Elicitation / Stealing Military Technology

[TechProtect101]

Hello, happy to be here. Here's my question. How do you all, especially those in the DoD, feel about giving information on U.S. Weapons systems to so many hostile nations? Should it be a concern on a board like this? Why or why not? Should be an interesting debate..

I'll single out some individuals here.. "France Lolan" is obviously eliciting information on U.S. weapons systems, for what purpose is not clear. "Intelgurl" gives far too much information, true or not, and I've known people's careers in government end quickly for incidents related to boards like this. Any opinions on this matter? Something to think about for you U.S. military and DoD members.

[Officer of Engineers]

There should be no excuse for anyone revealling protected info.

At the same time, keeping things secret for the sake of secrecy is the stupidest military policy ever devised. The Soviets went overboard on this and deliberately wrote wrong maps; resulting in their own people getting lost more often we were fooled.

Look, our own people have to work with these things. If they don't know how a thing is supposed to work, who are they going to ask? The President? Once you take a thing out of Protected status, then more people are in the know and more people can fix the thing.

Lastly, little late, kid. We've all been trained on OPSEC. You have way too little to tell us.

[TopHatter]

[QUOTE=Officer of Engineers]
At the same time, keeping things secret for the sake of secrecy is the stupidest military policy ever devised. Look, our own people have to work with these things. If they don't know how a thing is supposed to work, who are they going to ask? The President? Once you take a thing out of Protected status, then more people are in the know and more people can fix the thing.
QUOTE]

My biggest gripe is this scenario: I am in an Internet chatroom or message board. The subject is military. I offer an opinion on a certain weapons system, throwing in a few facts to support my statement. Immediately, some well-intentioned individuals begin screaming at me for revealing "classified" or "sensitive" information. Usually this is followed by a rant about how their loved one is overseas and how I just endangered them.
Now, I have no problem with maintaining OPSEC, especially when it comes to endangering the lives of our boys and girls overseas.

My gripe is...I'm a civilian! ANYTHING I could POSSIBLY know is easily found on open-sources.
Fine you say, but these people have no idea you're a civilian. Well yes, except that I usually identify myself as such before putting forth my opinion (Sort of standard disclaimer, as it were)

My point (and I do have one) is that if potential adversaries can glean useful information off what a civilian NEMF (No Echelon Mother Flocker) like me knows, then the fate of the Western world is in DEEP trouble.

[Julie]

My point (and I do have one) is that if potential adversaries can glean useful information off what a civilian NEMF (No Echelon Mother Flocker) like me knows, then the fate of the Western world is in DEEP trouble.

The NEMF (LOL.. ) does have a good point.

[Officer of Engineers]

My gripe is...I'm a civilian! ANYTHING I could POSSIBLY know is easily found on open-sources.

You have no idea how easy and it's not your fault. Over at the CDF during the Taliban and the Iraq Wars, I imposed a strict policy. There will be no posting of any information of unit names, location, and direction, even if it's from CNN or the DoD. I especially erased posts based upon speculation from retired generals working for CNN. It was not that we had better access than anyone else. It's because we could pretty well figure out what's going on.

Yes, it's open source and yes, rag wearing virgins could get it from CNN but they won't hear it from me nor my board.

I especially deplore CNN filming at Baghdad airport. Did it not occur to anyone that CNN was acting as the FOO for the Iraqis?

[TopHatter]

Yes, it's open source and yes, rag wearing virgins could get it from CNN but they won't hear it from me nor my board.

An excellent point Sir. Nothing more needs to be said on that subject.

[TechProtect101]

There should be no excuse for anyone revealling protected info.

At the same time, keeping things secret for the sake of secrecy is the stupidest military policy ever devised. The Soviets went overboard on this and deliberately wrote wrong maps; resulting in their own people getting lost more often we were fooled.

Look, our own people have to work with these things. If they don't know how a thing is supposed to work, who are they going to ask? The President? Once you take a thing out of Protected status, then more people are in the know and more people can fix the thing.

Lastly, little late, kid. We've all been trained on OPSEC. You have way too little to tell us.

