Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Share

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  ahmedfire on Wed Nov 02, 2011 1:01 am

    Any russian ATGM" based on helicopter " can compete hellfire.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:25 am

    Any missile can compete with any other.

    The Hellfire is a 152mm calibre missile carried in loads of 4 missiles to a pylon with a range of about 8km.
    It has MMW radar guided versions and SALH versions.

    They claim it can kill any operational tank, yet it had trouble destroying Abrams tanks that had to be abandoned... so that claim must be taken with a grain of salt.

    It should be pointed out that a tank low on ammo and fuel is actually hard to destroy because most anti armour weapons simply are designed to punch small holes in very very thick armour... if that penetration doesn't lead to a fire or ammo or fuel exploding then the tank is disabled but not destroyed.

    Traditional Russian equivalent so far has been the ATAKA, which is a 130mm calibre missile, and in its air launched M model has a range of 8km.

    Its penetration is rather less than the figure given for the Hellfire, but operationally that means very little as the Hellfire can probably only reliably penetrate a modern tank from the side or rear, and the ATAKA is in the same boat.

    The ATAKA is much cheaper than the Hellfire and can be loaded in numbers of up to 8 missiles per weapon pylon, which means the Mi-28N can carry the same 16 ATGMs as the Apache but can also carry unguided rocket pods in addition to those 16 missiles.

    In practical terms most of the time both helos will carry both ATGMs and rocket pods, which means the Apache will carry 8 hellfires and 38 x 70mm rockets and the Mi-28 will carry 16 Atakas and 40 x 80mm rockets.

    Are 16 Atakas better than 8 Hellfires?

    I would say Yes.

    The Atakas are command guided and supersonic, which is an advantage over the subsonic Hellfires.

    The Atakas are about to be replaced in service by Krisantema, which will also likely have a range of 8kms, a rather higher flight speed and comparable penetration to the latest model Hellfires.
    The Krisantema will be fire and forget and will likely have MMW radar homing and laser beam riding guidance options, which will allow any target to be engaged no matter what its MMW radar signature is.

    Later down the track the HERMES will become available, but its 30kg warhead, terminal guidance options including SALH, GLONASS, MMW Radar, and IIR, plus a flight speed of hypersonic speed (two stage weapon with a booster burn out speed of 1.3km/s) rather put it in another league.

    The HERMES will be used in fixed wing, rotary wing, and land based and sea based platforms across the services including long range 40km and 100km artillery models.

    The helicopter version will have a range of between 16kms and 20kms and will be carried 4 to a pylon.

    Another option of course is Kornet-EM, but I think that will mainly be for land based units due to its light weight and lower speed.

    There is talk of a new ATGM system called Baikal which we know very little about, but might be a cross platform system too.

    The Hermes will be for heavy attack helos like the Mi-28N/M and Ka-52, but Krisantema and to a lesser extent Kornet-EM and perhaps Baikal could be used on other helo platforms like the Mi-8/-17 or the Ka-29 assault helos and lighter helos like a military armed version of the Ka-62,and the armed version of the ANSAT, and also light to medium UCAVs.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Nov 02, 2011 2:06 pm

    They claim it can kill any operational tank, yet it had trouble destroying Abrams tanks that had to be abandoned... so that claim must be taken with a grain of salt.

    Absolutely true GarryB ,even more if we take into account that since its fist introduction the same american insiders was aware that AGM-114 Hellfire was uncapable to penetrate Soviet tanks's armor configurations operative in the same time window


    This is piece of an article of Armed Forces Journal International of May 1989 ,where Army General Donn A. Starry explain in front of U.S. Senate Armed Service Committee Subcommittee on Conventional Forces and Alliance Defence, that pratically all the antitank weapons present in NATO arsenal was pratically useless against the latest armor configuration of Soviet MBT operative at the time (it say also that Soviet enjoyed a clear superiority in tank/antitank sector a superiority increasing ) .
    This is the statement relevant to the topic in question :


    "According to Starry the latest US antitank missiles,the TOW-2A and Hellfire,cannot pierce the latest Soviet armor configurations "



    Take into account that even this analysis is conceived before the horrible discoveries coming from Manfred Held's experimental tests (confirmed successively by L. Ness for the Pentagon) on the virtual "invulnerability" of original Soviet tank specimen equiped with Kontact 5 and the new composite seven layer configuration in T-72B and T-80U; the "threat" analysed here by Gen. Starry refere instead to the 5 layer composite armour layout with K-1 ERA appliqués ,which NATO analysts of the time believed was the last Soviet MBT armour configuration !!!

    Pratically Soviets at the time had already completed the works and was integrating the systems for defeat the systems that NATO was developing (among which 120 mm M829/829A1 APFSDS and TOW-2B) to attempt to defeat eastern block's armours. Shocked

    Read it GarryB,it is very informing of the real situation at the time in the sector ( even more because ,usually, in internet those articles are totally obscured -often even their existence is negated !!- and when someone even only refere to them or ,worse, demonstrate to know them or show them,it is "strangely" quickly banned with the most imaginative excuses and its posts compulsively canceled....and here i talk for direct personal experience ).









