Slashdot Mirror


Pakistan Lets China View US Stealth Technology

Oswald McWeany writes "Tensions between the U.S. and Pakistan have moved up a notch in light of news that Pakistan allowed China to examine the downed stealth helicopter used in the operation to kill Osama bin Laden. Pakistan also provided Chinese intelligence with samples of the 'stealth skin.' 'Pakistan enjoys a close relationship with China, which is a major investor in telecommunications, ports and infrastructure in the country.'"

41 of 297 comments (clear)

  1. No surprise. by wsxyz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would say that's just what you get for leaving your stuff in someone else's house.
    I'm sure this wasn't really a surprise to the US. That's why the seals spent valuable time doing their best to destroy the helicopter.

    1. Re:No surprise. by grimmjeeper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure the SEALs destroyed the stuff that really matters. Stealth technology is not new. China has already started testing their own prototype of a stealth plane. Will the Chinese learn something from what was left behind? Maybe. Maybe not.

      I suspect that if this technology was so uber-secret, we would have saturated the place with enough ordinance to blow it into dust. So either it's not so terribly secret (the SEALs destroying what needed to be destroyed) or there was a plan to leave it behind specifically to mislead. Either way, I'd suggest this is a tempest in a teacup.

    2. Re:No surprise. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your surmise is correct. That's what happened when the Chinese embassy was 'accidentally' bombed during the conflict in the Balkans. A stealth aircraft had recently been shot down and the Chinese were known to have collected a ton of parts from the wreckage, and they were being held in the embassy awaiting extraction to China. Whoops, a whole ton of precision guided ordnance accidentally wiped it out. Fancy that.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    3. Re:No surprise. by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

      Then again when you're harboring a felon in your basement "OMG how did he get there?" and your uncle is a cop and paying your rent, best not to sell one of the cop's guns accidentally left behind during the bust on ebay .

    4. Re:No surprise. by intellitech · · Score: 2
      --
      vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    5. Re:No surprise. by MechaStreisand · · Score: 2

      It's not a copy any more than the PAK-FA is a copy. Similar requirements in stealth lead to some similar-looking features, such as the outward canted stabilizers, the hard angle on the side of the fuselage, and the sawtooth shape on the forward and trailing edges of things like the landing gear doors, but the three aircraft are otherwise not the same. The J-20 isn't even the same general configuration as the F-22 or PAK-FA, being a canarded delta.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    6. Re:No surprise. by Kagura · · Score: 2

      That's because the Chinese are smarter, and their steps forward are quicker, hence they skipped the "F117" step. Their children pay attention in school. Yours don't.

      It's easy to skip a step when you're cheating off of other children's test answers.

    7. Re:No surprise. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      The Chinese government itself denies the veracity of the explanations given for the event, so don't pretend you're some anonymous advocate for the feelings of the Chinese. And if you think precision guided munitions supposedly intended for some warehouse can "accidentally" hit an embassy instead, I have a bridge to sell you. Never mind too that nearby civilians witnessed NATO (read US/British) commandos rushing into the rubble immediately after the "accidental" bombing appearing to search for things. What a grand coincidence that they just "happened" to be in the area eh? Oh but these are just allegations.

      Please. Pull the other one.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    8. Re:No surprise. by Occams · · Score: 2

      The article looks like pure speculation. There was no evidence that the Chinese actually saw any parts of the aircraft. The word "probably" features prominently before any statement of fact. This is simply very poor journalism, and perhaps an attempt to worsen USA/Pakistan relations. We need to know who is trying to manipulate us like this.

      --
      Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
    9. Re:No surprise. by Xest · · Score: 2

      I hadn't heard about this, but was intrigued to know more, so I Googled it:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade

      Particularly:

      "five US JDAM bombs hit the People's Republic of China embassy in the Belgrade district of New Belgrade"

      Five JDAMs? well they certainly didn't fuck around did they.

      As you say, it seems quite clear what it was really about:

      "Central Intelligence Agency director George Tenet testified before a congressional committee that the bombing was the only one in the campaign organized and directed by his agency."

      Which really says one of two things:

      a) We're so incompetent you shouldn't let the CIA ever direct bombing campaigns, because the one time we did we fucked it up hardcore.

      Or:

      b) We knew exactly what we were doing, mission accomplished.

      I think the latter is indeed most likely!

  2. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  3. Red Herring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is it possible that the US left that helicopter there in order to mislead interested parties on stealth countermeasures and development?

    Might that helicopter be, in essence, a doomed spy?

  4. No shit, sherlock? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not sure why anyone didn't see this coming.... I was actually surprised they didn't send some locals to clean up the chopper rests. Either that, or it's really not that advanced. Radar-reducing skins are known, and the shape didn't seem that out of the ordinary. Oh look, a cover over the tail rotor to reduce radar signature. The biggest deal would be the electronics. I can only hope they were reduced to dust.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  5. What did the US expect? by couchslug · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The "Fundamental" law of religion is that the more Fundmentalist one is the more literally religious one is.

