its largely a meme third worldists cling to
reverse engineering enemy equipment is not always feasible or preferable to fielding your own equipment, not to mention that designing and producing your own is not as easy as flipping a switch, especially if they have tech or resources you lack
I feel like it could be done with exported weapons. The components are easy to study and understand. The only hard part would be to set up the manufacturing process and making the machines to perform those components.
What about first world countries reversing engineering stuff?
finding any instance of first world nations willingly adopting enemy equipment in a Cold War or post CW era is exceptionally rare.
You already have something that is >in your logistical system, EG supply systems and production lines set up >something you are doctrinally comfortable with >trained with
why would you adopt something that is likely technologically inferior and require re-tooling/re-training around a new system the enemy knows inside and out?
I guess that makes sense for first world countries. But third world countries could benefit a lot from reverse engineering exported weapons. They might greet embargo from that particular country but Idon’t think it’s going to happen.
sure, it would benefit them a lot. Can they do it, for the most part? no, because they don't have the money, physical resources etc as the first world nations do. Case in point, this abomination:
Another case in point:
Iran has never developed an F-14 or F-4 clone despite having access to the airframes for almost 50 years, leaving them with a laughably obsolete airforce ever since the Shah was overthrown
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
could be cost-benefit decision since they went heavy into ballistic rockets
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
bottleneck in this case is manufacturing
just because you know how to make something doesnt mean you can
That’s process sounds more like development than reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is when you take something apart, study and understand how it works, and then evaluate the materials and resources you have and try to recreate it.
most of the time, reverse engineering does not lead to straight copies of enemy weapons but modifications of existing designs
soviets reverse-engineered israeli M111 and discovered it was a monobloc penetrator that was more advanced than their own composite penetrators
response was to weld additional armor to their tanks as a stop gap and develop a multi-layer armor array with a focus on KE protection in the long term
They can still learn something just by studying and the trying to recreate the weapon. I think it would be a great start to build their own industry complex but factors such as money and human labor would be questionable and depend on the nation
It's worth considering that in most cases if you have the funding and expertise to reverse engineer something then you probably have the funding and expertise to design it yourself as well
the problem being getting hit with multiple copyright/intellectual property theft lawsuits by companies that are close to their governments
v.s. the minimal savings you get from making your own once you've sunk all the cot in reverse engineering and tooling up for production
It is cheaper and easier to simply buy or to make licensed copies under a production license.
Saves you any potential legal hassle, the cost of the reverse engineering and the tooling (well you can just buy it and don't have to figure it out and then make it)
you can even include IP transfer as part of the deal
Tech was much simpler 80 years ago, and even then the copies were still of inferior quality. Reverse engineering gears, flaps, and gyroscopes is a bit easier than figuring out the special sauce metallurgy and computer systems used in todays aircraft.
The Tu-4 wasn't 100% RE, the engines were developed by Shvetsov. The electronics wasn't copied. They simply retooled a factory to produce similar airframes with local materials, the result was suboptimal in some aspects.
The Sidewinder was more a combination of very clever electro-mechanic systems than any really sophisticated per se.
Republic-Ford_JB-2 The Argus engine couldn't be simpler, the most complex part was similar to an array of 2-stroke engine reed valves. Other systems were almost the same as torpedo's pneumatic gyrocompass. Actually the US was just re-developing an old invention cancelled after WWI (Sperry-Kettering autopilot).
often the same concept occurs to multiple people once something becomes possible, like nuclear weapons, Germans, Brits, Americans, Japanese all had their own independently emergent nuclear weapons programs during the war
That’s process sounds more like development than reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is when you take something apart, study and understand how it works, and then evaluate the materials and resources you have and try to recreate it.
We have some muzzies who have been trained in advanced technology. Their hats are worn to hide their brains from the common pieces of dirt. They can figure it out.
Yes that's an excellent way to view something important. The differences in the people were witnessing can be viewed as different systems. We can exploit it at a base level to give me sexo. Charge.
