Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Share
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Militarov on Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:50 am

    Anyone seen video that Houthi fighters released claiming they destroyed Saudi M1A2 with 9M113 Konkurs?
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5589
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:44 am

    Militarov wrote:Anyone seen video that Houthi fighters released claiming they destroyed Saudi M1A2 with 9M113 Konkurs?

    Their claim was immidiatley proven with them providing nice roasty footage of it.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Militarov on Thu Sep 03, 2015 6:49 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    Militarov wrote:Anyone seen video that Houthi fighters released claiming they destroyed Saudi M1A2 with 9M113 Konkurs?

    Their claim was immidiatley proven  with them providing nice roasty footage of it.


    Yeah, i would have posted it here but cant still post links Very Happy. Someone should post it, its interesting for the topic, proves the point.
    avatar
    OminousSpudd

    Posts : 891
    Points : 908
    Join date : 2015-01-03
    Age : 22
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  OminousSpudd on Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:30 am

    Sorry if this has been posted already on another thread...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2GR-g9777k
    ... but lordy me, that was beautiful. (Not the crew getting fried mind you, but that ammo rack!)
    Houthis with Fagot(!) against a Saudi M1 (not sure if M1A2) were the death dealers.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:32 pm

    well kornet is just bearly man-portable, you need pretty big guys ,bear-man , to tug around that thing.

    Kornet is not light, but then 30mm grenade launchers and their ammo are not light either and the Russian army is fully mechanised.

    All their IFVs pretty much carry ATGMs and they have dedicated missile vehicles like Kristantema and Tigr with Kornet, so the man portable models don't need to move that much. The man portable models would likely be positioned near a base as base security, while in combat the ATGM formations are generally part of the motor rifle units and have platforms to move them around the battlefield fairly quickly and easily.

    The Metis-M is an incredibly powerful, compact, light and portable system [and if upgraded] could remain in service for decades more; its wire guidance will snag over trees and power-lines and permits a very short range [2 km] - well within the engagement range of an MBT or IFV.

    the wire is released from the missile as it moves... with the launcher stationary there is no chance of "snagging" the wire... that would only happen with wire guided missiles fired from aircraft like TOW and HOT.

    Konkurs is wire guided and has a range of about 4.5km.

    Apart from limiting flight speed wire guidance is a good cheap method of guidance.

    integrating the Kornet-D's guidance system onto the Metis-M and increasing its speed and range shouldn't be too expensive. If you could somehow increase the range and speed of the Metis-M to that of the earlier 9M133 Kornet while still retaining its portability credentials... you would have the best truly man portable ATGM in the world.

    Metis is not supposed to be Kornet. What is wrong with having a small light portable ATGMs system like Metis? Adapting it to become a Kornet will increase weight and cost... it would be cheaper to just use Kornet.

    Having the option to select between direct engagement [in which speed is maintained at 550ms] and lofted flight trajectory [in which speed is maintained at 270ms] would be incredible. The Kornet really isn't man portable and so an upgraded Metis-M could fill this role with ease.

    You mean you want to turn Metis into Javelin?

    Turn a cheap mass produced effective ATGM into an expensive piece of crap... why bother?

    Integrating a MMW radar seeker and an inertial navigation system onto the Metis-M would make it more effective in the modern battlefield. 2 km is not enough and exposes your soldiers to unnecessary danger, which is precisely why I regard the similarly range Javelin as useless. I agree that adding a MMW radar by itself would be pointless for target acquisition, but if it's married to an inertial navigation system it would be incredibly effective; you could aim the missile at the direction of the target with the missile controlled by the inertial navigation system until the MMW seeker locks on for terminal guidance. There would no need for manual guidance and it would be truly fire and forget at long ranges. It would undoubtedly increase the cost by a significant margin, but shooting at MBTs from 2 km while having to maintain line of sight for the entire duration of the missile's flight would be far more costly in lives. In addition to the immeasurable value of human life itself, the financial costs of 'replacing' a trained soldier would be many times higher than upgrading the electronics on a missile.

    You are missing the point... even if you have inertial guidance to get the missile near the target how do you tell the missile which radar return is the target?

    It might get a strong MMW radar return signal from that M1A2 main battle tank, but that wall of the barn beside that tank might also appear to be a target... from your launch position how do you tell what the missile can see? How to identify the radar image of the tank or tanks in view and how do you tell the missile to engage the tank targets instead of the other flat targets that also return radar signals like that concrete slab that is a driveway or that civilian car parked on the side of the road?

    With metis you look through the optics using thermal sights if you need to and identify the target before you fire but looking through optics or IR sensors wont tell you what a MMW radar sensor will see.

    On Krisantema there is a radar and EO sights... you pretty much find the target and the MMW radar sends flight commands to the missile... more SARH than ARH... much cheaper and much more accurate.

    Exactly. An upgraded Metis-M would do nicely in this regard. Imagine a truly man portable missile with an option for lofted trajectory, a fire and forget ability and a range of 5500m. It would be expensive, sure... but the cost differential would be in your favour. Taking out an 8 million dollar tank would financially sap the enemy more.

    The problem with imagination is there are no limits.

    Metis has a range of 2km because it weighs 13kgs (the missile that is). If you want a 5km range then you need a missile double that weight... which makes it a Kornet weight missile... so why not just use a Kornet?

    The reality is that in a non guerilla war there wont be Milan and Metis teams wandering around the front line dealing to MBTs all over the place. they might be delivered by helo to an ambush point, but the vast majority of the time they will be part of a defensive structure that includes long range missiles and very short range rockets and everything in between.

    In an urban environment a tank wont see an ATGM team 2km away... from a raised position the ATGM team might fire at an open boulevard 1km away or less and they might hit an enemy tank out in the open or they might not... the tank wont see the launch and wont know they are under attack till the missile impacts. In the noise and smoke and chaos of combat the tank crew are not going to turn the turret and fire a HE shell at the ATGM team before their missile even hits... that is hollywood BS.


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    KoTeMoRe

    Posts : 3912
    Points : 3939
    Join date : 2015-04-21
    Location : Krankhaus Central.

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  KoTeMoRe on Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:44 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    The problem with imagination is there are no limits.

    Metis has a range of 2km because it weighs 13kgs (the missile that is). If you want a 5km range then you need a missile double that weight... which makes it a Kornet weight missile... so why not just use a Kornet?

    The reality is that in a non guerilla war there wont be Milan and Metis teams wandering around the front line dealing to MBTs all over the place. they might be delivered by helo to an ambush point, but the vast majority of the time they will be part of a defensive structure that includes long range missiles and very short range rockets and everything in between.

    In an urban environment a tank wont see an ATGM team 2km away... from a raised position the ATGM team might fire at an open boulevard 1km away or less and they might hit an enemy tank out in the open or they might not... the tank wont see the launch and wont know they are under attack till the missile impacts. In the noise and smoke and chaos of combat the tank crew are not going to turn the turret and fire a HE shell at the ATGM team before their missile even hits... that is hollywood BS.

