Slashdot Mirror
Build Your Own Cruise Missile
WegianWarrior writes "Bruce Simpson, the man behind one of the more interesting site about pulsejets on the web, has launched a project to build a US$5000
DIY cruisemissile - just to prove that it can be done, since some said his earlier
article about it was off the peg. Bruce has also designed and placed on his site a non-weld
pulsejet you can build with simple tools, a 2D airflow modeling rig and a new valve/injector design for conventional pulsejets (according to the first page on his
site, this new design is placed in the public domain)." We linked to his pulsejet pages about two years ago.
Silkworm doesn't look too close to MiG-17
However, IIRC, USSR did have a cruise missile developed based on MiG-17 - AS-1 "Kennel".
BTW, a minor nitpick - correct spelling is MiG (which is shorthand for Mikhoyan i Gureevitch, two of the designers wgo started the bureau).
-DVK
"The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
That would be "Gurevitch", not "Gureevitch", of course. Need to learn to type better :)
Oh, and while i'm at it, the URL for the MiG "ÍÉËÏÑÎ É ÇÕÒÅ×É" Bureau is:
http://www.migavia.ru
-DVK
"The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
What? That's mostly where the economic benefit from conflict comes from. Blow up the old shit, buy new, more high tech, more expensive new shit.
Never confuse volume with power.
However, I don't think it's nearly as easy as he paints it out on his website. He may have a working rocket design, but that's not the hard part. The hard part is getting the guidance system to work with your rocket. That doesn't come "off the shelf", and he's going to have to do a lot of software hacking in order to get it all to work together. Not only does this guy have to be a quasi-expert in rocket design, he's going to have to know a lot about software design.
He's trying to do something that most nations in the world can't even do. It takes entire nations years to come up with even a short-range cruise missile. This guy thinks he can do it in under $5000, by himself? Building a rocket-propelled go-kart is one thing. Making a cruise missile with an accuracy of +/- 100 yards is a whole different level.
And this doesn't even take into account FAA regulations he's going to have to comply with if he plans on lobbing one of those missiles on a 100 mile flight path.
Not that I wouldn't put it past those wankers Bush and Ashcroft to try.
But how do you know that the Internet will not be born without military research? A lot of the technologies powering the Internet were not started from military research, such as, TCP/IP, HTML, Web browser, etc. The Internet could have born from civilian research projects.
There is a reason for over building defense.
At any given time 1/3 of your force in down for some reason.
Aircraft Carriers are at 1/8 of the force is down at any given time.
Fighters are around 1/4-1/3.
Bombers and non-nuclear ships are at 1/3.
If you need 10,000 Sidewinder missiles, you need to buy around 14,000 so you have 10,000 that work.
When dealing with nukes, it's different.
There are tactical, reserve, stockpile, strategic stockpile and strategic weapons.
There are formulas of what needs to be done, how many weapons it takes to eliminate a target and what weapons are where.
For instance. The SLBMs on the Trident subs are for blowing the hell out of silo complexes and railroad networks that might have a rail ICBM system. The Minuteman missiles are for C3 (command/control/communication) and the manned bombers are for recall up to the point of a drop. If you are going to nuke the DPRK you send the manned bombers so you can recall if there is a breakthrough at the last minute.
Now you have all these systems, you have to build extras because you have to assume systems will be down and that in a war, systems will be lost to attrition.
And targets do require more than one nuke. For instance, I recall that your average Minuteman II/III silo during the Cold War had 5 MIRVs targeted on it. That was because they needed to get three on the silo and thier CEP was so high that they needed to chuck 5 over to get 3 close enough to kill the silo.
The United States does not have the ability to kill everyone 50 times over. NBC weapons are bad, but not that effective.
Sounds like you're describing Eclipse Aviation.
irb(main):001:0>
I used my Garmin handheld unit on a TWA flight a few months back, and it gave me seemingly accurate information. We were cruising at over 600mph, I forget the altitude, and everything on the GPS unit looked perfect. Before we landed at Newark airport, the GPS unit said that we were over Paramus NJ and I managed to take a picture of a mall I was familiar with. My friends were impressed. So you might have outdated info...
The United States Navy sponsored a test project with a ~$500,000 budget in late 1998 to see if an independent team could build a reliable cruise missile weapon using off the shelf technology. I suppose that since the project failed they quietly cancelled it or declared it a success (since the independent team failed to develop a useful weapon) and ended it. Things may be different now but $5,000 probably won't be enough to build an effective military grade cruise missile, especially when one considers the advanced counter-measures employed by the United States and other Navies. I doubt that a $5,000 homemade cruise missile would defeat the Aegis system employed by the United States Navy. I was able to find only this small snippet of information on the web regarding the whole affair:
missile defense
"14 Apr 98 The Kraken cruise missile built by the BMDO Countermeasures Hands-On Project crashed on take off from Point Mugu, California. The Kraken was built to test the ability of a rest-of-world country to develop this type of weapon."
According to NTSB records, with search criteria from dates 1/1/02 through 1/1/03 there were 72 helicopter accidents (report status as final), with only two of those accidents including fatalities (three fatalities total). I dunno about you, but that seems like a pretty decent record. It's not really practical to compare civil aviation for airplanes to military helicopter operations in wartime conditions.
It'd be far more difficult and expensive to maintain and operate dozens of rocket powered aircraft as camera platforms than it does now for helicopters and planes.
Yeah, unmanned aerial vehicles are probably the future, but not rocket powered cruise missiles. Piston powered and turbine powered aircraft are much more efficient than rockets.
My other SIG is a 9mm.
Actually, MiG officially stands for Moscow Industries Group now, after the formation of MAPO (Moscow Air Power Organization) consortium in the 90s IIRC. Kind of like how Aeroflot changed its name to Russian National Airlines. It's a shame to see those companies switch to such bland names... the rise of marketing has become apparent now after the rise of capitalism in Russia.
I'm told you can buy Chinese Silkworm cruise missiles for $25K or so at your friendly arms bazaar.
Where exactly is my local arms bazaar? I can't seem to find it in the yellow pages. (And do they take credit cards?)
The Silkworm is basically a Mig-17 airframe with the pilot replaced by a guidance system.
Rather it's an anti-ship missile based on the Soviet made Styx, which China acquired from the USSR in the late 50s/early sixties. Since then a lot of variations have been made on it. The Silkworm and its variants seem to be popular with assorted totalitarian hellhole states (Iraq, Iran, North Korea...).