Box-O-missiles

[Victor3]

 This is a neat toy. Get yours today for only $15M.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/7632543/A-cruise-missile-in-a-shipping-box-on-sale-to-rogue-bidders.html

 "This Club-K is game changing with the ability to wipe out an aircraft carrier 200 miles away. The threat is immense in that no one can tell how far deployed your missiles could be," said Robert Hewson, editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons, who first reported on the Club-K developments.

[MGMorden]

Such is the way of war.  Your enemies will always get better and better technology.  If you hope to stay in the game you better had do the same.  There is no such thing as playing fair.

I have the same reaction when people call armor penetrating bullets "cop killers" and try to ban them.  Yes, you found a neat way to stop a slower moving bullet.  If you think that you can rest on your laurels and sit there smug in in your Kevlar though then you're in for a rude awakening.  Technology moves forward.  Move yours forward too or don't complain when your enemy outstrips you.

IMHO, we're simply going to need to move to large targets having missile defense systems.  Possibly laser based (it takes a huge structure to hold the stuff needed to power such things), but there are plenty of options on the table.

[Squib]

or the US Navy could just keep the ships docked when not actively destroying something (they're meant to tear stuff up, not patrol).  it's not the technology, it's the rules of engagement.

[teamnelson]

it's not the technology, it's the rules of engagement.

squib, thank you. most folks forget that part, and its the most important.

[mcwoodduck]

Such is the way of war.  Your enemies will always get better and better technology.  If you hope to stay in the game you better had do the same.  There is no such thing as playing fair.

I have the same reaction when people call armor penetrating bullets "cop killers" and try to ban them.  Yes, you found a neat way to stop a slower moving bullet.  If you think that you can rest on your laurels and sit there smug in in your Kevlar though then you're in for a rude awakening.  Technology moves forward.  Move yours forward too or don't complain when your enemy outstrips you.

IMHO, we're simply going to need to move to large targets having missile defense systems.  Possibly laser based (it takes a huge structure to hold the stuff needed to power such things), but there are plenty of options on the table.

Yes and no.
If they have better and better technoligy we need to obtain that technoligy so we can figure out a way to either tell what is in the box or be able to block the launch.  
Like shooting a tile (like the ones from the Space Shuttle) from a statalite that will hit and sink a ship anywhere in the world.
Think what kind of damage a hot hunk of glass will do falling from space when it hits a missle in the launch mode.  Revive star wars.
The reason we have so many carrier groups is so We do not have to spend time moving carrier groups 1/2 way around the world.  If that is what we wanted to do we would only need two reinforved groups - one in Norfolk and one in Pearl harbor.  But would take months to get our over the horizon power to a problem that could escalate beyond what we want.

[teamnelson]

Rumsfeld bought into the school of thought that thinks wars will be won by superior technology, yet the application of that theory has often proven disastrous. Wars will be won by people who give a damn about why they're fighting, which drives them to overwhelm technology with cleverness and heroism. A unit operating in our AO flipped the most highly advanced MRAP vehicle upside down in a canal with 8 ft of water in it. The highly advanced system required an AC unit which when mounted blocked the escape hatch in the roof, which was now the floor. The primary drop doors were not designed to be opened upside down. The bank they were driving on had been dug into at the reed level to undermine the strength of the berm - no explosives required, vehicle rolls sideways easily cause its topheavy. We've improved personal armor to save lives, but they're so heavy we have higher incidences of heat sickness, kidney damage, joint disorders, back injuries ... and the enemy either uses larger caliber, or explosive devices. Most vehicles have IED defeat systems, which the enemy has figured out how to thwart using the timer off a washing machine and an old 900mhz phone.  Eventually the technology becomes a limitation, a liability. Which is why this box of missiles is so sexy ... its a low tech high yield solution. I can think of a few ways to get it in the US unchallenged too.

[mcwoodduck]

Rumsfeld bought into the school of thought that thinks wars will be won by superior technology, yet the application of that theory has often proven disastrous. Wars will be won by people who give a damn about why they're fighting, which drives them to overwhelm technology with cleverness and heroism. A unit operating in our AO flipped the most highly advanced MRAP vehicle upside down in a canal with 8 ft of water in it. The highly advanced system required an AC unit which when mounted blocked the escape hatch in the roof, which was now the floor. The primary drop doors were not designed to be opened upside down. The bank they were driving on had been dug into at the reed level to undermine the strength of the berm - no explosives required, vehicle rolls sideways easily cause its topheavy. We've improved personal armor to save lives, but they're so heavy we have higher incidences of heat sickness, kidney damage, joint disorders, back injuries ... and the enemy either uses larger caliber, or explosive devices. Most vehicles have IED defeat systems, which the enemy has figured out how to thwart using the timer off a washing machine and an old 900mhz phone.  Eventually the technology becomes a limitation, a liability. Which is why this box of missiles is so sexy ... its a low tech high yield solution. I can think of a few ways to get it in the US unchallenged too.