    See Yemeni ambushes for dramatization. Heavy armored units, standing at range, being fired upon not even noticing what hit them. Same for Merkava's the Trophy will track the close contact, and probable path, the turret turning is semi-automatic. On the commander's BMS there's a point which appears, which is the arc of fire. The sequence, targeting, PID and fire is entirely human and takes from 3sec to never is the TC doesn't PID a target. Well Israelis have one advantage they don't actually care what they fire at so there...

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Thu Sep 03, 2015 2:44 pm

    Garry B:

    After reading your detailed post and thinking it all over, you are right... a modification entailing the incorporation of a MMW radar seeker on the Metis-M would be incredibly expensive and ineffective. I say this with sincerity - thank you for educating me and disabusing me of my ignorance on the matter.


    Gary B wrote:Metis has a range of 2km because it weighs 13kgs (the missile that is). If you want a 5km range then you need a missile double that weight... which makes it a Kornet weight missile... so why not just use a Kornet?

    I just love the portability,, layout and low profile of the Metis-M. In my opinion it has the best profile of any ATGM today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the Metis-M have a range of at least 4km without increasing weight just like the 9M113 Konkurs? The 9M113 Konkurs missile weighs only 14kg [and like you mentioned] has a max range of 4.5 km.  I realise that the Konkurs has a slightly weaker warhead, but the existence of light, long range missiles like the 9M113 Konkurs and Spike-LR would seem to suggest that you can increase range without increasing weight. The Spike-LR actually weighs a little less than the Metis-M.


    With regard to Kornet-D, does its guidance system really achieve the fire and forget function? So when you aim at the target, the operator and guidance sight on the launcher doesn't then need to maintain sight of the target during flight, right? The missile's onboard auto-tracker apparently helps the Kornet-D to achieve fire and forget.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Militarov on Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:20 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:Garry B:

    After reading your detailed post and thinking it all over, you are right... a modification entailing the incorporation of a MMW radar seeker on the Metis-M would be incredibly expensive and ineffective. I say this with sincerity - thank you for educating me and disabusing me of my ignorance on the matter.


    Gary B wrote:Metis has a range of 2km because it weighs 13kgs (the missile that is). If you want a 5km range then you need a missile double that weight... which makes it a Kornet weight missile... so why not just use a Kornet?

    I just love the portability,, layout and low profile of the Metis-M. In my opinion it has the best profile of any ATGM today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the Metis-M have a range of at least 4km without increasing weight just like the 9M113 Konkurs? The 9M113 Konkurs missile weighs only 14kg [and like you mentioned] has a max range of 4.5 km.  I realise that the Konkurs has a slightly weaker warhead, but the existence of light, long range missiles like the 9M113 Konkurs and Spike-LR would seem to suggest that you can increase range without increasing weight. The Spike-LR actually weighs a little less than the Metis-M.


    With regard to Kornet-D, does its guidance system really achieve the fire and forget function? So when you aim at the target, the operator and guidance sight on the launcher doesn't then need to maintain sight of the target during flight, right? The missile's onboard auto-tracker apparently helps the Kornet-D to achieve fire and forget.

    Fire and Forget on KornetD is apparently done by automated target tracking of device itself, so its not real fire and forget but more like "operators fire and forget", you tag the target, you fire and you go for a smoke. Kornet D on other hand has two channels he can fire two in salvo and guide them same way due to basically double launcher existing on that platform. Those can be two different targets or same target.
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4489
    Points : 4662
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:33 pm

    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:Garry B:

    After reading your detailed post and thinking it all over, you are right... a modification entailing the incorporation of a MMW radar seeker on the Metis-M would be incredibly expensive and ineffective. I say this with sincerity - thank you for educating me and disabusing me of my ignorance on the matter.


    Gary B wrote:Metis has a range of 2km because it weighs 13kgs (the missile that is). If you want a 5km range then you need a missile double that weight... which makes it a Kornet weight missile... so why not just use a Kornet?

    I just love the portability,, layout and low profile of the Metis-M. In my opinion it has the best profile of any ATGM today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the Metis-M have a range of at least 4km without increasing weight just like the 9M113 Konkurs? The 9M113 Konkurs missile weighs only 14kg [and like you mentioned] has a max range of 4.5 km.  I realise that the Konkurs has a slightly weaker warhead, but the existence of light, long range missiles like the 9M113 Konkurs and Spike-LR would seem to suggest that you can increase range without increasing weight. The Spike-LR actually weighs a little less than the Metis-M.


    With regard to Kornet-D, does its guidance system really achieve the fire and forget function? So when you aim at the target, the operator and guidance sight on the launcher doesn't then need to maintain sight of the target during flight, right? The missile's onboard auto-tracker apparently helps the Kornet-D to achieve fire and forget.

    Fire and Forget on KornetD is apparently done by automated target tracking of device itself, so its not real fire and forget but more like "operators fire and forget", you tag the target, you fire and you go for a smoke. Kornet D on other hand has two channels he can fire two in salvo and guide them same way due to basically double launcher existing on that platform. Those can be two different targets or same target.

    It's the best 'kind' of 'fire-and-forget', because it's nearly impossible to jam with ECM....in comparison the other forms of 'fire-and-forget' can be jammed fairly easily and cheaply.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Militarov on Thu Sep 03, 2015 7:39 pm

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Militarov wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:Garry B:

    After reading your detailed post and thinking it all over, you are right... a modification entailing the incorporation of a MMW radar seeker on the Metis-M would be incredibly expensive and ineffective. I say this with sincerity - thank you for educating me and disabusing me of my ignorance on the matter.


    Gary B wrote:Metis has a range of 2km because it weighs 13kgs (the missile that is). If you want a 5km range then you need a missile double that weight... which makes it a Kornet weight missile... so why not just use a Kornet?

    I just love the portability,, layout and low profile of the Metis-M. In my opinion it has the best profile of any ATGM today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the Metis-M have a range of at least 4km without increasing weight just like the 9M113 Konkurs? The 9M113 Konkurs missile weighs only 14kg [and like you mentioned] has a max range of 4.5 km.  I realise that the Konkurs has a slightly weaker warhead, but the existence of light, long range missiles like the 9M113 Konkurs and Spike-LR would seem to suggest that you can increase range without increasing weight. The Spike-LR actually weighs a little less than the Metis-M.


    With regard to Kornet-D, does its guidance system really achieve the fire and forget function? So when you aim at the target, the operator and guidance sight on the launcher doesn't then need to maintain sight of the target during flight, right? The missile's onboard auto-tracker apparently helps the Kornet-D to achieve fire and forget.

    Fire and Forget on KornetD is apparently done by automated target tracking of device itself, so its not real fire and forget but more like "operators fire and forget", you tag the target, you fire and you go for a smoke. Kornet D on other hand has two channels he can fire two in salvo and guide them same way due to basically double launcher existing on that platform. Those can be two different targets or same target.

