• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Moscow markets cruise missile launched from a freight container

texmaster

texmaster

Hippie Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
3,969
Reaction score
1,209
Location
Dallas TEXAS
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This relatively cheap, extra-smart, easy-to-use Club-K Container Missile System, which Moscow has put on the open market, allows cruise missiles concealed in freight containers to be launched from a prepositioned or moving land or sea platform. It is virtually undetectable by radar until activated. No wonder, Iran and Venezuela were keenly interested when the Club-K was put on the market at the Defense Services Asia exhibition in Malaysia this week for $15 million.

Western military experts are calling it a "real maritime fear for anyone with a waterfront." The container-cum-missiles, carried by a ship, fishing vessel or truck can approach a targeted coast, highway or international railway and strike behind the target's missile defenses without alerting radar monitors or even surveillance drones and satellites.

In Iranian hands, it would make the targeting of its nuclear facilities very difficult. Able to wipe out an aircraft carrier up to 400 kilometers away, the system's manufacturer, Novator, is directing its marketing tactics at anyone under threat of military action from the United States. One expert accused the Russians of proliferating ballistic missiles on an unheard-of scale.

At the Malaysian exhibition, the marketing film showed the Club-K being activated from an ordinary truck. (See picture.) The truck pulls up, whereupon the container roof lifts up to reveal four 3?-54?E, 3?-54?E1 and 3?-14?E cruise missiles ready to fire. The operator then pushes a button and the missiles, which have a range of 350 km, are launched without further preparation.

debkafile's military sources warn that the sale of Club-K cruise missile systems to Iran or Syria and their transfer to Hizballah would give them an edge substantial enough to be a game-changer into the Middle East balance of strength. They are capable of surreptitiously approaching Israeli, Iraqi and any other coastlines in the region, and send missiles flying against an American, Arab or Israeli strategic or military target before their targets know they are under attack.

The missile specialist Novator, which maintains a manufacturing plant in Yekaterinburg in the Ural Mountains, produces an array of missiles against air, sea and land targets, including cruise missiles launched from submarines, as well as the advanced S-300 missile interceptor, which Russia contracted to sell Iran but has so far not delivered.


The Cold War is alive and well.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security
 
Well I for one am not at all surprised that the Criminals of the Kremlin would be the purveyors of such weapons and to the lowest forms of political or social filth that can afford it.

I realize that Russians are physically humans but that is about all that I will agrre is human about them.
 
You've missed an important point, and that is that a Russian company is developing the missile system, not the Russian government, which appears to be unaffiliated.
 
texmaster said:
This relatively cheap, extra-smart, easy-to-use Club-K Container Missile System, which Moscow has put on the open market, allows cruise missiles concealed in freight containers to be launched from a prepositioned or moving land or sea platform. It is virtually undetectable by radar until activated. No wonder, Iran and Venezuela were keenly interested when the Club-K was put on the market at the Defense Services Asia exhibition in Malaysia this week for $15 million.

Western military experts are calling it a "real maritime fear for anyone with a waterfront." The container-cum-missiles, carried by a ship, fishing vessel or truck can approach a targeted coast, highway or international railway and strike behind the target's missile defenses without alerting radar monitors or even surveillance drones and satellites.

In Iranian hands, it would make the targeting of its nuclear facilities very difficult. Able to wipe out an aircraft carrier up to 400 kilometers away, the system's manufacturer, Novator, is directing its marketing tactics at anyone under threat of military action from the United States. One expert accused the Russians of proliferating ballistic missiles on an unheard-of scale.

At the Malaysian exhibition, the marketing film showed the Club-K being activated from an ordinary truck. (See picture.) The truck pulls up, whereupon the container roof lifts up to reveal four 3?-54?E, 3?-54?E1 and 3?-14?E cruise missiles ready to fire. The operator then pushes a button and the missiles, which have a range of 350 km, are launched without further preparation.

debkafile's military sources warn that the sale of Club-K cruise missile systems to Iran or Syria and their transfer to Hizballah would give them an edge substantial enough to be a game-changer into the Middle East balance of strength. They are capable of surreptitiously approaching Israeli, Iraqi and any other coastlines in the region, and send missiles flying against an American, Arab or Israeli strategic or military target before their targets know they are under attack.

The missile specialist Novator, which maintains a manufacturing plant in Yekaterinburg in the Ural Mountains, produces an array of missiles against air, sea and land targets, including cruise missiles launched from submarines, as well as the advanced S-300 missile interceptor, which Russia contracted to sell Iran but has so far not delivered.


The Cold War is alive and well.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security
Click to expand...




Seems like I've mentioned something at least twice in the last few months, most recently about a week ago, that once Iran had a nuke they could hit the USA by firing a missle from a cargo vessel just outside of our territorial waters.

A lot of people were skeptical about that... but as I said, I wasn't just speculating. This isn't a new worry and it has been talked about at high levels.
 
And Obama would probably still sit down without preconditions after the missile strike.
 
Yossarian said:
You've missed an important point, and that is that a Russian company is developing the missile system, not the Russian government, which appears to be unaffiliated.
Click to expand...