    Pakistan was founded as a Muslim state, and it is not a reasonable expectation for it to work against Islam in Afghanistan by supporting the heretical idea of secular government. The only reason Islamabad gave the US the time of day in the past was to obtain arms to use against its mortal enemy India which was buddies with the Soviets during the Cold War.

    The Cold War is finished, and Islamabad has everything to gain from a Talibanistan protecting its flank so it can prepare for war with India.
    As Uncle Sugar wises up under pressure, Islamabad must suck up to China.

    India would be wise to make buddies with the US after the US-Pak relationship collapses. If it comes to war, US assets could help India take out Pak nukes which are a menace to civilization. China would have no interest in intervention since its own Muslims are a problem more easily dealt with if Pakistan becomes an ashtray.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    1. Re:What did the US expect? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      They have cracked down on the Uighurs, but that's because the Uighurs are in armed resistance. The Chinese do not harass Muslims across the board, the Hui population is pretty much left alone, and, unlike so many other Muslim populations, the Hui keep very much to themselves and don't make any waves. That's why the CCP doesn't harass them.

      China today is not the China of the 50s and 60s. They are quite willing to let people be religious so long as in being religious they don't agitate/militate against the state (which includes being the least bit critical).

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:What did the US expect? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 2

      Your opinion is greatly misinformed. While I too am no fan of religion, to say that it was the catalyst for the colonial oppression of China is woefully ignorant both of that history and the reality of other nations in Asia. Shinto Japan was not colonized. Buddhist Thailand was not colonized. China was weak not because it was religious (which, by most measures, it really wasn't), but because it was dealing with the collapse of a dynasty which had squandered its wealth through corruption and had no military strength or popular support to resist the Europeans. Most Chinese didn't want to fight and die for their foreign oppressors (the Manchus), and so whenever the Europeans came around and said 'give us stuff or else' the government had to acquiesce, because otherwise they would lose face (and even MORE popular support) on the battlefield trying to coax an army that didn't want to fight against a more organized, more loyal, and better equipped force. That's why the Boxer Rebellion was such a boon, because it was a movement that could be manipulated by the Qing without actually *being* the Qing, so when the boxers lost, it didn't directly hurt the image of the Qing, or so they thought. Though of course when the boxers ultimately failed to eject the foreigners, the dynasty crumbled anyway when the popular support shifted to the republican movement (which collapsed into the warlord period... etc. etc.).

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  6. Re:Oh boo hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Boo hoo, indeed.

    There is no need for the US to keep financing the Pakistani military. The upper echelons of their military is living high on the hog, based on the US aid, and and as result has no incentive to end the war. The upper echelons are not suffering any pain, it's the lower echelons and the normal people that are paying the price. And since they know what the upper echelons are doing, they hate them (and the US) for that. Nukes or no nukes, there is no reason for the US to keep the river of money flowing, certainly not in these times. Leave Pakistan to its own devices. Their military knows what the Mossad, the Indians and their proxies will do them and their families if they let things get out of hand.

  7. Which is why by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Pakistan's and America's relationship is faltering. The fact is, that pakistan is harboring terrorists PURPOSELY.

    To be honest, part of the issues belong to us. W/neo-cons gave India access to 'civil' nuke tech, but not to pakistan. Once we opened that up, we basically told pakistan that we did not trust them. Of course, that was true. We don't. And we are helping what they consider their mortal enemy (even though it is also their 'brother').

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Which is why by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Honestly this right/left-wing nonsense has got to stop or there will be a fucking civil war.

      It's worth noting that this sort of happened just before the Second World War. For example, France had a huge schism between its left and right. End result was that they were a incompetent mess when the Germans invaded and eventually the right sided with the Germans to form Vichy France. I gather that's part of the reason conservative and business ideas are so reviled in many parts of Europe because some many of them sided with the occupying Nazis.

      Another example is the Allende government in Chile. Deliberate destruction of the Chilean economy (along the lines of a Communist playbook) which lead to the military coup setting up Pinochet for several decades.

      I know that was meant to be something of a throw away comment, but there's a lot of truth in the idea that extreme division destroys a democracy. Everyone has a responsibility to work with their country-mates even when the other person is deeply in error/self-serving/etc.

  8. Re:300 million dollar helicopter by afidel · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's only $300M because there was an entire multidecade R&D program behind it and there have only been a few units produced, the marginal cost of a unit is probably no more than $60-70M (base unit is $44M, add 50% for materials and advanced electronics). Heck they might also be assigning the cost of the Comanche program to those few units since to my eye it looks like the took the Comanche tech and applied it to a Black Hawk.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  9. This can only mean one thing... by SoTerrified · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yay! Cheap knock-off stealth choppers for everyone!!

