Cost: roughly $135k
Manufacturer: Novoburg Aeronautics Arsenal
Weight: 1.9 tonnes
Length: 10.78 m
Wingspan: 4.74 m
Height: 1.78 m
Engine: 1x pulse detonation engine
Operational Range: 710 to 550 km
Speed: 650 to 780 km/h
Guidance system: GPS, gyrocompass and inertia based autopilot, with low power, low resolution radar calculating ground distance and weather, a variant exists that uses anti-radiation homing


The small wings create a very high stall speed, making it impossible for the missile to take off under it's own power. It must be catapult launched to give the missile the needed boost to take off. The engine is mounted on the tail wing.

The missile either contains a one tonne warhead of explosives, a submunitions bomb containing mines or propaganda leaflets, an AEW module, or an electronic warfare module. The missile is also nuclear capable.

The missile has a CEP75 rating of 40 meters and can be programmed to fly through a ten meter window along a predesignated route. If the missile's radar system is deactivated, the CEP75 rating increases to 55 to 95 meters depending on flight path and distance to target. Inertia-based targeting alone would increase the CEP75 rating to 450 meters.

The one tonne warhead of amatol is capable of causing significant blast damage to objects within a 120 meter radius and can create roughly a 30 meter wide crater.

The electronic warfare modules can be used towards either broadcasting propaganda, or radar jamming. As technology advances, ships and land based over the horizon radar platforms will possess ever greater accuracy and range, it becomes vitally important to disrupt enemy communications. The purpose of equipping a short range cruise missile with the electronic warfare module is to disrupt enemy radar in zones of enemy air superiority, potentially allowing for friendly air missions to proceed with a greater degree of surprise.

The AEW module serves a similiar, but obvious purpose.

While preparing for victory is pleasant, realistic preparations for defeat must be factored.

This post has been edited by Rich and Corporations on Jun 6 2012, 05:45 PM

Made a few additions after I learned how cheap radar modules can be.

Considering most attack missiles cost more then this, I was expecting a few complements. Or requests for purchase.

Given the short range, wouldn't a turbojet work better? Cheaper, etc etc...

edit: actually on that note...why not a turboprop or propfan for a low speed/low altitude missile?

Not certain how cheaper that this is, but while looking at alternative engines, the pulse detonation engine looks nice. I'm not sure how all of this will effect range though.

It's very difficult to figure out cost for an engine. The V-1 Flying Bomb would cost roughly $50k dollars to produce today, and I'm guessing that includes explosives.

Although my cost is pretty much "less then half the price of the enemy's anti-air missiles."

Actually, for this sort of range, a ducted rocket & ramjet starts looking appropriate.

Alternately, instead of rocket-boost, recoilless-gun/catapult.

Otherwise, you;ve got a bomb that'll take 1 hour to deliver and is susceptable to an AKM-barrage.

1 hour AWACS AEW seems useless, since it doesn't have procesing-power to interpret the data.

I prefer a slow bomb, it's not much slower then a Tomahawk, and I could fire about five times as many SRCMs as a Tomahawk for much less cost.

Catapult seems like a good idea.

It will relay the data. Besides, it depends on the circumstance on how useful it could be.

Rockets and rocket boosted ramjets are the way to go.


PDEs and Pulsejets are fiddley.

I think this is a troll despite that r&c is dumb enough to do it for srs. But for the other ppl reading:

There's no reason this should be cheaper. It weighs more than a tomahawk, and has the same time of engine. You've made an enlarged tomahawk and replaced some of the jet fuel with more explosives, essentially. Apparently you think jet fuel is much more expensive. You've then added a radar. Ok I'll grant it's more like the actual TERCOM system, and maybe a bit worse, so you would save a few % there except you added home on jam.

Somehow this larger, in some ways more capable tomahawk comes out at 1/10th the price.



Bonus points for silliness: tomahawks don't take off using their jet engine like a plane, they have a solid fuel first stage that boosts them to the required speed.

Just use a lawnmower engine.

I thought modern aircraft use snowmobile engines.

Fairly certain the bulk of the cost for missiles are the electronics.

Home on radar is a separate feature and is part of a specific warhead.

The price does not include explosives.

The x-jet engine has less moving parts and I believe is cheaper, better suited as a throw-away.

Bonus points for history: V-1 flying bomb, modernized
Fuel range increased assuming 25% fuel efficiency increase every 25 years, making for 60% fuel consumption reduction.

wat

Where are you saving money?

There's slightly more to it than this, it has to be designed in deliberately.

Don't waste your time on a PDE/Pulsejet.

....

https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=richan...owmobile+engine
Danton brought up lawnmower engines.

Saving money with non-precision electronics. Can't hit the broadside of a barn, but it can still blow one up. This pretty much uses civilian aircraft radar, . Model airplane servo controllers are used, although I'll admit no current model travels faster then 550 km/h.

I see. Removed. Will add a "home in radar variant though"

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/a...ble-weapon.html

Twice the alleged price of this.

Interesting. First piece of information I've heard about that, especially considering:

So. No information on CEP50 or any other statistics? The affordable weapon program uses state of the art off the shelf electronics... which doesn't mean much for cost cutting.

You might not be aware of this, but off-the-shelf state-of-the-art electronics can be used to land planes with an accuracy of less then one meter.

V1 had "point it towards London" guidance and a crappy 1st gen jet engine giving it 1/3 the range (and how do you know what a V1 would cost today anyway?).

You have a turbofan*, GPS-INS and a terrain mapping radar just like the regular tomahawk. The fuel efficiency improvements aren't free, they come from having a turbofan rather than a pulsejet.

"The Affordable Weapon has a range of more than 1560 km (840 nm), and payload options include several types of warhead and surveillance packages with a weight of up to 90 kg (200 lb). "

This weapon would seem to deliver 1/10th the payload of R&C's for 1/2 the price.




*I'm taking this is what you mean by x jet - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_X-Jet It would seem to just be a turbofan, and if simpler and cheaper only because it was intended for much lower performance than you're claiming here.