    Returning to the subject in question i believe that among the ATGMs optimized for helicopter employement,and excluding missiles still not widely operative or only near to introduction, 9K121 "Vikhr" represent the best ATGM (with a very very useful capability to engage also UAV,cruise missile and other low flying aerial targets ,included other helicopters) operative in russian Armed Forces , a weapon with features pratically uniques and with no equals in any competitor .
    The main problem of 9K121 Vikhr ,in the same way of the President DAS ,the new UOMZ EO system and even the new adapted AESA radar, is ......that it is not certified for employement on Mi-28N !!!

    I truly don't understand what is the rational behind the decision to select a platform -Mi-28N- as the mass produceable battle helicopter for Russian Army and for export market but ,at the same time, procede for R&D ,testing and integration of some of the most crucial systems for the platform selected as the the smaller scale "high-end" production -Ka50/52-; for me it is a true mystery.


    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  ahmedfire on Wed Nov 02, 2011 10:52 pm

    GarryB wrote:Any missile can compete with any other.

    The Hellfire is a 152mm calibre missile carried in loads of 4 missiles to a pylon with a range of about 8km.
    It has MMW radar guided versions and SALH versions.

    They claim it can kill any operational tank, yet it had trouble destroying Abrams tanks that had to be abandoned... so that claim must be taken with a grain of salt.

    It should be pointed out that a tank low on ammo and fuel is actually hard to destroy because most anti armour weapons simply are designed to punch small holes in very very thick armour... if that penetration doesn't lead to a fire or ammo or fuel exploding then the tank is disabled but not destroyed.

    Traditional Russian equivalent so far has been the ATAKA, which is a 130mm calibre missile, and in its air launched M model has a range of 8km.

    Its penetration is rather less than the figure given for the Hellfire, but operationally that means very little as the Hellfire can probably only reliably penetrate a modern tank from the side or rear, and the ATAKA is in the same boat.

    The ATAKA is much cheaper than the Hellfire and can be loaded in numbers of up to 8 missiles per weapon pylon, which means the Mi-28N can carry the same 16 ATGMs as the Apache but can also carry unguided rocket pods in addition to those 16 missiles.

    In practical terms most of the time both helos will carry both ATGMs and rocket pods, which means the Apache will carry 8 hellfires and 38 x 70mm rockets and the Mi-28 will carry 16 Atakas and 40 x 80mm rockets.

    Are 16 Atakas better than 8 Hellfires?

    I would say Yes.

    The Atakas are command guided and supersonic, which is an advantage over the subsonic Hellfires.

    The Atakas are about to be replaced in service by Krisantema, which will also likely have a range of 8kms, a rather higher flight speed and comparable penetration to the latest model Hellfires.
    The Krisantema will be fire and forget and will likely have MMW radar homing and laser beam riding guidance options, which will allow any target to be engaged no matter what its MMW radar signature is.

    Later down the track the HERMES will become available, but its 30kg warhead, terminal guidance options including SALH, GLONASS, MMW Radar, and IIR, plus a flight speed of hypersonic speed (two stage weapon with a booster burn out speed of 1.3km/s) rather put it in another league.

    The HERMES will be used in fixed wing, rotary wing, and land based and sea based platforms across the services including long range 40km and 100km artillery models.

    The helicopter version will have a range of between 16kms and 20kms and will be carried 4 to a pylon.

    Another option of course is Kornet-EM, but I think that will mainly be for land based units due to its light weight and lower speed.

    There is talk of a new ATGM system called Baikal which we know very little about, but might be a cross platform system too.

    The Hermes will be for heavy attack helos like the Mi-28N/M and Ka-52, but Krisantema and to a lesser extent Kornet-EM and perhaps Baikal could be used on other helo platforms like the Mi-8/-17 or the Ka-29 assault helos and lighter helos like a military armed version of the Ka-62,and the armed version of the ANSAT, and also light to medium UCAVs.


    You convinced me,

    Its penetration is rather less than the figure given for the Hellfire, but operationally that means very little as the Hellfire can probably only reliably penetrate a modern tank from the side or rear, and the ATAKA is in the same boat.

    Yes, because most hels hit the upper or sides of the tank, and both hellfire and ATAKA are deadly on these points..

    yet it had trouble destroying Abrams tanks that had to be abandoned... so that claim must be taken with a grain of salt.

    Did they published something like that ? link plz.

    I agree with Mindstorm that At-16(nato reporting name ) is agood comparable to hellfire.


    About Hermes,to take the advantage of the range ,it should be used on fixed wing aircraft with the help of aground Radar ,what is the maximum range of Hermes on helicopter ? does helicopter with Hermes needs aland radar to help her finding targets ?






    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  ahmedfire on Thu Nov 03, 2011 12:29 am


    The Atakas are command guided and supersonic, which is an advantage over the subsonic Hellfires.

    Hellfire is supersonic also.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:32 am

    @Mindstorm
    the article you post is valid, but you also need to look carefully at what it says.

    For instance it only refers to the performance of ERA in regard to HEAT rounds, and as we know when the article was written they were putting out ERA that was effective against both HEAT and kinetic rounds.

    It also mentions that an M1 firing 105mm DU rounds would have trouble with a T-72.

    We know from Desert Storm a few years later the 120mm gun of the M1A1 had little trouble penetrating the export model with no ERA.

