Tech hobbyist makes shoulder-mounted guided missile prototype with $96 in parts

On the defensive side, see perhaps this phased array radar system with a 20km range:

* https://github.com/NawfalMotii79/PLFM_RADAR

In the two test launches shown in the video, the "missile" doesn't fly straight nor does it demonstrate ability to be "guided" by the launcher towards any particular target.

It's also incredibly slow. There are children's rocket kits that fly significantly faster than this.

When everyone started working on 3D-printed guns, I was sitting here thinking that if it comes to actual revolution, one is going to need anti-tank/anti-air a whole lot more than (relatively easy to acquire) small arms... Nice to see movement on this front

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47385935 (439 points 3 days ago, 388 comments)

Here's a link to the actual video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDO2EvXyncE

This appears to be flight stabilized and guided via direct command coming from the launcher. It is not an autonomous guided missile.

I think this violates ITAR. You aren't allowed put a guidance system on a rocket. And even if you were allowed to do it for your own fun/education, you certainly aren't allowed to provide instructions to foreign entities about how it do it.

I feel like this has been available since forever - it's just been sitting there and any reason it hasn't happened is self censorship.

> Despite the tech-cool factor of the project, Tom's Hardware does not condone making your own weapons system at home.

Not that this matters for the topic, but I don't see why people have started saying "weapons system" instead of "weapon".

i don't like the framing of $96 that pops up with this topic. There are so many reasons why the pricing point is completely irrelevant. Yet it frames it as if it were a similarly helpful option to fpv drones for the underdog nation - It's not, nor would it be if it were $9.60 or $0.96. This launcher has not even hit a PoC state - to mention the production cost of the prototype at this point is an extremely weak talking point - it means nothing.

I will be a negative yancy, and regurgitate things from the previous thread in combination with my pattern-matching brain and experience with making UAS firmware/hardware etc.

Cool project, but this is the 1% of the work that's required to get an initial platform in place. It cannot intercept an airborne target, and it will take the rest of the 99% of the work on testing, refining guidance/propulsion/sensors etc, finding and fixing errors, finding and fixing incorrect assumptions that will lead to re-building various subsystems etc.

Another way of phrasing it is that this is a cargo cult MANPADS.

Whenever I see something like this it reminds me of the Demolition Ranch YouTube channel, one of my all time favorites. It will be missed. :(

Regardless of whether this actually works (I have my doubts, but also understand it might be difficult to get range time on a device like this :)), it exposes a fundamental issue with arms control today.

Small firearms are hundreds of years old. Drones have been commercially available for many years and are easily modifiable into something that is 80% as good as what is currently being fielded in Ukraine.

It is not technically feasible to restrict someone from assembling basic, non-firearm-specific components to build a firearm. In the US, there is an increasing effort at the state level to serialize, restrict, and document individual firearm parts. However, an 80% good barrel can be fabricated at home, a 100% as good receiver can be printed on any recent 3D printer, and the rest of the parts (bolt, trigger assembly, etc) can be designed around easy home fabrication (see FGC-9). There is no practical way to trace, regulate, or stop behavior.

It isn't possible to restrict someone from building a capable drone either. The firmware is opensource, the parts can be ordered from almost any marketplace, and an energetic payload can easily be made by any amateur chemist from chemicals in any hardware or camping store. EW is often touted as a solution, but is frequently beaten by tethered drones. Cheap COTS IMUs are getting good enough to provide surprisingly accurate short-term INS, to say nothing of autonomous systems that need no external input past initial targeting.

I personally think this is a far bigger risk than most countries realize, largely because they are 10-15 years behind the technology. I believe this will force most governments into spending an order of magnitude more to defend their institutions at every level, not just core government security.

At least in the US, these threat vectors will absolutely be used to justify intrusions into civil liberties, but no amount of infringement will be able to even partially mitigate these threats. I think this should start to play out over the next 5-10 years.

I find how technology changes warfare to be fascinating. Usually the impact isn't fully predicted beforehand.

The American Civil War was defined by being the first large-scale war fought with accurate long range rifles and the casualties reflect that, being higher than any subsequent war America has been in (600k+).

WW1 was defined by artillery and the machine gun. In many ways, the horrors of WW1 are actually worse than WW2.

WW2 was defined by tanks, air power and aircraft carriers. Although, interestingly, the concept of mobile warfare goes back to the Mongols.

Vietnam was defined by asymmetric warfare and the inability for a vastly superior, imperial power to win a land war against a vastly inferior but motivated foe.

One of the more significant inventions in military technology was the AK-47 (named because it was invented in 1947 btw). This became the tool of choice for insurgencies everywhere for decades. It's cheap and highly reliable.

And this brings us to Afghanistan, which interestingly is called the graveyard of empires. Through a sequence of events the USSR invaded in 1979 and quickly captured Kabul, installing a puppet government, and then weathering a decade of insurgency that resulted in defeat (sound familiar?). The the defining weapon was the Stinger should-mounted SAM [1]. Why? Because it devastated helicopters that the USSR was dependent on in a highly mountainous region.

In the 1980s, the Stinger launcher cost $30-40k and that completely changed warfare.

We're now firmly in the drone era. This really began in the 2000s when fairly expensive drones became the tool of choice for the US to assassinate people. A reaper drone [2] still costs $20M+. But that has all changed with how cheap commercial drones have become and the crucible for that change is of course Ukraine.

We've seen all sorts of military uses of drones, from as simple as a commercial drone silently dropping hand grenades on Russian troops in trenches to more sophisticated attacks that make it virtually impossible for the Russian Navy to operate in the theater.

And now we're seeing it in Iran where the US, despite spending $1 trillion every year on the military has no answer to Iran's Shahed drones, that cost probably $10-20k each and Iran can produce thousands of them every month. These will only get cheaper. It's fair to say that drones will impact every conflict going forward. The US has sought Ukraine's innovations against Russian drones, specifically the bullet drone [3].

So up until now it requires a state actor to make a shoulder-mounted SAM like the Stinger but with advances like the submission, how will the world change if any bunch of insurgents with $100 in chips and sensors and a 3D printer can manufacturer a nearly comparable weapons system?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper

[3]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/10/what-are-the-ukrain...

I expect the Yautja to file a patent infringement.

A prototype without an explosive warhead? Congrats on doing the easy bits.

And this is why it will soon be a felony to possess hollow cylinder CAD or CNC files in the state of Washington.

This guy is so preoccupied with whether or not he COULD manufacture his own guided missile, he didn’t stop to think if he SHOULD.

Of course he could, anyone can these days. So the most important question is the latter.

old article but still relevant. some things don't change

I think with the proliferation and effectiveness of countermeasures passive target acquisition and first shot accuracy with traditional ballistic methods might be a better place to focus but I understand that's very hard to do nonprofessionally as an individual thanks to the rules and laws.

On the other hand, there is a lot to be said for making them blow their $1k active countermeasures on your $500 missiles before sending a real one in to finish the job. Heck, even just forcing your adversary to treat every sky like it's hostile is worth a lot.

Both approaches are clearly worthy of development.

why? what's happening with the world?

But do the computers have age verification? /s

We might want to prepare ourselves for the fact that the Strait of Hormuz might not be reopened to US traffic any time in the near future.