Don't bet that there is any company that is "unaffiliated" in the fascist state of Russia. Those 'people' don't know what unaffiliated. Did you forget that Putski the PM is a KGB slug ?
 
F107HyperSabr said:
Can we be at least start to be a little teeny bit honest and remember that these particular missle systems were not covered by START.
Click to expand...

They should have been.

It's the height of irresponsibility for any nation to be selling weapons like this to the terrorist nations.

Clearly a precondition for START would be that such missile development be abandoned. Otherwise, the US should be re-building it's nuclear stockpiles because any country that sucker-punches us with one of those things should NOT expect to in the same time zone the next morning.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
They should have been.

It's the height of irresponsibility for any nation to be selling weapons like this to the terrorist nations.

Clearly a precondition for START would be that such missile development be abandoned. Otherwise, the US should be re-building it's nuclear stockpiles because any country that sucker-punches us with one of those things should NOT expect to in the same time zone the next morning.
Click to expand...

And there a a very queezy feeling I had when BO POTUS said they we would not slap at countries who did not have a nuke program but even with convention al warheads these missles would be un-nice.

Me thoinks that POYUS needs to thunk his prfemature pronouncement on nuclear proliferation !!!
 
F107HyperSabr said:
And there a a very queezy feeling I had when BO POTUS said they we would not slap at countries who did not have a nuke program but even with convention al warheads these missles would be un-nice.

Me thoinks that POYUS needs to thunk his prfemature pronouncement on nuclear proliferation !!!
Click to expand...

Yeah, don't hold your breath on that. The Messiah is surpassing Carter in his plunge for the most extreme anti-American nonsense he can come up with. If Iran launched a nuke that took out the US forces in Afghanistan, that boy in Washington would be off to Tehran to bow for someone.
 
Goshin said:
Seems like I've mentioned something at least twice in the last few months, most recently about a week ago, that once Iran had a nuke they could hit the USA by firing a missle from a cargo vessel just outside of our territorial waters.
Click to expand...

Uh...that idea has been floating around the weapons control groups for decades. Furthermore, jury-rigging cruise missiles to launch from anything large enough to hold them is about as old as the concept of cruise missiles.

A lot of people were skeptical about that... but as I said, I wasn't just speculating. This isn't a new worry and it has been talked about at high levels.
Click to expand...

For years.

The real concern is really about what types of missiles groups who could buy this have access to.

I don't see how this is game changing compared to jury rigging launch tubes on fishing ships. And Iran could simply just ship a nuke to us and set it off in a port.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
They should have been.

It's the height of irresponsibility for any nation to be selling weapons like this to the terrorist nations.

Clearly a precondition for START would be that such missile development be abandoned. Otherwise, the US should be re-building it's nuclear stockpiles because any country that sucker-punches us with one of those things should NOT expect to in the same time zone the next morning.
Click to expand...

its a corporation, not the russian government thats sellin' 'em, and i thought most americans were for a free market?
 
spud_meister said:
its a corporation, not the russian government thats sellin' 'em, and i thought most americans were for a free market?
Click to expand...

And you actually believe that this corporation could sell weapons systems without the approval of the Russian government ???
 
texmaster said:
This relatively cheap, extra-smart, easy-to-use Club-K Container Missile System, which Moscow has put on the open market, allows cruise missiles concealed in freight containers to be launched from a prepositioned or moving land or sea platform. It is virtually undetectable by radar until activated. No wonder, Iran and Venezuela were keenly interested when the Club-K was put on the market at the Defense Services Asia exhibition in Malaysia this week for $15 million.

Western military experts are calling it a "real maritime fear for anyone with a waterfront." The container-cum-missiles, carried by a ship, fishing vessel or truck can approach a targeted coast, highway or international railway and strike behind the target's missile defenses without alerting radar monitors or even surveillance drones and satellites.

In Iranian hands, it would make the targeting of its nuclear facilities very difficult. Able to wipe out an aircraft carrier up to 400 kilometers away, the system's manufacturer, Novator, is directing its marketing tactics at anyone under threat of military action from the United States. One expert accused the Russians of proliferating ballistic missiles on an unheard-of scale.

At the Malaysian exhibition, the marketing film showed the Club-K being activated from an ordinary truck. (See picture.) The truck pulls up, whereupon the container roof lifts up to reveal four 3?-54?E, 3?-54?E1 and 3?-14?E cruise missiles ready to fire. The operator then pushes a button and the missiles, which have a range of 350 km, are launched without further preparation.

debkafile's military sources warn that the sale of Club-K cruise missile systems to Iran or Syria and their transfer to Hizballah would give them an edge substantial enough to be a game-changer into the Middle East balance of strength. They are capable of surreptitiously approaching Israeli, Iraqi and any other coastlines in the region, and send missiles flying against an American, Arab or Israeli strategic or military target before their targets know they are under attack.

The missile specialist Novator, which maintains a manufacturing plant in Yekaterinburg in the Ural Mountains, produces an array of missiles against air, sea and land targets, including cruise missiles launched from submarines, as well as the advanced S-300 missile interceptor, which Russia contracted to sell Iran but has so far not delivered.