You're way off base, and I've had to deal with your kind more times than I can count.. (since you're going to make assumptions about me, I will about you as well). You're right, I do have little to tell you, but only because I don't want to share it with the entire free world, and the "unfree" world as well.

I didn't say anything about making false anything for our own forces, or not training our own people on how things work. I agree, that would be absurd. The fact is we spend billions on cutting edge technology so we can hand it over to foreign scientists and engineers for free, but not always knowingly, or without knowing the ramifications of what we've done. I'm not saying we can't share, but we need to do it in a controlled setting. Frankly, I'm about sick of ego-driven O-6's who ignore policy for the sake of their own agendas.

I've done my research as well and understand the benefits of technology proliferation in certain areas. I also understand there is a lot of information out there that can be applied to weapons systems that is open source or otherwise available to the public. But we can contribute to discussions without telling the whole world what decisions our DoD contractors are making, what they are developing, or going to co-workers to answer questions that will go on a message board such as this.

Its OK, I understand you don't know me, so I won't fault you for your arrogance.

And of course I should note that when I say "we" throughout this post, I'm refering to us Americans not you Canadians, Officer of Engineers.

[TechProtect101]

[QUOTE=TopHatter]

At the same time, keeping things secret for the sake of secrecy is the stupidest military policy ever devised. Look, our own people have to work with these things. If they don't know how a thing is supposed to work, who are they going to ask? The President? Once you take a thing out of Protected status, then more people are in the know and more people can fix the thing.
QUOTE]

My biggest gripe is this scenario: I am in an Internet chatroom or message board. The subject is military. I offer an opinion on a certain weapons system, throwing in a few facts to support my statement. Immediately, some well-intentioned individuals begin screaming at me for revealing "classified" or "sensitive" information. Usually this is followed by a rant about how their loved one is overseas and how I just endangered them.
Now, I have no problem with maintaining OPSEC, especially when it comes to endangering the lives of our boys and girls overseas.

My gripe is...I'm a civilian! ANYTHING I could POSSIBLY know is easily found on open-sources.
Fine you say, but these people have no idea you're a civilian. Well yes, except that I usually identify myself as such before putting forth my opinion (Sort of standard disclaimer, as it were)

My point (and I do have one) is that if potential adversaries can glean useful information off what a civilian NEMF (No Echelon Mother Flocker) like me knows, then the fate of the Western world is in DEEP trouble.

No worries.. If you make the disclaimer and / or cite your sources, no one can say a thing to you.. just tell them to pound sand. Its all part of the academic debate. I have close friends in Baghdad right now... Believe me there's nothing you could say on this board today, as a civ with no military affiliation, that could harm our troops tomorrow. I'd stick up for you, all the way.

[Officer of Engineers]

You're way off base, and I've had to deal with your kind more times than I can count.. (since you're going to make assumptions about me, I will about you as well). You're right, I do have little to tell you, but only because I don't want to share it with the entire free world, and the "unfree" world as well.

I didn't say anything about making false anything for our own forces, or not training our own people on how things work. I agree, that would be absurd. The fact is we spend billions on cutting edge technology so we can hand it over to foreign scientists and engineers for free, but not always knowingly, or without knowing the ramifications of what we've done. I'm not saying we can't share, but we need to do it in a controlled setting. Frankly, I'm about sick of ego-driven O-6's who ignore policy for the sake of their own agendas.

I've done my research as well and understand the benefits of technology proliferation in certain areas. I also understand there is a lot of information out there that can be applied to weapons systems that is open source or otherwise available to the public. But we can contribute to discussions without telling the whole world what decisions our DoD contractors are making, what they are developing, or going to co-workers to answer questions that will go on a message board such as this.

Its OK, I understand you don't know me, so I won't fault you for your arrogance.

And of course I should note that when I say "we" throughout this post, I'm refering to us Americans not you Canadians, Officer of Engineers.

It's just go to show how little you know.

I've served with the USArmy. Been on countless Class Protected briefings in your country about various systems. How the hell do you think a Canadian sniper can call in an American airstrike in Afghanistan?

