Russian Helicopter ATGMs

sepheronx wrote:

TR1 wrote:What project hasn't been going on for years in Russia ? (and other nations to be fair).

It is a very ambitious project.

Vihr is an excellent peacetime weapon, cheap missiles allow realistic training.
Plus the launchers have larger capacity than the god-awfull looking vertical Attaka mount on the Ka-52.

I wonder how effective the Vikhr is in real time situations.  I imagine it would be quite effective, especially in dealing with islamists.  But I wonder how effective it is in a military strike against a well armed enemy like Georgia.

"Well armed" Georgia was smoked in just five days (in reality no more than 80 hours of effective battlefield actions) in a combined arms operation in 2008, committing  no more than 10000 effectives and avoiding to employ  any  lately inducted  or more crucial weaponry.  

Georgian MBTs  was taken care of by 1990 era domestic  MBTs, in a very reduced tactical tempo and with almost  absence of friendly losses.


Performances of Vikhr-1 ATGM against a similar opponent would be totally not-influential.

GarryB wrote:Range and speed and penetration better than Hellfire... should be pretty good actually.

It is fully dual purpose so with a flick of a switch before launch the HEAT warhead is changed to a proximity HE Frag warhead for use against aerial targets or soft ground targets, for not say helicopters and surveiullance/attack UAVs which can become easily prey of this missile as well.

Exactly (4:12  and 4:50)






Moreover, to the contrary of the  expensive and..... highly ECM-prone foreign samples of the so called "fire and forget" missiles, you do not risk to see your entire missile salvo go literally to the hell  when merely a pair of enemy APCs  deploy a mullti-spectral 3D6M aerosol screen .

If any, missiles such as Vikhr-1 show its maximum "value" just against  very advanced enemies, with ground vehicles equipped with advanced  ECM and multi-spectral battlefield obscurants , for not say helicopters and surveillance/attack UAVs which can easily fall prey of this missile as well.

@ Sepheronx

Both Hermes and Vikhr are designed by KBP. Izhmash is only the factory that has been awarded the contract to produce the missiles.

@ Garry, Mindstorm, TR1 and others

Would request from you to compare the latest Ataka versions against the Vikhr.
Thanks in advance.
..and here is my reward for you guys for the effort: Full load of photos and information about Vikhr on this page:

http://bastion-karpenko.ru/vihr/

Would request from you to compare the latest Ataka versions against the Vikhr.
Thanks in advance.

I sort of did... Ataka is being replaced by Krisantema so the latest Ataka is Krisantema.

Doing a fair comparison is actually rather difficult as the only figures in public are export numbers which means Shturm has a range of 5km and Ataka a range of 6km... but it is suspected that the air launched models of Ataka used by the Russian military have flight ranges of 8km and a penetration performance of 800mm. Later models have laser beam riding guidance added as a backup the same way Krisantema uses it as a backup guidance method too. Shturm flies at about 420m/s while the Ataka flies at about 400m/s which is significantly faster than TOW or any wire guided missile, while Krisantema flies at about 450m/s over the same range of 6km as the Ataka, but its enlarged nose has a bigger warhead that can penetrate 1.2m of armour, with Shturm penetrating 650mm and Ataka penetrating 800mm. It is suspected that the air launched Krisantema-M has a range of 8km too. (note the ATAKA-S, Shturm-S and Krisantema-S are based in ground vehicles... MTLBs in the case of the first two and a modified BMP-3 in the case of the latter.)

Both Ataka and Shturm are radio command guided, while Kristantema are MMW radar guided and has laser beam riding as a backup/alternative guidance option.

One other important aspect that should not be forgotten is that Shturm/Ataka/Krisantema are compact and relatively light missiles that can be carried 8 to a weapon pylon which allows large numbers to be carried while freeing up other weapon points for other weapon types.

The ability to use the three different missiles means flexibility especially likely with large numbers of cheap Shturm in stocks from the cold war they can select which missile is required... smashing bunkers or MG or sniper positions does not require 1.2m armour penetration performance...

The Vikhr on the other hand has a flight range of 10km, a missile flight speed of 610m/s and penetration performance of 1m, which is still pretty good for such a slim missile. At 45kg it is not a huge missile either though generally carried on a 6 tube pylon for helicopters there is an 8 tube pylon for CAS aircraft like Su-25TM.

The missile is single stage unlike Hermes and uses a dual tandem HEAT warhead and standard HE Frag warhead that can be selected with a switch before launch.

The Shturm is 35kgs and the Ataka is 42.5kgs with warheads of 5.4kgs and 7.4kgs each.

I haven't found any weight figures for Krisantema.

In comparison HERMES will have a flight range of 15km and an average flight speed of 500m/s to that range, though booster rocket burn out speed will be 1km/s. Total missile weight is about 110kgs of which about 30kgs will be the warhead.

