Why making military tech so hard?

Strictly, I think “completely worthless” goes too far too. Missile flight times tend to be pretty short, so the drift problem isn’t necessarily so bad, though dynamic range may be tricky, since your IMU becomes useless if the accelerometer saturates. One could imagine, for example, a “Qassam Version 2.0” rocket that gained some meaningful improvement in accuracy from a cell phone IMU.

The larger point, that old-school macro-scale IMUs outperform consumer-grade MEMS IMUs in all aspects except cost, size, and power, stands.

:rolleyes: I think semantic nitpicking like that goes too far. One could imagine using a propeller hat to add .00000001% accuracy to a missile flight by spinning the propeller at the right time, but that doesn’t mean a propeller hat is actually a worthwhile addition, even though you can manage a .00000001% increase in accuracy.

The ITAR regulations aren’t what is a problem for me. What is a problem is documentation and liability regulations that cause most suppliers of even ordinary mid-range measurement equipment to refuse to supply overseas.

And when I can find a supplier for a $7 1% current shunt, it’s with $70 handling fees to cover working out that it really is legal after all.

I think “defense” isn’t the category you’re really thinking of. Guns and boats and bombs (except for nukes) aren’t difficult at all, but aerospace is damn hard, regardless of whether it’s for defense or for civil purposes.

A propeller hat is a worthwhile addition solely for the 1000% increase in gaiety. Have you ever seen someone or something in a propeller hat and not at least chuckled to yourself?

Good point, it might even make missile defense operators hesitate to shoot it down, since it’s so clearly festive it’s probably going to drop candy and toys like a pinata!

Well yes…if those slingshots can fire a nuclear warhead 1000 miles and the Cargo Cult is still technically “at war” with it’s neighbors.

I think a key factor is conflict itself. Military technology has to work in an environment where other military technology is actively trying to make it not work.

How long would the average car last if other cars on the road were trying to wreck it?

Another element, which can be hard to appreciate, is how much it helps to live in a meritocracy.

I lived in Japan for several years and, while it might seem strange, since they have such good hardware engineering, they rarely have good software development. I didn’t know this when I moved there, to work, but it was a stark contrast to working in the US.

In Japan, software developers are not tested for their ability to write software when hired (at least, at all the companies I worked - which was several). If you have attended a sufficient number of classes on software development, then that will be sufficient to get you hired, particularly if your dad knows someone who works in the industry. My assumption would be that their schools focus on rote memorization of facts about programming, not on actually accomplishing tasks, so “passing” your studies isn’t correlated to your abilities.

And so anyone who wants to get into software is able to get into software, regardless of how talented they are. If they have good connections, they might get a key role from which they can’t be removed.

And so any project that I ended up working on, we might have had anywhere from 6 to 30 developers being paid to do that development. Of those 0 to 1 developers would end up writing 95% of the code and the remaining people would stare blankly at their screens for 14 hours a day, asking no one any questions (since it would reveal what they couldn’t do), before going home, just to come back and do the same thing the next day.

From this experience, when I read stories about Russia, during the Communist era, having to struggle just to get food moved from the South to the main cities, because people would steal it on the way, officials in charge of train stations would block transit unless bribed off, workers would slack off and couldn’t be bothered to actually refuel the trains for days at a time, etc. you end up with it being that a large part of the government’s efforts are simply to define things that have to happen like, “We must feed St. Petersburg.” And send out thugs to beat people all along the path of a train, to get it into St. Petersburg, to prevent a famine, and end up that the whole town is just eating bananas for the next two weeks, because that’s all the food there was on that train - a shipment of bananas. I can understand this.

And, by happenstance, I was in St. Petersburg just after the Berlin Wall fell down, and every street was full of banana peels, because that was the last shipment of food they had received.

