NationStates Jolt Archive


Multiple Warhead Land Launched Cruise Missile (MWLLCM) Development

Kanabia
09-09-2004, 15:01
Field tests are beginning into a new form of cruise missile.

The missile will be able to be fired from railcar and vehicular transports as well as fixed locations.

At a set time after launch, the missile will enter stage two and jettison four smaller missiles loaded with a variety of ordinance, from standard high explosive to cluster-bomb minelets and possibly napalm (technically in this function, these 'missiles' will act as unmanned close support aircraft).

The main body of the missile will continue, carrying a slightly larger warhead of it's own. The missiles can be configured to bombard a widespread area with cluster munitions or target separate key buildings in a single facility.

The weapon would also be effective against ships, however the large size of the missile itself (in order to carry such a large payload), makes it's use in its present incarnation confined to land launch sites. A smaller version, with up to 50 armor penetrating rockets (acting as a shotgun like anti-ship weapon), may come into being in the near future.

The main advantage of such a weapon is that it decreases overall launch times, potentially doing more damage in a short period of time than weapons such as the Tomahawk. It will also confuse enemy air defences as what was originally one target becomes five.

OOC: Comments on the feasibilty of this system welcome.
Transpontia
09-09-2004, 15:40
It sounds a bit fuel-inefficient to me. Unless the primary ordnance is unguided, it would have to carry five separate guidance computers, payloads and fuel ... surely many, smaller missiles might be a bit more efficient?

--- Transpontian Centre for the Study of Foreign Aggression
Kanabia
09-09-2004, 15:43
Fair point, but many smaller missiles also need many smaller guidance computers, fuel loads and payloads anyway. What did you think of the shotgun anti-ship missile? I thought of that on a side note and in hindsight i'm beginning to think that it's probably a better idea.
Transpontia
09-09-2004, 15:51
OOC: It sounds awesome. But mine is a nation of pacifist wusses.

IC: It sounds a spectacularly inhumane way of maximising casualties on targeted ships. It doesn't take a lot to cripple a ship - but it would be nice to let the poor souls escape the sinking vessel?

--- TCSFA
Kanabia
09-09-2004, 16:01
OOC: It sounds awesome. But mine is a nation of pacifist wusses.

IC: It sounds a spectacularly inhumane way of maximising casualties on targeted ships. It doesn't take a lot to cripple a ship - but it would be nice to let the poor souls escape the sinking vessel?

--- TCSFA

OOC: lol. Thanks.

IC: Well, as you may have noticed from our earlier statement, we try to keep our military as humane as possible, by trying not to encourage the use of napalm for example. We believe that this weapon would conveniently eliminate the danger of our solitary anti-ship missiles being brought down by AA screening fire.

We believe in humane methods and casualty limiting, but unfortunately, war is not a matter of compassion and by its very nature is inhumane.