Who do you think manufactures the Cruise Missile guidance systems? Who do you think manufacture the Stryker and the electronic packages that goes with it?

Like it or not, we're part of your defence infrastructure and when I say we, I mean the Coalition Forces that will have to fight together and die together, so don't take that holier than thou attitude, I've got scars to back up my words.

You don't understand a thing, do you. The point about open source is not about giving it away to the enemy. It's to let us know. Fine the enemy can learn but they don't have to use what we build, we do. The trade off is made in spades. We learn how to use our systems and all the enemy knows is that it can be done but not how it's done.

You can take a 1000 photos of the F-117 but unless you've got the exact measurements and the computer drawings, you ain't going to duplicate its features. The Soviets had the F-117 operational manual for over 20 years and they have yet to produce one.

So, get off your high horse because it's just a donkey.

[Officer of Engineers]

You know what? I've just re-read Franco Loran and Intelgurl postings. You owe them both an apology. Franco is a kid and has alot of misconceptions. We set him straight. To suggest that his purpose is somewhat on the shady side is taking his innocent readings to the extreme.

Intelgurl posted alot of info and insightful info but nothing that remotely even be considered an OPSEC breach.

You're seeing dragons where there only maggots.

[Ray]

Techno,

There was a time in India when the bromo paper (toilet paper) was marked SECRET! ;)

But it must have had a reason. Could it be that Pakistan was using a brick instead and had not the technology to make paper?

The Colonel will bear me out. In a Bangladeshi Forum, they thought the names of the Generals was a TOP SECRET affair!

[The Chap]

I'm a civy and all vaguely technical posts (few enough) are public domain. Besides if any of it actually made sense to a hostile power they'd have to be a long way down certain paths anyway ... And they'd have to have a great deal of faith in the scientific fidelity of myself and any sources I base my opinions on. And assume that I haven't been drinking. Good luck to 'em

If they are attempting to infiltrate a snotty world of sarcasm and condescending, poorly spelt attempts at wit ... No; I've said too much already.

[TechProtect101]

It's just go to show how little you know.

I've served with the USArmy. Been on countless Class Protected briefings in your country about various systems. How the hell do you think a Canadian sniper can call in an American airstrike in Afghanistan?

Who do you think manufactures the Cruise Missile guidance systems? Who do you think manufacture the Stryker and the electronic packages that goes with it?

Like it or not, we're part of your defence infrastructure and when I say we, I mean the Coalition Forces that will have to fight together and die together, so don't take that holier than thou attitude, I've got scars to back up my words.

You don't understand a thing, do you. The point about open source is not about giving it away to the enemy. It's to let us know. Fine the enemy can learn but they don't have to use what we build, we do. The trade off is made in spades. We learn how to use our systems and all the enemy knows is that it can be done but not how it's done.

You can take a 1000 photos of the F-117 but unless you've got the exact measurements and the computer drawings, you ain't going to duplicate its features. The Soviets had the F-117 operational manual for over 20 years and they have yet to produce one.

So, get off your high horse because it's just a donkey.

You're only thinking in the tactical, but that's not your fault. It's a product of where you've been. I've been knee deep in the acquisitions side for years (after doing my tac time), and in my last post I was responsible for over $50 billion in projects (that's right, BILLION). That's my interest, cradle to grave, not just tactical use.

I never said anything about not sharing "open source." In fact, I support it. And you've got me all wrong. I understand we are in the fight together, and your countrymen are in harm's way along with ours.. But at the same time, we all think in terms of our own national interests.. and if you're not, well you're both naive and, frankly, not important enough to be "in the know."

Oh, and if you can't figure out a system, open the manual for god's sake!

[TechProtect101]

You know what? I've just re-read Franco Loran and Intelgurl postings. You owe them both an apology. Franco is a kid and has alot of misconceptions. We set him straight. To suggest that his purpose is somewhat on the shady side is taking his innocent readings to the extreme.

Intelgurl posted alot of info and insightful info but nothing that remotely even be considered an OPSEC breach.

You're seeing dragons where there only maggots.

