Well they made a huge gaffe wihen news of the project first broke - they admitted that it broke no laws. That clearly made it impossible for them to shut it down by "conventional" means and left them with little option but to exploit alternative, somewhat less scrupulous, options.
-- you can contact me via
andy asberry wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
And an expensive one, Homeland Security has sucked up funding from some surprising sources. For instance, FEMA has a flood mitigation plan, raise your house in a designated flood zone and so prevent flood loss and they foot up to 3/4 of the bill. In Florida alone that's a BIG fund, as in 9 figures annually, add the other gulf states and the Carolinas and it gets bigger. That's now on hold as all funding has been switched to Homeland security for the next two years... and funds agreed in the privious year also.
The Irony is that to anyone who has been through airport security in other Western countries the US security is lip service only, uninformed, poorly equipped and only effective at being an inconvenience.
Another thought; The current government has said it's going to take on and defeat terrorism by fighting terrorists and those that support them. Since the IRA is still an active terrorist unit and is almost entirely funded by US donations, as it has been for the last 30 years or so, does that mean that support will be stopped? or that Homeland Security is going to be knocking on the doors of every Irish American?
No, you need to read all the material I've published. I did indeed have an agreement with a US company which involved the licensing of one of my jet engine designs and production of key sub-assemblies.
The ironic thing is that, at almost the same instant I was signing that deal, a judge's gavel was tapping out the sound of my bankruptcy.
On my return to NZ, I figured that surely the government would realise that it was stupid to bankrupt someone over a few thousand dollars when doing so would scuttle an export deal worth many, many times that in extra taxes, jobs and overseas investment.
Indeed, one would assume that if their motivation for bankruptcy was purely one of recovering debt and obtaining the best result for taxpayers then they'd have immediately anulled the bankruptcy so that teh deal could go ahead.
That they didn't made it clear to me (and others who have seen all the evidence) that my bankruptcy was nothing to do with debt recovery and everything to do with scuttling an embarrassing but not illegal project.
-- you can contact me via
But the latest "state of the art" cruise missiles have some very sophisticated flight-contro/guidance systems. The development of these systems will have cost an enormous amount of money -- and that has to be amortized over the anticipated number of unit-sales.
On the other hand, I do know that in some areas of the defense industry the margins are absolutely unbelievable.
When I first begain developing my jet engine technology I had given thought to the option of building UAVs and target drones for military use. It was clear that it would be very easy to undercut the existing suppliers by a huge amount.
However, after talking "off the record" with a defense contractor it was made very clear to me that, providing it meets the necessary criteria, the price of your product is not usually the deciding factor.
it's *WHO* you know, not *WHAT* you know or the price of your product that decides whether the military will buy your product.
It was made very clear to me that even if I built the best UAV at the lowest price, I wouldn't sell a single one without the right contacts.
To demonstrate the point, I was shown a "towed target" used by the military. This is a rocket-shaped body that is towed beyind another aircraft on the end of more than thousand yards of wire.
That target sells for about U$5,000 I believe. The cost to make it? Well it was a five or six-foot long plastic/ composite tube (about
6-8" diameter) with four fins at one end and a vacuum formed nosecap containing a passive radar reflector (a simple sheet-aluminum device) at the other. How much could you make one of those for?And why, if you made them and added a "normal" margin so that they cost US$100 instead of US$5000, how many do you think you'd sell?
The answer is *NONE* -- because the existing suppliers have tied up the lines of supply through their strong network of contacts.
I suspect that this is why "mil-spec" is often so much more expensive than "commercial grade" .
It was after this little discussion that I was advised to find a partner who already had the necessary connections to the market and simply focus on providing that partner with key components.
-- you can contact me via
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:49:25 -0500, Artemia Salina brought forth from the murky depths:
9/11 comes to mind. But that's it for a decade. My sharp 9" pencil sticking out of my pocket was deemed safe and I carried it right through the security check at the airport twice (along with another scary 3x5" pad of note paper. Ever get a paper cut? Ouch!) while my 2" Swiss Army Knife Jr. was a hazard I could not bring onboard except in packet luggage in the belly of the plane. Go figure.Terrorizing tots?
I don't fear terrorists. They can't be protected against. I'm more afraid of what my government could choose to do to me (and is now authorized to do) now than I am of terrorists. THAT is a sad state of affairs.
Wasting all that money on impotent security measures--money which should have been used to remove our gigantic deficit--is a criminal act against our citizenry.
---------------------------------------------------- Thesaurus: Ancient reptile with excellent vocabulary
Or a sheik eating missile ___
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
So you apparently see no irony that the NZ government didn't really seem to care until it got pressure from the freedom-loving USA? How long do you think a project like this would've lasted in the US? Amazing as it seems the whole world does not revolve around the 2nd amendment.
Matt
The utterly terrifying thing for me is, how *many* accept it as real... and they all get to vote, too...
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:44:39 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@situ.com () brought forth from the murky depths:
Please pass the Holy Hand Grenade, sir.
---------------------------------------------------- Thesaurus: Ancient reptile with excellent vocabulary
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 01:13:14 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking, Sunworshiper was alleged to have written:
The FBI hacked OnStar. Ninth Circuit court ruled it was illegal, NOT because it violated privacy w/o a warrant or anything, but because it disabled OnStar safety functions while they were listening.
These days most American mobile phones have GPS. In any case, such a restriction wouldn't affect countries outside the USA. GPS is too useful to restrict effectively.
That sounds sensible. A cruise missile project is bound to need flight trials, so it can't all be done in someone's basement.
A bigger threat to western armed forces is if they go to war against a nation that makes its own cruise missiles. These could be very effective, against tank columns, supply columns, airfields or warships.
And it seems to me that there ought to be practical uses for a cheap UAV. You've mentioned search and rescue. Crop spraying. I imagine in places like Australia a farmer might find a use for them overseeing his livestock. They could be used to track radio-tagged animals in game reserves. People in remote places could use them to deliver stuff (you'd want a STOL or VTOL craft for that). How about for mapping? Since they are closer to the ground, they'd have a greater resolution than satelite photographs, and could well be cheaper (satelites cost millions to launch).
That's true.
I'm thinking of something mass produced. Imagine it being done by the motor industry, not a traditional defence company. They could probably get the price down to about what a car costs.
Yes. And from knowledge of working for a defence contractor, they are not very cost efficient either.
I've heard the same thing.
That wouldn't surprise me. I expect if a chea pcruise missile is mass produced, it won't be in the west, it'll be somewhere like China.
Another approach would be to try for non-military applications. Here's another: policing. The UK police use helicopters, equipped with infra-red cameras, to make sure people can't escape in car chases, or chases on foot in the dark. Police helicopters are expensive, costing several million pounds or so. They also require lots of fuel, maintenance and trained pilots. A lot of police forces would probably be interested in something that could do the same thing more cheaply.
Okay, what "easier" way would you suggest if you wanted to strike at a key US target such as The White House, The Pentagon or other such icon of the US administration. Remember that these are clearly considered "high value" by terrorists - they proved that on 9/11. Terrorists being able to strike directly against the seat of power would be a devastating blow to the USA in the propoganda war that surrounds all conflicts.
Many people have suggested light aircraft could be flown into the White House -- but that didn't produce any appreciable results when it was tried in September 1994.
The "lone gunman" with an AK-47 firing from the street approach has also already been tried multiple times -- and that failed too.
The reality is that, especially in the wake of 9/11, the White House is effectively impervious to any conventional terrorist-type suicide attacks.
However, any group wishing to score a huge win in the propoganda war could use one or more low cost cruise missiles to effectively strike at the White House -- even if their payloads were relatively small.
Can you imagine what the public response would be when the public discovered that, despite all the hi-tech and protective measures in place, terrorists could still strike at the President's residence -- or any other strategically important target otherwise protected against martyr type terror attacks?
I guess in the eyes of some people I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't.
If an LCCM is used by terrorists some will claim that they got the idea from me. If no such attacks are forthcoming they'll say I was just creating a storm in a teacup.
That's a risk I'm prepared to take however because I believe the worst thing I can do is nothing -- and allow a repeat of the "security by obscurity" fiasco that produced the horrific result that was 9/11.
-- you can contact me via
How would you suggest stopping them?
Say what?
...
...
...
So, what your saying is that there's no point in waking up the goverment because they can't do anything. Instead, you want to wake up the public so we can all be vigilent against this threat.
...
Did that, before I sent my first post. I didn't agree with your rational, and I still don't.
Yup, but one guy with a rifle - that avoided playing stupid games to get himself caught - would cause far more terror, for far longer, than someone building all the cruise missiles he could ever afford to make.
Yes, but this was one state making war on another in an age before satellite reconnaissance. The terror came from the numbers, one after the other, with no way to stop them. In my opinion, which I fully admit is not backed up by serious research, the V1 was particularly effective in its day because it had just the right requirements for range, cost, and ease of use to fit the German harassment of Britain during the war. In today's world, a DIY cruise missile is not a good fit for the needs of a terrorist organisation. Not when there are so many easier ways to accomplish thier goals.
You've built a relatively short range, reasonably fast, autonomously piloted vehicle. So far, I've only read one good use for it: target drone (I hadn't thought of that). All the other uses - mapping, search and rescue, photography, even terrorism - would be better served by existing technology like airplanes or even remote piloted vehicles.
As for the wake-up call argument, even if it becomes a "public" rather than "government" call, it just doesn't cut it. If you had been trying to develop a low-budget target drone and some government official had come along and shut you down. Then, I'd have sympathy for you. You'd have been a talented, inventive, entrepreneur that got stomped on. Instead, my feeling are really mixed: smart guy, bad idea - or at least badly pitched.
David...
US mobile phoners have GPS (AFAIK). Useful when making emergency calls.
Soft topped semi loaded with homemade mortors. Very easy to do and impossible to catch until they fire.
Gunner
The methodology of the left has always been:
Nonsense. Can you provide any more info to support this?
I was going to suggest the same thing. Alternatively, one could use something like the Katyusha rockets that are often used against Israel. These things are simple, easily mass produced WWII technology and can be fired from any old pipe of roughly the correct diameter, using a car battery to set it off. Stack a bunch of pipes together and you have the poor man's MLRS.
-- Aamund Breivik
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.