from Hacker News

Chinese warship stole US underwater drone

by nmc on 12/16/16, 4:44 PM with 139 comments

  • by BugsJustFindMe on 12/16/16, 5:59 PM

    Background: I used to work on these UUVs.

    When CNN says "oceanographic research", what they actually mean is building a sonar ray caustics model of the environment, because sound bends just like light does when the medium transmission speed changes, and the speed of sound in water changes noticably with depth,salinity,temperature.

    When CNN says "unclear motivation", what they mean is that the motivation is actually pretty clear. China doesn't like that the US is building underwater surveillance infrastructure in their backyard.

  • by arethuza on 12/16/16, 5:20 PM

    Reminds me of Operation Barmaid where a UK nuclear submarine used cutters to steal a towed array from a Warsaw-pact vessel:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9602103/HMS-C...

  • by crystalmeph on 12/16/16, 5:14 PM

    "[USNS] Bowditch had stopped in the water to pick up two underwater drones. At that point a Chinese naval ship that had been shadowing the Bowditch put a small boat into the water. That small boat came up alongside and the Chinese crew took one of the drones."

    It's pretty likely this is a shove-back for Trump aggravating China over Taiwan.

    The mechanics of international one-upmanship are fascinating, it's like watching two big guys doing everything short of actually getting into a bar fight (hopefully), mixed with a prank war.

  • by finid on 12/16/16, 7:24 PM

    Reminds of that time when the US sent a sub to tap a Soviet underwater communication cable off the cost of the then Soviet Union. That was brazen, and bad. It was the kind of stuff that leads to war.

    What the Chinese just did is just as bad, and could lead to war.

  • by squozzer on 12/16/16, 8:47 PM

    We should expect little games like this, as it reveals China's technical inferiority - otherwise, why steal something if you already have something better?

    I'm more interested in their clain on Taiwan -- is it the island (Formosa) or its inhabitants (the descendants of Kai-shek) that they claim? Claiming the island at least has a logic that one can support or deny. Claiming the inhabitants, well then every country with an ethnic Chinese population - e.g. Indochina, San Francisco -- might well be at risk.

  • by beambot on 12/16/16, 10:07 PM

    Curious nautical legal question: How does recovery (salvage / claims) work for an unmanned drone in international waters -- couldn't you draw analogies to any 'ole piece of salvageable junk? In which case, couldn't anyone lay claim to it...?

  • by brilliantcode on 12/16/16, 6:10 PM

    Going forward this will be a critical test of US status in the region and set a precedent for the incoming administration on dealing with China.

    So far, the US has been unwilling to engage China directly, only using proxy countries to apply pressure, ex. THAAD. It has been highly effective and unless China takes direct action that harms American naval & airforce assets, it's unwilling to engage in a downright skirmish that results in economic loss.

    Following that previous logic, China is very careful about not kicking the honet's nest because it would be it's end. The Chinese leadership must know fully well that they cannot match the US militarily. Also given Xi's failing grades on foreign diplomacy, it's suffice to conclude that these grandiose rhetorics are entirely aimed at it's own population, who are reaching a boiling point that will ultimately put into uncertainty the survivability of Xi's powerbase and the entire party itself. Xi made too many enemies so he's looking for ways to survive by fighting fire with fire and creating more enemies from within. An internal dialogue fueling crisis with the US is a perfect propaganda tool and the fear of war, the fear of losing your properties, belongings, material possessions you've spent time on...history has shown is highly effective in controlling the populace.

  • by godmodus on 12/16/16, 5:47 PM

    Lol

  • by mrfusion on 12/16/16, 6:25 PM

    Could this be an instance of "fake news"?

  • by sandworm101 on 12/16/16, 5:24 PM

    The lines between 'took', 'let go' and 'gave' are blurred. I wouldn't take and story abour the loss of an intelegence asset at face value.