Heard lots of ideas about the Chinese delay that make sense. First, they thought the plane would be soon discovered so the didn't search the satellite photos. Second, when no plane was found, they looked but that is a time consuming process according to those who have done it for the CIA. Third, they may have wanted to make sure the objects were likely to be relevant before release to avoid more muddling of the search.
Finally, they may have had to "dumb down" the quality of the photos to prevent others from knowing the extent of their spying capabilities. All of this takes time.

If the US had any clue from satellites they could send a secure transmission to the Navy ship and they can just somehow go to the right spot and just discover the debris by chance.

Is the US ship on the correct side of the country, though?

Speaking of vessels on the hunt, what about those guys stealthin' under in sub's.... hehehe. Surely no country would dare speak of a wreck if found. Would flare bad relationships with others knowing a sub is hanging around ones coast.

Like those Russian subs Oscar 2 class poking around San Diego and Hawaii in the 1990's or 2000. The US knew about it and played quietly with them.

Aren't the 777 wings made of carbon fiber? Could large chunks break apart and remain floating?

Breaking News: Airplane flew on for hours after reported missing - engine data sent automatically.

Funny that I got an email from someone at Boeing who we worked with on a project late last year (unrelated to this incident). I didn't ask him about this as Boeing takes this stuff very seriously and I doubt he'd say anything. But oddly enough our project involved the Automated Health Management System - which is likely what got the data from the plane.

If the data is valid this just got a lot weirder.

Be cautious.

It's not news that the plane sent engine data to Rolls Royce automatically. The information is typically sent four times during a flight--in thirty minute " packets" of accumulated data--during take off, after climb to altitude, during cruise, and during landing. It is not real time streaming.

Now to the story in the WSJ. Rolls Royce had the data reports since the plane was missing and never indicated they received more than two data reports, indicating no more we're received after radar contact ended. Spokesperson for them claim confidential agreements with accident investigators prevents confirmation of data information but that they have given all info to the investigators. The Journal uses anonymous sources who may have misinterpreted the reporting system or the reporter misunderstood them and they were just speculating about flying four more hours. The article quotes no one, and uses terms like, "speculates" and "believes" to frame the point.

Bottom line, there is no official information coming from Rolls Royce or the investigators that engine data, past the radar loss time, was received. Until more reliable information is given, I would be very skeptical about the accuracy of that one report, which is now being repeated by other news sources (taking on the appearance of internet validity due to repetition of the same single story.) Too many misleading/conflicting stories already out there.

As an aside, should it prove to be true that Rolls did receive data indicating a longer flight and they did share it with Malaysia Air, it would border on criminal incompetence to keep that quiet, given it absolutely defines the kind of search this would become. Only slightly less criminal would be waiting until now to ask Rolls for the data records.

Why would they make the transponders in such a way that it would be possible for the pilots simply turn them off? Why would that capability be needed?

The current model 777 has an aluminum wing. The new variant the 777x is under development and will have an exceptionally long composite wing.

Boeing launches 777X with an all-new composite wing | JEC Composites

Different frequencies mean different things.

Malaysia Airlines: What is a transponder? - CNN.com


During the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 the US Navy shot down a commercial aircraft Iran Air Flight 655, who's transponder identified it as an attacking military F-14 fighter.

Malaysian govt saying location shown in Chinese images was checked by aircraft, nothing found. (Not clear to me if that check was previously, or since the satellite images were publicly released.) Also govt is saying no engine reports from Rolls were received after contact with the plane was lost.

Maybe there will be some confirmation today.

Why are millions spent on stealth technology when all you have to do is turn off the transponder?

Transponders send out information to receivers.
Usually civillian radar receivers do not search with a beam, but rather collect data from the tranponders and display it on a screen which will show position and, by querying the individual "blips" can display other information broadcast

Military radar sends out a beam of energy which is reflected off objects back to a receiver and the information is compiled to give an estimate of size and position of the object reflecting the energy.
Stealth technology reduces the amount of energy returned to the receiver which allows the object to get closer to the radar receiver before it is detected or disguises the size of an object.

Imagine if you will, standing on a hill with a light, looking for someone the field around you. If that other someone had their own light, you would instantly know where they were. That's a transponder.

If your light reflected off a shiney surface, a jacket or their face and you were able to see them, you have the equivalent of search radar. If however, they took careful pains to dress in flat black and hide all reflective surfaces, that is "stealth"

Hope this helps.
Best
Les

That is a good explanation. I was merely curious as to why such a large aircraft without a transponder signature wouldn't have been pursued by Vietnamese or Chinese military.
It shouldn't have just disappeared from radar even if the transponder was turned off.
It really is a crazy set of circumstances.

I don't think most countries in that region spend the kind of money on air defence that is common among countries which had been involved in the cold war.
Even so, remember Mathias Rust, the young German fellow who flew a Cessna across Eastern Europe and landed the thing in Red Square in '87.
You not only have to detect the unidentified flying object, but you have to make a decision whether it is a threat, then allocate assets. I suspect they don't perceive a lot of airborn threat in Southeast Asia these days.

Best
Les

Update: WSJ story bogus.

"But Malaysia Airlines Chief Executive Ahmad Jauhari Yahya said Thursday that Rolls-Royce and Boeing have reported that they didn't receive transmissions of any kind after 1:07 a.m. Saturday. Air traffic controllers lost contact with the plane shortly afterward, around 1:30 a.m."

The comment by the Malaysia official about China's sat. image is quirky. Stated it was a mistake for China to release the image. Rather shouldn't he stated the image was not the plane and define what the object(s) are?

It was reported the final word from the pilot communicating with the Vietnamese was "roger". Within seconds its off radar.

Nothing found at location shown in Chinese satellite images

Vietnam search fruitless at site where China satellite detected suspected plane debris: Witness

A search by two Vietnamese aircraft responding to information provided by a Chinese satellite has failed to locate objects suspected of being wreckage from a missing Malaysian airliner, a Reuters journalist on board a search plane said on Thursday.

Aircraft repeatedly circled the area over the South China Sea but were unable to detect any objects, said the journalist, who flew aboard a Antonov 26 cargo plane for three hours.

Vietnamese and Malaysian planes were scanning waters where a Chinese government agency website said a satellite had photographed three "suspicious floating objects" on Sunday.