    It's the best 'kind' of 'fire-and-forget', because it's nearly impossible to jam with ECM....in comparison the other forms of 'fire-and-forget' can be jammed fairly easily and cheaply.

    What i would appreciate about Kornet and Russian ATGMs of current generation is if they developed Top attack capability, i dont mind beam riding guidance or anything, however having Top attack as an option would greatly increase their capabilities. And making it top attack is not that much of an issue even small countries like Serbia have been working on it (private companies tho).

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:59 pm



    Militarov wrote:What i would appreciate about Kornet and Russian ATGMs of current generation is if they developed Top attack capability, i dont mind beam riding guidance or anything, however having Top attack as an option would greatly increase their capabilities. And making it top attack is not that much of an issue even small countries like Serbia have been working on it (private companies tho).

    A top attack capability would be incredible. How insane would it be for a last generation ATGM like the Metis-M to be able to destroy tanks with ease? No tank could survive a 950mm penetration behind ERA on top of the turret, let alone 1300-1400mm in the case of the Kornet-D. Kornet-D with top-attack capability = absolute pulverization.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Militarov on Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:13 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:

    Militarov wrote:What i would appreciate about Kornet and Russian ATGMs of current generation is if they developed Top attack capability, i dont mind beam riding guidance or anything, however having Top attack as an option would greatly increase their capabilities. And making it top attack is not that much of an issue even small countries like Serbia have been working on it (private companies tho).

    A top attack capability would be incredible. How insane would it be for a last generation ATGM like the Metis-M to be able to destroy tanks with ease? No tank could survive a 950mm penetration behind ERA on top of the turret, let alone 1300-1400mm in the case of the Kornet-D. Kornet-D with top-attack capability = absolute pulverization.  

    Best part is that top attack should be switchable off and on depending on target, also that way they would be able to reduce size of the warhead abit too due to target envelope. Also what can be done, but from what i have seen electronic module in Kornet is quite bulky so its not an option atm till they deal with miniaturisation of electromechanical components, is that you can use dual guidance lets say keeping current beam riding and adding Infrared homing, Electro Optical or make modular warheads where seeker/guidance is applied on top of the warhead on the spot depending on situation. There is a million and 1 way to improve Russian ATGMs and it should be done its not THAT expencive.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Fri Sep 04, 2015 6:59 pm


    Militarov wrote:
    Best part is that top attack should be switchable off and on depending on target, also that way they would be able to reduce size of the warhead abit too due to target envelope. Also what can be done, but from what i have seen electronic module in Kornet is quite bulky so its not an option atm till they deal with miniaturisation of electromechanical components, is that you can use dual guidance lets say keeping current beam riding and adding Infrared homing, Electro Optical or make modular warheads where seeker/guidance is applied on top of the warhead on the spot depending on situation. There is a million and 1 way to improve Russian ATGMs and it should be done its not THAT expencive.

    Those modifications would certainly make Russian ATGMs more versatile in their deployment. I agree that the Kornet is too heavy but I don't know if miniaturization of electro-mechanical components would actually result in a great deal of weight savings. This is why I think a modernization of the Metis-M would be best. The Spike-LR missile uses dual guidance, weighs only 13 kg, has a top-attack capability and has a max range of 4km. Those capabilities can certainly be achieved in the Metis-M, even if only for a variant in limited use by special forces and commandos. Dual guidance is the way to go in that it mitigates some of the inherent weaknesses of one mode of guidance.

    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5589
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:37 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:A top attack capability would be incredible. How insane would it be for a last generation ATGM like the Metis-M to be able to destroy tanks with ease? No tank could survive a 950mm penetration behind ERA on top of the turret, let alone 1300-1400mm in the case of the Kornet-D. Kornet-D with top-attack capability = absolute pulverization.  

    A "Top-Attack" capability would do nothing good for the Kornet with its current warhead of 1200-1400mm RHAe penetration value. Those values are armor penetration, the top side of tanks has literally no armor, just enough to keep the missiles body and pressure of the HE part of the shaped charge outside of the tank, meaning it will not matter if you have a Top Attack Bazooka of WW2 with its 275mm RHAe or a Kornet-D with 1400mm RHAe, the penetrator will be formed will pierce the roof armor which is less than 40-70mm and with very little spalling enter the crew compartment, do little damage in a very narrow cone of shrapnels/spalling and the penetrator itself. If there is no one in this narrowed cone of spalling or in the way of the penetrator itself it will do much less damage than a Kornet-D penetrating frontal armor of any MBT and it will do so with ease. If you would use a Kornet-D as a Top attack weapon the only thing you would achieve with its powerful penetrator is to penetrate top armor, entire hull and 2 meters of ground beneath the tank. Good thing if you want to kill groundhoges, but complete resource waste for much lower effect than a frontal penetration.

    The best thing i could think off as an cheap upgrade for Kornet is making it equal to Vikhr by adding proximity fuze to have better capability to engage infantry formations with HE-Frag warheads instead of searching Obstacles to slam the missile against to set it off. The problem with that is that the missile hits a wall or a car and the wall/car absorbs quite big junk of the fragments so weakening its maximal potential lethality.
    There are different technologies how to make a proximity fuze, an expensive way with precision laser around the warhead, a very cheap one like a laser rangefinder measures distance, provides it to missile and missile measures its own speed and explodes when it reaches the distance, very easy method with good accuracy.
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Militarov on Fri Sep 04, 2015 11:30 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:A top attack capability would be incredible. How insane would it be for a last generation ATGM like the Metis-M to be able to destroy tanks with ease? No tank could survive a 950mm penetration behind ERA on top of the turret, let alone 1300-1400mm in the case of the Kornet-D. Kornet-D with top-attack capability = absolute pulverization.  

    A "Top-Attack" capability would do nothing good for the Kornet with its current warhead of 1200-1400mm RHAe penetration value. Those values are armor penetration, the top side of tanks has literally no armor, just enough to keep the missiles body and pressure of the HE part of the shaped charge outside of the tank, meaning it will not matter if you have a Top Attack Bazooka of WW2 with its 275mm RHAe or a Kornet-D with 1400mm RHAe, the penetrator will be formed will pierce the roof armor which is less than 40-70mm and with very little spalling enter the crew compartment, do little damage in a very narrow cone of shrapnels/spalling and the penetrator itself. If there is no one in this narrowed cone of spalling or in the way of the penetrator itself it will do much less damage than a Kornet-D penetrating frontal armor of any MBT and it will do so with ease. If you would use a Kornet-D as a Top attack weapon the only thing you would achieve with its powerful penetrator is to penetrate top armor, entire hull and 2 meters of ground beneath the tank. Good thing if you want to kill groundhoges, but complete resource waste for much lower effect than a frontal penetration.