    This does not refute the argument of the article as by this time the Russian equivalent vehicle would have better armour with much better ERA (AFAIK the vast majority of Iraqi vehicles were T-55s and T-62s, and T-72s with no ERA at all) and most importantly much more capable ammo.

    Critically in the flat open deserts of Iraq the vehicles fitted with gun fired missiles would have been very useful in the open terrain during the day.

    But there is also the facts that the AT-3 was not the best ATGM they had at that time either.

    Another fact neglected is the enormous amount of anti armour weapons they actually deployed with every IFV equipped with an ATGM, and of course an abundance of RPG weapons etc etc... they (Soviets) were ready to fight tanks.

    The main problem of 9K121 Vikhr ,in the same way of the President DAS ,the new UOMZ EO system and even the new adapted AESA radar, is ......that it is not certified for employement on Mi-28N !!!

    It was my understanding that Vikhr wasn't adopted because it was quite expensive and the systems on the Kamov at the time did not really allow it to exploit its full range of 10km because the optics and the lack of a functioning radar system made it impossible.

    I think the decision was to fit both aircraft initially with ATAKA which has a shorter range and is rather less capable than Vikhr-M in terms of penetration and speed (450m/s vs 610m/s), with the future options to include Krisantema and eventually HERMES. HERMES being a superior missile to Vikhr, with Krisantema having similar penetration to Vikhr.

    I truly don't understand what is the rational behind the decision to select a platform -Mi-28N- as the mass produceable battle helicopter for Russian Army and for export market but ,at the same time, procede for R&D ,testing and integration of some of the most crucial systems for the platform selected as the the smaller scale "high-end" production -Ka50/52-; for me it is a true mystery.

    Looking at the nose mounted optics sensors on the Mi-28N for the Indian competition it seems to me they are probably doing the development work but it is less public than the Kamov program.

    I think the priority for Mil is to get airframes into service first as even an Mi-28N with a non operational radar is still much better in terms of performance than a bog standard Hind that it is replacing.

    They seem to have decided to make some major changes to the design (Mi-28M) so I suspect they will focus on getting that developed and also at adding features and performance to existing aircraft incrementally.

    Their Hinds are probably worn out and need replacing faster than they can get their Mi-28M fully ready so they are filling the gap with Mi-35Ms and not quite ready Mi-28Ns till the Mi-28M is ready in 2014-2015 or so.

    Not a great situation, but no surprise considering there has been no funding to actually develop the aircraft for the last 25 years.

    Yes, because most hels hit the upper or sides of the tank, and both hellfire and ATAKA are deadly on these points..

    Also with the mobility of a helo you can attack from the sides or rear to maximise the effect of a hit.


    Did they published something like that ? link plz.

    It was a story I read on the interweb... either milphotos.net or a tank site.

    This guy obviously read the same story... don't know if it is true or not... it might be an ABRAMS STRONG myth.

    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111102123751AAVwtDc

    Certainly according to a post from Austin somewhere on here in a T-90AM thread he mentioned that Russian analysis showed that ammo stored in a turret bustle, if hit was likely to burn out and completely immobilise the vehicle (ie make the crew bail out because of the heat and burn out the turret and engine compartment)

    That is why there are only 10 rounds stored in the T-90AM turret bustle and it is made small.

    I agree with Mindstorm that At-16(nato reporting name ) is agood comparable to hellfire.

    Certainly the AT-16 is faster at 610m/s vs 420m/s, has 1m+ armour penetration figures the same as the Hellfire, it has a range of 10km which is comparable to the Hellfires 8km.

    The fire and forget capability of the (MMW)Hellfire makes it more expensive and it cannot be used on just any target... the target needs a MMW radar signature distinct enough to get a lock. To target a window in a building you would need the laser guided version.

    The Vikhr is not fire and forget but is significantly faster so the flight time is reduced, and with a missile range of 10km fire and forget is not so important as you are well out of MANPAD range.

    About Hermes,to take the advantage of the range ,it should be used on fixed wing aircraft with the help of aground Radar ,what is the maximum range of Hermes on helicopter ? does helicopter with Hermes needs aland radar to help her finding targets ?

    The range for HERMES from a helo is given as up to 16km, and it is a two stage missile that is being unified with the SA-22 Greyhound missile of the Pantsir-S1 system.

    With the new net centric environment they will be operating in ground or air units can pass target data to the helicopter platform for engagements... the helicopter itself could launch a UAV to find and mark targets with a laser beam for the SALH model, or it could determine the coordinates of a large fixed target to allow an engagement with sat guided versions of the missile. An aircraft or helo fitted with MMW radar could send coordinates and a MMW signature to a distant concealed helo to fire a MMW radar guided HERMES at the targets, or an IIR guided version could use a satellite or UAV IR image to engage the target too.

    Note eventually both the Ka-52 and Mi-28M will be fitted with CM and MM Wave radar antenna for air and land targets respectively and will be able to find their own targets at long range.

    Their MM wave radar will spot large targets like tanks at 10-12km and something like a bridge or building/bunker at 20-25km.

    Hellfire is supersonic also.