In a country or industry where there isn’t meritocracy - where people are posted by family connections and corruption runs rampant - things can get ridiculously inefficient and the products that you get from the manufacturers are probably going to be sub-par - potentially by a lot. Almost everyone who you expect to be able to do their job, probably can’t do it, and just to get them to make the attempt takes a lot of effort.

And with something like a rocket or a nuclear bomb, you need quality engineering and quality manufacturing. How do you get that when the lead engineer got his position because he’s the guy who wanted to be a nuclear engineer most that had the connections to land the job, and no one ever had any chance to check that he actually had the talents to design a complex bit of hardware or manage a group of people to build it?

There’s going to be a few really talented people mixed in there, who are the ones actually making some progress and doing all the work that everyone around them should be able to help them with. But mostly those people are just sapping off resources that could be better spent hiring better people or promoting the talented guys to positions where they could organize things better.

But even the talented people are going to be regularly thwarted by low-quality components being delivered that don’t match the specifications, and a whole slew of managers, politicians, and fellow engineers swearing up and down that those components will work just fine - because they can’t publicly admit that they don’t know enough to say otherwise, or because they can’t publicly admit that the country simply can’t produce goods of sufficient quality to make what the leadership wants.

If you could take all the cronyism, nepotism, and corruption out of their societies, it’s possible that Iran or North Korea could have accomplished something more impressive by now. But their economic and social systems are effectively preventing them from advancing to where they need to be.

The USSR only really succeeded by having the brute resources to do so and stealing a lot of information from the US.

:smiley:

Iran seems like a much more functional society, though, than NK, more open and easier to get to and communicate with. That’s why the US and Israel have enough access to plant computer viruses in the nuclear program computers and assassinate the scientists. So perhaps in that sense the closedness of NK is actually an asset when developing nuclear weapons.

A lot of military hardware doesn’t have any commercial equivalent to work up some experience on. Not much call for rockets except in highly specialised applications.

There are conditions technology can encounter in military use that may not matter in civilian use. Temperature range, atmospheric pressure range, vibration (both frequency and amplitude), salt water air environment, dust, humidity, etc. So, it can be challenging.

You know the answer perfectly well.

The reason is the implications. The North Korean program is experiencing hiccups now. But 10 years from now, if the DPRK progresses to ICBMs with miniaturized warheads, that’s a threat.

Well, that’s the ghost stories we tell the children to keep them from rooting around in the attic, plus it lets us justify spending billions of dollars a year on a missile defense system can can’t seem to make an reliable intercept no matter how we game the tests.

Stranger

For the reality, buy American.

North Korea’s nuclear program is an example of high tech weapons being hard to get right. NK has detonated some test nukes with disappointingly (for them) low yields. There are several reasons why this might be, but my w.a.g. is that they’re having problems with quality control in their breeder reactors. Along with Plutonium-239, the main bomb ingredient, there will be some amount of Plutonium-240 as well, which is undesirable because it makes an implosion device prone to pre-detonation, causing a disappointing fizzle instead of a bang. If you’re breeding weapon-grade Plutonium, your reactor has to be designed and run in a manner that will minimize Pu-240 contamination. A pure guess, but it fits the known facts.

It’s a good guess, I think. Getting high purity [SUP]239[/SUP]Pu requires frequent reprocessing of the fuel elements to minimize contamination by [SUP]240[/SUP]Pu and higher isotopes. There is also the possibility that their ignition and containment system is suffering from functional flaws, but that is a more straightforward engineering problem that should be readily solvable.

Stranger

The country has a embargo!! They cannot import material to make nukes or much of any thing.

They have to make every thing be it factories to make material for material to be used for making nukes.

Most of their air force is massive of planes out of service with no fuel and parts to repair old planes. The army vehicles and army tanks that are very old and shortage of parts.

North Korean Military is really bad like much of the economy because of the embargo.

To make nukes require factories making material for use for nukes. It very unlikely that North Korean will ever make nuke.

With famine and major shortage of most every thing every day in North Korean.

In recent news, missiles are still hard.