Very high acceleration and booster separation will likely leave a zone of 2-3kms where it is ineffective against targets but this area can be filled by any of the above other missile types along with Ugroza based guidance packages for unguided rockets.

Ka-52 also use heavier weapons like Kh-25 (AS-10) missiles, which become old, so they will maybe use newer missiles.

The Kh-25 family of missiles might be replaced by unguided rockets fitted with Ugroza, but I personally think a missile in the 250-400kg weight range with a 90-110kg warhead and a flight range of 10-15km would be very useful... especially with laser and IIR/TV guidance. It would also be very useful for CAS aircraft too.

Naval Ka-52K will most probably carry Kh-31 missiles, so i don't see a problem for standard Ka-52 to carry same weight ASMs as anti-radar or laser guided ones.

Plus a helicopter can sneak through mountain ranges and dead ground to deliver anti radiation missiles low and sneaky like.

We have heard about the Kh-38 which has a 250kg payload and a 40km range in the export model and 80km range in the domestic model... but I think its performance puts it in the class of the Kh-29 rather than the Kh-25.

For now Krizanthema is only used in its BMP-3 based vehicle, so I don't know if they make any tests with Krizanthema on helicopters. I think Kornet-EM could also be alternative for Ataka missiles for Mi-28 or Mi-35.

I wonder, why they order Vikhr-1 and not Vikhr-M with 15 km range. I think they still count for Hermes in that range class.

For now Krizanthema is only used in its BMP-3 based vehicle, so I don't know if they make any tests with Krizanthema on helicopters.

There was a report that the Mi-28Ns will get Krizantema to replace ATAKA... its guidance of MMW radar and backup laser beam riding make it pretty ideal for helicopter use.

I think Kornet-EM could also be alternative for Ataka missiles for Mi-28 or Mi-35.

Probably a bit slow for helicopter use, but I think it would be ideal for UCAV use as its lack of wires for guidance would make it very useful for aircraft at medium and low altitudes.

I wonder, why they order Vikhr-1 and not Vikhr-M with 15 km range. I think they still count for Hermes in that range class.

Vikhr-M is the name of the entire system that includes the missiles and guidance system.

AFAIK the 15km range is from a few thousand metres up and at forward flight speeds of 400km/h or faster and is really only practical from the Su-25TM. From the Ka-50 and Ka-52 its range will be 10km... which is still plenty of course... at 8km its CEP is 80cm or 0.8m... so it is very accurate.

Both the Vikhr and the Krizantema will be very good cheap simple but effective missiles.

The Vikhr already uses auto target tracking like the Kornet-EM and I suppose the Krizantema can use the same guidance for both engagement options of radio command and laser beam riding.

Note the Vikhr flys 5m above the laser line of sight to avoid striking objects on the ground.

Thanks for taking the time and providing explanation and clarifications Garry.

I have one more question.
What measures can the opponent take to counter/jam/interfere with the Vikhr's, Ataka's and Khrizantema's guidance systems?

What measures can the opponent take to counter/jam/interfere with the Vikhr's, Ataka's and Khrizantema's guidance systems?

As far as I know the current Ataka has an added laser beam riding guidance feature as used on the BMPT prototype but its standard radio command guidance is from the black thimble nose thing on the Mi-28N.

It would have the weakest guidance in terms of jamming but I suspect it would actually be pretty tricky to jam as most guidance links are directional and the receiver on the missile is looking back at the launcher. The encoded signal could conceivably be interfered with but would require specialist equipment that AFAIK doesn't exist operationally on currently deployed vehicles.

Very simply the missile is optically tracked and its position is correlated with the target track and course corrections are sent via a 35 Ghz antenna under the black thimble nose fairing.

With Vikhr and Krizantema the missile looks back at the launch platform at a coded laser beam. No course corrections are sent via the launch platform it uses an autotracker to keep the laser on the target during the flight of the missile. The missile looks back and determines its position in the beam and calculates what flight manouvers it needs to centre itself.

Standard countermeasures like smoke might effect the optical tracking of the target but radar tracking will likely not be effected so ATAKA and Vikhr and Krizantema should still keep their lock and should still be able to hit their targets... the smoke 100m in front of a tank would mean the missile looking back at the launch platform should still be able to see the laser for a few metres into the smoke when it loses sight of the laser it will likely continue flying straight and for the quarter of a second that it would take to hit the tank it should still get a hit.

Keep in mind that the power of the laser is a small fraction of the power needed if the missile had a forward mounted sensor and was looking for a laser that reflects off the target.

As such this laser likely wont set off laser detection systems ... or if they did then those systems will activate all the time as reflections of LRF lasers will be powerful enough to set them off... including their own lasers.

Guided using radar all the way Krizantema would be the hardest to stop, with Vikhr next and Ataka last... but all would need specialist equipment.