  10. Re:Oh boo hoo by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Did US and Pakistan have some kind of deal where they are not allowed to improve their technology with their friends if US happens to dump their trash all over the country? US would do exactly the same with UK or their other girlfriends.

    Well, Pakistan does have an "accept several hundred billion dollars a year from the US" deal. If China's making them a better offer, then Pakistan's actions make sense.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  11. Caveats by jdkramar · · Score: 5, Insightful
    TFA is full of caveats. How is something that is riddled with caveats (and therefore not facts) considered news?
    • "Pakistan’s intelligence service probably allowed Chinese military engineers"
    • "American spy agencies have concluded that it is likely that Chinese engineers"
    --
    "One can not truly appreciate Shakespeare until you have heard it in it's original Klingon" -Star Trek
  12. Re:Oh boo hoo by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 2

    Did US and Pakistan have some kind of deal where they are not allowed to improve their technology with their friends if US happens to dump their trash all over the country? US would do exactly the same with UK or their other girlfriends.

    Well, Pakistan does have an "accept several hundred billion dollars a year from the US" deal. If China's making them a better offer, then Pakistan's actions make sense.

    You are assuming short-term monetary gain is the most important factor in the deal.

    At the time, it was an expected reaction.

    The rational thing to do for monetary gain would have been to offer the stealth tail to the highest bidder, with a higher premium required if someone wants no photographs.

    But Pakistan was really pissed at the US. Think how we would feel if the Mexican or Canadian army send a special forces team into West Point or Fort Worth to arrest a drug kingpin without our consent. Now multiply it by at least ten (due to more anti-American sentiment in Pakistan to begin with).

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  13. Re:that fail part at high speed or stop lightning by Riceballsan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well every machine has some point at which it will fail. If ours were indestructible/undetectable, it wouldn't be laying in the middle of Pakistan

  14. Re:Oh boo hoo by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No the US had the deal to tell the Pakistan government before shooting someone.

    And the deal going the other way was to A) not harbor a wanted criminal, and B) assist in finding said criminal. They failed on both counts.

  15. Re:So China has samples of the stealth skin? by tloh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Years ago, we discussed this in my organic chemistry class during a lab exercise using GC-MS (gas chromatography - mass spectrometry). Just because you know what something is made of does not mean you can replicate the process that makes it. That is why things that matter a great deal of money to certain businesses such as the formula for coca-cola or the colonel's 11 special spices are still secure despite their wide-spread availability. Things may have changed, but it still seems like most of material science can be compared to one way functions so widely used in cryptography. It is relatively easier to make something by putting things together than it is to reverse the process in a meaningful way.

    --
    Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
  16. Re:Oh boo hoo by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, Pakistan does have an "accept several hundred billion dollars a year from the US" deal. If China's making them a better offer, then Pakistan's actions make sense.

    You put that in quotations as if it was a quoted fact... but several hundred billion dollars a year? The US yearly defense budget is a bit over $600B, Pakistan doesn't get half of that. The real number is $1-2B. Still a lot, but off by a couple orders of magnitude there ;)

    Though to your point, the US just withheld $800M of that yearly aid last month after the latest concerns about Pakistan's military allegiances. Looks like that might backfire if they just get money from China instead.

  17. China's more effective approach by Device666 · · Score: 2

    It's China's soft diplomacy backed by hard currency (artificially weakened) versus US hard diplomacy by weak currency (artificially pimped and by count on the advantage of world reserve currency and unrivaled military and technological advance). But it's working for China.

    China's huge dollar position is both it's strength as it's weakness, as value deteriorates. China is trying to put their money in foreign investment and soft diplomacy to gain influence in Africa, weak economies of some European countries (for example Greece) and now also Pakistan, openly, without any worries knowing it is crossing US interest. Outsourcing productivity is followed by knowledge, science and technology, in contrast with popular belief that such follow up doesn't occur. It's starts with shameless copying is the prerequisite of understanding and improvement, this is the present case for China much as it was for Japan in the past. With the only difference that it is maybe even more easy for Chinese companies, as the state is shareholder. The Chinese does business with everyone, not asking too many questions or human right issues. For those who not know, China has been most of her existence been the world power state. They have a great history in diplomatic cases.

    1. Re:China's more effective approach by poity · · Score: 2

      That doesn't seem like the correct assessment, your post has too many stereotypes trying to qualify themselves as facts, though I do agree somewhat with the ending that China historically tends to tread lightly outside of her backyard (inside is another story). US and China both rely heavily on soft diplomacy, so the soft/hard dichotomy has no bearing here. It seems the outcome we see here is more due to the fact that Pakistan shares more common goals with China than with the US -- primarily among them, the future containment of India, and a mutual rejection of the regional encroachment of US bases and NATO influence.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  18. Re:Oh boo hoo by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    Your assumptions are all wrong.

