Posted on 04/14/2010 3:47:03 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Arming Containers Ships With Anti-Ship Missiles
April 14, 2010: A Russian firm is marketing a version of the Klub cruise missile that can be carried in a 40 foot shipping container. The launcher and the missile have to slide out of the container before firing, thus limiting where it can be placed on a ship, particularly your typical container ship. But you could get two or three of these shipping container Klubs on most cargo ships, turning the vessel into warship.
The Klub missile is a key weapon for the Kilo submarine. Weighing two tons, and fired from a 533mm (21 inch) torpedo tube, the 3M54 has a 440 pound warhead. The anti-ship version has a range of 300 kilometers, and speeds up to 3,000 kilometers an hour during its last minute or so of flight. There is also an air launched and ship launched version. A land attack version does away with the high speed final approach feature, and has an 880 pound warhead.
What makes the anti-ship version of the 3M54 particularly dangerous is its final approach, which begins when the missile is about 15 kilometers from its target. Up to that point, the missile travels at an altitude of about a hundred feet. This makes the missile more difficult to detect. The "high speed approach" (via the use of additional rockets) means that it covers that last fifteen kilometers in less than twenty seconds. This makes it difficult for current anti-missile weapons to take it down.
The 3M54 is similar to earlier, Cold War era Russian anti-ship missiles, like the 3M80 ("Sunburn"), which has a larger warhead (660 pounds) and shorter range (120 kilometers.) The 3M80 was still in development at the end of the Cold War, and was finally put into service about a decade ago. Even older (it entered service in the 1980s) is the P700 ("Shipwreck"), with a 550 kilometers range and 1,650 pound warhead.
All these missiles are considered "carrier killers," but it's not known how many of them would have to hit a carrier to knock it out of action, much less sink it. Moreover, Russian missiles have little combat experience, and a reputation for erratic performance. Quality control was never a Soviet strength, but the Russians are getting better, at least in the civilian sector. The military manufacturers appear to have been slower to adapt.
Still, it is unusual for a firm to offer such a weapon for concealed transport on a merchant ship. So far, there have not been any buyers. Or, rather, the manufacturer will not admit to any sales. While these missiles are of questionable effectiveness in wartime, they would likely be much more potent if used for a surprise attack on a military or civilian target.
This is not a new idea, although its more usual to use defensive missiles in the containers.
But WE know - that's why we sunk a "modern-era" carrier well out of prying eyes (I think it was the America, 1960's era "super-carrier").
Shame to voluntarily sink youir own very expensive warship like that, but now at least WE know what it takes to sink it.
One or two unfriendly and armed container ships in one of our major shipping harbors could cause another Pearl Harbor type situation and shut down that port for months or even years.
for the little tubs that pull aside big ships and take them over, a half dozen AK47s with about 5000 rounds of ammo should stop any pirate attack.
If we’re talking about anti-pirate this seems like far too much power in a single punch, not enough punches and far too expensive.
I’m sure it would cost far less — and be much more effective — to have 4 or more deck-mounted 50-caliber machine guns (fore, aft, port, starboard).
What are you going to do with one of these missles, fire it at a fishing boat 300km away? (Pirates usually make their approach in some kind of small, fast-moving boat launched from a “mother ship” when close to the prey.)
But I guess we’re not talking about anti-pirate here. I guess this is to convert merchant vessels into naval vessels.
Which makes this story less interesting. I was hoping to read that the wussie governments of the world (aka The West) were starting to let people defend themselves against pirates. I guess this story doesn’t have anything to do with that.
As far as I know, most governments bar the deployment of any weaponry on merchant vessels. So the only stuff they can carry are high pressure water hoses.
As usual, the problem here is with Strategypage taking liberties here. If anything these canisterised weapons are probably meant for amphibious assaults ships or even discrete shore facilities.
yep, not new at all
http://www.morinsys.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=189%25
That website has a video demonstrating the Club-K...slightly different missile but it’s the same idea.
This is Puti dragging out his obsolete wares, giving them a new coat of paint and hawking them to the steamship companies.
It is more evidence that the Russians lack the ability to make anything much except military hardware. One can only wonder how many thousands of these are stockpiled, made in abundance by a soviet economy that could start but not stop the production once it began.
Be easier to just mount 5-10 50-cal machine guns onto the deck of a container ship.
Somali pirates tend to us RPGs in their attacks... and a 50-cal machine gun has a FAR greater range.
I work in a shipyard in the UK and we recently refitted some merchant ships with turreted 30mm BMARC cannons. Mind you, they are ones that transfer nuclear fuel and waste.
“The launcher and the missile have to slide out of the container before firing...”
genius....simply genius /sarc
Oh, good... so we’ll be expecting those 4000 daily Chinese container ships to be armed, so we won’t bother worrying about the naval bases near major ports, like San Diego, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.