Why aren't pulsejet cruise missiles a thing?

Only thing with a worse SFC would be a subsonic ramjet which is like an afterburner without the "before".

Oh. And, what part of the pulsejet do you hook up the the generator/alternator driveshaft to?
 
Pulsejet missiles arent necessarily dumb. Maybe if NATO resurrected them around the 1980s as a cheaper standoff system they'd be widely employed. But not in the age of advanced energy storage techniques and electric propulsion.

However cheap a pulsejet can be, I'd always bet on a 3D-printed, electrically powered propeller to beat it in any price comparision.
 
3d printing isn't cheap and electric propulsion offers not more range than a pulse jet. As said, pulse jets produce thrust at zero speed, so they could take off from a runway, but a truck with an electric linear motor catapult might be the better alternative.
 
3d printing isn't cheap
Yeah, and programs like Replicator and chinese sorceries are looking at dramatically improving additive manufacturing tech to greater efficiency, scalability and cost reduction practices.

And this is the first time I've ever heard anybody saying 3D printing isn't cheap.
and electric propulsion offers not more range than a pulse jet.
The prime benefit is cost. Electricity is alot more accessible than fossil fuel. Batteries can directly power electronics so the smart bits aboard a drone dont need their own power storages, which free up alot of space.
 
If you know where to print metal for cheap, please tell me!

The price of the fuel in a suisidal drone really doesn't matter at all... A simple small batterie is sufficient for the electronics and actuators, we are talking about one hour flight time!
 
If you know where to print metal for cheap, please tell me!
No idea but lord Google told me this:
3D printing materials can vary widely, with options that include plastic, powders, resins, metal and carbon fiber. These materials make 3D printing a promising option for many parts, from highly accurate aerospace and industrial machinery components to customized consumer goods
Plastic should be cheap, no? We are looking at sub-10k missiles here, any semblance of durability should go out of the window.
And another message from lord Google
Material for drone airframe and other components can be different depending on the cost, payload, and performance. Predominantly plastics are used to construct the frame of regular consumer drones and carbon fiber composites for high-performance drones. Carbon fiber makes the drone more agile, lightweight, and durable.
If hobbyists can print drones for cheap from plastic, I couldn't see how our junkyard cruise missile here should be any different. And with electrical parts that dont move much ( only the propeller shaft and blade are main sources of vibration, as opposed to the whole pulsejet assembly. And I've seen magnets-based power generator that is static throughout!).
we are talking about one hour flight time
A battery pack to power a drone the size of a V-1 should easily hit that level of endurance imo.
 
And this is the first time I've ever heard anybody saying 3D printing isn't cheap.
Allways a question of what you print. But yeah for most Things its relativ cheap but getting good machines isn't cheap either.
 
No idea but lord Google told me this:
Plastic should be cheap, no? We are looking at sub-10k missiles here, any semblance of durability should go out of the window.
And another message from lord Google
Allways a question of requierments. Tought for something like a V1 there could be Problems without modifications as it was never designed with sutch materials (which can go in both ways good or bad).
 
Printing metal is very expensive because you need a lot of laser energy and expensives powders. It also works best with non oxidizing metals, which tend to be more expensive than ordinary steel or Aluminum.

It is only cheap for small batch production, but not for mass production. You can't find any 3d printed parts in mass produced automobiles.

Battery powerd planes can hardly fly 300 km and even if so, not with the speed of a V1. The hole electric drive train isn't cheap (see the price of electric cars) and will require a lot of expensive materials. So for a disposable mass produced drone, this is only feasable for very small sizes, were material costs are low in absolute numbers and mass produced parts are allready available.
 
Last edited:
GLSBD probably makes a pulsejet cruise missile obsolete.
As long as the goal is to carry more warhead for a longer range then no. Also the need of an M270 or Himars is limiting just like the whole GPS problem we see in ukraine but this also applies to the pulsjet weapon.
 
the need of an M270 or Himars is limiting
Not that limiting.

The US has ... many of those (on the order of 1000!), and Poland is working on equaling the numbers of the US Army.

The US also has 25 Battalions of HIMARS, with ~18 trucks per battalion, for roughly 450.

Our Pulse-jet cruise missile requires a dedicated launcher setup at least the same size as HIMARS, if not bigger, and has a much lower rate of fire. HIMARs can drop 6x GLSDB in a few seconds, it'll probably take a couple of minutes to launch each PJCM.



just like the whole GPS problem we see in ukraine but this also applies to the pulsjet weapon.
Funny, the USAF just dropped a $24mil contract to install Home-on-GPS-Jamming chips into JDAM tailkits and SDBs.
 