>Why would you want to reverse engineer a weapon that was destroyed?
if I remember right in the early days of WWII in a small engagement in Belgium or Netherlands, I forget, Germans took relatively massive, I think I remember 200 figure, casualties trying to take a single 20mm gun position, they were impressed by the firepower
germans got their hands on the american-made bazooka, probably from north africa
they then quickly put out the panzerschrek, which was a bazooka that was bigger and more powerful
they also captured the K-ration in large quantities and were impressed at a ready-to-eat meal that could go on every person, so near the end of the war they developed their own version of it
On the flip side, the reason everyone in the anglosphere calls jerry cans "jerry cans" is because the first ones to fall into English speaking hands were captured from the Wehrmacht
The most egregious case was actually by the soviets and their lend lease
Who were willing to copy designs 1:1 if it meant even a slighy advantage on the battlefield >start producing 6x6 studebaker clones >and 4x4 jeep clones >recieve bazookas during the war, claim they were worse than the PTRD, conveniently end up with handheld rocket weapons right aftet the war >copy a B-29 with slight alterations to account for imperial units
When the Americans in turn captured panzerschreks, they incorporated some of it's improvements into the later bazookas, improving on those improvements along the way.
Maybe the only example of collaborative development between enemies, albeit unintentionala+
It is exceptionally difficult.
You can have Pratt & Whitney F135 engine right in front of you, to do with it as you please yet you will not replicate it before all days of your life are spent.
>You could help the entire state of China with their struggles to make a jet engine
I wonder how they react when my first suggestion is change of leadership
Yeah the parts have to operate under extreme forces at temperatures hundreds of degrees above their melting point. You can’t just cargo cult turbomachinery .
It depends a lot on the type of weapon and the capabilities of the country attempting the procedure.
A javelin (throwing spear) is going to be much easier to reverse engineer than a javelin (ATGM), but the latter will be completely impossible for a society that has not developed miniaturised electronics of the required quality or the requisite materials science
Depends on what you are reverse engineering and for what purpose. Sometimes you can gain insights into how something is manufactured that your industry isn't already doing. This was more likely in the past or for less developed nations. Chances are, there isn't much that western designers haven't already thought of and have a design study on. If you are just trying to reverse engineer insofar as to determine their capabilities then that isn't too difficult if you have your hands on working hardware. This is why captured Russian tanks were sent to the US. A T-90 isn't going to teach us anything besides what the Russians are capable of making. If your goal is to copy the thing and jump start your own RnD then good luck. The Chinese have been buying Russian military and western commercial jet engines for decades and still hasn't caught up to them. You can run all the analysis on alloys you wont, a spectrometer wont tell you how it was made.
>How difficult is it to perform this task on exported, stolen, or even destroyed weapons?
this is basically the plot point of image related novel series about a war between small island nation against about 80% of the rest of the planet which starts with pike and shot, sail ships and ends up with oil fueled post-dreadnought battleships with breech loading large caliber guns
Reverse engineering historically >All I have to do is to copy the general dimensions of this object and understand the mechanisms contained within or the principle of action in order to create my own equally capable clone. Even a crude clone will still perform acceptably since a slightly weaker sword, a softer arrowhead, or a slower bullet will still inflict considerable injury on the opposing soldiers.
Reverse engineering nowadays >I need expertise in a vast array of industries, sophisticated engineering specialties and arcane scientific knowhow, and even that won't help much if such industries dont exist in my country or in a friendly country. And unlike the past, the complexity of modern technology means that successfully building even a crude clone of a high-tech weapon is itself still a tremendous industrial effort.
While I'm making fun of the past, it should be said that even back then:
1) a slight difference in weapon performance often had a substantial impact on the outcome of a battle
2) Technological differences weren't that easy to overcome. Metallurgy and chemistry weren't things that the enemy could readily figure out. For example, It took a few centuries before the idea of a gun left china and made its way to the middle east and europe.
In modern times, you can't afford be "slightly" worse against a peer opponent in a symmetrical engagement because technology all but guarantees victory for the side with the better performing tech, unless they're absolutely incompetent chimps in their tactics.
The difficulty of reverse engineering weapons and weapon systems depends on several factors:
Weapon Complexity: Simpler weapons with readily available components are easier to reverse engineer. Complex systems with unique materials or custom manufacturing processes are much harder.
Level of Access: A complete, functioning weapon offers the most information. Destroyed fragments or partial systems make it significantly harder.
Technical Expertise: Highly skilled engineers with access to advanced tools (metallurgy labs, X-ray machines) have a significant advantage.
Here's a breakdown of the difficulty for different scenarios:
Exported Weapons: Many countries restrict exports to limit proliferation. Exported versions may have deliberately degraded components or functionalities, making them harder to replicate entirely.
