Is this mini cruise missile a good idea?

[Philip the Arab]

I saw this cruise missile on Wikipedia and was wondering what you guys thought of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Cost_Autonomous_Attack_System
I will give a brief summary of what it was as it has been cancelled by the United States. It is a very small cruise missile that can loiter for about 30 minutes and travel for 100 miles on the battlefield and strike any number of targets with 3 different types of warheads. 4 of them are able to fit into 1 cluster munition here is a table of the number that can be carried by each aircraft.
F-16 4 SUU-64 / 16 LOCAAS
F-15E 5 SUU-64 / 20 LOCAAS
F-22 2 LODIS / 16 LOCAAS
JSF 2 LODIS / 16 LOCAAS
B-52 16 SUU-64 / 64 LOCAAS
B-1 30 SUU-64 / 120 LOCAAS
B-2 16 LODIS / 192 LOCAAS
The missiles can be guided by man in the loop with the operator able to guide the missile to a certain target. The turbojet used in the missile has a very low thrust of only 30 pounds and here I have a table of specifications.
Length 0.79 m (2 ft 7.25 in)
Wingspan 1.18 m (3 ft 10.5 in)
Weight 45 kg (100 lb)
Speed 370 km/h (200 knots)
Range > 160 km (100 nm)
Endurance 30 min.
Propulsion Technical Directions Inc. TDI-J45G turbojet; 133 N (30 lb)
Warhead 7.7 kg (17 lb) multimode high-explosive
This size is about 1/2 the height of a human and if you think of it is very small compared to larger cruise missiles which are about 2-3 the sizes of humans.
The LOCAAS is envisioned as a miniature, autonomous powered munition capable of broad area search, identification, and destruction of a range of mobile ground targets. LOCAAS is a low-cost LADAR sensor coupled with a multimode warhead and a maneuvering airframe to produce a high performance submunition. The warhead can be detonated as a long rod penetrator, an aerostable slug, or as fragments based on the hardness of the target. The LADAR allows target aimpoint and warhead selection to be determined automatically. The powered LOCAAS uses small turbojet engine which is capable of powering the vehicle for up to 30 minutes. Powered LOCAAS has a 33 sq. nm search area.
OCAAS is an air-launched munition powered by a small turbojet. During the test program, different powerplants were evaluated, including the Hamilton Sundstrand TJ-50 and the Technical Directions Inc. TDI-J45G. The control surfaces of the current LOCAAS airframe include flip-out wings and three tail surfaces with a ventral vertical fin (the layout has changed somewhat since the initial design). LOCAAS is equipped with a GPS-aided inertial navigation system for autonomous waypoint navigation, and a LADAR (Laser Detection and Ranging) seeker coupled with a target recognition system. Thus equipped, LOCAAS can loiter at about 230 m (750 ft) altitude in a predesignated area for about 30 minutes to detect and destroy a target with a predefined signature. The weapon's high-explosive warhead consists of a multimode EFP (Explosively Formed Projectile), which can be detonated in several ways (multiple fragments, a penetrator rod, or an aero-stable slug) depending on the hardness of the target. LOCAAS can be air-delivered in SUU-64/B-based WCMDs (Wind-Corrected Munition Dispensers), from external stores racks, or from internal weapons bays. Ground launch as payload of an MGM-140 ATACMS missile is also feasible. After testing components like airframe, flight control system and LADAR seeker for several years, the first all-up test of a the current LOCAAS version, including autonomous search and destruction of a target, was performed successfully in March 2003. Because a fully autonomous attack mission without the option of operator intervention is undesirable in many tactical situations, Lockheed Martin has since added a two-way satellite link to the LOCAAS system to allow for a "man-in-the-loop". The project was unfortunately cancelled but I think it can still be pursued by another nation as a viable recon and anti-tank system which I think could be launched on the wings of a UAV or a pneumatic launching system like the scan eagle.

Here are some pictures of the prototypes and a few production pictures.




You guys tell me if you like this idea, but so far I do think it is viable for a middle eastern country but idk if anyone else likes this.

 

[The Accountant]

Why Turbo Jet why not Turbo propeller based on battery ... That will give more space for warhead ... To be launched by big aircrafts like AWACS and to be mass produced to reduce the cost ... to be used as a kamakzi drone ...