Not that limiting.

The US has ... many of those (on the order of 1000!), and Poland is working on equaling the numbers of the US Army.

The US also has 25 Battalions of HIMARS, with ~18 trucks per battalion, for roughly 450.
But the rest don't have that many
Our Pulse-jet cruise missile requires a dedicated launcher setup at least the same size as HIMARS, if not bigger, and has a much lower rate of fire. HIMARs can drop 6x GLSDB in a few seconds, it'll probably take a couple of minutes to launch each PJCM.
I mean you don't really need mutch except a Launch rail, a rocket motor and your pulsjet if we do it as simple as possible (and effectiv). But yeah it ain't cheap, nor small nor light

Funny, the USAF just dropped a $24mil contract to install Home-on-GPS-Jamming chips into JDAM tailkits and SDBs.
I know. Im still hopping for it to go onto GLSDB
 
Aluminium 3D printing can now be done using a cheap extruded filament printer. The filament id metal loaded and then post processed to remove the plastic binder. The strength of the final part is around 99% of billet, so you don't need expensive and energy intensive laser sintering.
Per unit 3D printing will always be more expensive than almost any alternative production method if you 3D print a conventional design. The cost saving only comes when you design for the process and consolidate many parts to slash the assembly or similar fabrication costs.
 
@OliverSedlacek This kind of metal printing is much cheaper than direct laser sintering, but the tolerances are very sluguish and you need a lot of support structure. Once, I wanted to use it for making hollow pistons but I gave up...

Despite beeing cheaper than laser sintering of metal, it is still much more expensive than any mass production technology.

@kqcke for you : As writen by @jabuzzard , an electric linear motor launch rail monted on a truck would be an appropiate launch solution, easy to handle and without much operational effort. Despite that, I don't see a reason why pulse jets would't start from a runway (could be an ordinary street).
 
@kqcke for you : As writen by @jabuzzard , an electric linear motor launch rail monted on a truck would be an appropiate launch solution, easy to handle and without much operational effort. Despite that, I don't see a reason why pulse jets would't start from a runway (could be an ordinary street).
Because a Pulsjet need compressed air which it doesn’t suck in without starting it. So either you got some compressed air on the vehicle or you get it from an outside source like a catapult or rocket motor
 
No, the compressed air in the V1 was only used to pump the fuel into the combustion chamber (instead of using a pump) and to drive the control mechanism. The Pulse jet was started by spark ignition and it ran before it was beeing catapulted:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyidSlJzfmo&ab_channel=radiorolli
Well your right after looking into it again but it wont work allways as you need to be able to create the compressed air onboard because of the valves but that only works for the valved ones. The efficiency is also Bad compared to just shooting some compressed air into it.
 
Well, it did work for the entire duration of the flight, but I believe no one would use compressed air for flight control anymore. We've gone a long way in automatic controling, navigating and steering since than...

It might habe been, that some small amount of compressed air was also used to create a fuel/air mixture for the first bang (not mentioned in the video), however, any truck in the world allready has a compressor and a compressed air system and could provide that with ease.
 
Or a small cartridge should do the trick for some just to get enough speed for self-sufficiency.
 
Don't think so given V1s size. Noise also isn't irrelevant as it can be used to detect it. Ukraine already does it and using an pulse Jet probaly makes it easier.

Maybe.

Again it doesn't change the fact that its big and bulky which isn't ideal for many applications who aren't in need for everything they can get.

Its not impossible but often there more requierments given for many things. Allways a question of requierments and atleast for now they wont replace turbojets and -fans but for they have very big possible applications.

You have fallen into the classic trap. Ukraine is using noise to get a general tracking of the incoming missiles. But it can already detect Shahed and Kalibar missiles so unless you have some whisper quiet engine system worrying about the noise is pointless. Have you seen the videos of Storm Shadow missiles on YouTube? it is not quiet either. So noise is not important because nothing is quiet enough not to be detected, sound is too slow to be used for targeting and nobody is going to complain about your pulse jet-powered cruise missile making too much noise in a war zone. I am pretty sure that you could one reduce the noise by cutting the tail of the pulse jet with chevrons like the Boeing 787 engine cowlings. Two have it fly a none direct route, zig-zag etc. to throw off any tracking.

As for size yes it's big, but a Storm Shadow missile is big, it's 5.1m long which is not exactly small. Yes the V1 was bigger, but a modern replacement could be smaller because the V1 used wire-wrapped tanks with compressed air to power the thing. The energy density of which really sucks compared to an alkaline battery. Ordering 100k electric fuel pumps from the likes of Bosch is just noise in the system and a few extra million D cells are also noise in the system. That would allow you to make it significantly smaller.
 