Stolen Weapons: These might be more complete, but without access to the original blueprints or manufacturing processes, recreating them perfectly can be challenging.
Destroyed Weapons: Recovering enough information for a full rebuild from fragments is very difficult. It might be easier to glean some principles for cruder versions.
Overall, even with stolen or complete weapons, reverse engineering is a complex and time-consuming process.
Here are some additional points to consider:
Safety Concerns: Weapons, especially firearms, can be dangerous to disassemble and analyze.
Legality: Depending on the weapon and location, possessing or attempting to reverse engineer them might be illegal.
In conclusion, while not impossible, reverse engineering weapons is a significant undertaking best left to well-funded and skilled actors.
>Safety Concerns: Weapons, especially firearms, can be dangerous to disassemble and analyze.
I suppose this is true for chatgpt because it has no hands and is not actually sentient.
Depends on the complexity of the weapon alongside your ability to produce similar technology. Example: >F-35 in Iran
I guess they can learn some vulnerability of the design(if possible) >F-35 in China
They can assimilate many different technologies used in F-35 and use them in their own fighters.
At minimum, you have to understand how the parts are assembled for the item to work.
This includes either copying or acquiring software and electronics but also every single mecanical parts.
Ideally, you will understand also how and why it works the way it does.
But at worst, you don't understand the black sorcery and just make an imitation that somehow do just good enough.
Even for this, if you cannot buy the spare parts, you'll have to design a way to make them or to find something close enough.
A complete reverse engineering is a short cut but it is not easy or fast.
its largely a meme third worldists cling to
reverse engineering enemy equipment is not always feasible or preferable to fielding your own equipment, not to mention that designing and producing your own is not as easy as flipping a switch, especially if they have tech or resources you lack
I feel like it could be done with exported weapons. The components are easy to study and understand. The only hard part would be to set up the manufacturing process and making the machines to perform those components.
What about first world countries reversing engineering stuff?
finding any instance of first world nations willingly adopting enemy equipment in a Cold War or post CW era is exceptionally rare.
You already have something that is
>in your logistical system, EG supply systems and production lines set up
>something you are doctrinally comfortable with
>trained with
why would you adopt something that is likely technologically inferior and require re-tooling/re-training around a new system the enemy knows inside and out?
I guess that makes sense for first world countries. But third world countries could benefit a lot from reverse engineering exported weapons. They might greet embargo from that particular country but Idon’t think it’s going to happen.
sure, it would benefit them a lot. Can they do it, for the most part? no, because they don't have the money, physical resources etc as the first world nations do. Case in point, this abomination:
Another case in point:
Iran has never developed an F-14 or F-4 clone despite having access to the airframes for almost 50 years, leaving them with a laughably obsolete airforce ever since the Shah was overthrown
could be cost-benefit decision since they went heavy into ballistic rockets
bottleneck in this case is manufacturing
just because you know how to make something doesnt mean you can
most of the time, reverse engineering does not lead to straight copies of enemy weapons but modifications of existing designs
soviets reverse-engineered israeli M111 and discovered it was a monobloc penetrator that was more advanced than their own composite penetrators
response was to weld additional armor to their tanks as a stop gap and develop a multi-layer armor array with a focus on KE protection in the long term
They can still learn something just by studying and the trying to recreate the weapon. I think it would be a great start to build their own industry complex but factors such as money and human labor would be questionable and depend on the nation
It's worth considering that in most cases if you have the funding and expertise to reverse engineer something then you probably have the funding and expertise to design it yourself as well
the problem being getting hit with multiple copyright/intellectual property theft lawsuits by companies that are close to their governments
v.s. the minimal savings you get from making your own once you've sunk all the cot in reverse engineering and tooling up for production
It is cheaper and easier to simply buy or to make licensed copies under a production license.
Saves you any potential legal hassle, the cost of the reverse engineering and the tooling (well you can just buy it and don't have to figure it out and then make it)
you can even include IP transfer as part of the deal
Even if it were, it relies on parts that cannot be produced locally.
Okay moron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-13_(missile)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-8_(missile)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic-Ford_JB-2
https://metalgear.fandom.com/wiki/Peace_Walker_(Basilisk)
Tech was much simpler 80 years ago, and even then the copies were still of inferior quality. Reverse engineering gears, flaps, and gyroscopes is a bit easier than figuring out the special sauce metallurgy and computer systems used in todays aircraft.
>sauce metallurgy and computer systems
HATO black magik!