The Cold War is alive and well.

DEBKAfile, Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security
Click to expand...

This is one reason why we should be working on improving our anti-missile capabilities...from having missiles systems that will shoot them down and fighter aircraft capable of doing the same.
 
Goshin said:
Seems like I've mentioned something at least twice in the last few months, most recently about a week ago, that once Iran had a nuke they could hit the USA by firing a missle from a cargo vessel just outside of our territorial waters.

A lot of people were skeptical about that... but as I said, I wasn't just speculating. This isn't a new worry and it has been talked about at high levels.
Click to expand...
Yep, I recall this being a discussion directly after 911. Dirty nukes in a container being detonated in the harbor of a major city.

My thoughts at the time; great... give the idiots ideas.

.
 
zimmer said:
Yep, I recall this being a discussion directly after 911. Dirty nukes in a container being detonated in the harbor of a major city.

My thoughts at the time; great... give the idiots ideas.

.
Click to expand...

Another big danger is that a missile could be launched from a cargo ship off our shore with a small nuclear device on it. Exploding it 60 to 100 km above us would cripple our entire economy with an electromagnetic pulse. Our entire infrastructure would be knocked out. No transportation, electricity, water, food, computers, etc.
 
Sounds like it's about time for America to get it's nose out of everyone else's country... oh wait, we have to protect business interests... never mind.
 
The development of this highly portable cruise missile is not surprising. Throughout history, there has been a never-ending race between advances in offensive weapons technologies/capabilities and improvements in defensive technologies/capabilities. That miniaturization and portability, which have been pervasive as technology has advanced is occurring on the military front is no surprise whatsoever. Had efforts not been underway to develop smaller, more mobile weapons, that would represent a striking anomaly. That these weapons could represent a potentially disruptive breakthrough also fits the experience with the pervasive rise of disruptive technologies across sectors/industries. That the march of technological advancement might see military applications arise in the area of nanotechnologies is a realistic long-term possibility and such nanotechnologies will create real challenges from a defensive standpoint.

IMO, military planning should never assume a static or near-static weapons environment. Instead, as in this context, defensive military capabilities will need to leverage information/technology so that the ability to respond to threats will need to move ever closer to real-time. Technology won't be frozen in time.

They will also need to be continually cognizant of the rise of disruptive technologies that have the potential to radically shift existing technological advantages. A future innovation might give the state achieving such an innovation a qualitative edge in at least one aspect of military power. There is even a chance that some breakthrough or series of breakthroughs could broadly alter the existing global balance of power, as has happened throughout the course of history.
 
Last edited:
donsutherland1 said:
The development of this highly portable cruise missile is not surprising. Throughout history, there has been a never-ending race between advances in offensive weapons technologies/capabilities and improvements in defensive technologies/capabilities. That miniaturization and portability, which have been pervasive as technology has advanced is occurring on the military front is no surprise whatsoever. Had efforts not been underway to develop smaller, more mobile weapons, that would represent a striking anomaly. That these weapons could represent a potentially disruptive breakthrough also fits the experience with the pervasive rise of disruptive technologies across sectors/industries. That the march of technological advancement might see military applications arise in the area of nanotechnologies is a realistic long-term possibility and such nanotechnologies will create real challenges from a defensive standpoint.

IMO, military planning should never assume a static or near-static weapons environment. Instead, as in this context, defensive military capabilities will need to leverage information/technology so that the ability to respond to threats will need to move ever closer to real-time. Technology won't be frozen in time.

They will also need to be continually cognizant of the rise of disruptive technologies that have the potential to radically shift existing technological advantages. A future innovation might give the state achieving such an innovation a qualitative edge in at least one aspect of military power. There is even a chance that some breakthrough or series of breakthroughs could broadly alter the existing global balance of power, as has happened throughout the course of history.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately there are some that think we are good to go with our current technologies because we can take on relatively small countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. When it reality, missile threats are increasing exponentially, so advanced jet fighters, UAVs, and defensive anti-missile systems are extremely important to upgrade and evolve to keep up with new threats and technologies being created worldwide.
 
It is likely that a carrier could handle a single cruise missile launched off a freighter. They're pretty slow. They're usually subsonic or in the low transonic region.

If there's lots of cruise missiles from lots of freighters targeting one of our carriers, it's likely we've royally screwed up somehow.
 
Deuce said:
It is likely that a carrier could handle a single cruise missile launched off a freighter. They're pretty slow. They're usually subsonic or in the low transonic region.

If there's lots of cruise missiles from lots of freighters targeting one of our carriers, it's likely we've royally screwed up somehow.
Click to expand...

Assuming there was a carrier nearby, since aircraft carriers would not be the only targets of such an attack. And a multiple cruise missile attack is exactly what we should improve upon defeating.
 
Porchev said:
Assuming there was a carrier nearby, since aircraft carriers would not be the only targets of such an attack. And a multiple cruise missile attack is exactly what we should improve upon defeating.
Click to expand...

Somewhere in the thread the focus was on carrier vulnerability. In any case, cruise missiles are a threat to ships whether they get launched from a freighter or from a destroyer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom