/k/ - Weapons

Money for materials, fabrication, testing and the expertise to put them all together.

High altitude amateur rocketry can reach past 10 thousand dollars per launch easy, and that's without the equipment to track, maneuver and damage an evasive target. I'm serious, have a look at amateur rocketry and the costs and problems involved. Hell even well funded governments and corporations seem to constantly fuck up missiles. The patriot fucking sucks, and the russian missiles are propaganda devices that hit more civilian passenger jets than anything else. AA is hard.

Compared to rockets, making a much slower drone aircraft/cruise "missile" is much much easier and cheaper, because the materials don't need to be high performance and perfect, you can use regular fuels instead of rocket fuel, and it's easier to rapidly test/recover/adjust/test. Aircraft are easier targets when sitting on the ground after all.

Even cheaper still would be attaching an "airsoft gun" to a quad/hex copter or stationary turret and having it go after a designated target.

It's easy to "ideas guy" this sort of stuff, but it takes a lot of time to work through all the problems involved, especially when you need a system to adapt to a multitude of situations. Fortunately, in the cases of turrets, a lot of people have already done the work for you and all you need to do is learn how to edit and improve.

>>672067

As fantastic as that is what reason did he have for not just declaring the project to be a 'recreational model aircraft' or whatever the legal designation for an RC plane is in NotAustralia and then wearing the most shiteating grin his face could support when the police had to return everything, apologise, and pray it didn't lead to a lawsuit? Surely it only becomes a 'cruise missile' when you put a warhead in it or fly it into something?

>>672086

IIRC he wanted to sell the engines commercially for modeling (possibly for actual drones) as he had while it was German inspired his was refined by 50+ years of knowledge of jet propulsion and had all the nice bits of modern fuel flow controls and whatnot that made it both considerably more fuel efficient and considerably faster.

It was garage made but the guy really knew his shit.

>>672098

Using a turbojet, pulsejet? Can you elaborate on the engine type?

>>672108

Bruce Simpson, and he used a pulsejet.

http://archive.is/KpZP6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Simpson_(blogger)

>>672086

>Surely it only becomes a 'cruise missile' when you put a warhead in it or fly it into something?

I wish I had your optimism. It becomes a cruise missile whenever the government wants it to be. Laws exist to be a post-hoc justification for pushing your shit in, so that the powers that be can keep their thin veneer of legitimacy - they can skip that step whenever they want (although doing it too often is bad for business).

>>672067

Jesus…

>>672098

That's just fucking beautiful.

>>672161

Except that there's at least one replica Doodlebug in New Zealand being used for airshows and historical reenactments. Maybe none of them are evil and disgusting 'freedom extremists', but it does seem to suggest that it's not something that will necessarily get you partyvanned instantly.

>>672247

I can't wait for Christchurch II: Buzzbomb Boogaloo!

>>672067

You need arms manufacturing loicense to make cruise missiles, not just the rocket manufacturing loicense. He thought he could cheat the system by not installing a warhead which he thought would make it legal by a technicality, but that kike crap didn't fly with kivis. Making guns without a firing pin is still gun manufacturing even if it couldn't be used as a gun out of the box without modification.

>>672273

>Manufacturing something vaguely gun shaped that is not a gun (as it is unable to fulfil the function of a gun) is making a gun.

Even to a Brit that sounds retarded.

>>672277

>manufacturing something that's a cunt hair away from being a gun is not manufacturing a gun

>>672279

Look at Burgeristan and their 80% lowers.

>>672280

In burgerstan, "judicial" is for "jude", they think it's okay to defile the spirit of the law in any fashion as long as it conforms to the letter of the law. They also have a tendency to create laws ad-hoc to patch letter of the law loopholes, which is a perpetual game of whack-a-mole because the spirit of the law is not given an ounce of respect. They're also notorious for having laws for sale, if you have deep enough pockets you can legally buy any legislation. Over time these factors created all sorts of fucked up arbitrary and even contradictory laws. Don't hold them as a benchmark for anything other than being morally bankrupt.

>>672312

Also, consider that a rocket without warhead is like a gun without bullets. It's designed to accept a destructive unit and isn't doing much by itself, however it's a weapon nonetheless.

>>672277

He literally called it a cruise missile and bragged to the media about how easy it would be to weaponize his design. That's the real reason why he got arrested, he was a moron who went out of his way to provoke the government and expected no consequences.

>>672333

>He literally called it a cruise missile and bragged to the media about how easy it would be to weaponize his design

OK, yeah, so he decided to lead the retard parade on that one. Still, by that logic pretty much every remote controlled model aircraft is a cruise missile. You may not be able to fit a particularly large warhead onto the average quadrotor/hobbyist project, but that won't be much comfort to the guy standing right next to it when it detonates.

>>672334

Everything can be used as a weapon, but it doesn't makes everything a weapon. The characteristic that differentiates a weapon from other things is its intended function - to kill people - for which it's optimized. A kitchen knife is designed to cut common food items, a bayonet is designed to stab people to death through their ribcage. It's not hard to grasp.

>>672367

>Kitchen knife

>Bayonet

You are arguing with a Brit - he doesn't even know what those two things are, let alone have the right to own them. Also:

>'Designed' to be used

>'Intended' to kill people

Those definitions are literally begging for loopholes, and if anyone abuses them at all there will automatically be laws put into place that will do away with those principles

<Save a loif, bin that knoif

>>672367

>The characteristic that differentiates a weapon from other things is its intended function - to kill people - for which it's optimized

My point exactly, a replica rifle without a firing pin is not a weapon by that definition. As it is not able to kill people except perhaps as a bludgeon depending on the design/construction quality. It's intended function is to sit on a wall as decoration, and no lawyer would be able to prove otherwise - which is why they'd just stick with the 'muh feeeeeer, muh risk!!' line for something like that.

>>672434

<kill people

that's not very inclusive. It should be called

>supplying security by credible means of deterrence

>enhanced interrogation style

>>672376

>>672434

How would you define a word "number" without using words that involve this very word or its synonyms? Semantics like this is an academic problem and I don't have the qualifications to produce correct terminology, so pardon me for using layman language. You know what I meant by all of that. Spirit of the law and all.

>>672333

>>672334

>>672367

>by that logic pretty much every remote controlled model aircraft is a cruise missile.

That was his point.

The guy was a virtue signaling boomer, afraid evil terrorist would do the same thing.

Also he was kind of right as homemade UAV, including some with payload are definitely a thing in Syria.

He was never a Luty kind of guy, wanting to prove that the government are retards, he wanted the government to regulate more and have them give him money out of his new invention… then he changed his tune when the government fucked his ass raw.

>>672462

I think we can do better than that

>A personal safety enhancement device that functions through the controlled acceleration of a small object.

>>672468

>How would you define a word "number" without using words that involve this very word or its synonyms?

The word or symbol used to define a certain quantity (either physical or theoretical) in a standardised fashion.

>Semantics like this is an academic problem

Semantics like this can and does get people locked up for life or executed. The entirety of every legal system possible is semantics. Your rights and freedoms as a human being are defined in semantic terms. Saying 'that's just semantics' is not an argument.

>>672754

Fucking hell. I retract my earlier 'that's beautiful' comment.

>>672058

The Iron Dome is pure Miracle Weapon propaganda, just like the Paytriot.

https://thebulletin.org/2014/07/the-evidence-that-shows-iron-dome-is-not-working/

The Aegis system is the real competitor to the S-400.

Is no one else pissed off with the gay jew globalist glow in the dark AXIOM that OP started with?

Patriot has been developed in 70s, it's being improved coutless times and is still sold for millions.

>The only relevant competition is the S-400 and Iron dome, which was developed in less than 4 years (but using same rockets as Patriot (it's all about sensors, data processing, and automated decisions))

He just programmed all of you.

>>678520

I don't think anyone here has any doubt that Patriot are complete garbage (case in point the recent bombing of EAU and Saudi airports by the Houthis flying trashcans, that are defended by them. Including one last gen entirely US owned and operated.)

It's just more interesting to speak about DIY cruise missiles.

>>678543

I wonder if some Ju-87 replicas would be enough to bypass modern NATO air defences by virtue of not being in C-RAM target ID databases.

Could they serve as decent ECM planes if you put some spark gap transmitters on them?

>>672058

Would a missile platform on an aerostat be of any use? I'd assume you'd get more range from not having to go up to reach the target.

>>678586

>C-RAM target ID databases.

CWIS have only two modes.

"On" and "Off".

Hence the term "closed in".

>>678655

B-b-but muh 6 billion Ameripeso lockheeb advanced neural network target pre-recognition software for 0.025% increase in shot accuracy!

>CWIS have only two modes.

>"On" and "Off".

Then why does the german MANTIS have a crew of 4?

Do you really need that many people for authorizing the fire control computer to kill a target?

>>678669

Because it's not closed-in.

Phalanx style (well it's the only one) CIWS is utterly retarded and spend all it's time on "off" unless the weapon officer manning it is 100% sure it needs to be on. Because as with all automated systems, especially one that comes with a computer that can't run Candy Crush, it's shooting everything it sees, from cities in the background way out of range, to plumes of heat coming from another ship and of course on anything flying close even if it has and IFF beacon on…

Almost all those systems (even the newest version of phalanx) are manned, "looped-in" system (that are integrated with other systems… which also need operators, especially if you deploy them on the ground) and not "closed in".

Except since the burgers christened them the anagram stayed.

>>672058

the kikes and the states will never allow you to get anywhere. Even if you could make money off of it, you'll get shut down.

>>672064

There was some extremely rogue country called USSR, concentrated on manufacturing slavshit. Yet in 1990 more than a half of its AA systems were something like S-75 and similar stuff… Even slavshit monsters couldn't afford mass production and maintenance of the newer slavshit systems, being only capable of R&D, total cost of which did not look like 20 million.

>Indonesia

They've chosen NASAMS 2 which is a sane purchase. Basically the theoretical OP's system would be an incredibly shitty competitor to NASAMS 2, not Patriot/S-400.

>>687691

>>687691

>Yet in 1990 more than a half of its AA systems were something like S-75 and similar stuff

By 1990 the Soviets had ~2000 S-200 launchers and were steadily phasing in S-300s, the S-75s were sitting in mothballs alongside the T-55s and MiG-21s.

>>687691

>nasams

>sane

>taking garbage obsolete air to air missiles and bolting them to a truck

Fucking lol

>>687705

>S-75s were destroyed, with some percentage left sitting in mothballs

Russcuckistan stopped using them in mixed brigades since 1996, and the process en masse began in 1991 due to the extreme corruption - being widely criticized.

>>687709

Despite being weaker they are far from Patriot-tier overprice.

>>687801

So why does Ukraine still use them?

>>687813

Our oldest system still in use is S-125 (two regiments), not 75.

>>687801

NASAMS make sense if there's a domestic AMRAAM factory, or if there's at least a stock of AMRAAM and a maintenance tech trained on one will be easier to retrain for the other.

Protip Canada didn't even purchase AMRAAM because if they're kept on cold airfields and taken up into even colder air at 15km altitude, their engines do not ignite. Dropping the rocket just drops it like a bomb.

It's also why Europe is struggling to develop their own medium range missiles, Russia is looking at them and thinking "wow I just have to wait for winter and I can grab anything north of Carpathians?"

>Russcuckistan

This butthurt is cringe man, come on. If you can't even control and manage your own feelings how can anyone trust your opinion about anything.

>>672064

It's not enough to design and prototype the system, you need to manufacture it. That costs an assload of money to setup, especially since shit for weapon production tends to have special rules when it comes to international trade. If you want to actually turn a profit, you also need to sell it, which can be a problem when every power of note is obsessed with arms sales and WILL take it personally if someone buys from you instead of them. That's not to mention, for anyone to even be interested, you system needs to either be better or cheaper (or both), meaning it's quite possible there have been many different designs and prototypes that weren't up to snuff before you made the one that was, which cost further money. In the end, you have a choice between going through all this shit and pissing off a lot of people, assuming you can actually create something to compete with USA or Russia, and simply buying that shit.

>>678684

Would a fully autonomous CIWS make more sense when mounted on an airship?

>>687862

Poland needs a battalion of 300km range rockets to take out airfields and S-400 in event of war with Russia. America suggested HIMARS at $13.3 million per launch unit while Yugoimport suggested Sumadija at $1.2 million per launch unit plus sweet deals like manufacturing rights. Guess who won?

>>687891

It was from the TV, I can't fucking find it, I just spent twenty fucking minutes… fuck google.

>>678355

Did nigga knows his shit.