Real catch is cost to benefit ... Low cost is key for actualization of this concept

 

[Philip the Arab]

Why Turbo Jet why not Turbo propeller based on battery ... That will give more space for warhead ... To be launched by big aircrafts like AWACS and to be mass produced to reduce the cost ... to be used as a kamakzi drone ...

Real catch is cost to benefit ... Low cost is key for actualization of this concept

It is a kamikaze cruise missile. Exactly how America thought, it was only 30000 dollars with 12000 produced one cruise missile which is very, very cheap. You don't need a long endurance first of all and you wont save that much space, the turbojet is only about 4 or 5 inches wide and what cruise missile or any missile that you know that uses propellers? I think none do. A big warhead isn't needed when the warhead is hitting the top of a tank or other armored vehicle which has very thin top armor and fragmentation doesn't have a worse effect with less warhead. You don't need an AWACS you can just drop cluster munitions which can destroy 40 tanks. What this can be used for is recon and precision strikes because the cruise missile has a small radar cross section being only about 1/2 the height of a human. I thought of this for the Saudis because they recently developed a turbojet that has about 50 pounds of thrust which can power this.

 

[PakSword]

It is a kamikaze cruise missile. Exactly how America thought, it was only 30000 dollars with 12000 produced one cruise missile which is very, very cheap. You don't need a long endurance first of all and you wont save that much space, the turbojet is only about 4 or 5 inches wide and what cruise missile or any missile that you know that uses propellers? I think none do. A big warhead isn't needed when the warhead is hitting the top of a tank or other armored vehicle which has very thin top armor and fragmentation doesn't have a worse effect with less warhead. You don't need an AWACS you can just drop cluster munitions which can destroy 40 tanks. What this can be used for is recon and precision strikes because the cruise missile has a small radar cross section being only about 1/2 the height of a human. I thought of this for the Saudis because they recently developed a turbojet that has about 50 pounds of thrust which can power this.

Very good.. It can also defeat missile defense systems if it is too small..

 

[Philip the Arab]

Very good.. It can also defeat missile defense systems if it is too small..

Exactly how I was thinking. It could be ship launched without needing a VLS system because its so small or by using a very small VLS system. Think of this but on a large scale
At least to my knowledge the Radar cross section is dependent on size but a stealth version could be tried. This might be able to even hit big systems like the S-400 or patriot but idk maybe if launched in barrage of 10-20. Here is its list of specifications its only about 100 pounds which is the same weight of a Hellfire missile but has much better capabilities

• Weight: 100 lb (45 kg)
• Length: 36 in (910 mm)
• Speed: 200 knots (370 km/h)
• Search altitude: 750 ft (230 m)
• Footprint: 25 sq nmi (86 km2)
• Motor: 30 lbf (130 N) thrust class turbojet.
• Range: >100 nmi (190 km)
• Loiter time: 30 min max.

 

[PakSword]

Exactly how I was thinking. It could be ship launched without needing a VLS system because its so small or by using a very small VLS system. Think of this but on a large scale View attachment 530419
At least to my knowledge the Radar cross section is dependent on size but a stealth version could be tried. This might be able to even hit big systems like the S-400 or patriot but idk maybe if launched in barrage of 10-20.

It is so small and so cheap that no one will think twice firing 100s to hit a S-400.. very difficult to intercept.. It's like 100s of bullets coming and you know they are coming but you can't do jack about them.. lolll

 

[Philip the Arab]

It is so small and so cheap that no one will think twice firing 100s to hit a S-400.. very difficult to intercept.. It's like 100s of bullets coming and you know they are coming but you can't do jack about them.. lolll

Yeah I think so but others may not agree. Its top speed is only 230 mph but that's really low but I think a swarm would be difficult to intercept. It would do good to use them in precision strikes because you can control the missile with man in the loop by using the built in camera via satellite.

Scroll down and you will see the missile being tested and hitting a SAM target. https://tdi-engines.com/products/

 

[Mrc]

I have written previously and will write again.... Pak. Needs to develope and deploy these ... They are a brilliant 6against fixed positions

 

[Philip the Arab]

I have written previously and will write again.... Pak. Needs to develope and deploy these ... They are a brilliant 6against fixed positions

Not just fixed but I agree with you somewhat. These should be able to destroy tanks to my knowledge from top attack with a kinetic energy penetrator because top armor is very weak. Pakistan should make these but I was thinking of Saudi Arabia at first when I found out about this.

