●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byrvw ( 755107 ) writes:
I just read those two lines under that nice picture.
Some analysts say the half-dozen missiles showcased at the military parade were fakes.
So the ones they showed in a parade are fakes. Now how smart do you have to be to decide to use fakes in a parade? I mean, you have maybe only two of them working, maybe only one, or maybe even six in good condition. Why take the risk that something happens while showing them off? Showing them in a parade means they are not ready to use if the US or the South attacks. (How unlikely this might be to us, they have a different perspective.) The decoys might b
byTheCarp ( 96830 ) writes:
The thing is, if they actually had such missles, then fakes are easy. They just pull out some of the prototypes and show those off. The thing is, the prototypes and mockups would be expected to be largely similar to the real thing, and not so wildly different.
Not only that but, why worry so much about hiding the secrets of the technology when they are playing catch-up? Hide them from... who exactly?
They have to know that such weapons are, actually, useless to them as anything but parade toys, as much, if no
byIndustrialComplex ( 975015 ) writes:
The thing is, the prototypes and mockups would be expected to be largely similar to the real thing, and not so wildly different.
I've done my share of military product demos. Prototypes and mockups WILL be different than the real thing. You tend to re-use your demo models for a LONG time because they are not cheap.
One of the units I used for a physical display was just a shell of the unit that was the first test run through the CNC mill and coating process.
Differences:
1. The connector for the final unit was different to accomodate EMI/EMC requirements
2. The milling process had a problem and didn't cut this unit properly, cutting a corner (literally), we used acrylic to build up the corner and painted it to look normal
3. The tray this item would normally be in failed shock/vib testing, the final production tray looked different.
4. A late requirement for extra capability resulted in the final production units having a 'growth' on the back of the units which made their XY profile look quite different than the prototype unit.
However, the unit was good enough for our purposes of giving people a general feel for the size/shape/weight. Unless you looked closely you wouldn't notice the fake corner. Without specific knowledge of the production units, you wouldn't know there should be a bulge in the back.
As for hiding details... the look of components can reveal a great deal about your industrial (or sourcing) capability. Something as simple as 45 degree angles vs 90 degree angles on a tube can reveal a great deal about what North Korea is capable of designing/producing. Maybe those 45 degree angle tubes indicate that they have figured out manufacturing trick XYZ which means they also have the capability to produce N, where N is a critical component in making the missiles reliable to greater than 1000 miles?
There are LOTS of reasons to hide details even if all you are doing is playing 'catch-up'. If you were trying to maintain a clandestine missile sourcing program, you probably wouldn't want the US learning that you managed to snag a bunch of components which are only produced in a certain country. You wouldn't want to risk having that supply source being cut off.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byTheCarp ( 96830 ) writes:
Sure but all this has to be underscored by the fact that they know they can't actually use the missiles. Whether the technology even works is entirely secondary to whether it looks plausible. This may be true for your demos as well, but, with them, its true of the entire program.
I would say the exception here is the rule there, but, if you look at some of our own programs internally, I think Kruschev was right when he said "Politicians are the same all over, they promise to build a bridge even where there i
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...