Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 03, 2011 7:13 am

    Sounds like a tiny order to me.
    According to its wiki page the Konkurs was ordered in its modernised for in 2008 by India and they bought 15,000 missiles.

    I would expect the range extension from 5.5km to 10km will require new launchers... or at the very least new optics to allow targets at 10km to be detected let alone tracked.
    The new system also includes an autotracker which was not present in the original AFAIK.

    At 4kgs heavier for the missile my guess that it would be vehicle only is clearly wrong, but the new version will also need a new launcher which might be heavier too.

    The question remains, is this system cheap enough to replace all existing systems in this class.

    Metis-M1 is certainly likely to be cheap enough to replace the AT-4 completely with comparable range and significant increase in armour penetrator performance.

    The Kornet however seems to not be in a position to replace the longer ranged Konkurs, unless production figures are low because BMP-3 uses a tube launched missile while the BMP-2 upgrade uses Kornet... maybe the self propelled Kornet platforms are BMP-2 upgrades. Or are they BMP-3 based Kornet carriers as dedicated launchers.

    The new missile will further enhance the performance of the upgraded BMP-2s of course giving them even longer reach plus fire on the move capability and limited air defence capability.

    The real question is what is the time frame for these projected purchases...

    180 man portable sets is OK for this year, and 360 vehicle mounted systems is good for this year but if they mean till 2020 then it is not really many at all.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:18 pm

    Would also mention that now that the new Kornet system uses autotracking it brings it into the same guidance family as the SOSNA-R, and the Vikhr-M and the tank gun fired missiles like Reflex (T-80 and T-90), Svir (T-72), Sheksna (T-62), Bastion (T-55) and Arkan (BMP-3). (note the T-64s missile was radio command guided and therefore is more like the Shturm/Ataka and TOR SAM missiles.)







    Just looking at this flight envelope drawing the missile can clearly be launched vertically and slow moving targets can be engaged at fairly high altitudes.

    That would make the system a very useful anti UAV or UCAV weapon as the missiles are relatively cheap.



    For those not familiar with such drawings the circles in the middle and the arc to the right near the centre are dead zones... inside those areas targets of the speed listed cannot be engaged. So inside the small red circle a target traveling 180km/h (50m/s) would be safe... but the small size of the circle means it had better be manouverable to keep inside that circle. The blue circle is 100m/s which of course is 360km/h and the green line is 250m/s which is 900km/h, which is pretty fast at low level.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  medo on Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:00 pm

    I think they talk in article about numbers of launchers, not missiles. For every launcher they have to buy more missiles.

    I agree, that army need more man portable Kornet launchers with standard 5,5 km range missiles for infantry units.

    About self propelled variant I hope they talk about specialized vehicle and not modernized BMPs, BMDs, etc. I hope they will modernize those vehicles with new FCS based on EO ball like Sphere-02 or similar for using new 10 km range missiles and to give capabilities to use them 360° horizontally and with higher elevation up to at least 60° to get capabilities, which they show in diagram.

    I wonder how many Khrizantema ATGMs Russian MoD buy up to 2010 and how many they ordered for 2011 and next years. If they will buy around 500 Kornet SP based on BMP-3 chassis and around 500 Khrizanthemas, than they will have quite capable anti-tank component of ground forces, specially if they will be integrated with C4ISR and work with UAVs.

    nightcrawler
    Lieutenant
    Lieutenant

    Posts : 559
    Points : 687
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 27
    Location : Pakistan

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  nightcrawler on Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:01 am

    GarryB wrote:






    Just looking at this flight envelope drawing the missile can clearly be launched vertically and slow moving targets can be engaged at fairly high altitudes.

    That would make the system a very useful anti UAV or UCAV weapon as the missiles are relatively cheap.



    For those not familiar with such drawings the circles in the middle and the arc to the right near the centre are dead zones... inside those areas targets of the speed listed cannot be engaged. So inside the small red circle a target traveling 180km/h (50m/s) would be safe... but the small size of the circle means it had better be manouverable to keep inside that circle. The blue circle is 100m/s which of course is 360km/h and the green line is 250m/s which is 900km/h, which is pretty fast at low level.