What measures can the opponent take to counter/jam/interfere with the Vikhr's, Ataka's and Khrizantema's guidance systems?

Vikhr and Krizanthema in laser beam riding mode are more or less imune on jamming, because the system doesn't need IR missile locator, which look in direction of target as in usual SACLOS ATGMs. Laser beam locator is in back of missile and look in direction of launcher. It could be jammed with smoke, that laser beam could not get through, but smoke grenades launched from target don't fly very far, so in the last meters they will note have big influence. For older system as Ataka in Sturm-S have classical SACLOS with IR missile locator and this locator could be jammed with Stora equipment on T-90 tank or similar.

Laser beam locator is in back of missile and look in direction of launcher. It could be jammed with smoke, that laser beam could not get through, but smoke grenades launched from target don't fly very far, so in the last meters they will note have big influence.

Another issue is when do you pop the smoke?

10kms away a Ka-52 detects a group of tanks using its radar and uses zoomed optics to scan to find a specific target by evaluating all the targets in sight and selecting the most dangerous ones first... ie vehicles with weapons dangerous to helos first and actually tanks last... unless those tanks are a direct threat to friendly forces and need to be stopped urgently.

In this case launching a missile from say 8km range the missile will reach the target in about 20 seconds or so... now the laser used to guide the missile is very low powered because the missiles optical seeker is staring directly back at the beam source so it is actually very unlikely the targeted tank will even know it is under attack and as the missile gets closer the beam does not get more intense so the likely result is that the tank wont know it is under attack till it is hit by the missile.
Two alternatives to this... one is that the tanks upgrade their laser sensors to make them much more sensitive... which means they will likely be continually popping smoke grenades because even reflections of LRF will likely set them off... after they run out of smoke grenades they will be exposed.
But lets say they invent some wonderful new technology that can give early warning of the attack... lets say they detect the laser... so when the Hokum marks the target ready to fire its missile the tank detects it and fires smoke... the Hokum pilot has a range of choices... wait for the smoke to disperse and then fire, or fire and then wait 15 seconds till the missile is close to the group of enemy vehicles and then re-target another vehicle 2-3 seconds before impact so it wont have time to deploy smoke.
The Vikhr already has its laser beam directed 5m above the actual target till the missile is within 1km of the target to prevent the missile hitting powerlines or trees or hedges between the launch platform and the target so the laser wont actually be pointing directly at the target for more than 2-3 seconds anyway.

Also keep in mind that smoke will block normal visibility for the tank and its crew and to be effective against the Vikhr etc it will also need to be effective in the IR wavelengths too so the tanks thermals wont see through it either... in other words the only platform to be able to see through the smoke will be the Ka-52 and Mi-28N/M with their MMW radar and of course the Krizantema missiles using MMW radar command guidance which will not be effected by the smoke at all.

Laser beam locator is in back of missile and look in direction of launcher. It could be jammed with smoke, that laser beam could not get through, but smoke grenades launched from target don't fly very far, so in the last meters they will note have big influence. wrote:

This is a non-issue for Laser Beam Riding ATGM's. The Sensors by guidance are at the back of the missile and facing to the launching plattform and they travel with 610m/s and when a tank even when it recognize the laser and deploys an aerosol screen the missile has still a high hit probability as long the tank is static, the laser beam is still leading the missile towards the last position when it was visible and when it enters the aerosol screen and "propably" losses the laser beam it has only to travel about 20m where the aerosol screen is located from the tank with a speed of 610m/s which would take 0.03sec even after losing guidance it wouldn't wobbling or stearing into a direction but heading ahead while usual SACLOS missiles like Hellfires would immidiatley lose their targets since aerosol doesn't reflects enough of the laser light and would stear to any source or minor reflect of the laser and would hit the ground somewhere but not at the target.

SACLOS missiles like Hellfires would immidiatley lose their targets since aerosol doesn't reflects enough of the laser light and would stear to any source or minor reflect of the laser and would hit the ground somewhere but not at the target.

Well technically Hellfire is SALH or semi active laser homing and in the case of smoke the beam would be a line in the smoke instead a point on the surface of the tank so the missile could go almost anywhere depending on the angle of the missile and the direction the target is being lased from.

Tank's smoke grenades are not proper protection against Vikhr or Kornet ATGM, because it launch them 20 to 30 m away and when those grenades make smoke behind missiles, they are already hit the tank. Problem could be smoke artillery rounds or mortars, which make smoke in front of your positions. Helicopter will not be effected by them, because it could change position or fly a little higher, but could be problematic for ground based ATGMs. Krizanthema will be immune on it, because it have radar guidance as primary mode. Ka-52 could also do this job by radar, but Kornet will be effected as all other ATGMs.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.?

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.

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.

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.