 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/21-S-0588%20cleared%20CUI%20Awareness%20Training%20Nov%202020.pdf https://www.dodcui.mil/Portals/109/Documents/Training%20Docs...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

But then why not make them classified instead of ITAR?

by edge17 5y ago

But then why not make them classified instead of ITAR?

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 5y ago
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.
- lazide 5y ago
  It does not, but it certainly helps no?
- lallysingh 5y ago
  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.
- salawat 5y ago
  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.
  - goatinaboat 5y ago
    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.

metalliqaz 5y ago

They did, with the next gen.

annoyingnoob 5y ago

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 5y ago
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.
- tediousdemise 5y ago
  > 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/ https://www.dodcui.mil/
- 5555624 5y ago
  > 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/pdf/CFR-2018-title32-vol6-part2002.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2018-title32-vol6/pd...) if you want details. DoD implementation ramped up about a year ago.
- annoyingnoob 5y ago
  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 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/21-S-0588%20cleared%20CUI%20Awareness%20Training%20Nov%202020.pdf https://www.dodcui.mil/Portals/109/Documents/Training%20Docs...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]