    First off, if Mexico or Canada knew a Drug kingpin was hiding in the US, and told the US, the US would have apprehended the guy/gal. This is NOT the case in Pakistan, where people in the government were and ARE actively helping Taliban and most likely even Bin Ladin.

    This is more like the US under Obama and Holder supplying guns to Mexican Drug Lords, and not letting Mexico know we are doing it. Mexico should be pissed, but we're bigger and more organized so they just send patrols "off course" into US territory occasionally.

    The reason we give tons of money to Pakistan's Military is to keep the NUKES out of Al Queda's hands, assuming they don't already have any. Pakistan is not our friend.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  19. Re:Made in China by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

    {tongue and check}

    Tongue in cheek.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  20. Re:Propaganda Bullshit Disinfo by icebike · · Score: 2

    The copter was not a prop. So I stopped reading the rest of your drivel right there.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  21. Re:Oh boo hoo by sortius_nod · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The US funds the Pakistani military for their OWN benefit, not for Pakistan's. It's leverage, same as China.

    US already knew China had huge investment in Pakistan so they have no one to blame but themselves. They know Pakistan is of higher strategic importance than China knowing how a stealth chopper was built.

  22. Re:Propaganda Bullshit Disinfo by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    The story has a compound built for bin Laden.

    You assume that there is a benefit or obligation of intelligence agencies and "secret operations teams" in supplying you with facts.

    You are like a peasant, regarding the mediaeval church.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  23. Re:Propaganda Bullshit Disinfo by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

    The "copter" was such a setup. Look at the photos. A prop.

    What am I looking for? A stamp that says "Movie prop helicopter: DO NOT USE ON A REAL HELICOPTER!"

  24. Re:Propaganda Bullshit Disinfo by gtall · · Score: 2

    Just to tamp down the tin foil hat on your head a bit more firmly:

    "why are there no photos of the body released?" Errrr...because it would have incensed Muslims even more now that the U.S. whacked their secret hero?

    "And why was the body dumped at sea?" So as not to create a memorial for a martyr. On the other hand, with the right CIA front company, the U.S. could have cleaned up on the Muslim equivalent of votive lights, and statuettes...with that timeless Muslim fanatical Index Finger Raised seen in every photo-op of a would be Muslim terrorist wannabe Big Banana.

    "Also, why didn't the "best of the best" simply subdue him since all accounts say his was unarmed and put him on trial like Saddam was put on trial." And let Dershowitz or some other slimeball lawyer realize the Deal of the Century and turn the trial into O.J. Simpson's trial but with nuclear powered steroids? Yep, Dershowitz is Jewish...and it wouldn't have prevented Osama from realizing how to use the dumbass for his own ends.

    "Certainly that would be in the best interests of Afghanistan, being able to put him on trial." Why? What did he ever do to Afghanistan other than supply shock troups for the Taliban? The same Taliban that were widely admired by the Pashtuns who thought that stealing the rest of Afghanistan from the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, Hazaras, and a host of smaller peoples was a fine thing...as long as the Taliban were winning. The fact that the Taliban were slaughtering thousands yearly was completely beside the point to the Pashtuns.

    Get one thing straight. Osama always realized that publicity was the key to his megalomanical designs on absolute power. He played the world's press like a symphony. The U.S. military, to their credit, realized this and decided a low-key death and almost sublime burial in the lost wisps of time was the best they could do for the boy.

  25. Chinese whispers by D.+Book · · Score: 2

    The NYT and BBC prefaced their stories with the qualifiers "probably" and "may have", while these disappeared from the Slashdot summary. The reports may well turn out to be true, but the summary is assigning a level of certainty about the claims that does not yet exist.

    Acceptance of this sort of distortion seems to have become so routine in Slashdot's selection of story submissions, it sometimes feels a bit like reading the Daily Mail.

  26. Re:Propaganda Bullshit Disinfo by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

    Ah, answering a question with mocking. I see I have fallen victim to a troll. Well, good job I suppose. Add one notch to your keyboard. You have gained a point in your bizarre, annoying game, may you find lasting happiness as a direct result of me foolishly taking you seriously.

  27. Re:Oh boo hoo by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because they are a nuclear power with a large fundamentalist population ruled by a military oligarchy. So the US gives that oligarchy shitloads of money to both bribe them for support and try to keep them in power to prevent another Iran.

    Of course, the US gave lots of money and weapons to the Iranian government before the revolution there, and in the end all that did was make the new regime both heavily armed and even more pissed off...

  28. but, but, but... by slick7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're our friends! We need to up the payments to them so they know we mean it.
    The Corporate states of America ran Russia out of money, now they're doing the same to US.
    Long live the banksters! May they fly like the American flag, hanging from a pole.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.