/k/ - Weapons

>>611245

Why not?

>>611247

Missiles.

>>611248

Shot at the aircraft? Or as a replacement delivery system for the payload?

>>611243

>space

>>611252

>A canuck here estimated that you could make a V2-like GPS guided missile for less than $1000.

That cannuck is a fucking idiot that doesn't understand that GPS has a speed and altitude limit.

>Grand Slam

This is the best name for a piece of ordnance I've seen yet.

>Messed up the ionosphere

So the brits made radio a bit shittier?

>>611252

V1, not V2.

>>611301

Firstly, we're discussing actual militaries here. NATO militaries obviously aren't going to give a shit about ITAR.

Secondly, even if you insist on using off-the-shelf receivers all you'd have to do is buy your GPS chips from Europe or Japan.

Third, even if you were forced to use an American-made civilian GPS unit for some insane reason it wouldn't matter because most ITAR-compliant chips only fail when traveling at 1000 knots and 60,000 feet, meaning that literally anything that's not a ballistic missile (why the hell would you use COTS hardware in a million-dollar SRBM) would be largely or entirely unaffected.

Fourth, if you need to make a satellite-guided ballistic missile with an American-made COTS guidance system then all you have to do is use GLONASS instead of GPS. Who cares if it's only accurate to within thirty feet, it's a fucking ballistic missile.

>>611310

>Firstly, we're discussing actual militaries here. NATO militaries obviously aren't going to give a shit about ITAR.

Then the point about building a primitive rocket is useless.

>>611252

It was an NZ-man and it was $5000.

Also note that the guy was harassed by the authorities and had to stop despite having breached no laws when he was in test and it was progressing greatly.

It's technically a V1 but with modern materials and CAD pulse engine (which GREATLY enhance it's efficiency).

http://aardvark.co.nz/pjet/xjet.shtml

The guy at first was doing it as a R&D project for disposable drones and was saying you could do guided cruise missiles for a stupid low price (and basically that the company making them are defrauding the governments… which… you know) and decided to prove it on a dare.

>>611331

Actually it was me and his cost can be brought down. He loaded it with features it didnt really need if all you want is to hit a city block sized target 500km away.

>>611347

>hit a city block sized target 500km away.

What sort of weight of explosives do you need to stick on this weapon if it's limited to a 'somewhere in that block' level of accuracy?

>>611463

Explosives are cheap, engines are expensive. So you want to pack as much explosives per engine as possible, I'd go as far as 2200kg (5000lb), but even a tiny bomb of 220kg (500lb) would be effective in block-level accuracy. You could easily hit factories, government buildings, military barracks, even bridges if you use a few bombs per target.

During WWII V-1 bombs had "minute of city" accuracy, with simple gyroscope accuracy. They were fairly effective at their role, which was keeping brits in their basements cowering and not in their factories working. Modern laser gyros can easily improve on that accuracy by an order of magnitude. You just need a GPS on the launcher itself to more accurately measure its position.

>>611466

Could you hook up a GPS enabled smart-phone to the missile to get it a little closer to 'within a few yards of target'?

>>611470

Sure but why not just get a gps chip? They cost pennies. You couls even geolocate with cell towers.

>>611608

Went with a smart phone rather than the specific chip because the idea of a garage-built cruise missile is /k/ in distilled form, and the full phone would presumably be easier to get hold of (bought in cash from a high street store of course). Is there any reason beyond Lockheeb that modern armed forces aren't using cheap AF 2 ton cruise missiles en masse in every situation that would warrant an air-strike?

>>611608

>They cost pennies

I would like to see a GPS receiver module that costs pennies. The ones I can find cost dollars at least.

>>611637

Right and dollars are comprised of what? Pennies.

>>611637

>that explosion was huge

>huge?! it was large at best

Pedant.

>>611632

P much just mil industrial fuckery. From time to time supply clerks will use OTS parts that cost 10x less that contractor supplied parts, and will get NJPd for it.

>>611632

Part of it is over concerns that pure GPS guidance would relatively easy to jam, but that's not really a show-stopper (we don't need much accuracy so we can get away with a crude INS for terminal guidance, maybe even throw in a few home-on-jam seekers).

The real reason why we don't use things like this is because modern military procurement is run by bureaucrats and politicians who approve weapons mostly based on how cool and high-tech they appear (and also maybe because Raytheon bribed them just a bit). The politicians in particular won't go anywhere near anything that could be perceived as "cheap" or "expendable" because that's no good for propaganda.

If we ignore R&D costs, would equipping a modern V1 with a combined pulse and ramjet make it significantly more expensive? And would the increased speed worth it?

>>611466

>Modern laser gyros can easily improve on that accuracy by an order of magnitude.

Can you use them in artillery shells? Because maybe you could bring down the price enough to equip every shell both with a laser seeker and these laser gyroscopes. Obviously the former is for precision work against designated targers, and the later is for "general bombardment".

>>611872

It's called a "krasnopol" and is in service.

To carry it even further: would it be theoretically possible to replace howizters with V1-like rocket bombs of varying sizes? 155mm and 152mm howitzers now have a maximum range of ~70-100km with guided shells. The projectile has a starting velocity less than 900m/s and weights less than 50kg. Now, the original V1 weighted 2,15t, carried 850kg of explosives, had a range of 250km and a cruising speed of less than 180m/s. Could you bring up the speed if you significantly reduced the weight, or would it be a fruitless effort?

>>611888

I thought that was originally laser-designated only and they added GLONASS guidance recently.

>>611243

ITT: We disregard physics and make shit up.

>>613297

>Could you bring up the speed if you significantly reduced the weight, or would it be a fruitless effort?

MOAR, BIGGER, ENGINES!

>>613297

It has all three systems, but it had inertial first. The very first test of Krasnopol had no laser or GLONASS, it was just inertial guidance. Laser was added to the production shell because inertial guidance can't offer first-hit-kill.