Page 1 of 1
Guy from New Zealand builds cruise missile in his garage.
Posted: 2003-06-03 08:04am
by Col. Crackpot
now if i could only mount a few of those on my Honda.....
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/Sci_Tech/story_49160.asp
Posted: 2003-06-03 08:09am
by Gandalf
That's pretty cool, I might make my own.
Posted: 2003-06-03 08:36am
by Spyder
Mental note: Use exreme caution when flipping people off on the open road from now on.
This isn't actually the first time an NZer's done something like this. There was a case a while back where some guy in his early 20s was trying to build a small nuke from the radioactive componants found in smoke detectors. Not exactly sure as to what level of success he reached, but an A for effort.
Posted: 2003-06-03 08:39am
by Gandalf
Here's a thought, could I ride my missile to school, while shouting "Woo hoo!" at the top of my lungs, and waving a cowboy hat?
Posted: 2003-06-03 08:47am
by Batman
Gandalf wrote:Here's a thought, could I ride my missile to school, while shouting "Woo hoo!" at the top of my lungs, and waving a cowboy hat?
IF you don't mind dying in the crash at the end...
It's a missile, you know. Missiles don't
land.
They either explode outright or crash and
then explode.
Posted: 2003-06-03 08:50am
by Gandalf
Batman wrote:Gandalf wrote:Here's a thought, could I ride my missile to school, while shouting "Woo hoo!" at the top of my lungs, and waving a cowboy hat?
IF you don't mind dying in the crash at the end...
It's a missile, you know. Missiles don't
land.
They either explode outright or crash and
then explode.
Shit, good point.
Perhaps I'll dive off before the missile crashes, at least I'll make a memorable entrance.
Posted: 2003-06-03 08:51am
by Vympel
He said the site had received 250,000 hits in two weeks, including many that appeared to be from United States military and security institutions.
Someone's beat this guy to the punch already:
The Affordable Weapon is a USN program to build a cruise missile that costs ten times less than the norm, made from commercially-based equipment
A picture of the Affordable Weapon
Posted: 2003-06-03 08:58am
by Vympel
Gandalf wrote:Batman wrote:Gandalf wrote:Here's a thought, could I ride my missile to school, while shouting "Woo hoo!" at the top of my lungs, and waving a cowboy hat?
IF you don't mind dying in the crash at the end...
It's a missile, you know. Missiles don't
land.
They either explode outright or crash and
then explode.
Shit, good point.
Perhaps I'll dive off before the missile crashes, at least I'll make a memorable entrance.
Actually, they can be recovered by parachute- so you can use em again and again!
(If they don't break).
Posted: 2003-06-03 09:00am
by Col. Crackpot
Vympel wrote:He said the site had received 250,000 hits in two weeks, including many that appeared to be from United States military and security institutions.
yeah, thats just what the US needs. missiles made from empty cans of Stienlager.
Posted: 2003-06-03 09:10am
by Vympel
Col. Crackpot wrote:
yeah, thats just what the US needs. missiles made from empty cans of Stienlager.
*points to 'Affordable Weapon' link*
As a low-cost weapon against poorly defended, larger targets, I'd say it fits the bill- however, it won't have the range, power and accuracy of the more expensive types- I wouldn't be firing this thing at any system defended by the close-air defense systems out there.
Posted: 2003-06-03 09:27am
by Sea Skimmer
Parachute recovery doesn’t work very well with larger missiles and drones, you simply can’t pack in a sufficiently large chute without big cuts into your payload. The US had some recon drones which had only limited parachutes but which got plucked up of the sky by helicopters with grapplers. Though that didn’t always work, mostly because it was so hard to predict the drones end point because of the shitty 60’s INS.
As for Affordable Weapon its actually ideal for swamping an advanced air defense system. Fired at nigh, you could easily have the defenders firing off many of there expensive ready missiles trying to bring them down. Then five minutes later the Tomahawks and JSOW’s swoop in.
That’s why ground based air defenses are not selling very well, there too venerable to swamping attacks. The same money that buys a heavy SAM battalion will buy a fighter squadron. The fighters work better since they can shoot down or bomb the launch sites. Things like THEL and MALI will go a long way to reverse the venerability of ground defenses this, but only the US has them. Good AAA also helps, but you need good night sighting gear which is quite costly.
Sure, a nation like Malaysia might never stand a chance against the USAF, but Indonesia for example could easily build a swarm of Affordable Weapon style missiles. So could Terrorists or anyone else.
Posted: 2003-06-03 10:02am
by Vympel
Sea Skimmer wrote:
That’s why ground based air defenses are not selling very well, there too venerable to swamping attacks. The same money that buys a heavy SAM battalion will buy a fighter squadron
Well, it really depends on the fighter- but there are other factors to consider
- Training for the pilot- far more complex to operate than an air defense system, which really only has one job- to shoot down planes
- Fuel costs (that's pretty big)
- Spare costs
And how many air defense systems plow into the ground during training?
Bah- stuff these 'wanna play at having a military' micro states anyway- as far as I'm concerned, their only purpose is to provide defense contractors with funds so they can assist the R&D efforts of the home nation (the US, Russia, Israel and France, Germany, and the UK) in building the next generation of weapons- these are the ones who actually have a feasible chance or already do have a military with a wide spectrum of military capabilities.
Posted: 2003-06-03 10:13am
by Sea Skimmer
The operating costs are higher for aircraft, though an anti aircraft unit needs a lot of personal, target drones and fuel as well.
There also far less flexible, able to protect only point positions rather then areas thanks to the limited cross range capability of SAM’s and the earth being round. Course I’m only taking about rocket driven SAM’s. Combine with an airborne sensor MAIL gets rid of the limited cross range capability, its capability is theoretically total, able to strike a target moving in any direction at any point inside its max range, and it can be directed over the horizon easily.
Posted: 2003-06-03 09:19pm
by Wicked Pilot
Cruise missile huh? I bet he's got Charlton Heston creaming in his pants now as we speak.
Posted: 2003-06-03 09:27pm
by Enforcer Talen
bwhah. imagine the drivebys now!
take that, police station!
Posted: 2003-06-03 09:56pm
by Howedar
16 months from contract to deployment for the AWSP? Holy shit!