I don't owe anyone an apology, rather, I've thrown the gauntlet down and they both have an opportunity to respond. This is not any type of accusation or damnation. I have my opinion, you have yours, and you shouldn't be so judgemental. Its not personal, hell I don't know anything about any of you.

As for the posts, here's what I mean. In a post by intelgurl, who claims to have first-hand to contractor information as a part of her job with the DoD in Virginia:

"It is absolutely true that Lockheed has been considering the possibility of employing a solid state 100 kw laser on the F-35. (100kw is the minimum threshold to be a weapon according to sources at Lockheed).

This solid state laser would be housed directly behind the cockpit in the bay where the lift fan would be on the F-35B (STOVL) version.
The area where the STOVL lift fan resides will not only provide adequate room for the laser unit but it's positioning allows the laser to utilize the lift fan's drive shaft which produces over 27,000 horsepower, providing more than adequate power for the 100kw solid state laser.

The laser's purpose if it is indeed employed will initially be defensive, destroying any incoming surface to air or air to air munitions as much as 2-3 kilometers away before reaching the DEW armed F-35. It would eventually be able to offensively engage aerial targets such as cruise missiles and enemy aircraft, as well as ground targets like anti-aircraft missile sites and ground vehicles.

Lockheed has looked at concepts of these lasers from TRW, Boeing, Textron and Raytheon. Raytheon's solid state laser program seems to be the best bet for this application due to it's superior optics (beam quality), compact size and Raytheon's advances in cooling technologies.

Current development has this solid state laser program at around the 50 kw range, with cooling and maximization of power to the laser diodes providing a simultaneous hurdle.
It seems that the weapons grade diodes can only operate at approx 10% efficiency due to cooling issues. When the cooling issues are overcome then the diodes will be able to operate at optimum performance.

As a side note, Raytheon can certainly make a solid state laser right now that is 100kw, the problem is that you would have to have 10 times the diodes operating at 10% power to generate a 100 kw beam. This would of course mean a much larger, heavier unit that costs nearly 10 times as much - not the sort of thing you could put onboard an aircraft that's already on an Uncle Sam imposed diet.

I hope this answers more questions than it generates..."


*******************

Here we have.. how a laser will be integrated into the F35, its planned usage, some current problems / limitations, and some engineering challenges. From joe civilian its meaningless, but from someone who apparently has access to the folks at these companies, well its more than an OPSEC problem. She might as well be calling Boeing's, Raytheon's etc's competitors overseas and telling them directly. If Thales knows what problems or successes Raytheon has, for example, they could choose another path, without spending the money to reach the same "plateau." Of course this in not a prime example, I'm reaching a little here, but you have to think a little more creatively. If you eliminate the very possibility its a valid topic of debate, you're setting yourself up.

I hope this thread is at least making people think a little bit about both sides. The knowledge you have is valuable to someone, somewhere, even if it doesn't seem so to you. That goes for U.S. military participants (everyone's gunning for you), the Brits, Canucks, Singaporeans, Indians, Koreans, everyone. This is proliferation, folks. Intangible. Intellectual. But it is.. sure, there are mostly enthusiasts here, some students. But also foreign scientisit, engineers, policy makers. All looking for a little insight into that piece of information that they have, but need the holes filled in on. Are you going to help North Korea design a more effective countermeasure to the South's F-15's because you know its limitations as a government employee? Why do people ask the questions they do? That was my only intention of starting this thread, to make people think. I'm also interested in both sides of the debate. So far, all I have is the Canadian sniper taking shots at me, and with blanks I might add. Acknowledging my point doesn't make you wrong.

Anyone else have an opinion besides Officer of Engineers? Thanks for reading.

[Officer of Engineers]

I don't owe anyone an apology, rather, I've thrown the gauntlet down and they both have an opportunity to respond. This is not any type of accusation or damnation. I have my opinion, you have yours, and you shouldn't be so judgemental. Its not personal, hell I don't know anything about any of you.

My apologies for misreading you.