    Question??
    According to your explanation a Predator UCAV flying at 8km at 75m/s (max values) will fall under the blue curve..right? So because its speed is less than 100m/s upgraded Kornet WILL shoot it down?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:39 am

    I think they talk in article about numbers of launchers, not missiles. For every launcher they have to buy more missiles.

    That is a good point. The other issue is that they are working on at least one new missile called Baikal and the Krisantema is also being worked on too so they will have options in this regard... especially when we consider they also have gun tube launched missiles for their MBTs and APCs. They also have the Hermes long range missiles too.

    I agree, that army need more man portable Kornet launchers with standard 5,5 km range missiles for infantry units.

    The new missile that has been revealed is the Kornet-EM. The Kornet-E is for export and the Kornet-EM is an upgraded version of the export version. With the European ATGMs the Trigat and the Trigat ER are two separate missiles, with the former being lighter and smaller and for man portable use or light helo use while the larger ER or extended range model is for vehicles and attack helos use.

    Perhaps this new Kornet is not just an extended range version of the missile... perhaps it is the latest version of the missile so the domestic model Kornet is going to go out of production and the new Kornet-M model will replace it as the standard missile for both man portable and vehicle based system.

    The existing launchers would need an upgrade of course, but it would expand the performance of existing and new systems and mean that fewer missile types would need to be made.

    The added missile weight of 4 kgs is minimal really and lets face it even though they are man portable the sheer weight of the tripod and optics etc for the Kornet means some sort of vehicle is needed to achieve any decent level of mobility anyway even if it is dismounted for use.

    BTW autotrackers have an enormous influence on performance in combat... greatly improving guidance accuracy as return fire does not effect the autotracker like it would a human operator.

    About self propelled variant I hope they talk about specialized vehicle and not modernized BMPs, BMDs, etc. I hope they will modernize those vehicles with new FCS based on EO ball like Sphere-02 or similar for using new 10 km range missiles and to give capabilities to use them 360° horizontally and with higher elevation up to at least 60° to get capabilities, which they show in diagram.

    Good idea.

    Elevation would be important... it is interesting that Kornet-M could hit helicopters at 10km with the HE warhead version, which is even better performance than Igla-S, though the latter is truly fire and forget.

    Personally I would like to see the EO ball plus MMW radar as used on the Krisantema so that both missiles could be options for the vehicle. Having one vehicle for Kornet and one for Krisantema is a bit of a waste. The point is that they are complimentary in that both use laser beam riding guidance. The Krisantema can also use MMW radar based command guidance, so in a sense both would be excellent weapons for Mi-28N and Ka-52 along with the heavier and larger Hermes.

    I wonder how many Khrizantema ATGMs Russian MoD buy up to 2010 and how many they ordered for 2011 and next years. If they will buy around 500 Kornet SP based on BMP-3 chassis and around 500 Khrizanthemas, than they will have quite capable anti-tank component of ground forces, specially if they will be integrated with C4ISR and work with UAVs.

    The main problem of course will be that in 2015 they will want Kurganets-25 and Kangaroo based systems, so money spent now on systems based on vehicles like BMP-3 might be better spent elsewhere.

    I personally think as part of the new AK-200 program they might introduce some new 5.45mm ammo that is perhaps more powerful and more accurate and I think perhaps they might spend more money on new ammo rather than new vehicles between now and 2015, though buying some would make sense just to get the companies working and making products.

    Question??
    According to your explanation a Predator UCAV flying at 8km at 75m/s (max values) will fall under the blue curve..right? So because its speed is less than 100m/s upgraded Kornet WILL shoot it down?

    The problem is the width of the envelope at that height. The Kornet would need to be directly under the flight path of the UAV and fire at exactly the right time.

    ...of course driving the Kornet-EM vehicle to the top of a hill 3,000m above sea level and 8,000m is only 5,000m up and looking at the curve you can engage targets 8km away in any direction, which means the ability to hit UAVs within a circle 16km across.