Sorry If you took what I said as a slight to our military.
I know that the Gee Whiz technoligy people have made quite a few mistakes- The F4 fighter that did not have a gun mounted on it.  The Design by commette that gave us the Sgt York that was designed to do what the ZSU-23 does but did it at 10X the price and had a lot of extra missions added to the design that killed the primary idea to shoot down Russian rotary wing and slow fixed wing like the hind or helix.
What I was talking about was getting hold of thier technoligy like they get hold of ours and reverse engineering it and see where the weak spots are and how we can exploit it.  If the Conex missle has a tell of some kind that we can see/ hear / or sense in some way shape or form then we should go after it and destroy it at all costs be it by star wars or by guys with guns.  It is still the warrior that is needed to either press a button, fly a plane, pull a trigger.
And I understand that the troops are who do the fighting, put thier lives o nthe line and carry out the country's will when needed and I salute anyone who has served.  As others have stated the Rules of Engagment are what allow the war fighters to take the fight to the enemy.  The politicians are who make the ROE and most of the time they do not understand how the military works and in the ROE they put troops in harms way like the Unloaded rifles , and openly so with empty mag wells, in Lebonon that allowed a truck bomb to be driven to the Marine corps barracks.  An attack if they had deployed a jamming devise would have detonated the bomb in the truck 100 yards from the barracks.

[no guns here]

Nice... but where are the targeting systems, radar systems, maintenance personnel etc?  Looks like a cool idea but someone still has to maintain it.  Someone has to target it.  Someone has to fire it.  Not just a box with a missile that you can fire anytime you want.


NGH

[Victor3]

Nice... but where are the targeting systems, radar systems, maintenance personnel etc?  Looks like a cool idea but someone still has to maintain it.  Someone has to target it.  Someone has to fire it.  Not just a box with a missile that you can fire anytime you want.
NGH

 While the system still appears to be vaporware at this point, the marketing video shows an area at the end of the container that might house a small command & control center. Missiles will be GPS guided.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIgvGpH2smY&NR=1

 (Note that the evil blue country attacking the peaceful red one with the Club-K missiles appears to be equipped with distinctly US hardware)

 The beauty of the thing is that it can be painted (and re-painted as many times as you want) to blend in with any group of common shipping containers and be shuffled around undetected with them. It could easily be moved 100 miles in a couple of hours. Support could travel with it in another container or be pre-positioned at its destination.

 It can supposedly go from container to launcher and back again in under five minutes. Pretty slick.

[teamnelson]

Nice... but where are the targeting systems, radar systems, maintenance personnel etc?  Looks like a cool idea but someone still has to maintain it.  Someone has to target it.  Someone has to fire it.  Not just a box with a missile that you can fire anytime you want.


NGH

The design of this box is not for peaceful response to an agressor, or else you'd be using openly identifiable systems tied into a national targeting system as an extension of a legitimate defense force. This is a first strike weapon, designed to infiltrate and fire behind the enemy's defenses. Its a terrorist's christmas present.

So for a terrorist act, targeting is easy with publicly accessible GPS location data, which gives you all 3 dimensions for reference. They're not expecting precision guidance outside a meter, but heck how much do you need to hit a footbal stadium, or densely populated area. As for maintenance, you'd think they'd at least like someone to inspect it once its been offloaded in the enemy port. But hey, if you detonate in place, its still a win - when in doubt, blow something up.

[bearmgc]

Those enemies we should worry about , don't worry about collateral damage. We are undermined right from the start.

[Victor3]

The design of this box is not for peaceful response to an agressor, or else you'd be using openly identifiable systems tied into a national targeting system as an extension of a legitimate defense force. This is a first strike weapon, designed to infiltrate and fire behind the enemy's defenses. Its a terrorist's christmas present.

 TN - I read a response from one of the Russian company's PR guys to something similar to what you say above. Paraphrasing, it went like...

 "What's the big deal? Plenty of militaries have all kinds of sneaky stuff; subs, stealth bombers, etc. The Club-K is no different."

 (Indeed. But nobody's painting their subs and aircraft to look like whales and seagulls)

 As far as the things getting into terrorists' hands, the PR guy was quick to point out that they require "very strict" end user agreements from their buyers. They prolly gotta show ID, sign forms and everything. 

[teamnelson]

Ha, yeah. What no mental and physical health forms? Fingerprints? I gotta do that to buy a handi rifle in HI!

[SHOOTALL]

The more intense your fear the faster you wipe out that which causes your fear. When you up the ante you up the cost to you also. So i guess we lay a few more fast attack subs off shore and watch shipping closer . And also lay a few more boomers off their shore ready to well ready you know .

[SHOOTALL]

hidden in plain sight !

[billy_56081]

GPS guidence is only useful until the satelites are shut off. Simple way to make these inefective.

And by the way the Sgt. York never became an ADA system the vulcan was never replaced.

