I saw this youtube video. Basically it's four ballistic cruise missiles + launcher loaded in a conventional shipping container with enough oompf to sink an aircraft carrier. Certainly some nice run material there!

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

According to the movie, Republican states will finally have a tool to use against their Democrat oppressors.

Wouldn't that (in SR rules) just be an internal/hidden turret with a missile launcher? Or even an external one with a cargo container put over it.

I just imagined every terrorist in the world masturbating to that movie.

That's not your average missile, though...

I haven't even looked in Arsenal, but Rigger 3 had naval missiles.

Yeah, seriously. It's an asymmetric warfare device with a built-in disguise.

C'mon, Russia, don't you remember what asymmetric warfare felt like in Afghanistan? It does not feel good.

On the other hand, I do love watching cruise missiles in action.

Well, no, but the only difference between the two is that one is larger. I don't think it'd be that hard to adjust the rules so that it is a cruise missile instead of a regular missile.

the US military has been trying to develop something like that, called the NLOS,

however, the contractor making it can't get it to hit the broad side of a barn, and they cost half a million USD per shot,
so they canceled it.

Geez, why is noone ever asking me for this kind of stuff ?
I could have developed a missile that didnt hit anything and missed targets by 14 kilometers for considerably less than 1.1 billion $

Though I bet making it miss by that much would actually take some effort...

Keep the Faith

Video removed



...Democratic oppressors? Really? Wow. Not to take this thread political, but when has "Status Quo is Social Progress" ever been true?
(http://informationisbeautiful.bigcartel.com/)

The "Democratic oppressors" thing is a joke. The movie showed an aggressive country denoted in blue preparing to attack another country denoted in red with conventional military units, and the red country defending itself with Club-K units.

Although the Left vs Right poster is interesting, there's at least one point I disagree with: in the upper-right corner, it says conservatives don't interfere with social lives, which, as any pro-choice or gay-rights advocate can tell you, is utter bullshit.

Sure, but that is like a teenager beating off to some pop star: No matter how it turns him on, he'll never, ever get it. Cruise missiles are bloody expensive, and the navigation infrastructure is even worse.

Anti-ship missiles are less expensive and complicated, because terrain following and target acquisition on a flat ocean is obviously less complicated, but what do you gain from arming merchantmen? For defending them it's pointless, most state militaries suffer from a lack of merchantmen rather than lacking escort ships. And in an offensive role...well, a rogue state might use it for a suprise attack on enemy ships/ports, but that's hardly more threatening than a few forgmen with limpet mines.

And re-posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xupOQSvnas

Oh good, now I can be properly informed about what's going on.



Ah ha. Though, outside the US democrats are red, AFAIK (the political chart has two version, a US democrat blue, and a world democrat red).



Oh, I don't think the chart is 100% realistic. But remember, conservatives advocate not interfering with social lives, but do in fact do just that (pro-life, anti-gay, etc.)

Anyway, the missile system is pretty clever.

Huh. I thought to the wider world red was used by Communists.


All politicians are liars.

Democrats say they'll levy punitive taxes against corporate excess, but all they do is leave a legacy of balanced budgets and economic prosperity in which corporations flourish. Bastards.

German raiders were quite a threat in WW2.

Communism was a red political party yes.

But there really aren't any standards (see: Yellow Party, Orange Party...)

there is the ares heimdall, basically a drone with a warhead. Given its speed and operation time, it have a range between 12 and 18 KM (travel speed 2000-3000 M pr combat trurn, endurance, 6 turns).

Btw, that container truck looks like a variant of this:
http://www.albertpenello.com/mask/outlaw.html

No, no, Rhino, if you please!

heh, on a lark i added engine customization and improved economy to the heimdall. End result, a new max range of 43200 meters.

Ow, my brain.]
I lol'd at the fact that the toy's missile hit the cab dead center when it came down.

Don't forget additional fuel tanks

Golly

I imagine, that's the main difficulty with such weapon systems. If you actually want to hit something possibly hundreds of kilometers away, you need some kind of target designation and a way to give the missile directions in-flight.

And somehow I doubt all this additional equipment is also stored in the freight container...

But it is a nice idea, indeed

-CJ

Uh, just to be clear, the NLOS-LS and this system are two vastly different concepts. Their only unifying trait beyond being missiles, is being prepackaged.

This system is a containerized unit that launches a cruise missile. The primary benefit is obviously the camouflage, with portability and hauling compatibility as an added bonus. Make no mistake - this is no logistical upgrade. It's the capability to have three guys on a freighter kill the rest of the crew, and put a missile into downtown L.A.

The NLOS-LS, by comparison, is an array of containerized missiles installed into a rack system. It's designed to be transportable by a variety of platforms, including trucks and the Navy's Littoral Combat Ships. It's also a tactical missile, with a range of 50km, instead of thousands of kilometers. The principle benefit of the system was the "netfires" capability, in which a line unit could request a fire mission from an NLOS-LS autonomously, without occupying an artillery crew. Additionally, the units could be pre-positioned by helicopter or truck before a battle.