 

[War Thunder]

It is a kamikaze cruise missile. Exactly how America thought, it was only 30000 dollars with 12000 produced one cruise missile which is very, very cheap. You don't need a long endurance first of all and you wont save that much space, the turbojet is only about 4 or 5 inches wide and what cruise missile or any missile that you know that uses propellers? I think none do. A big warhead isn't needed when the warhead is hitting the top of a tank or other armored vehicle which has very thin top armor and fragmentation doesn't have a worse effect with less warhead. You don't need an AWACS you can just drop cluster munitions which can destroy 40 tanks. What this can be used for is recon and precision strikes because the cruise missile has a small radar cross section being only about 1/2 the height of a human. I thought of this for the Saudis because they recently developed a turbojet that has about 50 pounds of thrust which can power this.

nothing is Kamikaze if it aint got no Jap sitting inside.
Call it suicide drone

 

[313ghazi]

I think it's a good idea. Low cost, can be maneuvered mid flight, precision weapon. There are multiple uses for it.

The range will be a limitation, but it could be vehicle launched against SAM systems and also air launched against high value targets that don't require a million dollar missile to take them out.

 

[Philip the Arab]

nothing is Kamikaze if it aint got no Jap sitting inside.
Call it suicide drone

Your right lol.

I think it's a good idea. Low cost, can be maneuvered mid flight, precision weapon. There are multiple uses for it.

The range will be a limitation, but it could be vehicle launched against SAM systems and also air launched against high value targets that don't require a million dollar missile to take them out.

It would be a limitation kind of 100 miles isn't bad range but the loiter time is very low of 30 minutes but that's when you bring out the bigger cruise missiles. These could do so much assignations,recon and I'm not sure about this but maybe Anti-Ship on small boats like Iranian ones they use to swarm.

 

[UkroTurk]

What is the difference between drone engines and cruise missile engines?

Cruise missiles use disposable engines with tight lifetime due- to low cost. Usually lifetime of cruise missiles is measured by minutes (max 60 min)Because their mission is hastily hit.

Regarding surveillance drones , they must have reliable and durable engines which serve years.
Here is the most specified French producer whose engines are widely used around the armies.
https://www.safran-power-units.com/propulsion-systems/microturbo-european-leader-turbojet-engines

 

[Philip the Arab]

What is the difference between drone engines and cruise missile engines?

Cruise missiles use disposable engines with tight lifetime due- to low cost. Usually lifetime of cruise missiles is measured by minutes (max 60 min)Because their mission is hastily hit.

Regarding surveillance drones , they must have reliable and durable engines which serve years.
Here is the most specified French producer whose engines are widely used around the armies.
https://www.safran-power-units.com/propulsion-systems/microturbo-european-leader-turbojet-engines

Those are surveillance drones. Recon is short and the mission will end after 60 minutes. Your wrong about the 60 minute thing with bigger cruise missiles as ones like the Tomahawk have at least a few hours or more because their range is over a few thousand miles. What do you think of Pulsejets btw? They were only used in WW2 but if they can be refined they would be very cheap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb Only about 8000 dollars in todays money to manufacture but today can be more accurate with GPS and other guidance.

 

[UkroTurk]

Those are surveillance drones. Recon is short and the mission will end after 60 minutes. Your wrong about the 60 minute thing with bigger cruise missiles as ones like the Tomahawk have at least a few hours or more because their range is over a few thousand miles. What do you think of Pulsejets btw? They were only used in WW2 but if they can be refined they would be very cheap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb Only about 8000 dollars in todays money to manufacture but today can be more accurate with GPS and other guidance.

You shouldn't have added Tomahawk which is state-of-the-art and has the cost more than 1million USD.

Why should surveillance drones be used as an cruise missiles i can't comprehend. Apples and pears don't seem to be comparable.
Regarding V1 rockets. I would avoid answering rather than even quoting about rockets with liquid fuel technology ,2 tons weights -10 meter lenght from ww2.

Guys you happened to forget radars and stealth compozit materials which modern missiles are produced frim instead of reflecting metals. Furthermore working temperature is another gruesome subject.