    Quite right. 420m/s. Compared with ATAKA however the ATAKAs guidance is incredibly cheap... it is a command guided missile like TOR and PANTSIR.
    It uses a 35GHz radio transmitter to pass course correction signals to the missile. The link is directional and would be as difficult to jam as a MMW radar guided Hellfire.
    I would expect Nakidka would make MMW radar Hellfires unusable, and SALH missile of course have the problem of alerting the enemy to an attack and of course can be defeated by popping smoke so the missiles home on the laser reflecting off the smoke rather than the target.

    ahmedfire
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 711
    Points : 885
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  ahmedfire on Mon Nov 14, 2011 12:36 am

    So ,we can say that aircrafts with fixed wings( fighters) could be preferred in the future over hels, to caryy long range ATGMs and hit from long distance and here we can avoid threats that hels face ?

    To be clear , can we cancel hels from army replacing them by fighters ?

    Something like replacing tanks by armoured vehicles .

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 14, 2011 2:28 am

    Previous experience has shown that slower lower flying jets are better able to take in the situation on the ground and to better engage ground targets.

    With dozens of UAVs flying around transmitting video and data to all other nodes of the network suddenly flying low and slow might not be so important, however unless the person has control of the UAV and can look where they want to look when they want to look they might not spot all threats and targets the way they would looking out of their own aircraft.

    Helos and fixed wing slow jets have proven to be a good combination, there is no reason why UAVs could not be added to increase visibility, and for very well defended targets faster jets with standoff weapons could be used to take out the most capable threats to aircraft before the UAVs and slower jets and helos go in.

    I think there will be lots of situations were a Helo and a jet is the right tool with UAVs assisting in finding targets and assessing the effects of attacks to decide if another attack is needed or not.

    For serious targets a UCAV could be used, but while expensive and complex a helo can get to targets some aircraft cannot and they can offer combat persistance... in other words for the troops on the ground the fact that fire is coming from some one risking their necks rather than on the other side of the planet in a van means something.

    When helos start falling from the skies in enormous numbers then it is perhaps time to revisit tactics.

    With the new technology and weapons fitted to the Mi-28N and Ka-52 they should be much safer and more effective in combat than any of their predecessors.

    IronsightSniper
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 496
    Points : 520
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:39 am

    What Garry said. Basically Fixed-Winged fighter-bombers aren't actually that great for the Ground Support role. They can bomb strategic targets easily, but for tactical targets (like a RPG team on a hill far away), they are practically useless (because the RPG team would of moved away when they get there). Thus, slow moving aircraft (like Helis and designated ground attack planes) that can loiter around a battlefield for long periods of time can provide quick and effective fire support for any ground forces you may have at that time.

    If you've ever bought into the Call of Duty franchise you'd understand that fact more easily. An example would be the AC-130, which is basically a cargo plane retrofitted to have weapons on it's side so that it could circle around a battlefield dumping ammunition (hell, it has a 105 mm gun onboard). That really comes in handy because it can stay there for a very long time, and can provide near instant fire support.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:15 pm

    Quite true.

    A fighter bomber with sat guided bombs and laser homing bombs and missiles is basically controlled by the Air Force and will likely be based hundreds of kms from the combat zone, so attacks against fixed targets are planned before hand, and on station attacks can be called in for maybe 10-20minutes after that and then the planes go away.

    For CAS like the A-10 and Su-25 they operate and are based much closer to the front line and are ten minutes or less away.

    Helicopters can loiter for an hour or so and provide convoy or attack support.

    With the new sat guided fuses for 152mm and larger artillery... and even more important most Russian vehicles having laser range finders and sat nav systems and the communications equipment to quickly call in air or artillery support the new Russian forces will have enormous firepower... for the first time for them DAY and NIGHT.

    At 1,000 dollars a fuse they could reduce their ammo load by 20 times and still do a better job than they did even just a year ago.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:36 pm

    I watched a program about British soldiers in Afghanistan and they mounted an attack on a village during the day time...

    They positioned their vehicles on a ridge a distance away from the village in an over watch role with their 50 cal HMGs and 40mm grenade launchers trained on the village while soldiers climbed the rise and started towards the village.

    When there was resistance to their attack the vehicles opened up, but one group of Brits was walking up the side of a hill that was marked with a lane cleared of IEDs and mines, but it seems one guy strayed from the path and set off an IED and was badly injured.

    The whole unit completely changed their role and called in an airstrike and they turned and left the area.

    Their focus changed from investigating the village to evacuating the injured guy.

    About5 minutes after calling in air support a Tornado flew in and dropped a couple of 2,000lb bombs and the unit withdrew.

    The IED victim was choppered out but died from his injuries on his way out.

    The point is that will all their fancy NATO standard equipment and hardware and air support... their efforts didn't really seem that much different from the Soviets in the 1980s... except if it had been the Soviets the CNN reporter bringing the story would moan about the loss of life in the village because of the brutal and indiscriminate use of air power.