    The best thing i could think off as an cheap upgrade for Kornet is making it equal to Vikhr by adding proximity fuze to have better capability to engage infantry formations with HE-Frag warheads instead of searching Obstacles to slam the missile against to set it off. The problem with that is that the missile hits a wall or a car and the wall/car absorbs quite big junk of the fragments so weakening its maximal potential lethality.
    There are different technologies how to make a proximity fuze, an expensive way with precision laser around the warhead, a very cheap one like a laser rangefinder measures distance, provides it to missile and missile measures its own speed and explodes when it reaches the distance, very easy method with good accuracy.

    You can notice that i said "reduce warhead size", coz with top attack capabilities Kornet would be huge overkill, so reducing warhead size in terms of explosive charge would bring more space to put dual seeker for an example or reduce its cost, weight... Meanwhile as you said proximity fuse would be good idea for TB warheads especially so they get useful in open field too to strike digouts.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16515
    Points : 17123
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:16 am

    After reading your detailed post and thinking it all over, you are right... a modification entailing the incorporation of a MMW radar seeker on the Metis-M would be incredibly expensive and ineffective. I say this with sincerity - thank you for educating me and disabusing me of my ignorance on the matter.

    If MMW radar technology improves and becomes cheaper and lighter perhaps some time in the future it might become an option... and we are all hear to learn new stuff... Smile

    I just love the portability,, layout and low profile of the Metis-M. In my opinion it has the best profile of any ATGM today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the Metis-M have a range of at least 4km without increasing weight just like the 9M113 Konkurs?

    I suspect it would be possible, but without speeding up the missile I don't think I would want to remain in one position long enough for my missile to reach 4km. My priority would be to fire... get a kill and then move to a new position and fire again at a new target.

    If I fire from the window of a building... anyone who can see the front of the building will see me. If I withdraw back into the room my field of fire is greatly narrowed but also the angles I can be seen from is also greatly reduced. Out at 2km away I should still be able to see perhaps 500m or more on either side of the target, which is more than the target will move in the time it takes my missile to hit him. but the number of enemy positions that can see me are greatly reduced making me rather safer from return fire.

    The 9M113 Konkurs missile weighs only 14kg [and like you mentioned] has a max range of 4.5 km. I realise that the Konkurs has a slightly weaker warhead, but the existence of light, long range missiles like the 9M113 Konkurs and Spike-LR would seem to suggest that you can increase range without increasing weight. The Spike-LR actually weighs a little less than the Metis-M.

    The original Metis (NATO AT-7) only had a range of 1.5km, while the Metis-M1 (AT-13) has a range of 2km... it might come as a shock but Metis entered service in the early 1980s and pretty much took over from the AT-4 as short range man portable ATGM, so it replaced the AT-4 and the AT-3.

    To be honest I don't think it needs more range... if you use it properly it already performs the required role... and if Konkurs can kill an Abrams then Metis should be able to do it too.

    With regard to Kornet-D, does its guidance system really achieve the fire and forget function? So when you aim at the target, the operator and guidance sight on the launcher doesn't then need to maintain sight of the target during flight, right? The missile's onboard auto-tracker apparently helps the Kornet-D to achieve fire and forget.

    The new models have upgraded launchers and are pretty much like the Vikhr/Ka-50/Su-25TM combination where the crew selects the target and the missile is launched and the autotracker follows the target to impact with no further input from the operator.

    You still have to keep the launcher pointed at the target, but no further guidance commands are needed and the operator does not need to keep the crosshairs on the target.

    Fire and Forget on KornetD is apparently done by a...

    Yes...

    [qutoe]
    It's the best 'kind' of 'fire-and-forget', because it's nearly impossible to jam with ECM....in comparison the other forms of 'fire-and-forget' can be jammed fairly easily and cheaply.[/quote]

    And this is critical... replacing Kornets laser beam riding guidance with IIR makes each missile very very expensive, but because of the cost the IIR seeker in the missile, which will only be used once wont be a top of the line model they will be expensive but not that high performance... lots of videos of Javelin destroying targets... but rarely footage of the banks of hair dryers used to heat the target so the Javelin can actually get a lock. Without that lock, they are just command guided like Metis... but the are no cheaper.

    In fact one of the cheapest defences from Javelin would be a light sheet of polished aluminium held by struts above the vehicle you are protecting... from the front the thin sheet would be invisible to the operator who would see the clear IR signature of the vehicle with its engine running, but when the Javelin is launched it will climb up and look down for its target and see the sky reflected in the sheet of al... no target, no lock... wasted expensive missile.

    What i would appreciate about Kornet and Russian ATGMs of current generation is if they developed Top attack capability, i dont mind beam riding guidance or anything, however having Top attack as an option would greatly increase their capabilities. And making it top attack is not that much of an issue even small countries like Serbia have been working on it (private companies tho).

    Top attack is tricky to get reliable, but offers the best solution for defeating enemy tanks.

    Best part is that top attack should be switchable off and on depending on target, also that way they would be able to reduce size of the warhead abit too due to target envelope. Also what can be done, but from what i have seen electronic module in Kornet is quite bulky so its not an option atm till they deal with miniaturisation of electromechanical components, is that you can use dual guidance lets say keeping current beam riding and adding Infrared homing, Electro Optical or make modular warheads where seeker/guidance is applied on top of the warhead on the spot depending on situation. There is a million and 1 way to improve Russian ATGMs and it should be done its not THAT expencive.

    The problem is that the current models are a good compromise in terms of performance range and cost. Adding terminal guidance will make the performance better in some situations, but it will add the ability of the enemy to defeat the missiles more easily, and greatly increase the cost of the systems.

    Just look at Javelin again.... in many situations it can't be used in fire and forget mode simply because the target is a concrete wall, or the vehicle has its engine turned off... or the target is a room in a building, or a large mound of sandbags.

    Remember despite being called ATGMs the vast majority are actually used against snipers and MGs and enemy firing points and even light aircraft.

    Adding and IR seeker and I would add an IR dazzler and all that money you spent on improving your missile makes them more expensive but not more effective... you have effectively defeated yourself. Less missiles in the field because they are more expensive.

    Beware gold plating...


    _________________
    “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
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Militarov on Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:56 am

    Top attack is tricky to get reliable, but offers the best solution for defeating enemy tanks.

    Well, nothing is always reliable, actually in Yugoslavian army brochures i says that 25% of all types of ammunition in war fails in some way.


    The problem is that the current models are a good compromise in terms of performance range and cost. Adding terminal guidance will make the performance better in some situations, but it will add the ability of the enemy to defeat the missiles more easily, and greatly increase the cost of the systems.

    Thats why my idea of having appliable modular guidance sensors on top of the warhead depending on target, launcher itself can be made to work with 2 types of guidance is not much of a fuss. Now imagine making 10.000 warheads for certain ATGM, and you make 2-3 types of seekers making naturally the most expencive and least used one to be built in some amount of 1-2k. That would be both fairly economical and would increase general performance of ATGMs. I am again saying this is just an idea, and if Russians do not make it, someone else will, there are alot smarter people than both me and you sitting somewhere in Darpa, Rheinmetall, Samsung, Rafale...



