Starfleet Jedi

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/ ... eapon.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqwMzQiXlK0

Oh my. The Russians create a new, concealable cruise missils system (and totally steal from Pirates of the Caribbean at the same time) capable of being loaded on a truck, train or ship and carrying out a precise preemptive strike against a hostile enemy force comprised of stuff that resembles, or more accurately, looks exactly like United States hardware.

Price is 20 million a pop for four missiles and virtual undetectability.

One variant mounts a missile designed to kill aircraft carriers.

I've got to say, the concept is brilliant. Terrifying, but brilliant. It's extremely convincing as a deterrent, but I'd be a fool to say that it would only ever be used as such. If I were a terrorist looking for a way to deliver an improvised nuclear weapon, this would look much better to me than a suitcase. If this goes operational, I'd say we're going to need a lot more intelligence operatives.

Cocytus wrote:... carrying out a precise preemptive strike against a hostile enemy force ...

Preemtive strike?

That was what was shown in the little movie.

But these weapons are not only good for a preemptive strike. They also can be used for a conventional first strike and for attacks during an already ongoing war. Somehow I doubt that these Weapons were designed with only the purpose to dish out an preemptive strike in mind - if at all.

Cocytus wrote:... stuff that resembles, or more accurately, looks exactly like United States hardware ...

Please elaborate!

Why do you think, that the computer animated movie does show hardware that looks exactly like United States hardware?

I'd though that similarities are to be expected considering the fact that the purpose is similar. Or do you expect the Russians to develop cuboid rockets so that they are looking different from US rockets?

Cocytus wrote:If this goes operational, I'd say we're going to need a lot more intelligence operatives.

What would you want to do?

Guard each container delivered by its manufacturer or each ship, train or truck that could hold such a container?



Isn't it a wonderful world in which we are delivering our enemies the means to attack us? I wonder when the Chechen freedom fighters / rebels / terrorists are using such device against Russia for the first time.

No authority has the power to check all containers that make it to the docks per day, and no one will check the containers of ships far away from the coasts. So with good prep, those Club Ks can clearly be turned into an effective first strike weapon.
Besides the price is really not too expensive. 20 M, that's peanuts.

The problem is the guidance. The Club M shows that guidance is done by a radar being close to the target, or with the help of satellites. What's going to help those missiles fired from containers?

Also, why should we think no one is going to intercept them? They're big, should be easy to spot on a radar. Interceptor missiles exist.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:The problem is the guidance. The Club M shows that guidance is done by a radar being close to the target, or with the help of satellites. What's going to help those missiles fired from containers?

Google Maps, gps and a wireless broadband access?

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Also, why should we think no one is going to intercept them? They're big, should be easy to spot on a radar. Interceptor missiles exist.

The problem would be the remaining time to initiate counter meassures.

With such rockets, you could drive several boxes of them on a truck to Washington, New, York or the vicinity of each important Navy or Air Force base and start a coordinated attack on important targets. The rockets would need only seconds to reach their target. If you have the rockets - and assuming that nobody knows about it - it's only a logistical challenge. The to me important question is therefore, if it is possible to get such rockets without any secret services noticing it.

W.I.L.G.A wrote:Preemtive strike?

That was what was shown in the little movie.

But these weapons are not only good for a preemptive strike. They also can be used for a conventional first strike and for attacks during an already ongoing war. Somehow I doubt that these Weapons were designed with only the purpose to dish out an preemptive strike in mind - if at all.

Which is what I hinted at right here:

Cocytus wrote:but I'd be a fool to say that it would only ever be used as such

W.I.L.G.A wrote:Please elaborate!

Why do you think, that the computer animated movie does show hardware that looks exactly like United States hardware?

I'd though that similarities are to be expected considering the fact that the purpose is similar. Or do you expect the Russians to develop cuboid rockets so that they are looking different from US rockets?

I say that because I know what my country's hardware looks like, and I think this stuff looks a lot like it, in some instances exactly like it. If you don't, then provide counterexamples from the military hardware of other nations.

The big cargo plane is a C5 Galaxy, built by Lockheed and operated exclusively by the US Air Force.

The fighter aircraft are F-18 Hornets. We've exported the Hornet to several countries (but not the C5.)

The tanks are a little harder. They look most like either an M1 Abrams or a British Challenger 2, but there are lots of tank models out there (many of which are copies of others, so I'll give the tanks a pass)

The ships stump me, I admit. They aren't San-Antonio class, which is the current US amphibious dock ship.

Your cuboid rocket statement is silly. Why I think the makers of the video chose to use our hardware or similar looking hardware is because US military vehicles are recognizable to a wider audience. But at the same time, considering who Russia sells to, could this video also be a veiled threat? I don't know.

W.I.L.G.A wrote:What would you want to do?

Guard each container delivered by its manufacturer or each ship, train or truck that could hold such a container?

No, of course not. That kind of surveillance isn't possible. What we're going to need more intelligence for is preventing the weapon from falling into the hands of a terrorist group.

As for guidance, the video shows satellite guidance, but the simplest way to navigate a cruise missile is called TERCOM, or terrain contour matching. Thanks to satellites, we have many comprehensive terrain maps of various places on the planet. A strip of one of these maps is imput into the onboard navigation system of the missile, consisting merely of the sequence of altitudes above the land underlying the missile's course. An onboard radar altimeter measures the distance from the missile to the ground and compares it to the map, which allows the missile to fly a preset course without any sort of external guidance. The problem with TERCOM is that the route has to be preselected, and any serious course error cannot be corrected by the onboard system. Satellite navigation allows the missile to be fired from any location at any target with real-time correction for the motion of the target, assuming its a ship or groundforce in motion. Terrorist organizations don't have satellites, thankfully, but with just TERCOM every fixed installation is under threat, like airfields, bases, ports, that sort of thing.

Cocytus wrote:

W.I.L.G.A wrote:Please elaborate!

Why do you think, that the computer animated movie does show hardware that looks exactly like United States hardware?

I'd though that similarities are to be expected considering the fact that the purpose is similar. Or do you expect the Russians to develop cuboid rockets so that they are looking different from US rockets?

I say that because I know what my country's hardware looks like, and I think this stuff looks a lot like it, in some instances exactly like it. If you don't, then provide counterexamples from the military hardware of other nations.

The big cargo plane is a C5 Galaxy, built by Lockheed and operated exclusively by the US Air Force.

The fighter aircraft are F-18 Hornets. We've exported the Hornet to several countries (but not the C5.)

The tanks are a little harder. They look most like either an M1 Abrams or a British Challenger 2, but there are lots of tank models out there (many of which are copies of others, so I'll give the tanks a pass)

The ships stump me, I admit. They aren't San-Antonio class, which is the current US amphibious dock ship.

Your cuboid rocket statement is silly. Why I think the makers of the video chose to use our hardware or similar looking hardware is because US military vehicles are recognizable to a wider audience. But at the same time, considering who Russia sells to, could this video also be a veiled threat? I don't know.

Mea culpa

I thought you were speaking of the missiles and cargo containers. I concentrated on these in the video. After all, the video was supposed to present these.

But you were speaking of the other shown military hardware. I didn't really noticed it because it was not really important in that movie. One could have used other models as well.

If the threat becomes real, it would make international transit stall, in need of checking absolutely all containers, all of them. The result would be countries focusing on local industry and intranational shipments, with a hefty does of isolationism. And more war.