Here we have.. how a laser will be integrated into the F35, its planned usage, some current problems / limitations, and some engineering challenges. From joe civilian its meaningless, but from someone who apparently has access to the folks at these companies, well its more than an OPSEC problem. She might as well be calling Boeing's, Raytheon's etc's competitors overseas and telling them directly. If Thales knows what problems or successes Raytheon has, for example, they could choose another path, without spending the money to reach the same "plateau." Of course this in not a prime example, I'm reaching a little here, but you have to think a little more creatively. If you eliminate the very possibility its a valid topic of debate, you're setting yourself up.

Intelgurl did the job and inform the American taxpayer exactly what he or she is paying for. You're in acqusitions, right? Okay, how would you know if what's in development is coming along or the people blowing smoke up your ass?

Also, at this point, I really doubt that the laser idea would really work for the F-35. At best, it's a work in progress. No one knows if it will work or not. However, the very fact that they are going to try is the very fact that they're going to ask for money to try. Buyer beware.

And do you actually think that failures can be kept a secret? Are you going to spend $10,000 protecting data that is worth absolute junk?

The reason why Intelgurl knows and why Boeing and Raytheon and everybody else knows is that because nobody cares to keep failures a secret. Don't blame the poor girl for doing her homework and is kind enough to share her findings with us.

JGetti here is a F-15 engineer and I can exactly when he's not crossing any lines but his info is just as valuable as Intelgurl.

I hope this thread is at least making people think a little bit about both sides. The knowledge you have is valuable to someone, somewhere, even if it doesn't seem so to you. That goes for U.S. military participants (everyone's gunning for you), the Brits, Canucks, Singaporeans, Indians, Koreans, everyone. This is proliferation, folks. Intangible. Intellectual. But it is.. sure, there are mostly enthusiasts here, some students. But also foreign scientisit, engineers, policy makers. All looking for a little insight into that piece of information that they have, but need the holes filled in on. Are you going to help North Korea design a more effective countermeasure to the South's F-15's because you know its limitations as a government employee? Why do people ask the questions they do? That was my only intention of starting this thread, to make people think. I'm also interested in both sides of the debate. So far, all I have is the Canadian sniper taking shots at me, and with blanks I might add. Acknowledging my point doesn't make you wrong.

The point to which you have failed to realize is that we all know where the line is and none of us are even close to approaching it. Do you know the amount of data it takes to produce a weapon system? Do you actually think some small insight is going to open the door to enough data to flood a computer building?

Strong case in point, the MiG-23 stole the inlet designs from the US. A breach you might say. Well those inlet designs were meant for a carrier plane and the MiG-23 is a land based plane.

Another case in point. The Chinese have long been accused of stealing the W88 nuke design. And yet, we have not seen a MIRV ICBM yet.

Open source gives you insight and allows the designer to ask some fundamental questions to his colleges. "Okay, this is my thinking on what I did. Where am I wrong?" And the responses he's going to get far outweighs any potential theft of his ideas that's going to happen. Why? Because he knows all those little mistakes that got him there. The thief does not.

Oh how about this, without knowing the specific reasons (exact technical failures) a particular system failed, why would competitors (either military or industrial) gain anymore insight to that failure? Do we not have success in one system where the opposition abandonned theirs because of their failure? The race to the moon comes to mind. The Russian effort failed. The US succeeded. Should we take the Russian effort as a sign that going to the moon by rocket was a bad idea?

And I will stress again. We all know EXACTLY where that line is. It's been drilled into us by JAG and by OPSEC requirements. Civilians have a non-disclosure. Unless you can show how anyone is breaking the law either through breach of non-disclosure or OPSEC, then you hounding the people who just want to know for whatever reason. And understand this. They know because we allow them to know. They will not know what we will not allow them to know. I don't decide what's Class Protected but I will obey its rules. So, why are you hounding people wanting to know what those companies are allowing them to know?

One last thing. Technology is not the answer everybody touts it to be. You're afraid we talk too much. Well, we have not talked enough. There are far too many blue-on-blue incidents for my liking and that is because everyone relies on the technology way too much. Speaking out is one way to learn about the limits.

I do not want Tanark Farm repeated just because the next hot shot pilot believed all friendlies should light up blue on his HUD.