    Just look at Javelin again.... in many situations it can't be used in fire and forget mode simply because the target is a concrete wall, or the vehicle has its engine turned off... or the target is a room in a building, or a large mound of sandbags.

    I agree there with you, but ill say that Americans very often evade using disposable AT weapons aganist such targets coz they are scared of casualties. Matador AT even has switch mode that optimises fuse for use aganist walls, sandbags and fortifications. So they very often end up using Javelin on 900m range aganist non armored, and non fortified targets. There is video of them in Afganistan using Javelin aganist 3-5 Talibans on nearby hill and they had plenty of HMGs and grenade launchers around on vehicles.

    Remember despite being called ATGMs the vast majority are actually used against snipers and MGs and enemy firing points and even light aircraft.

    Well aware of that.


    Adding and IR seeker and I would add an IR dazzler and all that money you spent on improving your missile makes them more expensive but not more effective... you have effectively defeated yourself.  Less missiles in the field because they are more expensive.

    Beware gold plating...

    Hey, if high enough numbers are being produced and if you make it simple enough it doesnt have to be very expencive. Americans tend to build things very complicated and overpriced, so dont judge instantly by looking at Javelin.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:25 pm


    Werewolf wrote:A "Top-Attack" capability would do nothing good for the Kornet with its current warhead of 1200-1400mm RHAe penetration value. Those values are armor penetration, the top side of tanks has literally no armor, just enough to keep the missiles body and pressure of the HE part of the shaped charge outside of the tank, meaning it will not matter if you have a Top Attack Bazooka of WW2 with its 275mm RHAe or a Kornet-D with 1400mm RHAe, the penetrator will be formed will pierce the roof armor which is less than 40-70mm and with very little spalling enter the crew compartment, do little damage in a very narrow cone of shrapnels/spalling and the penetrator itself. If there is no one in this narrowed cone of spalling or in the way of the penetrator itself it will do much less damage than a Kornet-D penetrating frontal armor of any MBT and it will do so with ease. If you would use a Kornet-D as a Top attack weapon the only thing you would achieve with its powerful penetrator is to penetrate top armor, entire hull and 2 meters of ground beneath the tank. Good thing if you want to kill groundhoges, but complete resource waste for much lower effect than a frontal penetration.

    The best thing i could think off as an cheap upgrade for Kornet is making it equal to Vikhr by adding proximity fuze to have better capability to engage infantry formations with HE-Frag warheads instead of searching Obstacles to slam the missile against to set it off. The problem with that is that the missile hits a wall or a car and the wall/car absorbs quite big junk of the fragments so weakening its maximal potential lethality.
    There are different technologies how to make a proximity fuze, an expensive way with precision laser around the warhead, a very cheap one like a laser rangefinder measures distance, provides it to missile and missile measures its own speed and explodes when it reaches the distance, very easy method with good accuracy.

    Thanks for all of this information, mate. I knew that the top of the tank wasn't as well armoured as other parts of the tank but I had no idea that the upper turret was so lightly protected. If you program the top-attack missile to hit precisely where the crew compartment is, wouldn't that be more effective than a frontal penetration? The ability to not only penetrate the upper turret but also its hull and 2 meters of soil beneath it is something I would want -- to completely demoralise my enemies. That's a great selling point, mate. A proximity fuse for the Kornet-D is a bloody good idea.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5589
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:27 pm

    Militarov wrote:

    Thats why my idea of having appliable modular guidance sensors on top of the warhead depending on target, launcher itself can be made to work with 2 types of guidance is not much of a fuss. Now imagine making 10.000 warheads for certain ATGM, and you make 2-3 types of seekers making naturally the most expencive and least used one to be built in some amount of 1-2k. That would be both fairly economical and would increase general performance of ATGMs. I am again saying this is just an idea, and if Russians do not make it, someone else will, there are alot smarter people than both me and you sitting somewhere in Darpa, Rheinmetall, Samsung, Rafale...

    Looking at the current Top of the line technology when it comes to Rockets and Missiles especially for Anti Tank purposes we know who is much "smarter" or doing the job that has to be done instead of designing "wunderwaffen" that cost a lot but have little virtual use and effeciency. Russians with KBP Tula making already the best.

    Militarov wrote:
    I agree there with you, but ill say that Americans very often evade using disposable AT weapons aganist such targets coz they are scared of casualties. Matador AT even has switch mode that optimises fuse for use aganist walls,  sandbags and fortifications. So they very often end up using Javelin on 900m range aganist non armored, and non fortified targets. There is video of them in Afganistan using Javelin aganist 3-5 Talibans on nearby hill and they had plenty of HMGs and grenade launchers around on vehicles.

    They are certainly not. If they want they will call an airstrike in a highly populated area in urban warfare just so their soldiers can cheer when things explode. They do not give a jackshit about that.



    Militarov wrote:
    Hey, if high enough numbers are being produced and if you make it simple enough it doesnt have to be very expencive. Americans tend to build things very complicated and overpriced, so dont judge instantly by looking at Javelin.

    The differnce is that most of what US MIC produces is always money makers and not the best solution to military needs on a massive quantitive and qualitaty needs, but some technologies are still expensive and CCD/IIR seekers are usually one of those things. The problem right there is how do you gonna make a fire and forget ATGM reliable and accurate but without CCD/IIR seekers? Some technologies are freakish expensive, just in year 2012 russia produced GOES-451 for freakish 3 mln per single FLIR, while today they produce them for less than half the costs of increased performance.

    Thanks for all of this information, mate. I knew that the top of the tank wasn't as well armoured as other parts of the tank but I had no idea that the upper turret was so lightly protected. If you program the top-attack missile to hit precisely where the crew compartment is, wouldn't that be more effective than a frontal penetration? The ability to not only penetrate the upper turret but also its hull and 2 meters of soil beneath it is something I would want -- to completely demoralise my enemies. That's a great selling point, mate. A proximity fuse for the Kornet-D is a bloody good idea.

    The roof side of all tanks are to put it plain and simple, easily defeatable by WW2 Anti tank hand grenades like the russian RPG-43 which can penetrate 75mm RHAe while the RKG-3 from 1950 can penetrate 220mm RHAe of armor. The roof of tanks are made of RHA steel so the values are no magic and even at an angle those grenades will penetrate the weak roof. The weak armor itself for shaped charges is a little problem, due the lack of material to create spalling to kill crew and take tank out of order as a threat.

    To add image processing or an image matrix to a missile will add massive costs and will make no difference in its performance like they are today against tanks. The thing here is if your Top attack missile hits the ammunition bustle = tank destroyed, if it hits the upper glacis of the hull, due the high angling it will penetrate with ease since there is no more than 200-300mm RHAe armor from such angles there (at most) and the tank driver or ammunition/fuel next to him will do the rest, or the ATGM hits the engine compartment, which again is a mobility destruction of the tank and when you have already an existing ATGM team there the tank is automatically destroyed, little survivale chances.

