Zig Forums designs weapons

Here is a wacky proposal, maybe we COULD just use a mortar tube.

I'm probably the only person here who could actually build something that could fly and kill.

Attached: Musical-Weapons.jpg (727x1200, 312.67K)

...

Good point user.
I just got off track with some low level elitism.
Our two planes ideas are for two entirely different purposes and have completely different operational requirements.
With yours being one and done it is completely understandable to make it dirt cheap. Plus with it going on a one way trip it wouldn't require any sort of specialized avionics other than basic guidance and control systems where you could get away with electric motors/engines.

Now comparatively to my design, it would need beefed up a bit. Now with it's intended purpose being recon/harassment it would need to be all weather. This is where it would require a combustion engine as electronic motors would have a higher chance of water leaking into the engine and short circuiting it, I imagine this may be a problem even with rear facing props, although a fat glob of petroleum jelly may remedy this. Whereas with a gasoline engine it could get wet and not short circuit, especially since all the guidance/control and fixed electronics (camera) would be internal and away from the elements, especially with proper insulation. Also with it being a scoot n shoot kinda plane it would need to bug out quick after giving and taking, which is where combustion engine would excel in terms of getting to and from quickly.
Since it would be RTBing 100% more often, electric propulsion would be compromising, as the situation which this would be used, you either wouldn't have the ability to charge batteries, or simply not have the time to. With it being combustion driven you would need some quick and basic r&r before being back in action.
Of course with all that said, it would be a much more valuable plane overall as it would require more resources to manufacture and operate, along with manhours in terms of maintenance and piloting.

How would one go about mounting a camera to enable real time footage? lower FPS is acceptable but poor latency would seem fatal in my book. What ways are there to boost the power of the signal to ensure this, and are there any computer programs for this purpose?

Last I checked mortars can't do a 300 miles flight downrange, can't put shells into targets with any degree of precision either.

Nigger, water can't short-circuit a motor, it's fully electrically isolated. Even the brushed motors - water has several orders of magnitude greater resistance so it's more like a small parasitic leak than a short circuit; they can operate perfectly well fully submerged in water.

Also, nigger, jets can't escape missiles and neither can props. If your big ass UAV presents any threat, it will be shot at, and with that size it's more likely to be a missile than minigun (neither of which it would survive).

It's not about mounting, it's about connection - you will have to use sat link, and it's all bottlenecked by its throughput. You generally wouldn't need real time feed (nor any feed at all) and just let the drone attack autonomously. Sending a signal to the satellite is not a problem - a handheld phone can do this. But it can and will be jammed and then you'll be shit out of luck, so your drone better had an ability to work autonomously; see above. As for feed compression, you use an encoder hardware compressing it down to uplink bandwidth, depending on how much of it you have available you'd have to use chroma subsampling or monochrome, interlacing, and plain compression artifacts. That, or you could send analog signal but again, it all depends on bandwidth - you'll be getting shittier blurrier image if your link is not up to the task, at some point it won't even synchronize and you'll get no discernible feed at all.

With those points I should state that operationally it would only be used on land, as in not recon/harassment against naval vessels out at sea.
Also it's preferable signal range would be 100 miles, and at least 2-3x that in fuel/loiter time.
For as long as it would be in the air or on target it's unlikely jammers would effect it as by the time they get it setup the drone will be long gone, the exception to this would be if they kept a jammer constantly on, or had some kind of heads up and could activate it ahead of arrival. That of course would warrant having an auto-RTB function, or autonomous function to complete it's task then RTB.
Don't forget that it's main advantage will be speed and portability, as it will be able to be packed up and in a trunk in less than ~10 minutes, with the added security of being able to be launched and recovered at different points, with the main transport vehicle meeting it at the pre arranged landing area. Also with it's intended size it would be able to utilize most stretches of public roads, so long as they are clear of houses, and traffic for at least short periods, which would significantly decrease the risk of capture.

And if I added a parachute recovery function (slow down to just above stall speed, pop frontal parachute and the rear chute a second after) it could be recovered in nearly any open area where pinpoint accuracy of landing is either unavailable or unneeded/unwanted.
This could be good for having it recovered by a team of ghillies in a field after an op, or if you simply need to grab that shit and leave ASAP, where you wouldn't have time for a nice neat landing. Just an idea though.

Why does the plane have an erection?

Attached: caves of owo.png (350x205, 100.97K)

For ultra low CAS, or should I say cASS lmao.

Neither can a flying wing with a mortar strapped to the bottom.

HEAT stands for high explosive anti tank. It is designed to penetrate armor. There’s not much armor on the deck of a ship to penetrate. Even if you made a hole your bomb has to be big enough to go all the way thru to the hull.

Now if the bomb could swoop horizontally at the last second and come up into the hull just at the waterline you might have something.