cruise missile in a box (shipping container)

**turretman1st** · 27 Apr 10,, 01:05

saw this on Telegraph.co.uk photo from there.

A cruise missile in a shipping box on sale to rogue bidders .

Defense experts are warning of a new danger of ballistic weapons proliferation after a Russian company started marketing a cruise missile that can be launched from a shipping container.

scenario container ship near naval carrier force, all top containers missile containers. all fire on naval force.

same time : container ships entering ports near naval bases also fire on ships in port. airbases government buildings bridges ect......

A cruise missile in a shipping box on sale to rogue bidders - Telegraph

**Dreadnought** · 27 Apr 10,, 16:02

Well atleast we will know who to return the favor too.:(

**turretman1st** · 27 Apr 10,, 22:00

as above this is the worlds largest at this time belonging to china.
her deck load is 22 containers wide by 22 containers long.

which would mean her top level would be about 484 containers.

if loaded with missile in a box would be 4 missiles each times 484 equals

1936 cruise missiles.
yikes

**turretman1st** · 27 Apr 10,, 22:09

fingers not working

missing photo's

**NUS** · 28 Apr 10,, 06:14

Video the snapshot is taken from:

The choice of aggressor's enginery is... interesting.

**Swift Sword** · 28 Apr 10,, 12:55

I heard about this sometime back and think it is a wonderful idea.

Manufacturers blurb:

Club-K Container Missile System

The development and deployment of the inter nodal network was a huge leap forward in logistics.

Given the power and flexibility of the inter nodal network, it lends itself well to the notion of weaponization.

The possibilities are myriad and interesting for this sort of thing going forward. Driving down the cost of war so more people can play will make the times much more interesting.

William

**Moroz** · 28 Apr 10,, 14:37

Originally Posted by turretman1st

as above this is the worlds largest at this time belonging to china.
her deck load is 22 containers wide by 22 containers long.

which would mean her top level would be about 484 containers.

if loaded with missile in a box would be 4 missiles each times 484 equals

1936 cruise missiles.
yikes

U've missed that every container-louncher neads 4-5 meters free space to be open

**Deltacamelately** · 28 Apr 10,, 15:26

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Well atleast we will know who to return the favor too.:(

Dread,

I fear not. Just imagine what max we can do if hit by a salvo fired from an un marked/flaged container ship from the middle of nowhere....

Blow it up and lose intel to return the favour to its source.

**Officer of Engineers** · 28 Apr 10,, 16:09

Ahhh but to imagine to command such a battery, Major.

**Deltacamelately** · 29 Apr 10,, 08:08

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Ahhh but to imagine to command such a battery, Major.

Sir,

But isn't the possibility realistic?

**Dreadnought** · 29 Apr 10,, 13:09

Originally Posted by Deltacamelately

Dread,

I fear not. Just imagine what max we can do if hit by a salvo fired from an un marked/flaged container ship from the middle of nowhere....

Blow it up and lose intel to return the favour to its source.

*Correct Sir,
We would be more interested how it got aboard ship, who inspected the cargo and where it orignated from. Confiscate the vessel and its cargo and perhaps motivate the owners to be more vigil. Then pursue who sent it. Weapons like these will draw steeper measures in security aboard ships and cargo inspections with xray tech.

**Bluesman** · 29 Apr 10,, 13:23

Quite a threat.

So, here we go again: at the very same time the Russians - who are total weapon-whores, and will sell to ANYbody, if the check clears - are making new, powerful weapons, our own 'President' refuses to even defend us against those weapons, and cuts demonstrably effective systems across the board.

WORSE.

THAN.

CARTER.

**Gun Grape** · 01 May 10,, 18:09

Using the train or semitrailer to move the launchers to to a previously surveyed launch point to launch against a stationary target is nothing new.

The only thing different is the weapon is a cruise missile vice a scud, peacekeer ect.

Launching from a ship to hit a stationary target. Maybe but it takes a different guidance system to tell the missile where it is at the launch point.
One of the reasons that there are 3 different versions of Tomahawk missile.

Launching from any of the three and hitting a moving target, at sea or on shore. Not without way more assets for target tracking than is shown.

**Tin Man** · 01 May 10,, 19:26

As I mentioned on the other thread, I don`t buy it. With cruise missile systems you have to have, or buy into a targeting network, when you try to detect, acquire and target a warship, all of these efforts can be detected, I think the USN has this covered.

Then think about WHO would use this system. They only way you could make this work is to fire a point blank shot and hope the missiles radar doesn`t get spoofed, jammed or shaqued by a missile itself. The Carrier not being stood to on alert or at any kind of readiness would help too. If this was the case, I could fly a Cessna loaded with fertilizer into the thing and the Club K would be a waste of money.

Again, the manufacturers require lining up producing such a dastardly weapon and selling to the highest bidder!