    Mounting the missile in your own small UAV will only improve its performance even further...

    It would be an excellent weapon for a UAV because it has good range and comes in anti armour and HE versions and there is no wire being dragged behind the missile.

    At 34kgs it is relatively small and compact and being supersonic they will not hear it coming.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Aug 06, 2011 10:35 pm

    The problem is the width of the envelope at that height. The Kornet would need to be directly under the flight path of the UAV and fire at exactly the right time.


    GarryB i sincerely don't see this problem of engagement footprint in the chart produced by KBP for Kornet-EM - which, we must always remeber, is an export version of the same weapon for Russian Army ,almost surely with parametrical capabilities much higher-


    http://kbptula.ru/eng/kbp/news/news015.htm

    An MQ-1 Predator cruise at around 130 Km/h or about 36 m/s ;therefore MQ-1,the most common UAV in western Air Forces today,would fall amply within the wider function in the graph (50 m/s is 180 Km/h,significantly higher than the cruise speed of Predator).
    A weapon with capabilities like Kornet-EM, above all in its not-export model,would truly be a game changer for any Army capable to induce it in any significant number and virtually capable to render obsolete entire categories of weapons now at the center of well established CAP/SEAD/OCA tactics.
    The same precious assets used now for the vital reconnaisance/target designation tasks (foundamental in net-working warfare) could be engaged and easily neutralized by pratically any segment of Ground Force's branchs,disnounted infantry, mechanized brigades, scout squads , anti-tanks teams or vehicles and not only the AD assets assigned at theirs protection.
    An MQ-1 passing above an hill could be engaged, virtually without any EW countermeasure possible,and very easily destroyed in a matter of seconds, by a Kornet-EM's tripod hided among the trees and remotely controlled by an operator(therefore with zero IR signature !) capable to collimate autonomously the beam to the MQ-1 , all of that from a range greater than that of a missile like Hellfire and with a time for a fire solution significantly lower than it.

    Just today the news have sadly reminded to us how even the most outdated RPG in the hands of not regular troops can cause enormous damages if an opportunity for a fire solution is offered against "sensible" air targets, image what would happen with a system virtually present anywhere capable ,even in its export version, to be remotely controlled ,to auto track its target ,equiped with a proximity sensor ,with a "punch" immensely greater and over 20 times the engagement range....


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 07, 2011 6:49 am

    GarryB i sincerely don't see this problem of engagement footprint in the chart produced by KBP for Kornet-EM - which, we must always remeber, is an export version of the same weapon for Russian Army ,almost surely with parametrical capabilities much higher-

    I would suspect that they might have started resuming the practice of reduced performance export models, which, if it is the case then a range for the Kornet-M could perhaps be 12km with a lofted flight trajectory. This could use the same missiles as exported but with a more sophisticated guidance using a lofted flight profile.

    This would involve the auto tracker, having determined the range to the target with a laser range finder automatically tracking the target but instead of directing the laser beam the missile rides to the target at the target or perhaps 5m above the target to make it fly clear of any ground obstructions on the way to the target could direct the beam to 45 degrees so the missile gains a lot of height. The velocity and drag etc of the missile is known so the climbing missile will fly more efficiently in the thinner colder air which should extend range while also directing the laser beam away from the tracked target so it will be unaware it is being attacked.
    When the missile has travelled closer to the target the beam can be lowered on to the target and the missile will dive down onto the target.

    The extra height will have two advantages... extending the flight range of the missile, and also not alerting the target to the attack by having a laser beam pointed at it for the entire engagement period. An added advantage will be that the missile coming in at 45 degrees or so will reduce the effectiveness of sloped armour because sloped armour is designed to increase the amount of armour that needs to be penetrated from a horizontal hit. A hit from a steep angle however will reduce that angle... for instance the hull area around the driver on an Abrams looks to be about 45 degrees and with a direct shot from a gun would require the projectile to penetrate about 20-30 percent more armour than if the armour was vertical. A missile coming in from long range at an angle of 45 degrees however will have no extra armour to penetrate.