What's the difference? One of these is just a soldier's tool, while the other one is intrinsically predisposed to attack. :/

The club-K I imagen requires a targeting infrastructure to work with each container being just that a container.

not sure how to apply that benefit to it, as it claims to extend operation time by 6 hours. But that number ties into the normal operation time for vehicles and drones, rather then the special one for heimdall. Had the description said something like "extends operation time by 25%" it would be easier.

crap, should have checked the definition of standard operation time in arsenal before posting. Basically the fuel tanks seems to extend the vehicles operation time by 100%. So for each additional tank added, the heimdall adds 6 seconds. Hmm, now to see how much would be needed to get it out to tomahawk ranges.

Rule it dose that then . Also can the heimdall take a weapon mount...

technically its a kamikaze drone, so i am unsure what it would want with that, but i think it could take a non-heavy given its body of 1.

hrmf, the heimdall cant really take many mods, as it has only 4 slots. 3 of those using the custom engine and economy above (tho the custom engine can probably be dropped for the modest gain it provides).

hmm, 48 seconds operations time (improved economy + 3 extra fuel tanks) results in a range of 144000 meters, or 144 km. the tomahawk is claimed to have a range of 500km...

it would need 29 more fuel tanks to really go cruising...

Mount a GL to in to rain death down whiel you fly over to final blow up yourself

cluster missile?

also edited in the calculations for how much extra fuel needed to make heimdall a true cruise missle. Talk about over-mod...

True in the strictest sense, although I would imagine that the cruise missile in question would be GPS-compatible. Alternatively, it would probably be pretty simple to figure out the missile's position using ship-board GPS, and then give it a course using an internal inertial navigation system.

I'm not trying to fool anyone into thinking that all cruise missile arsenals are as sophisticated as the U.S. inventory.. I'm just saying that there's a big difference between using this system against a carrier as opposed to using it against a city. Within the constraints of the targeting limitations, I'm far more concerned about this thing being used for the latter. Big, stationary targets are easy to hit with the simplest systems when you know where you are in relativity to the catcher.

So, a hypothetical enemy could shoot a few cruise missles at a major city...why is that so much scarier than a rucksack full of APEX?


Which is why a few dump, ballistic missiles (the Hezbollah kind) or mortars (the IRA sometimes announced attacks a few days before and still managed to pull it off) can do the same. Why should a terrorist organization invest a crapload of money into cruise missiles if a few welded steel pipes and filled with homemade explosives do exatly the same?

Good god will no one think of then kittens!!!

Not while masturbating, no

Well some people do....

GPS is fairly easily accessible by civilians in all developed countries.

True but GPS wouldn't get you tarjectorys doging radar or such would it now would GPS find you the target.

Well, somebody has to carry that rucksack to its target... which, granted, is not difficult. A Club-K-armed freighter, on the other hand, need not even approach the target, which is even easier.

Even the military GPS (P/Y code) is usually only used as one part of the missile's "wold view", together with inertial navigation and terrain matching. Civilian GPS as the only navigation system would be like the WW II "precision" bombings, which basically were a practical application of the law of large numbers...

@Tanegar: Sure, once you have the missiles and a freighter

Don't underestimate the V2.

You mean the thing which cost as much as a four-engine bomber, wasted materials which already were in short supply (not just metals and stuff, producing the the fuel for one V2 required 50t potatoes) and could barely hit something the size of London?

A typical example of German WW II engineering: While everybody else built stuff to win the war, we built fancy gadgets which would have required another ten years to work correctly...not that one could complain about it

It is my understanding someone managed to cobble together a crude (but cheap) missile guidance system using a GPS and some basic computing hardware. We certainly have the ability to download topo-maps to a flash drive, pipe it through a video card, and print some simple program on a BIOS chip saying 'you are here, here is your hardwired course, avoid any obstacles'.

i think the trick would be to terrain skim until close, then basically sprint and hope that their reaction time long.

note how on the video, when close to the ships, the missile splits, going from jet to rocket propelled to cover the last distance at a speed the defense systems on the target cant react to.

basically they where anti ship missiles carried by a cruise missile.

the other two targets where static, so one would be attacking a area.

in either case however, what they can do, and this is basically what the exocet do, so to use passive guidance until close to the target, then switch to active sensors and head for the nearest target matching some kind of profile. By the time the sensor lock warning goes of, the missile will be heading for them at max speed.

heck, in the absence of gps, one can rig a crude version of it using two radio beacons in known locations, so that one can triangulate a basic location. Iirc, this was used as far back as WW2 for US bombers to find targets. And is used today for non-gps aircraft guidance.

also, checking some numbers, the improve heimdall seems to have the basic specs of a anti-ship missile

The improved heimdall is death incarnate even more so if you can mount a gl to it as then it can "bomb" a few places while in transit.

Hehe, yeah, it just doubles operation time, including additional operation time that would be provided by improved economy. So basically, whatever range you get without an additional fuel tank, is added to the range for each additional fuel tank you get.

hmm, to get the two stage mode seen vs the ships, i guess one could have a rocket launcher mounted to a long range drone, and then have it fire of the heimdall when within a certain distance of the target.

sadly, i rechecked the rules on that, and it seems that anything below a body of 3 can't have a weapon mount.

that is, if i understand the "body/3, round down" correctly.

Get a modified version that does have a body of three