3 ms·

Units are quite easy to convert, but I think there are lots of obvious reasons this information was sought. First off it was really cheap to steal and had nearl

by jonknee 12y ago

Units are quite easy to convert, but I think there are lots of obvious reasons this information was sought. First off it was really cheap to steal and had nearly zero risk (Israel has no way to prosecute anyone in China). Simply the psychological factor of knowing that your secrets could be known to anyone who wants them is justification for such a hack. Finding solutions to problems or weak points in the system are a nice cherry on top.

walshemj 12y ago
Er China's doing a lot of work in Africa and where Mossad/Isreal have contacts going back decades. And Mossad is a lot less fussy about using what one SIS officer called the "bumping off squad".
bediger4000 12y ago
Units are indeed easy to convert: getting an equivalent bolt or rivet or hi-shear or what have you is not. ISO or DIN thread on a bolt isn't the same as ANSI thread, either, they have different strength and fatigue characteristics. Fasteners are a big deal in airframes - in order to be light enough to fly, they have to have stressed skin construction. That means correct size, materials, number and fatigue properties of fasteners are key. You're grossly underestimating the amount of work that goes into fasteners and how hard it would be to choose ISO, or Russian or Chinese equivalents. As for the psychology of your secrets being out there, we used to wonder who in the company was leaking info to "Aviation Week". Every project I worked on that had a feature in "Aviation Week" had no general secrets. It was all there, in detail.
- jonknee 12y ago
  I guess I was under the impression that it wasn't so much that China intended to completely copy whatever they steal the plans for. Simply knowing the plans would seemingly make it easier to know its true capabilities (and cost, weak points, etc). It's similar to why there's a market for complete tear downs of electronics--competitors are interested in the guts and components even if they never intend to rip it off. Knowing how someone else solved the same problem you're working on is always valuable.
  - etrevino 12y ago
    For systems as complex and interrelated as airplanes they sometimes do build a direct copy. That reveals for them the failures in their own techniques and materials. Also, it serves as a general prototype for the next iteration.
    - bediger4000 12y ago
      Do you have any idea what kind of copy? I mean, McDonnel Aircraft used to build what they called "iron birds", dimensionally accurate, but maybe not made of exactly the right stuff, as an iron bird was used to see if wiring harnesses and tubes fit through various runs. Using titanium parts for the iron bird would have been a gross misuse of money. There were also dimensionally correct copies made of the right materials, but usually without piping and wiring, for dynamic testing. I forget what they called those. I suppose CAD has eliminated a lot of the need for iron bird-style copies, but maybe not.

by jonknee 12y ago

walshemj 12y ago

Er China's doing a lot of work in Africa and where Mossad/Isreal have contacts going back decades. And Mossad is a lot less fussy about using what one SIS officer called the "bumping off squad".

bediger4000 12y ago

Units are indeed easy to convert: getting an equivalent bolt or rivet or hi-shear or what have you is not. ISO or DIN thread on a bolt isn't the same as ANSI thread, either, they have different strength and fatigue characteristics. Fasteners are a big deal in airframes - in order to be light enough to fly, they have to have stressed skin construction. That means correct size, materials, number and fatigue properties of fasteners are key. You're grossly underestimating the amount of work that goes into fasteners and how hard it would be to choose ISO, or Russian or Chinese equivalents. As for the psychology of your secrets being out there, we used to wonder who in the company was leaking info to "Aviation Week". Every project I worked on that had a feature in "Aviation Week" had no general secrets. It was all there, in detail.

jonknee 12y ago
I guess I was under the impression that it wasn't so much that China intended to completely copy whatever they steal the plans for. Simply knowing the plans would seemingly make it easier to know its true capabilities (and cost, weak points, etc). It's similar to why there's a market for complete tear downs of electronics--competitors are interested in the guts and components even if they never intend to rip it off. Knowing how someone else solved the same problem you're working on is always valuable.
- etrevino 12y ago
  For systems as complex and interrelated as airplanes they sometimes do build a direct copy. That reveals for them the failures in their own techniques and materials. Also, it serves as a general prototype for the next iteration.
  - bediger4000 12y ago
    Do you have any idea what kind of copy? I mean, McDonnel Aircraft used to build what they called "iron birds", dimensionally accurate, but maybe not made of exactly the right stuff, as an iron bird was used to see if wiring harnesses and tubes fit through various runs. Using titanium parts for the iron bird would have been a gross misuse of money. There were also dimensionally correct copies made of the right materials, but usually without piping and wiring, for dynamic testing. I forget what they called those. I suppose CAD has eliminated a lot of the need for iron bird-style copies, but maybe not.