P&W Caught Illegally Selling Military Tech to China

[mb1685]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-selling-military-technology-to-china/259469/

"A six-year U.S. probe found that Pratt & Whitney, a key military hardware supplier to the U.S., sold China the software and engines needed to make its first-ever modern attack helicopter."

I'm not sure of the reliability of the source (I saw it passed along Facebook) and I know this may be a sensitive topic (or perhaps one that only lends itself to useless speculation), so if this isn't appropriate, I'll be glad to delete it.

 

[MasterBates]

Given the number of Chinese I saw there looking at stuff when I was an Engineer in the Applied Mechanics labs there in 1997-98, in the "corporate secret" (but not classified per DOD) area, not saying they did, but would not be surprised.

 

[Criminal]

Saw an article on this a couple weeks ago. Seemed fishy considering it should be a lot bigger news. So I called a buddy of mine who's dad is a (not sure of actual position) exec in P&W about it. He called with his answer...

So it is true(ish), but P&W denies any wrong doing. Everything that was exported was approved by the US & Canada governments prior to the 'exchange.' It was all done out in the open, no sneakiness. And if I remember correctly, no software was exported.

So what happened? Apparently somebody screwed up some paperwork dealing with what was being exported, due to the complexity and sometimes vagueness of arms trade law. And that's about it. Nothing was sent to China that wasn't supposed to.

End result: 1. P&W fined $75 million (I think). Fine was reduced to a mere $25 mil.
2. More examples of poor/uninformed journalism.

 

[Flash]

.....So it is true(ish), but P&W denies any wrong doing. Everything that was exported was approved by the US & Canada governments prior to the 'exchange.' It was all done out in the open, no sneakiness. And if I remember correctly, no software was exported........So what happened? Apparently somebody screwed up some paperwork dealing with what was being exported, due to the complexity and sometimes vagueness of arms trade law. And that's about it. Nothing was sent to China that wasn't supposed to.......

That sounds like corporate sea lawyering/CYA at its best. What did P&W think the they were going to do with the engines, build really bitchin fishing boats? It is not like the Chinese ever buy something for one thing then turn around and use it for another. Or that pretty much every aircraft development program there is for government use.

Even if the government screwed up P&W should have known better, they just were more interested in making the sale.

 

[mmx1]

Another account:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/how-us-software-ended-up-in-chinese-assault-helicopters/

According to that, P&W exported it as dual-use for a helicopter with military and civil variants, though the civil variant seemed to be little more than a flimsy cover that was never produced and P&W was all too eager to play along.

 

[SynixMan]

I'm surprised P&W was this gullible/greedy. Everyone who had dealings with the Chinese ends up having their designs copied, later ending up with nothing. Just ask the Russians.

 

[eas7888]

I'm surprised P&W was this gullible/greedy. Everyone who had dealings with the Chinese ends up having their designs copied, later ending up with nothing. Just ask the Russians.

Not that the Russians didn't do the same thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4

 

[The Chief]

.... Seemed fishy ... .

Fishy indeed. The process for the control of dual use technology has become a naked Political tool, Political with a big P. Apparently P&W left the cap off the toothpaste and was taken to the woodshed. Primary authority for the regulation of Dual Use under the EAA was vested in the Department of Commerce, viewed by many, most vocally by DoD, as a conflict of interest as those at Commerce had a mandate to increase international commerce not regulate it.

At the "end" of the "Cold War" the Export Administration Act of 1979 expired, in 1994. The international order, COCOM folded and was never replaced although various regimes emerged, i.e., MTCR, NSG, Wassenaar, etc.

With their authority gone, the "Fiefdom" at Commerce, DOD, DOE et al., that surrounded the EAA convinced President Clinton to declare a National Emergency under IEEPA and revive the EAA as a regulation, not a law. Every President since has annually made the same National Emergency declaration. Congress has never seen the need nor had the inclination to pass a new law, but the beat goes on.

Another red flag is that ICE seems to be leading the charge and the "press" on the issue.

Note: As most know, the control of the export of "munitions" is vested in our Foreign Ministry, oops, meant State Department.

 

[Renegade One]

I know this may be a sensitive topic (or perhaps one that only lends itself to useless speculation), so if this isn't appropriate, I'll be glad to delete it.

If there is any chance we can sell the P&W TF-30 to the Chinese...for ANY application...I say "go for it"!

 

[Criminal]

If there is any chance we can sell the P&W TF-30 to the Chinese...for ANY application...I say "go for it"!

Were you the one that said- "If it says Pratt and Whitney on the engine, make sure it says Martin Baker on the seat."?

 

[Renegade One]

Were you the one that said- "If it says Pratt and Whitney on the engine, make sure it says Martin Baker on the seat."?

I didn't invent the quote...but I have used it here before...in the not-too-distant past.
But...to be fair...I ALSO "caveated" that earlier statement to include the current "factoid" that the P&W engines for the new F-35 variants seem to "rock".
Need to give credit where credit is due...the TF-30 was probably a "design requirement" ahead of its time.

 

[Alpha_Echo_606]

I didn't invent the quote...but I have used it here before...in the not-too-distant past.
But...to be fair...I ALSO "caveated" that earlier statement to include the current "factoid" that the P&W engines for the new F-35 variants seem to "rock".
Need to give credit where credit is due...the TF-30 was probably a "design requirement" ahead of its time.

I always thought the J52-P-408 was a solid engine in the Prowler, of course I could be remembering wrong as it's been 20+ years since I've worked on a Prowler.

 

[Renegade One]

I always thought the J52-P-408 was a solid engine in the Prowler, of course I could be remembering wrong as it's been 20+ years since I've worked on a Prowler.

Anything starting with a "J" was inherently better than anything starting with a "TF"...in the not-too-distant past. We've no doubt come a long way since then...

 

[Brett327]

I always thought the J52-P-408 was a solid engine in the Prowler, of course I could be remembering wrong as it's been 20+ years since I've worked on a Prowler.

Funny story, I sat next to a P&W exec at a conference recently and he was all, "Hey, Prowler guy! How 'bout those J-52s? Some engine, eh?" I guess he wasn't read in on the 4.5 bearing issues that have taken out half a dozen Prowlers in the last 8-10 years. He didn't say much after I reminded him of that.

@AE606: Generally, yes, a great engine when the oil analysis is properly managed, but she can also bite back in a catastrophic manner when you least expect it.

 

[Flash]

Funny story, I sat next to a P&W exec at a conference recently and he was all, "Hey, Prowler guy! How 'bout those J-52s? Some engine, eh?" I guess he wasn't read in on the 4.5 bearing issues that have taken out half a dozen Prowlers in the last 8-10 years. He didn't say much after I reminded him of that........

Our XO asked the P&W rep at Tailhook if the mugs he was handing out were going to shatter like the Prowler engines, the P&W rep wasn't that amused but we thought it was pretty funny.