    ATGM's with Top attack weapons usually have a very weak shaped charge like the Bill2, the problem is that it has little of use after the armor has passed and the crew is not directly hit, unless you fit the entire tank with TNT for PR purposes. The solution to this problem was already found but appaerantly not put to use so far. A simple EFP that penetrates a large enough in diameter hole into the roof armor and then a followed charge will shoot a little small grenade charge through the punched hole, very similiar concept like on Panzerfaust 3 "Bunkerfaust" version, such a method would assure the destruction of the turret occupants by 99% with little explosive charge, relative low tec technology needed to develop such an ATGM and would entirely devestate any tank without APS or turret roof ERA.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:00 pm

    Garry B wrote:
    If MMW radar technology improves and becomes cheaper and lighter perhaps some time in the future it might become an option... and we are all hear to learn new stuff... Smile

    This forum has made learning an absolute pleasure for me. MMW radars do seem bulky and so their incorporation on powerful, light and portable ATGMs like the Metis-M would defeat the purpose of the whole thing. I saw the MMW radar seeker on the Brimstone and boy did it look heavy.



    How much do you think this Brimstone MMW radar weighs? It seems heavy. Would 10 kg be too optimistic?

    Garry B wrote:
    I suspect it would be possible, but without speeding up the missile I don't think I would want to remain in one position long enough for my missile to reach 4km. My priority would be to fire... get a kill and then move to a new position and fire again at a new target.

    Oh I agree that increasing range by a factor of 2 without increasing speed would be suicide for operators. The original 9M133 Kornet had a speed of 550m/s and that's more than twice as fast as the Metis-M, but I have absolutely no idea what kind of modification to the rocket motor of the Metis-M would be required and what weight penalties would be incurred. I agree that keeping costs and weight down to a minimum is the only thing that makes sense for a multipurpose, cheap, portable and powerfully effective ATGM.

    Garry B wrote:
    If I fire from the window of a building... anyone who can see the front of the building will see me. If I withdraw back into the room my field of fire is greatly narrowed but also the angles I can be seen from is also greatly reduced. Out at 2km away I should still be able to see perhaps 500m or more on either side of the target, which is more than the target will move in the time it takes my missile to hit him. but the number of enemy positions that can see me are greatly reduced making me rather safer from return fire.

    A 2 km range would be more than effective in an urban environment like Syria's Aleppo and Idlib. The Metis-M would be effective in almost 100% of its likely battlefield applications. I realise now that costs and numbers matter. If I can get 20 Metis-M missiles for the same price of one similarly range Javelin than I would be far better armed than the guy with an incredibly expensive missile that is cumbersome, process slow and less effective  in most battlefield situations.  


    Garry B wrote:The original Metis (NATO AT-7) only had a range of 1.5km, while the Metis-M1 (AT-13) has a range of 2km... it might come as a shock but Metis entered service in the early 1980s and pretty much took over from the AT-4 as short range man portable ATGM, so it replaced the AT-4 and the AT-3.

    It's remarkable that they are still so potent even after decades in service.

    Garry B wrote:To be honest I don't think it needs more range... if you use it properly it already performs the required role... and if Konkurs can kill an Abrams then Metis should be able to do it too.

    If an increase in range creates an unreasonable increase in costs than it would be best to maintain the Metis-M as it is. Your idea of incorporating a wireless direct link in the Metis-M is a great idea; it would increase the safety of operators and its overall effectiveness without increasing cost beyond reason. I also love Werewolf's idea of incorporating a proximity fuse in the Kornet, which should be incorporated into the Metis-M. I still can't believe that the Konkurs was able to penetrate an M1A2 Abrams considering that it's been in service for almost half a century. I wonder if Americans will still maintain that the M1A2 cannot be penetrated by the latest Russian ATGMs now that a last generation Russian ATGM has achieved just that.

    Americans are now saying that the Saudi M1A2 that was taken out by the Konkurs Missile was a monkey model and that therefore its evisceration is not indicative of a true M1A2's armour credentials. What the hell!? Why didn't they accept this basic fact when people were telling them that Iraqi tanks in the first gulf war didn't have composite armour, lacked FCS, lacked passive night vision and used ammo that the Russians wouldn't use for training?

    Garry B wrote:The new models have upgraded launchers and are pretty much like the Vikhr/Ka-50/Su-25TM combination where the crew selects the target and the missile is launched and the autotracker follows the target to impact with no further input from the operator.

    You still have to keep the launcher pointed at the target, but no further guidance commands are needed and the operator does not need to keep the crosshairs on the target.

    Having to keep the launcher pointed at the target is a bit dangerous in a dynamic and ever changing environment, and so I'm not really a fan of this system, but there doesn't seem to be a cost-effective alternative that doesn't also increase complexity and so I understand why the Russians have taken this route. ATGMs are unlikely to be as important as Russia's imperative to upgrade its ICBMs, air defence, aircraft and armoured vehicles.


    Last edited by Cyrus the great on Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:34 pm; edited 3 times in total

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:27 pm



    Werewolf wrote:The roof side of all tanks are to put it plain and simple, easily defeatable by WW2 Anti tank hand grenades like the russian RPG-43 which can penetrate 75mm RHAe while the RKG-3 from 1950 can penetrate 220mm RHAe of armor. The roof of tanks are made of RHA steel so the values are no magic and even at an angle those grenades will penetrate the weak roof. The weak armor itself for shaped charges is a little problem, due the lack of material to create spalling to kill crew and take tank out of order as a threat.

    To add image processing or an image matrix to a missile will add massive costs and will make no difference in its performance like they are today against tanks. The thing here is if your Top attack missile hits the ammunition bustle = tank destroyed, if it hits the upper glacis of the hull, due the high angling it will penetrate with ease since there is no more than 200-300mm RHAe armor from such angles there (at most) and the tank driver or ammunition/fuel next to him will do the rest, or the ATGM hits the engine compartment, which again is a mobility destruction of the tank and when you have already an existing ATGM team there the tank is automatically destroyed, little survivale chances.

    ATGM's with Top attack weapons usually have a very weak shaped charge like the Bill2, the problem is that it has little of use after the armor has passed and the crew is not directly hit, unless you fit the entire tank with TNT for PR purposes. The solution to this problem was already found but appaerantly not put to use so far. A simple EFP that penetrates a large enough in diameter hole into the roof armor and then a followed charge will shoot a little small grenade charge through the punched hole, very similiar concept like on Panzerfaust 3 "Bunkerfaust" version, such a method would assure the destruction of the turret occupants by 99% with little explosive charge, relative low tec technology needed to develop such an ATGM and would entirely devestate any tank without APS or turret roof ERA.

    I always wondered why the Kornet-D was so much more powerful than the Spike-ER when they have a similar weight. This puts it all together now. A top attack missile with dual guidance would be almost twice as expensive as a direct engagement variant. How much would an ATGM with an EFP weigh in comparison to a conventional ATGM? It seems that an ATGM with an EFP would be significantly lighter.