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3228
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  Vann7 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 11:49 am

    ahmedfire wrote:
    The Atakas are command guided and supersonic, which is an advantage over the subsonic Hellfires.
    Hellfire is supersonic also.
    Sorry for reup the  old discussion but was interesting..
    hellfire even though is supersonic is low supersonic.
    hellfire speed is Mach 1.3 with 8km range

    Hermes-A  speed is mach 3.8  (~mach 4.0) with 15km-20km range (thats near 4x times the speed of hellfire) with more than twice the range.
    and this in turn will significantly help in the power penetration ,the warhead is much bigger.. 28kg vs 8kg of hellfire.
    With that warhead at that speed it can totally destroy the latest tanks today and the ones in the next decade.
    No active protection system like trophy or others can defeat so fast missiles.

    Hermes-K have a range of 100km.. with similar specs warhead 30kg.

    NATO tanks and including Israeli merkavas iv ,will have no much a chance once Hermes becomes the
    standar AT missile in Russia army combined with soldier troops on foot using the lighter Kornet -EM with 10km range
    and 1300mm thick armor penetration. It is possible that in the future even main tank guns will become obsolete for destroying other tanks and that all ,will be done with rockets and missiles. Same way that cannons became obsolete in warships.small turrets and small guns however still can be useful for soft targets.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:11 pm

    and this in turn will significantly help in the power penetration ,the warhead is much bigger.. 28kg vs 8kg of hellfire.
    The high flight speed of Hermes wont effect its armour penetration very much as HEAT warheads don't really rely on the kinetic effect based on their flight speed. Warhead mass and diameter and the material the metal charge liner is made from has far more impact on penetration.

    No active protection system like trophy or others can defeat so fast missiles.
    Over the next 10 years new systems will be developed that can stop APFSDS rounds so Hermes will probably be vulnerable.


    NATO tanks and including Israeli merkavas iv ,will have no much a chance once Hermes becomes the
    standar AT missile in Russia army combined with soldier troops on foot using the lighter Kornet -EM with 10km range
    and 1300mm thick armor penetration.
    NATO tanks will have serious problems... but the cycle of measure and countermeasure will continue.

    The model of Kornet-EM with a flight range of 10km is the HE Frag warhead model... not the anti armour HEAT round version which has a range of 8.5km.

    Same way that cannons became obsolete in warships.small turrets and small guns however still can be useful for soft targets.
    The enormous, heavy, expensive battleships were made obsolete by small missile boats able to carry heavy anti ship missiles that were the equivalent of a full salvo from a heavy battleship that could be carried on a small missile boat. Of course since then the small patrol boat has been found to be vulnerable to enemy action so the real replacement of the battleship has really been the aircraft carrier... or more precisely the aircraft from that carrier.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3228
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  Vann7 on Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:01 pm

    GarryB wrote:


    Over the next 10 years new systems will be developed that can stop APFSDS rounds so Hermes will probably be vulnerable.

    Very unlikely that those systems will use active protection. Perhaps passive protections.


    Main problem in tanks active defenses ,is that they need to be positioned outside the tanks ,ie.. vulnerable to sniper and heavy machine gun fire, so have to be small and hidden. another problem is that Tanks cannot have big radars to track over long distances any attack.. its radars not only have to be very small but resistant to heavy gun fire.so the tanks will be aware of any incoming super fast projectile too late.. and the enormous explosive required to accelerate a counter projectile fast enough to intercept the missile will most likely destroy the very same sensors that the tank use for track missiles. Simply not going to happen.

    The technology to intercept near hypersonic projectiles exist but is too big and too fragile to be used in a tank that will take lots of gun fire and rpg grenades.  i really think ,Tanks will follow the same path of modern warships..were no longer will use powerful guns to destroy the enemy for its range limitations and the size and weight of its projectiles..Instead tanks will rely in longer range powerful rockets and missiles. And that in the future ,Tanks with heavy guns that fire kinetic projectiles will be seen like dinosaurs and totally obsolete.. with the natural progress that will happen with anti tank rockets and missiles.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 26, 2013 6:00 am

    Standard and Afghanistan should both be able to hit APFSDS rounds, and the newly updated ARENA-E can engage targest moving at from 30 to 1,000m/s/

    Main problem in tanks active defenses ,is that they need to be positioned outside the tanks ,ie.. vulnerable to sniper and heavy machine gun fire, so have to be small and hidden. another problem is that Tanks cannot have big radars to track over long distances any attack..
    Modern Russian tanks will have audio sensors that detect rifle fire and its origin along with laser sensors that detect optical scopes etc... firing a rifle at a next gen tank will be a very stupid thing to do.

    its radars not only have to be very small but resistant to heavy gun fire.so the tanks will be aware of any incoming super fast projectile too late.. and the enormous explosive required to accelerate a counter projectile fast enough to intercept the missile will most likely destroy the very same sensors that the tank use for track missiles. Simply not going to happen.
    Just looking at ARENA-E radar sensor boxes don't need to be soft vulnerable things and they can be located around the turret with overlapping areas of coverage.

    And that in the future ,Tanks with heavy guns that fire kinetic projectiles will be seen like dinosaurs and totally obsolete.. with the natural progress that will happen with anti tank rockets and missiles.
    Fired projectiles will remain cheaper than guided missiles for the forseeable future... high speed missiles have the speed to create their own problems... a hand full of sand thrown up in the path of a mach 10 missile would likely destroy the missile.