The Tu-4 wasn't 100% RE, the engines were developed by Shvetsov. The electronics wasn't copied. They simply retooled a factory to produce similar airframes with local materials, the result was suboptimal in some aspects.
The Sidewinder was more a combination of very clever electro-mechanic systems than any really sophisticated per se.
Republic-Ford_JB-2 The Argus engine couldn't be simpler, the most complex part was similar to an array of 2-stroke engine reed valves. Other systems were almost the same as torpedo's pneumatic gyrocompass. Actually the US was just re-developing an old invention cancelled after WWI (Sperry-Kettering autopilot).
often the same concept occurs to multiple people once something becomes possible, like nuclear weapons, Germans, Brits, Americans, Japanese all had their own independently emergent nuclear weapons programs during the war
That’s process sounds more like development than reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is when you take something apart, study and understand how it works, and then evaluate the materials and resources you have and try to recreate it.
>That’s process sounds more like development
which is what you do after studying the other sides weapons
We have some muzzies who have been trained in advanced technology. Their hats are worn to hide their brains from the common pieces of dirt. They can figure it out.
Are those supposed to be the researchers or something?
I mean just reverse engineering weapons in general. Just imagine reverse engineering a destroyed UFO or alien technology for example.
Yes that's an excellent way to view something important. The differences in the people were witnessing can be viewed as different systems. We can exploit it at a base level to give me sexo. Charge.
Why would you want to reverse engineer a weapon that was destroyed? I like weapons that don't get destroyed.
>Why would you want to reverse engineer a weapon that was destroyed?
if I remember right in the early days of WWII in a small engagement in Belgium or Netherlands, I forget, Germans took relatively massive, I think I remember 200 figure, casualties trying to take a single 20mm gun position, they were impressed by the firepower
germans got their hands on the american-made bazooka, probably from north africa
they then quickly put out the panzerschrek, which was a bazooka that was bigger and more powerful
they also captured the K-ration in large quantities and were impressed at a ready-to-eat meal that could go on every person, so near the end of the war they developed their own version of it
On the flip side, the reason everyone in the anglosphere calls jerry cans "jerry cans" is because the first ones to fall into English speaking hands were captured from the Wehrmacht
The most egregious case was actually by the soviets and their lend lease
Who were willing to copy designs 1:1 if it meant even a slighy advantage on the battlefield
>start producing 6x6 studebaker clones
>and 4x4 jeep clones
>recieve bazookas during the war, claim they were worse than the PTRD, conveniently end up with handheld rocket weapons right aftet the war
>copy a B-29 with slight alterations to account for imperial units
When the Americans in turn captured panzerschreks, they incorporated some of it's improvements into the later bazookas, improving on those improvements along the way.
Maybe the only example of collaborative development between enemies, albeit unintentionala+
It is exceptionally difficult.
You can have Pratt & Whitney F135 engine right in front of you, to do with it as you please yet you will not replicate it before all days of your life are spent.
>you will not replicate it before all days of your life are spent.
why, does it have some exotic material sourced off-world?
You could help the entire state of China with their struggles to make a jet engine for past 30 years since everything is soo simple to you.
>You could help the entire state of China with their struggles to make a jet engine
I wonder how they react when my first suggestion is change of leadership
believe it or not, straight to jail
Yes, materials science is a big limiting factor in jet engine development.
Yeah the parts have to operate under extreme forces at temperatures hundreds of degrees above their melting point. You can’t just cargo cult turbomachinery .
not sourced off world or even particularly exotic, just very difficult to produce
compare making wootz steel to casting iron as an example to think of
Single crystal turbine blades are space alien technology to thirdies
Even fricking Saffran, one of the largest jet engine manufacturers on the planet, is struggling with 2000K materials.
It depends a lot on the type of weapon and the capabilities of the country attempting the procedure.
A javelin (throwing spear) is going to be much easier to reverse engineer than a javelin (ATGM), but the latter will be completely impossible for a society that has not developed miniaturised electronics of the required quality or the requisite materials science
Depends on what you are reverse engineering and for what purpose. Sometimes you can gain insights into how something is manufactured that your industry isn't already doing. This was more likely in the past or for less developed nations. Chances are, there isn't much that western designers haven't already thought of and have a design study on. If you are just trying to reverse engineer insofar as to determine their capabilities then that isn't too difficult if you have your hands on working hardware. This is why captured Russian tanks were sent to the US. A T-90 isn't going to teach us anything besides what the Russians are capable of making. If your goal is to copy the thing and jump start your own RnD then good luck. The Chinese have been buying Russian military and western commercial jet engines for decades and still hasn't caught up to them. You can run all the analysis on alloys you wont, a spectrometer wont tell you how it was made.