Pretty sure the compressed gas in the V1 was to pressurise the fuel and get it to flow into the jet. Bulkier than a battery and a pump but super simple and reliable. The other thing about the V1 is that the size of the jet is pretty small compared to the size of the charge, so all in all it was a pretty efficient design.
 
The biggest issue with pulsejets is vibration. Vibration will kill electronics fast, and until that's solved you can't really strap an inexpensive guidance system into one.

It only needs to last ~30 minutes maximum. You just pot the entire thing and mount it on vibration mounts. It's cheap you are not going to do repairs on it, it won't be a problem. There is no point in making something more expensive to achieve a 99% success rate if you can achieve a 90% success rate for a tenth of the price. You need to think Starlink satellites and not GPS satellites.
 
You have fallen into the classic trap. Ukraine is using noise to get a general tracking of the incoming missiles. But it can already detect Shahed and Kalibar missiles so unless you have some whisper quiet engine system worrying about the noise is pointless. Have you seen the videos of Storm Shadow missiles on YouTube? it is not quiet either. So noise is not important because nothing is quiet enough not to be detected, sound is too slow to be used for targeting and nobody is going to complain about your pulse jet-powered cruise missile making too much noise in a war zone. I am pretty sure that you could one reduce the noise by cutting the tail of the pulse jet with chevrons like the Boeing 787 engine cowlings. Two have it fly a none direct route, zig-zag etc. to throw off any tracking.
The thing is most pulsjets and propeller are just slow which makes this effectiv to shoot down(even if its only used for the more slower drones with handguns). Compared to Kalibr or storm shadow which just go mutch mutch faster ~2-4 the speed of the smaller drones. Pulsjets may sit inbetween given the design of it.
As for size yes it's big, but a Storm Shadow missile is big, it's 5.1m long which is not exactly small.
Still mutch shorter than the 8.32m of V1
Yes the V1 was bigger, but a modern replacement could be smaller because the V1 used wire-wrapped tanks with compressed air to power the thing.
At that point one could build a mutch more optimised design given the needed capabilitys.

For that matter the X-Jet (and cruise missile) design from Bruce Simpsons is the closest thing we may see to this. But the data he published showed a quite good engine with a amazing SPFC of around 1.2ish.

Edit: Link to his Website: https://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/xjet.shtml
 
Last edited:
The thing is most pulsjets and propeller are just slow which makes this effectiv to shoot down(even if its only used for the more slower drones with handguns). Compared to Kalibr or storm shadow which just go mutch mutch faster ~2-4 the speed of the smaller drones. Pulsjets may sit inbetween given the design of it.
A Shahed 136 has a maximum speed of 185km/h, A V1 which a Spitfire could only catch pulling out of a dive (let that sink in for a moment) had a maximum speed of 640km/h, and a Storm Shadow missile about 1100km/h. So if a Shahed 136 is a viable weapon system then a pulsejet cruise missile with a bigger payload and faster is also viable.

Yes a V1 is bigger than a Storm Shadow the point is a 5.1m long missile weighing 1300kg needs equipment to handle anyway so if a pulsejet cruise missile is bigger, it is really a meh.

The problem with the Brue Simpsons thing is that the engine is much smaller than the Argus pulse jet used in the V1. So unless it scales up it is irrelevant. Also the reed valve lasting for hours is again irrelevant it is going to have a flight time of well under an hour anyway.
 
Is the sound of the pulsejet even an issue for this application? The whole point is to make a very cheap, easy to build anywhere, type of cruise missile so you can launch 10+ of them for the cost of a "normal low cost" cruise missile. You want it easy to build so you can crank out hundreds per month without extensive factories so you can overwhelm your targets air defenses. If that's the case, who cares if the enemy can detect it via sound? Any interceptor they use (minus lasers or other electronic means) will cost more than the pulsejet missile so you're winning that side, and most likely be limited in quantity at the area where you are targeting so numbers will get through.

For a conflict like Ukraine, as it is right now, it makes a ton sense IMO.
 