    This would mean that one type of missile could be made for domestic and export use. Of course there might be other changes like exotic charge liners to improve penetration that you might not want on an export missile, so in the end you might want to make separate missiles.

    An MQ-1 Predator cruise at around 130 Km/h or about 36 m/s ;therefore MQ-1,the most common UAV in w... <snip>

    Very true, agree with your comments, though I hate the term game changer.
    A cheap light missile that can engage UAVs would be quite a development and this seems to qualify. The fact that it can also be used against armour makes it even more flexible, and its ability to hit relatively fast moving low flying targets further enhances its value on the modern battlefield. Even if UAVs start flying above the flight envelope of this system it will make them less useful and more expensive... you need a high quality camera to clearly see targets 10km distant... in some urban environments with smog that is not possible, so forcing UAVs to operate that high limits their performance in that if they can't see 10km because of a lack of zoom capability then it wont see anything including things directly beneath it at 10km altitude.

    The missile is not fire and forget in the traditional sense, but with the auto tracker and beam riding guidance it should be very accurate. (note the CEP for the Vikhr which used laser beam riding guidance with an optical auto tracker was 80cm at 8km.)

    Just today the news have sadly reminded to us how even the most outdated RPG in the hands of not regular troops can cause enormous damages if an opportunity for a fire solution is offered against "sensible" air targets, image what would happen with a system virtually present anywhere capable ,even in its export version, to be remotely controlled ,to auto track its target ,equiped with a proximity sensor ,with a "punch" immensely greater and over 20 times the engagement range....

    The fact that this model of Kornet is designed to engage relatively fast moving targets means the threat to helos is significant. ATGMs offer standoff distance and precision.
    The US has led the cause for extreme restrictions on MANPADS, I rather suspect they will want this sort of systems seriously restricted in use for fairly obvious reasons... having to look for threats up to 10km from your convoy route that could deliver a HE payload large enough to take out armoured trucks would make their operations around the various places impossible. How quickly will those Apaches arrive to an attack on a convoy and how long will they stay in the air on arrival...

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  medo on Sun Aug 07, 2011 10:17 am

    I wonder why new missile is slower than standard one. The max. speed of new missile is 320 m/s, while max. speed for standard missile is 550 m/s. If standard missile need 10 s to reach target on 5,5 km distance, new missile will need more than half minute to reach target on 10 km distance. I hope domestic missiles will have the same speed 550 m/s as standard missiles to reduce flight time and with that time for counter reactions.

    Maybe Russians don't want to have too quick export missile if it falls in wrong hands. In that case escorting air defense systems could have enough time to shot missile down before reaching target. The only problem of Kornet comparing to Spike or Javelin is, that Kornet is still way faster and fly low, while Javelin and Spike fly even slower and high, so they are easier for escorting air defense to shot down. Systems like Tor-M2 or Pantsir or Strelets with Igla-S missiles will only increase their value in protecting ground forces. Shilka and Tunguska could also do that job with modernized FCS. On the other hand West is reducing and abandoning their air defense units.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:02 am

    The extra height will have two advantages... extending the flight range of the missile, and also not alerting the target to the attack by having a laser beam pointed at it for the entire engagement period.

    Already today Kornet,used by a proficient operator, don't offer to its target any chance of warning to be illuminated fro two reasons:

    1) Laser beam riding weapons,even those of the first generation, employ a laser signal about 100 times less powerful than the minimum employed by laser range finders which modern laser warning receiver are designed to track (a Kornet-E employ a laser beam 230 times less powerful ! ).

    https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/1047/1/thesis_v1.pdf

    The motivation for that is that for this type of missile guidance is not necessary for the seeker to receive a dispersed component of the reradiating beam coming fromthe from the target at several km of distance but only a signal for measure the difformity angle from the actual vector and that,virtually,render also physically impossible to employ any type of "soft countermeasures" against a similar weapon (that is the reason for which KBP declare Kornet a weapon "jam-free").