>How difficult is it to perform this task on exported, stolen, or even destroyed weapons?
this is basically the plot point of image related novel series about a war between small island nation against about 80% of the rest of the planet which starts with pike and shot, sail ships and ends up with oil fueled post-dreadnought battleships with breech loading large caliber guns
Depends on what resources and expertise are at your disposal. Some systems can't be replicated
Reverse engineering historically
>All I have to do is to copy the general dimensions of this object and understand the mechanisms contained within or the principle of action in order to create my own equally capable clone. Even a crude clone will still perform acceptably since a slightly weaker sword, a softer arrowhead, or a slower bullet will still inflict considerable injury on the opposing soldiers.
Reverse engineering nowadays
>I need expertise in a vast array of industries, sophisticated engineering specialties and arcane scientific knowhow, and even that won't help much if such industries dont exist in my country or in a friendly country. And unlike the past, the complexity of modern technology means that successfully building even a crude clone of a high-tech weapon is itself still a tremendous industrial effort.
While I'm making fun of the past, it should be said that even back then:
1) a slight difference in weapon performance often had a substantial impact on the outcome of a battle
2) Technological differences weren't that easy to overcome. Metallurgy and chemistry weren't things that the enemy could readily figure out. For example, It took a few centuries before the idea of a gun left china and made its way to the middle east and europe.
In modern times, you can't afford be "slightly" worse against a peer opponent in a symmetrical engagement because technology all but guarantees victory for the side with the better performing tech, unless they're absolutely incompetent chimps in their tactics.
considering the armor of the first crusaders was nearly impossible to overcome fo r the muslims in a shield wall battle at the time
>How difficult is it to perform this task on exported, stolen, or even destroyed weapons?
go buy a Mercedes or a Caterpillar engine and copy it. See?
The difficulty of reverse engineering weapons and weapon systems depends on several factors:
Weapon Complexity: Simpler weapons with readily available components are easier to reverse engineer. Complex systems with unique materials or custom manufacturing processes are much harder.
Level of Access: A complete, functioning weapon offers the most information. Destroyed fragments or partial systems make it significantly harder.
Technical Expertise: Highly skilled engineers with access to advanced tools (metallurgy labs, X-ray machines) have a significant advantage.
Here's a breakdown of the difficulty for different scenarios:
Exported Weapons: Many countries restrict exports to limit proliferation. Exported versions may have deliberately degraded components or functionalities, making them harder to replicate entirely.
Stolen Weapons: These might be more complete, but without access to the original blueprints or manufacturing processes, recreating them perfectly can be challenging.
Destroyed Weapons: Recovering enough information for a full rebuild from fragments is very difficult. It might be easier to glean some principles for cruder versions.
Overall, even with stolen or complete weapons, reverse engineering is a complex and time-consuming process.
Here are some additional points to consider:
Safety Concerns: Weapons, especially firearms, can be dangerous to disassemble and analyze.
Legality: Depending on the weapon and location, possessing or attempting to reverse engineer them might be illegal.
In conclusion, while not impossible, reverse engineering weapons is a significant undertaking best left to well-funded and skilled actors.
>Safety Concerns: Weapons, especially firearms, can be dangerous to disassemble and analyze.
is this AI spam?
>Safety Concerns: Weapons, especially firearms, can be dangerous to disassemble and analyze.
I suppose this is true for chatgpt because it has no hands and is not actually sentient.
Depends on the complexity of the weapon alongside your ability to produce similar technology. Example:
>F-35 in Iran
I guess they can learn some vulnerability of the design(if possible)
>F-35 in China
They can assimilate many different technologies used in F-35 and use them in their own fighters.
At minimum, you have to understand how the parts are assembled for the item to work.
This includes either copying or acquiring software and electronics but also every single mecanical parts.
Ideally, you will understand also how and why it works the way it does.
But at worst, you don't understand the black sorcery and just make an imitation that somehow do just good enough.
Even for this, if you cannot buy the spare parts, you'll have to design a way to make them or to find something close enough.
A complete reverse engineering is a short cut but it is not easy or fast.