So if a Shahed 136 is a viable weapon system then a pulsejet cruise missile with a bigger payload and faster is also viable.
Yes but you have a match smaller mass of vehicle per volume/weight of the muntion. The whole point of shahed 131/6 and harpy is that they are small (its size and RCS), have a large range and are cheap but are hard to destroy without good air defense (atleast some kind of guidance for example). Now this V1 pulsjet would lose its size and range advantage for payload and maybe costs. This doesn't makes it really better now if that thing could go some 1300km it would change a lot.
Yes a V1 is bigger than a Storm Shadow the point is a 5.1m long missile weighing 1300kg needs equipment to handle anyway so if a pulsejet cruise missile is bigger, it is really a meh.
It is in many ways important how the big and heavy missile is.
The problem with the Brue Simpsons thing is that the engine is much smaller than the Argus pulse jet used in the V1. So unless it scales up it is irrelevant.
Yes you would upscale it to the needed size but my point is about the design capabilitys which as far as i know exceeds all others right now which want.
Also the reed valve lasting for hours is again irrelevant it is going to have a flight time of well under an hour anyway.
It is important the moment you want to fly longer than an hour because you want to hit something in the enemy land way behind the Front which ukraine wants to do because there many important things are like production sites.

My personal tought would be more like a tomahawk design for sutch a missile. 100-200kg warhead are enough for serious damage and range could quite good with the right design. Yes speeds should he higher than an Shahed but maybe something like 400km/h should be enough but the range should be very high. Now with the right guidance and good shaping you got a very dangerous weapon.
 
Is the sound of the pulsejet even an issue for this application? The whole point is to make a very cheap, easy to build anywhere, type of cruise missile so you can launch 10+ of them for the cost of a "normal low cost" cruise missile. You want it easy to build so you can crank out hundreds per month without extensive factories so you can overwhelm your targets air defenses. If that's the case, who cares if the enemy can detect it via sound? Any interceptor they use (minus lasers or other electronic means) will cost more than the pulsejet missile so you're winning that side, and most likely be limited in quantity at the area where you are targeting so numbers will get through.

For a conflict like Ukraine, as it is right now, it makes a ton sense IMO.
Wrong math. The comparison isn't "cost of interceptor(s) needed versus cost of incoming."

The comparison to use is "cost of interceptor(s) needed versus cost of whatever they're protecting."
 
Wrong math. The comparison isn't "cost of interceptor(s) needed versus cost of incoming."

The comparison to use is "cost of interceptor(s) needed versus cost of whatever they're protecting."
For the initial interception, yes. However over time - no it is the correct math. Look at the US Navy involved with Operation Prosperity Guardian, specifically USS Carney. I can't find the source anymore but I remember seeing they fired over 70 missiles during their deployment. Lets say they only used SM-2 missiles - at 2.1 million per unit that comes out to $147 million in missiles expended for defense. In total they may have protected over $1 billion in assets I'm not going to dispute that.

But that's one ship, over 7 months in a relatively low volume firing schedule. Imagine if they had shoot down 100 cruise missiles a month - if only one interceptor is fired per missile that's $210 million spent on interceptors per month for one small area. Over 2 years of fighting, that will bankrupt a nation, assuming you can even find the resources to build 100 interceptors a month. For reference - Lockheed is planning on making 650 PAC-3 MSE's per year in 2027. The SM-2 is hoping to get up to 300 per year by 2028. At some point the defender is going to say, I can't waste my interceptor protecting this building or factory, I can only protect this power plant / command post / radar / bridge.

The math starts to change when you look at lower cost interceptors such as the Tamir or APKWS. But over time, the faster production rate and cheaper costs of this pulse jet missile to even those interceptors will make a difference. You could see it with Ukraine and their usage of artillery during the war. Due to a lack of shells they reduced their firing schedule allowing targets that would otherwise be fired upon to remain unscathed. Eventually stocks run out, production is not enough, and you have to prioritize what to defend / target.

The whole point of the pulse jet cruise missile IMO is all the reports that state even the US stockpile of precision guided munitions is inadequate for a protracted conflict. Use the expensive super accurate cruise missiles at the beginning for high value targets, and saturate defenses and targets with low cost munitions like these throughout the conflict. Or if you're fighting Houthis or the next group like them, use these cheap cruise missiles and not your $2.5 million storm shadow.
 
Low cost is low cost is low cost, if you get my drift. From my background, I know a guidance system can be cheap these days (even in a GPS degraded environment), airframes can be cheap if you tool up for volume production, the warhead costs whatever it costs, so we are just debating the cost of different propulsion schemes. Would a pulse jet reduce the total missile cost significantly compared to a pulse jet? I'm not sure it would? The technology differences between an automotive turbocharger and a turbojet rated for 1 hour of operation aren't that big after all.
 
Do pulse-jet and ram-jet speed ranges overlap 'usefully' ??