    2)Already today a proficient operator mantain the laser beam above the target before collimate at the last seconds of the flight . That has the purpose not only to avoid any physical obstruction,fixed or momentary, interposed between the fire point and the intended target,but also to eventually change the aim point to another target at the last moment or coordinate two Kornet-E shooted from different positions to hit pratically at the same moment (to overcome some type active defence systems)



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1sPHnsWX3w

    The advanced automatic guidance added to Kornet-EM (without any significant increase of the cost) would simply render tasks now requiring a training for absolutely out of the average for the typical Army's operator of international buyer of similar weapons an elementary routine and,like previously explained, the fire position would be totally undetectable for TV contrast and IR tracking systems; that element alone would open infinite possibilities for aimed ambushs,tactical choke points, traps nad false-traps.
    A pair of scout vehicles on an insulated road could have only the purpose to attract and destroy the UAVs present in the area from fire points placed in much forward positions, a pair of elusive snipers could be a simply a bait to lure an armoured squad or some CAS attack helicopter/aircraft in the area to be attacked from a close hill or from the 4th floor of a building 1,5 km far etc...etc... all of that with systems remotely controlled.

    The US has led the cause for extreme restrictions on MANPADS, I rather suspect they will want this sort of systems seriously restricted in use for fairly obvious reasons... having to look for threats up to 10km from your convoy route that could deliver a HE payload large enough to take out armoured trucks would make their operations around the various places impossible.

    I agree perfectly with you. We all remember what impact obtained 14.... fourteen.....launchers of Kornet-E in the hands of Hezbollah five years ago and the reaction of foreign minister of Israel with Russia about the possible penetration of those.... 14 launchers... from a batch provided to Syria in 1998 .


    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Aug 07, 2011 11:51 am

    "The only problem of Kornet comparing to Spike or Javelin is, that Kornet is still way faster and fly low, while Javelin and Spike fly even slower and high, so they are easier for escorting air defense to shot down."

    No Medo, the only problem is that Spike and Javelin leave the operator well within the engagement range of enemy MBT's HE-Frag gun ammunitions,HE guided missiles equiped on IFV, APC, infantry mortars and ....the same ATGM (with thermobaric warhead) of enemy anti-tanks squads.
    FGM-148 "Javelin" ,at example,is a system designed to substitute M-47 "Dragon", which leave the operator within the engagement range of Tank mounted machine guns,and was mainly conceived for urban warfare (it was designed for an eventual Baghdad's battle in mind),ambush tactics in choke point and similaria ,while the standard ATGM of USA Army remain BGM-71 TOW just for the crucial range parameter.
    (read,in particualr F-4 section and the note linked)

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-94/appf.htm

    Attempt therefore to use weapons like FGM-148 or Spike-MR ,designed for specific roles -urban warfare,ambush from low LOS positions ,choke point control etc..- for CONOPS or tactical tasks of weapons in totally different categories would only conduct to operators squads of those weapons reduced litterally to mincemeat from large stand-off range by pratically 90 % of modern brigade level weaponry without any chance of counterfire.



    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  medo on Sun Aug 07, 2011 12:27 pm



    Picture of new Kornet-EM in time of testings.


    No Medo, the only problem is that Spike and Javelin leave the operator well within the engagement range of enemy MBT's HE-Frag gun ammunitions,HE guided missiles equiped on IFV, APC, infantry mortars and ....the same ATGM (with thermobaric warhead) of enemy anti-tanks squads.
    FGM-148 "Javelin" ,at example,is a system designed to substitute M-47 "Dragon", which leave the operator within the engagement range of Tank mounted machine guns,and was mainly conceived for urban warfare (it was designed for an eventual Baghdad's battle in mind),ambush tactics in choke point and similaria ,while the standard ATGM of USA Army remain BGM-71 TOW just for the crucial range parameter.
    (read,in particualr F-4 section and the note linked)
    [quote]