    I've learned a great deal from this post. I'll now have to read up on some of the things that you mentioned.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sat Sep 05, 2015 4:45 pm





    Those soldiers don't look as though they fight on behalf of the world's premier military power. Why weren't they told what specific weapons and warheads were capable of?
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Militarov on Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:51 pm


    Looking at the current Top of the line technology when it comes to Rockets and Missiles especially for Anti Tank purposes we know who is much "smarter" or doing the job that has to be done instead of designing "wunderwaffen" that cost a lot but have little virtual use and effeciency. Russians with KBP Tula making already the best.

    I agree that Russians are doing it "smart", fairly cheap, reliable, easy to use. However best? Thaats abit arguable if we talk about overall versatility Kornet and Metis are extraodinary, but if we talk about pure effect on tanks i would go with Javelin or Spike. If i was to buy ATGM for common infantry id go with Kornet and Metis depending on unit size Metis is company weapon, Kornet would be on batallion lvl at least thats how it work here. However i wouldnt mind either having what in Yugoslavian army was called "POČ" - basically dedicated anti tank company armed with Spikes. (Back in Yugoslavia they used mix of M79 Osa, M80 Zolja, Malytkas, Fagots, Rapira guns depending on unit).

    They are certainly not. If they want they will call an airstrike in a highly populated area in urban warfare just so their soldiers can cheer when things explode. They do not give a jackshit about that.

    Even Americans cant allow themself always to call air support. Cant post links still but check videos like "Javelin Missile Strike .. Bye Bye Taliban !!" or "JAVELIN MISSILE VS TALIBAN HIDING BEHIND HOUSE" our military doctrine might be wrong here, but from what i was tought we would not use something like Javelin aganist such targets.


    The differnce is that most of what US MIC produces is always money makers and not the best solution to military needs on a massive quantitive and qualitaty needs, but some technologies are still expensive and CCD/IIR seekers are usually one of those things. The problem right there is how do you gonna make a fire and forget ATGM reliable and accurate but without CCD/IIR seekers? Some technologies are freakish expensive, just in year 2012 russia produced GOES-451 for freakish 3 mln per single FLIR, while today they produce them for less than half the costs  of increased performance

    CCD/IIR seekers are expencive that goes for granted but in 2-3 years if orders are big enough for domestic and export? More production = lower price, thats general formula. Even that money wasteland F35 will eventually become more affordable if orders are big enough, well.. at least for US domestic purposes.


    The roof side of all tanks are to put it plain and simple, easily defeatable by WW2 Anti tank hand grenades like the russian RPG-43 which can penetrate 75mm RHAe while the RKG-3 from 1950 can penetrate 220mm RHAe of armor. The roof of tanks are made of RHA steel so the values are no magic and even at an angle those grenades will penetrate the weak roof. The weak armor itself for shaped charges is a little problem, due the lack of material to create spalling to kill crew and take tank out of order as a threat.

    Sadly in case of T72s it worked quite well coz ammo was just under the turret, however with tanks like Abrams, Leo2 even incoming Armata it would be abit different coz ammo is stored in the rack or separated from the crew.


    ATGM's with Top attack weapons usually have a very weak shaped charge like the Bill2, the problem is that it has little of use after the armor has passed and the crew is not directly hit, unless you fit the entire tank with TNT for PR purposes. The solution to this problem was already found but appaerantly not put to use so far. A simple EFP that penetrates a large enough in diameter hole into the roof armor and then a followed charge will shoot a little small grenade charge through the punched hole, very similiar concept like on Panzerfaust 3 "Bunkerfaust" version, such a method would assure the destruction of the turret occupants by 99% with little explosive charge, relative low tec technology needed to develop such an ATGM and would entirely devestate any tank without APS or turret roof ERA.

    I love how you indirectly refered to that T72 being filled with TNT during Javeling "PR" stunt Smile
    avatar
    Militarov

    Posts : 5538
    Points : 5579
    Join date : 2015-09-02
    Location : Serbia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Militarov on Sat Sep 05, 2015 5:53 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:


    Those soldiers don't look as though they fight on behalf of the world's premier military power. Why weren't they told what specific weapons and warheads were capable of?

    They have equipment, that is what makes them "good". They throw whatever they have on whatever target they encounter and it will eventually work coz enemy is mostly way undergunned.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5589
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Werewolf on Sun Sep 06, 2015 1:44 am

    Cyrus the great wrote:

    If an increase in range creates an unreasonable increase in costs than it would be best to maintain the Metis-M as it is. Your idea of incorporating a wireless direct link in the Metis-M is a great idea; it would increase the safety of operators and its overall effectiveness without increasing cost beyond reason. I also love Werewolf's idea of incorporating a proximity fuse in the Kornet, which should be incorporated into the Metis-M. I still can't believe that the Konkurs was able to penetrate an M1A2 Abrams considering that it's been in service for almost half a century. I wonder if Americans will still maintain that the M1A2 cannot be penetrated by the latest Russian ATGMs now that a last generation Russian ATGM has achieved just that.

    I think you are leaving out a the exact circumstances of those engagements just like many others who try to portray something in favor over something else like F-15 kill ratio against bananarepublics against obsolete 3rd generation jets without radars or similiar comparision things.
    The konkurs ATGM was to be believed an Iranian produced one and since they got the plans for the common Konkurs we can put the armor penetration figure of around 500-600mm RHAe penetration value, enough to penetrate any tank WW1 till this very date (excluding ERA/APS) of its side turret armor.

    If you hear or we speak about one weapon defeating another, especially when Tanks are defeated, it is important to evaluade the circumstances, where the weapon has hit and under what angle because that can increase/decrease the effeciency against the tank. Both of those instances the Saudi M1A2S was hit on its side turret where the armor is weak and could not withstand a RPG-43 hand thrown AT grenade.



    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Americans are now saying that the Saudi M1A2 that was taken out by the Konkurs Missile was a monkey model and that therefore its evisceration is not indicative of a true M1A2's armour credentials. What the hell!? Why didn't they accept this basic fact when people were telling them that Iraqi tanks in the first gulf war didn't have composite armour, lacked FCS, lacked passive night vision and used ammo that the Russians wouldn't use for training?

    Well of course they are saying it and ignoring till his very day that Iraq did had monkey models made by Poland with no more higher quality than the already existing T-55A's they had. It is a self evident propaganda cycle jerk....anyway, those models are most probably different from the M1A2Sep2 versions but it makes absolutley no difference because not a single M1A2Sep2 be it Saudi M1A2S or american M1A2 SEP2 never recieved any armor upgrades to their side turret protection, both are absolutley equal.