    In naval applications simply shooting at the water creating water spouts would suffice to defeat even the fastest anti ship missiles...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3228
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  Vann7 on Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:21 pm

    GarryB wrote:Standard and Afghanistan should both be able to hit APFSDS rounds, and the newly updated ARENA-E can engage targest moving at from 30 to 1,000m/s/  
    The information have seen says Arena-E engage target at with a max speed of 700m/s ,thats Mach 2.0. which is
    not bad at all.. can engage almost all anti tank weapons but not Hermes k that travels at mach 4.0. APFSDS rounds also travel at very fast super sonic speeds.


    Modern Russian tanks will have audio sensors that detect rifle fire and its origin along with laser sensors that detect optical scopes etc... firing a rifle at a next gen tank will be a very stupid thing to do.
    In Urban warfare tanks takes a lot of gun fire , lots of rpgs and IED too. So tank any hardware outside the tank
    and sensors will be destroyed if too big and weak. on top active protection detonation mechanism is a problem not only for troops near but equipment in the tank. So i don't see in the near future ,how could you have outside a tank very big expensive radars and expensive sensor to counter super fast missiles coming to a tank. The very same active protection of the system,its  explosives or the fragments of a destroyed RPG will destroy the sensors and radars outside the tank..if they are too big ,and exposed ,not even mentioning mines or explosives.



    Fired projectiles will remain cheaper than guided missiles for the forseeable future...
    Yeah i think so too.. but i think their role will change and will be much smaller the guns in order to save space and weight and for safety reasons. and only used for soft targets ,and perhaps to destroy building with fighters inside.
    and not the less against light artillery. Against heavy armored tank i think missiles and anti tank guns will take the role for its superior range.and increased damage capabilities. One hermes with 1300 mm penetration should be more than enough to disable a tank ,or at least wound its operators inside even in a frontal attack.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:06 am

    The information have seen says Arena-E engage target at with a max speed of 700m/s ,thats Mach 2.0. which is
    not bad at all.. can engage almost all anti tank weapons but not Hermes k that travels at mach 4.0. APFSDS rounds also travel at very fast super sonic speeds.
    The new ARENA-E can engage targets from 70m/s to 1,000 m/s as shown in the current brochure:



    Which is Mach 3.

    As I said above Standard and Afghanistan will be able to engage APFSDS rounds... which means they can engage very small targets at 1,500m/s or so, which means Hermes is not fast enough to evade them.

    Also Hermes uses a solid rocket booster after which it coasts to the target area so while it might be moving at 1.3km/s at about 2km range by about 15km range it will likely be going at about 600-700m/s.

    In Urban warfare tanks takes a lot of gun fire , lots of rpgs and IED too. So tank any hardware outside the tank
    and sensors will be destroyed if too big and weak.
    Audio sensors can hear around corners so can sit behind steel plate armour with multiple sensors used to locate sound sources. All sources of gunfire could be located and engaged in real time so I suspect the number of enemy forces shooting at your tank will rapidly diminish as the targets are eliminated. Needless to say firing an M16 at a T-90AM would do very little, but the act of firing locates you for the crew of that tank. After 10 of your buddies are killed because they fired upon enemy tanks how often are you going to try it on the off chance you might hit something important... remember in the near future in an armata brigade every vehicle will have tank level armour and sensors to detect your location when you open fire...

    on top active protection detonation mechanism is a problem not only for troops near but equipment in the tank.
    Looking at the ad above it still just protects from the sides rather than diving top attack threats... friendly troops can't operate close to their tanks anyway... that 125mm gun swinging around and firing a shot above your head would ruin your day pretty damn fast.

    Equally the gunners sight is above the line of the coaxial MG so he could open fire into the back of a friendly soldiers head not realising he is in the line of sight of the gun but not the optical sight.

    ARENA is designed to launch its intercept munitions up into the air and direct the fragments down at the incoming threat to minimise the threat to nearby soldiers. Conversely munitions can be fired manually to engage enemy troops that are nearby...


    So i don't see in the near future ,how could you have outside a tank very big expensive radars and expensive sensor to counter super fast missiles coming to a tank.
    What makes you think they need to be big? They just need to detect the incoming threat to 50m or so and be fast acting.

    Here are the radar elements of the ARENA-E system:



    Those boxes in the sides.



    Here you can see the open tops with the munitions visible...

    One hermes with 1300 mm penetration should be more than enough to disable a tank ,or at least wound its operators inside even in a frontal attack.
    They need a breakthrough... 152mm guns are just too big and heavy and cumbersome... I suspect much higher velocity EM guns will start being used... most likely in long range artillery on land and at sea and then EM MBT guns of smaller lighter calibres but much higher velocities so they are still effective.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3228
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  Vann7 on Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:56 am

    GarryB wrote:

    Which is Mach 3.

    As I said above Standard and Afghanistan will be able to engage APFSDS rounds... which means they can engage very small targets at 1,500m/s or so, which means Hermes is not fast enough to evade them.

    Also Hermes uses a solid rocket booster after which it coasts to the target area so while it might be moving at 1.3km/s at about 2km range by about 15km range it will likely be going at about 600-700m/s.
    I do not understand what you mean by Standar and afganistan? is that another hardware? care to elaborate?