    Javelin or Spike high profile of flying make them easier for artillery radars to detect them and locate ATGM teams and then systems like TOS could effectively deal with them. But I'm talking about the point of view of escorting air defense. Kornet fly fast and low, so air defense have short time to react and they could very difficultly engage Kornet missiles not shooting in backs of their own tanks and infantry, which is in front of them. Contrary low and high flying Javelin and Spike give air defense more time to react and could easily fire on them because they fire in higher elevation and will not hit their own infantry and tanks in back. Also active protecting systems on tanks, like Iron Feast or Arena could easier deal with slow ATGM than with faster ATGMs.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:38 pm

    +
    ----
    -I wonder why new missile is slower than standard one. The max. speed of new missile is 320 m/s, while max. speed for standard missile is 550 m/s. If standard missile need 10 s to reach target on 5,5 km distance, new missile will need more than half minute to reach target on 10 km distance. I hope domestic missiles will have the same speed 550 m/s as standard missiles to reduce flight time and with that time for counter reactions.

    I rather suspect that the new missile would have an average speed of 320km/h, so a small increase in power for the rocket motor with a 550m/s average speed over 5km and 320m/s average speed over 10km.
    My guess of course, but they doubled the range and increased the armour penetration by up to 200mm, and only increased the missile weight by about 4kgs.

    The only problem of Kornet comparing to Spike or Javelin is, that Kornet is still way faster and fly low, while Javelin and Spike fly even slower and high, so they are easier for escorting air defense to shot down. Systems like Tor-M2 or Pantsir or Strelets with Igla-S missiles will only increase their value in protecting ground forces. Shilka and Tunguska could also do that job with modernized FCS. On the other hand West is reducing and abandoning their air defense units.

    Are there any western air defence systems that operate with armoured forces that can detect and track and engage a target as small as Kornet?

    Certainly the Russian systems have been tested against such threats.

    Already today Kornet,used by a proficient operator, don't offer to its target any chance of warning to be illuminated fro two reasons:

    Yes, I already knew that, but laser light is not like normal light and even in low radiated levels there is a potential that the target might realise they are being attacked. Extra range means extra time and when attacking someone the last thing you want to do is give them a warning and plenty of time to react.
    The power of the laser beam riding weapons is very low and having laser sensors that can detect that level of emission would actually be a pain in the backside, because every vehicle has a laser rangefinder and laser splash or reflections from laser rangefinders are more likely to set of laser warning sensors if they are set to detect the low power beams of beam riding missiles.

    2)Already today a proficient operator mantain the laser beam above the target before collimate at the last seconds of the flight .

    The Vikhr system uses an automatic system to fly the missile about 10m above the line of sight to avoid stuff on the ground like bushes etc. It would not surprise me if the Kornet already did the same. With the autotracker on the new Kornet you couldn't do it manually, but the system could be altered to do it if it doesn't already do it.

    The ballistics of the missile would be known so it could work out the approximate range the missile has travelled at a specific time so it could work out when to drop the beam onto the target when the missile is within 500m or so.

    Contrary low and high flying Javelin and Spike give air defense more time to react and could easily fire on them because they fire in higher elevation and will not hit their own infantry and tanks in back. Also active protecting systems on tanks, like Iron Feast or Arena could easier deal with slow ATGM than with faster ATGMs.

    Quite true. The Malyutka (AT-3) is a slow wire guided ATGM that was used as a drone target for testing Igla MANPADS. They removed the warhad and fitted a flare dispensor in its place to try to distract the SAM.

    Of 9 AT-3s fired 5 were shot down with standard Igla missiles. The other 4 got very close but Igla doesn't have a proximity fuse to engage small targets so if it doesn't make contact then it doesn't get a kill.

    The result was the Igla-S with a proximity fuse. Kornet also has a proximity fuse for aerial targets so it could possibly be used to defend Russian Armoured units from Javelins and Spikes...

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Aug 07, 2011 6:41 pm

    The Vikhr system uses an automatic system to fly the missile about 10m above the line of sight to avoid stuff on the ground like bushes etc. It would not surprise me if the Kornet already did the same.