[SHOOTALL]

maybe they will use skuds in them launch and hope they hit where ya want

[teamnelson]

TM7, great questions. We, the US, still operate under a semblance of lawful warfare. Some of the guidelines of this type of understanding includes clearly identifiable teams, so we can tell the hostiles from the citizenry. We have traditionally held ourselves to a standard of honorable conduct which would preclude us from engaging in the sorts of tactics our "enemies" use, like using human shields, or putting Baby Food signs on factories producing chemical or biological weapons.

If for example we converted our coastal defense missile batteries to all look like CONEX containers, then an enemy could legitimately attack any and all CONEX boxes. Of course, if we went that direction we might want our enemies to do just that, in order to film it and release it to the media to demonstrate that our enemies were acting dishonorably. These are not the tactics of an honorable nation.

You cannot divorce moral responsibility from the possession of strategic weapons systems - I'm not talking about what is legal, I'm talking about what is right, which still matters to the US Military ... to a diminishing degree I'll admit. Placing ourselves to that standard does in fact limit what we can and can't do in war, and many (here) chafe under those limitations. There is no point in winning/surviving a war if the ideals and values are sacrificed to attain it.

[teamnelson]

TM7, sadly I suppose you are right ... An immoral democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner, as the joke goes. In that model I choose to be a sheep dog, stay with the flock and do the best I can. Another generation of unblooded warriors is looking to our nation for approval, for the stamp of adulthood - and the options we give them are perpetual childhood or military service, under dubious policy. They want to believe in something, be a part of something good, honorable, meaningful. Will America give them that somewhere?

I am preparing for my final project in National Security Decision Making, which my Professor has already imagined will be the most philosophical of the bunch. I do not think the choice to withdraw from world events is ours to make anymore; we abdicated that power possibly decades ago (Wilson maybe? I don't know.) So I will continue to be the voice in favor of an America that keeps her honor clean, on the battlefield if no where else.

[SHOOTALL]

TN you have great points , but as the other side slides more toward low moral/no hornor warfare they will force us in the same direction as one must fight fire with fire at times . At some point we will be driven past hornor to a survival mode and will be forced to unleash all we have with vengence ! It will not be a stellar moment but nessary .

[SHOOTALL]

When they hit our shore all bets are off . One would be the biggest fool on earth to not realize wars are won by destorying the othersides ablity to make war IE; stop all production of war material and they can't fight much longer . Soilders In uniform don't work in the plants . If you produce anything that aids your side in war you are a soilder in a way . It could be food production , war materials , first aid materials and other things . how do we view those having babies that become soliders in a long war . Its not a simple thing is it . The simplest way to look at it is if you illegaly kill an enemy to save the lives of those on your side are you honorable or not .

[beerbelly]

There is no such thing as a fair fight! There are just winners and losers.
                      Beerbelly

[billy_56081]

OMG how the silly armchair generals can sit back and talk about honor and fighting fair when it comes to war. War is killing people and detroying infrstructure. It is not a sport. It is not for the weak or compassionate those folks need to shut up and stay out of the way. The reason the Mongols were so effective, it was surrender or die, the only 2 choices. That is the way war is won.

TM you speak of honor, while you have never served.

[SHOOTALL]

If you find yourself in a fair fight your tatics suck ! I believe Clint Smith owns that little piece of wisdom .

[teamnelson]

As one who has been there, done that, war is not win at any cost. Weak men take that approach ... the Monghols still live in yurts and rule no one. every single entity that has taken that approach fell apart from the inside from moral decay and were conquered. Perhaps the wisdom of Stan lee is more easy to digest - with great power comes great responsibility.

[SHOOTALL]

To lose and not expend every effort to win makes even less sense . To inform the world in advance you will lose before using the tools you have on hand to the last one seems the perfect discription of stupidity .
 But one must ask who are leaders responsible to those in their country , the voters or the enemy ?

[billy_56081]

TN don't they still train all y'all officers from the tactics of the Mongols?

[teamnelson]

I can only speak for Marine infantry, but no; Monghol tactics are not part of the training. Expeditionary Warfare focuses on Assymetrical models, what euphemistically used to be called "guerilla" although manuever warfare is much much more refined than say a Nicaraguan revolution. You just need to render the enemy useless, which does not require annihilation.

Prior to each combat deployment we still have a capstone training at 29 palms where we conduct a combined arms exercise on an objective. I like to run through the squad/platoon level ops with my guys, but for the BN level exercise, I like to be up with the forward observers for air/arty and sniper. Once were in country, there's really no place to watch an operation of that size and see the whole thing at once, but I've bermed and cleared 5 cities in Iraq - we don't burn, loot, rape, pillage and kill. We search, seize, detain bad guys, and leave everyone else to carry on with their lives. We want to remove the cancer, not kill the body.

[billy_56081]

Well TN maybe they stopped yeaching the manuvers and tactics used by the generals of Ghengis Khan. With as many wars as we have not won latley I can see that to be true.

But trust me the mavuever of troop formations in a modern army would be fully understood by one of Khans generals.

[teamnelson]

Khan had a different objective than the US military; you cannot compare tactics between entities with different desired outcomes.