    Max speed is achieved at the end before impact not at the start. Makes no sense why would anyone design a missile that decelerate at it most important moment when it is being tracked and before impact..  if Arena- E specs says can engage targets up to 1,000 m/s (~mach 3.0)..  i cannot see why you insist, to say that it can engage much faster targets like hermes mach 1,300 m/s (~mach 4.0)  or APFSDS kinetic hypersonic rounds that travels at near twice the speed of arena-E projectiles. that  is up to 1,900 m/s  (mach 5.6). When it comes to interceptions even half a second later will totally miss to intercept a projectile. Unless you talk about a future Arena EM++ that can intercept hypersonic targets.? confused


    Last edited by Vann7 on Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:14 am; edited 1 time in total

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 am


    I do not understand what you mean by Standar and afganistan? care to elaborate?
    Afghanistan is the name of the APS system for armata and has been described as being able to defeat APFSDS rounds.

    Standard is the name of the APS systems for medium and light vehicles... ie Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon.

    And if Arena- E specs says can engage targets up to 1,000 m/s (~mach 3.0).. and i do not understand why you insist, to say it can engage much faster targets like hermes mach 1,300 m/s (~mach 4.0) or APFSDS kinetic rounds that travels at near twice the speed of arena-E projectiles. that is up to 1,900 m/s (mach 5.6)? Unless you talk about a future Arena EM++ that can intercept hypersonic targets.?
    Hermes only travels at 1,300m/s at main booster rocket burn out... ie about 2-3km beyond the launch tube... after that it will slow down due to drag and when engaging targets at standoff distances (which is what it is designed for)... say 10-16km range, the speed of the missile will actually be closer to 600-700m/s.

    If they could design it so that it flew at 1.3km per second all the way to a target 20km away instead of a 30kg HEAT warhead they could simply line the core of the missile with a rod of depleted uranium that was 3m long and weighed 15kgs... that would penetrate any known tank easily.

    The fastest known APFSDS round is Soviet and travels at 1.8km/s, but that is from the muzzle of the gun that fires it... by the time it reaches a target at 2km or so it will not be travelling that fast.

    BTW I was talking about the period when armata is in service so near future.. when Hermes is also in service.

    Also, don't get me wrong, Hermes is cool, but nothing is perfect... right now the most powerful anti tank weapon would be the Kh-29L with its 317kg HEAT warhead even premature detonation 20m short of the tank target it would still generate a plasma torch powerful enough to melt pretty much any tank ever made... past or future. It is designed to undermine the heavy concrete foundations of large bridges and other large structures like bunkers etc so a little tank would be no problem.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Vann7
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3228
    Points : 3352
    Join date : 2012-05-16

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  Vann7 on Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:26 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Hermes only travels at 1,300m/s at main booster rocket burn out... ie about 2-3km beyond the launch tube... after that it will slow down due to drag and when engaging targets at standoff distances (which is what it is designed for)... say 10-16km range, the speed of the missile will actually be closer to 600-700m/s.

    If they could design it so that it flew at 1.3km per second all the way to a target 20km away instead of a 30kg HEAT warhead they could simply line the core of the missile with a rod of depleted uranium that was 3m long and weighed 15kgs... that would penetrate any known tank easily.
    But thats a supposition of yours .. it will be not very  logical, to design the missile in such a way that waste its maximum speed at the start and not when it need it more.. before the missile impact ,to penetrate any system defenses. and they don't need it to be mach 4 all the time.. just only before impact. CLub missiles . even though is another company..for example some of them do exactly this. they achieve max speed before impact. This is more logical to pass more quickly any system defenses.  

    Im curious how armata will do against hellfire missiles..

    Anyway both systems .. Arena-E and Hermes ,looks very promising.. Can't wait to see the APS of armata and
    hermes system in service. Thanks for the updates.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:17 am

    But thats a supposition of yours .. it will be not very logical, to design the missile in such a way that waste its maximum speed at the start and not when it need it more.. before the missile impact ,to penetrate any system defenses. and they don't need it to be mach 4 all the time.. just only before impact.
    Go to this page:

    http://www.kbptula.ru/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=146&Itemid=414&lang=en

    On the right side of the main window there is a text block titled system composition, and the top link says containerised hermes guided missile... click that link and the box that opens has details about the air launched Hermes-A missile... top speed 1,000m/s, and notice below... it has a two stage missile with a booster stage and a coasting stage.

    Obviously the booster stage is where its main propellent is stored and it accelerates the missile to speed in the first few seconds of flight to 1km/s.

    The coasting stage is long and slim and low drag... in practise the missile will likely be fired on a ballistic trajectory to maximise range except for relatively close range targets Which it will likely just fly directly towards.

    APS systems are not widely deployed and there is no real benefit to flying at mach 4 on impact for a HEAT/HE warhead.

    The advantage of flying at mach 3+ just after launch is that the booster can be dropped leaving a lighter smaller lower drag missile which increases its average flight speed across its entire envelope without needing a cruise rocket motor.

    CLub missiles . even though is another company..for example some of them do exactly this. they achieve max speed before impact. This is more logical to pass more quickly any system defenses.
    It is logical for anti ship missiles because modern ships are well defended. Very few modern tanks actually have APS systems however so it doesn't really make sense for ATGMs yet.

    And Club is the only missile that does what it does so can hardly be taken as normal.

    Im curious how armata will do against hellfire missiles..
    Early model ARENA could deal with Hellfires, so I don't see Armata having a problem if it is fitted with an APS as standard... which it will.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 241
    Points : 251
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:08 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:

    The British Brimstone missile seems to be a further development of the American Hellfire missile... so how in the world does it achieve its purported 60 km range when the hellfire is only capable of 8 km? The two missiles have the same weight and so it's not as though the Brimstone achieves its incredible range by being larger. As usual, I'm stumped.

    The negative point with the Hellfire is that it has a fixed algorythm that after launch it will gain 400-600m altitude, even if it is launched from 4km altitude already, this burns extra fuel and with the combination that the rocket engine is a high burning engine it burns its fuel far faster then most missiles. In theory the Hellfire could reach easily 10km + maybe even 15km when launched at certain speeds and altitude of higher than 5km, but the problem is the flight trajectory (always trying to gain altitude) and high burning engine. The brimstone is based on Hellfire with two major things changed, the engine is a slow burning engine it burns the fuel much slower rate, because it is always launched from drones 10km+ altitude, meaning they cut out the algorythm and trajectory of the missile to gain extra altitude because it wouldn't make any sense at such hights. The other thing is the trajectory which is a direct trajectory which cuts the range from launch to target further giving it potential more range and of course that it is launched from fixed wing airplanes giving it the extra velocity, while most launches from Apaches are made with 0 velocity from hovering or at lower speeds than 180 km/h. It also has a multispectral sensor which gives it better target descrimination and lays down the basis at which ranges it can effectivley engage targets, bad SALH seeker on Hellfire 1 missile were the problem in Iraq war with relative short range of less than 4km, despite Iraq being mostly flat desert with good range of sight.

    God, I love this forum... I am learning so much. I'm surprised that the Hellfire isn't nearly as capable as I was led to believe. I know that the Russians have an arguably superior missile [Hermes] with far greater speeds and a whopping 100 km max range, but it weighs 110 kg. Couldn't the Russians either create a lighter variant of the Hermes [around 50 kg] or extend the range of the khrizantema to 15-20 km for its attack helicopters?

    Cyrus the great
    Senior Sergeant
    Senior Sergeant

    Posts : 241
    Points : 251
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:19 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:
    GarryB wrote:Probably a lower thrust much longer burning engine and the fact that it is released from fixed wing high speed aircraft instead of low flying helos.

    That occurred to me but I didn't think that it would increase the range to that extent. Even when launched from a helicopter, the Brimstone can reach an astonishing 40 km. As always, thank you for explaining it to me.

    Brimstone can't reach 40km launched from a helicopter. It would reach 16 maybe 20km launched from 4-5km altitude from an Apache with speeds of 150-200 km/h.

    It seems that I made the mistake of trusting information from Wikipedia. I tried to find other sources for the 40 km figure, but I couldn't, and so you're right. I suppose I should have corroborated the claims, instead of trusting Wikipedia like a mindless sap. Thanks for the correction.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:58 am

    I know that the Russians have an arguably superior missile [Hermes] with far greater speeds and a whopping 100 km max range, but it weighs 110 kg.

    AFAIK only the ground launched model of Hermes will reach 100km range with a ballistic flight path.

    Couldn't the Russians either create a lighter variant of the Hermes [around 50 kg] or extend the range of the khrizantema to 15-20 km for its attack helicopters?

    the standard model Hermes for helicopter launch will have a range of about 20km, and I suspect later model helicopter launched variations of Khrisantema and Vikhr will likely persist as the cheaper lighter options.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Jun 21, 2015 4:19 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    God, I love this forum... I am learning so much. I'm surprised that the Hellfire isn't nearly as capable as I was led to believe. I know that the Russians have an arguably superior missile [Hermes] with far greater speeds and a whopping 100 km max range, but it weighs 110 kg. Couldn't the Russians either create a lighter variant of the Hermes [around 50 kg] or extend the range of the khrizantema to 15-20 km for its attack helicopters?

    The comparision between Hellfire and Hermes isn't fair, they were designed in completley different times and are different kind of technology generation. If you want to compare it to a counterpart so you have to compare it with one off the US designs as next gen. heliborne ATGM. The US had several proposals, some died off, were closed some emerged into existing projects like raytheons project PAASM (Precision Attack Air-to Surface Missile) AFAIK which was canceled years ago, then there was JCM (Join Common Missile) that was a replacement for Mavericks with up to 28km range (fixed wing) that was also tested in 2005 for Apaches, the budget for that project was terminated and relocated to the JAGM project. That would be the current project be JGAM (Joint Air-to Ground Missile) which is to great deal based on Hellfire and has a range of around 15-18km,(which mainly comes as a deal between new rocket engine and non dogmatic "top attack" trajectory which burned the fuel before it even reached 2km mark) however not much information on it but is suppossed to be the introduced into active service in 2019 roughly the same timeline of Hermes, but that will take some years untill those missiles will be in sufficient numbers and take even longer to be called "main armament" far post 2025.

    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/JAGM.html


    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Helicopter ATGMs

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 1:05 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 1:05 pm