    It is geting really funny when Abrams fanboys like Damian90 mention Saudi M1A2 having decreased armor when speaking about those two Konkurs ATGM launches against both Saudi M1A2 and hitting side armor and destroying the first one and damaging the second one. The funny thing here is that this guy actually has not that bad of understanding about Tanks, doctrines, technology and design philosophy, but he is such a die hard fanboy that he purposely ignores,leaves out or portraits incidents to bring his agenda through. He mentioned that Saudi M1A2S Abrams do not have the american HA(Heavy Armor) Package which is the Depleted Uranium which are two big armor plates placed only in the front turret next to the gun left and right, no other place for DU armor on that tank, he knows it and still portraits it as the main reason why a Konkurs could penetrate the side armor of a Saudi M1A2 S Abrams and destroy it entirely.

    The Saudi M1A2S probably do have decreased armor values but certainly not the side armor and even if you could double the side protection of the turret and hull the Konkurs and even weaker Fagot would still destroy the tank when hitting exact same way. The only tanks that could survive such a blow to the side turret armor are tanks that have APS or ERA or both against a Monobloc shaped charge like common old Konkurs.

    Cyrus the great wrote:
    Having to keep the launcher pointed at the target is a bit dangerous in a dynamic and ever changing environment, and so I'm not really a fan of this system, but there doesn't seem to be a cost-effective alternative that doesn't also increase complexity and so I understand why the Russians have taken this route. ATGMs are unlikely to be as important as Russia's imperative to upgrade its ICBMs, air defence, aircraft and armoured vehicles.

    Yes, it is dangerous but there are solutions to decrease the risk of being spotted or hit by decreasing the missile needs to reach its speed, making the ATGM launching plattform suitable to be fired from a prone position or capability to be fired remotley without being directly in physical contact of the ATGM launching plattform, this avoids direct thermal signature exposing of yourself and giving the enemy a source where to fire, along with Laser Beam Riding that provides high jamming resitance, high velocity due lack of wire guidance and a good guidance system that leaves a low chance of being alerted to the target.

    I always wondered why the Kornet-D was so much more powerful than the Spike-ER when they have a similar weight. This puts it all together now. A top attack missile with dual guidance would be almost twice as expensive as a direct engagement variant. How much would an ATGM with an EFP weigh in comparison to a conventional ATGM? It seems that an ATGM with an EFP would be significantly lighter.

    I've learned a great deal from this post. I'll now have to read up on some of the things that you mentioned.

    Usually in the figger of a Tow2/Metis figure but with range of Kornet-E/D, but you would have to change the entire warhead/seeker section to accomodate the needs. The difference in Shaped charge warhead and the EFP warhead is that relative low amount of explosive that can surround the EFP can be present that leaves little space behind the EFP for the grenade to be fired into the hole which would be punched through by the EFP's.

    To illustrate what i mean by the difference and little space with EFP configuration (Bill2) in the warhead with the solution for after armor effects in form of a Bunkerfaust princip it would need still a larger warhead section.

    That is the concept of a Bill2 an Top attack EFP weapon.



    The middle part is propolusion the two bodies left and right are both EFP's directed downwards. The warhead itself leaves little room above to accomodate another warhead construction to propell a small charge of explosive through the same whole the EFP creates. That leaves only one possiblity to strap a grenade launching tube right behind both EFP charges, timed in exact manner to "fire" the grenade through the roof punched holes by the time the remains of the warhead reach the space right above the holes. The time difference at what speed the missile is traveling should be very low so the explosion from the EFP's will not effect the trajectory or the position of the grenade launching devices in the warhead and leave them capable enough to fire the projectile into the tank. The Bill2 is a relative elegant way of a top attack approach with feasible costs/effeciency.

    Those soldiers don't look as though they fight on behalf of the world's premier military power. Why weren't they told what specific weapons and warheads were capable of?

    Very low discipline and brainwashing to believe they are liberators, they are usually very trigger happy and just do not give a shit about the weapons they have, they just want to shoot. Just like the Apache WSO said to the Operator for the permission of engagement of the camera team "Come on, let us shoot!"

    Militarov wrote:
    I agree that Russians are doing it "smart", fairly cheap, reliable, easy to use. However best? Thaats abit arguable if we talk about overall versatility Kornet and Metis are extraodinary, but if we talk about pure effect on tanks i would go with Javelin or Spike. If i was to buy ATGM for common infantry id go with Kornet and Metis depending on unit size Metis is company weapon, Kornet would be on batallion lvl at least thats how it work here. However i wouldnt mind either having what in Yugoslavian army was called "POČ" - basically dedicated anti tank company armed with Spikes. (Back in Yugoslavia they used mix of M79 Osa, M80 Zolja, Malytkas, Fagots, Rapira guns depending on unit).

    Fine let us take into consideration of the effeciency against tanks of the "best" like Javelin a top attack weapon that is refered in US army research papers as being a mere "mobility or firepower killer" against tanks like the T-90, since Javelin is a Monobloc shaped charge and has greatly reduced chances of penetrating and killing a T-90 turret roof fitted with ERA and anti radiation cover mounted on top which decreases Spalling and increases protection, but even without ERA like it says.

    https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=f4759d477ceea3d7c4dc1dffcdaf5d16

    I quote the Javelin 2 upgrade list of US army figures which were provided by Mindstorm
    FOLLOWING ARE THE CAPABILITIES TO BE ACHIEVED FOR THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II MISSILE AS AN UPGRADE TO CURRENT JAVELIN MISSILE SYSTEM: PORTABILITY-CCMS-M INCREMENT II WILL BE A MAN-PPRTABLE SYSTEM. THE BLOCK O AND BLOCK I CLU WEIGH APPROXIMATELY 15 POUNDS. THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II ROUND SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 POUNDS, WITH A DESIRED WEIGHT OF 20 POUNDS OR LESS. IMPROVED COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS (LETHALITY). CCMS-M INCREMENT II WILL ACHIEVE A MOBILITY OR FIREPOWER KILL AGAINST T-90 PIP 1 TANK CAST TURRET WITH AND WITHOUT APPLIQUE ARMOR AND ALSO PROVIDE INCAPACITATING OR LETHAL EFFECTS AGAINST LIGHT/SOFT VEHICLES, PERSONNEL IN OPEN AREAS, PERSONNEL WITHIN STRUCTURES OR STANDARD EARTH AND TIMBER BUNKERS. LETHALITY.

    Haven't heared much nice things about its "effeciency" of the Spike-ER and it was often unreliable in its guidance.

    Top off the notch and technology are already in russia's possesion and Kornet-D beats every other ATGM in its lethality, versitility, technology wise of its guidance with automated guidance solution for vehicles, it completley outranges every other ATGM in comperision with its massive warhead.


    Militarov wrote:CCD/IIR seekers are expencive that goes for granted but in 2-3 years if orders are big enough for domestic and export? More production = lower price, thats general formula. Even that money wasteland F35 will eventually become more affordable if orders are big enough, well.. at least for US domestic purposes.

    IIR/CCD seekers are very common in Air to Air missiles aswell in MANPADS and they do exist since decades and in relative large numbers and still these seekers cost a freaking fortune.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:34 pm