Valve-less 'trombone' pulse-jets would not need much in way of manufacture or ground facilities...
And perhaps propel to speed that an equally simple ram-jet would require...
 
Low cost is low cost is low cost, if you get my drift. From my background, I know a guidance system can be cheap these days (even in a GPS degraded environment), airframes can be cheap if you tool up for volume production, the warhead costs whatever it costs, so we are just debating the cost of different propulsion schemes. Would a pulse jet reduce the total missile cost significantly compared to a pulse jet? I'm not sure it would? The technology differences between an automotive turbocharger and a turbojet rated for 1 hour of operation aren't that big after all.
At some point, the cost and availability of the explosives in the warhead becomes your limiting factor in terms of mass production.


Do pulse-jet and ram-jet speed ranges overlap 'usefully' ??

Valve-less 'trombone' pulse-jets would not need much in way of manufacture or ground facilities...
And perhaps propel to speed that an equally simple ram-jet would require...
I don't believe that any pulse jet can go supersonic, and any simple ramjet needs to be supersonic to start running.
 
The war in Syria proofed, that explosive devices ("barrel bombs") can be produced cheaply...
 
It is important the moment you want to fly longer than an hour because you want to hit something in the enemy land way behind the Front which ukraine wants to do because there many important things are like production sites.

My personal tought would be more like a tomahawk design for sutch a missile. 100-200kg warhead are enough for serious damage and range could quite good with the right design. Yes speeds should he higher than an Shahed but maybe something like 400km/h should be enough but the range should be very high. Now with the right guidance and good shaping you got a very dangerous weapon.

The point is that you don't need to fly more than an hour, as you are at 300 mile range in an hours flight which is more than useful. Put another way if Ukraine was saturating everything within 300 miles of the front line with 100,000 modern precision V1 like missiles per year then Russia would already be begging for peace terms.

Sure you could probably later come up with longer range versions, but this is classic feature creap. One needs to keep ones eye on the ball and produce the minimal upgrade V1 design right now.
 
Do pulse-jet and ram-jet speed ranges overlap 'usefully' ??

Valve-less 'trombone' pulse-jets would not need much in way of manufacture or ground facilities...
And perhaps propel to speed that an equally simple ram-jet would require...

If you are going to produce 100,000 modern V1 derivatives per year then you need modern mass production facilities. I would envisage much of the missile being made from clip together diecast aluminum and plastic. It allows for interesting things like elliptical wings which are excellent for reducing drag but traditionally difficult to manufacture being made in two pieces of clip together diecast aluminium alloy. Take a look at what Tesla is doing with car production and the gigapress. Model Y chassis from just three moldings!!! Nose cone bit of injection molded plastic that clips on. Steel parts (aka the pulse jet) made using metal stamping. Having someone weld some bits together and do some hydroforming is not going to cut it if you want to mass produce these. Remember modern mass production techniques are what makes the modern world affordable to the average person. As long as you are producing in volume they have much cheaper unit costs.
 
no, actually only 100 mph or so but typically Mach 0.5 or so.
The US Navy AUM-N-6 Puffin prototype used a Pulse jet and made Mach .7.

So you can get them fast enough to get a ramjet running. Fuel be a bigger issue imo.

The Puffin design style would also be a better starting point for a modern weapon, air launchable and more streamline set up with an enclose engine.

As for Vibrations?

Not that big of an issue. Modern electronics are naturally very resistant to it and can be made even more so. Hell a youtube made a RC pulse jet plane with FPV and he hasnt had a none crash induced issue with the electronics. Traveling at 500 mph for 2 hours gives you a decent range as well.
 
The US Navy AUM-N-6 Puffin prototype used a Pulse jet and made Mach .7.

So you can get them fast enough to get a ramjet running. Fuel be a bigger issue imo.

The Puffin design style would also be a better starting point for a modern weapon, air launchable and more streamline set up with an enclose engine.

As for Vibrations?

Not that big of an issue. Modern electronics are naturally very resistant to it and can be made even more so. Hell a youtube made a RC pulse jet plane with FPV and he hasnt had a none crash induced issue with the electronics. Traveling at 500 mph for 2 hours gives you a decent range as well.
If memory serves, I believe both of these
prototypes were pulse to laminar combustion at some point of increased velocity. The document is written in French and I've not translate it entirely. Additionally, also I'm not sure, but I think these dual pulse-continuous engines were a result of a collaberation between Messserschmitt and SNECMA
 

Attachments

  • messer~2.jpg
    messer~2.jpg
    57.8 KB · Views: 11

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom