Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 7/7/2002 8:46:55 PM EST
Cruise missiles such as the Raytheon Tomahawk have proven themselves as an extremely cost-effective method of delivering a wide range of ordinance with pin-point accuracy against targets that may be up to 1,000 miles from the launch point. By using mil-spec GPS, highly sophisticated terrain recognition systems and a raft of other previously top-secret technologies, the cruise missile allows its owner to deliver a powerful offensive strike against an enemy with no risk to its own troops or vehicles. However, during the past decade, huge strides have been made in commercializing much of the technology on which the cruise missile is based and it is my firm belief that building a low-cost, autonomous, self-guided, air-breathing missile with a significant payload capability is now well within the reach of almost any person or small group of persons with the necessary knowledge and skills. [url]http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml[/url]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 8:59:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 7/7/2002 9:00:33 PM EST by MadMatt]
Good post for the Build It Yourself forum. [:D]
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 9:02:37 PM EST
Isnt this why the GPS system has a built in innacuracy???
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 9:07:58 PM EST
Clinton had that removed, which I think was a good move personally. They can set satellites to be more inaccurate for civilian receivers in war zones like Afghanistan, while leaving other parts of the world with the same accuracy as military receivers.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 9:08:27 PM EST
On May 1, 2000 the intentional degradation of GPS signals (called SA) was terminated. With this change a GPS without a DGPS unit attached became almost as accurate as a GPS with a DGPS attached.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 9:20:02 PM EST
Given the possible payloads possible today is why they most likely relax their built-in inaccuracy standards last year . I mean a couple of tons of explosives will definitely cover any error of the old 1000m error that was used .
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 10:36:02 PM EST
SA had an accuracy of less than 100m 95% of the time. With or without SA on, civilian and military GPS is not as accurate as DGPS, the military uses a version of DGPS in the GPSS survey set even though we have always had access to the P(Y) code that gives an accuracy of around 6.75 meters. Which is similar to the accuracy that the CA signal used by civilian (Non-survey) are capable of. Survey sets using either differential techniques or error correction software were much more accurate. The problem with turning SA for GPS off is that many in the military warned that a terrorist would use it as a form of guidance for a improvised cruise missile. However when we warned about it we were thinking Cessna, etc. But as we found out, at least on of the 911 terrorist GPSed in his target and we believe used the steering cues from the same receiver to guide into a building.
Link Posted: 7/7/2002 10:37:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By Mortech: Given the possible payloads possible today is why they most likely relax their built-in inaccuracy standards last year . I mean a couple of tons of explosives will definitely cover any error of the old 1000m error that was used .
View Quote
Not exactly, unless a WMD warhead is used the SA target location error would have procluded hitting point targets.
Link Posted: 7/8/2002 3:27:44 AM EST
Man, I gotta build me a few of these before some friggin Democrat signs the "Cruise Missle Ban" [:D]
Top Top