    GarryB please see the video i have pointed previously from minute 7:51

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1sPHnsWX3w

    it clearly show like point the laser beam above the target for collimation at the very last moments of the engagement is a capability that even the export version, Kornet-E, possess from day one.

    Of 9 AT-3s fired 5 were shot down with standard Igla missiles. The other 4 got very close but Igla doesn't have a proximity fuse to engage small targets so if it doesn't make contact then it doesn't get a kill.

    The result was the Igla-S with a proximity fuse. Kornet also has a proximity fuse for aerial targets so it could possibly be used to defend Russian Armoured units from Javelins and Spikes...

    True, but as i have pointed out (with precise reference to the same FGM-148 operative manual) the problem is not with what weapon you can counter an attack with Javelin or Spike -simply because in a full scale war that could almost exclusively happen only in ambushs and choke point attcks - but in which way the squads equiped with similar weapons could avoid to be litterally massacrated ,without any chance of retaliation, by pratically any segment of opposing ground forces from some kilometers outside theirs maximum engagement range.
    Not a modern MBT (at least someone equiped with HE-Frag rounds,or even worse,an Ainet remote-detonation system) but even only an IFV,like BMP-3 ,could engage safely from large stand-off range a similar squad with pratically any of its main weapons : from the 2A72 autocannon to Arkan guided missile to its HE-Frag rounds
    Observe from minute 4:35 of this video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjJzvwPLb84

    i truly wouldn't never be an FGM-148 or Spike-MR operator forced ,in a full scale war, in any tactical situation except an ambush on an urban combat,to confront a proficient enemy equiped even only with export versions of those weapons...it would be the most stupid and useless way to die in a war.


    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  medo on Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:40 pm

    Are there any western air defence systems that operate with armoured forces that can detect and track and engage a target as small as Kornet?

    Western ground forces air defense systems are mostly based on Stinger MANPAD like US Avanger, German Ozelot or Dutch Fennek SWP, British Stormer HVM with Starstreak MANPAD and French Aspic with Mistral MANPAD. I think stinger and Mistral are capable to lock on small targets as Javelin or Spike, while Starstreak is SACLOS missile. After financial and debt crisis and defense budget cuts, air defense units will also go through reductions. Kornet could be a problem for MANPADs, because it fly low and MANPADs have some limitations with its low or negative elevation, because missile could fall from the launcher tube, because tube must be open, that IR homing head in missile could see and lock on target. SACLOS air defense missiles and AA guns don't have those problems.

    In my personal opinion the best defense against ATGMs like Spike and Javelin and also low flying Kornets are AA guns with modern radar and EO FCS. They could not only shot down ATGM, but immediately after that they could fire on ATGM crew and inside 2 km range rain of 30 mm gun rounds could be very deadly and this is one of the rules for BMPT. Even in urban battlefield Javelin need visual contact with target to lock missile on it and in that case rapid fire from AA guns could be still deadly for ATGM team.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:39 am

    it clearly show like point the laser beam above the target for collimation at the very last moments of the engagement is a capability that even the export version, Kornet-E, possess from day one.

    First of all let me say I don't speak or read Russian.

    Second point to keep in mind the portion of the video you are highlighting is an animation rather than an actual missile launch.

    Of the many launches shown none seem to me to have the missile fly any great distance above the line of sight.

    Now as I have already said the Vikhr ATGM is known to do this with the same guidance method, so I am not saying it can't or it doesn't do this.

    What I am saying is that it might be an option for launches but it doesn't do this all the time.

    The critical initial information it would need to do this would be the range to the target. Once it knows this information then it will know how long it will take the missile to get to this range and also therefore when to drop the laser beam the missile is riding down to the line of sight.

    i truly wouldn't never be an FGM-148 or Spike-MR operator forced ,in a full scale war, in any tactical situation except an ambush on an urban combat,to confront a proficient enemy equiped even only with export versions of those weapons...it would be the most stupid and useless way to die in a war.

    I disagree.
    A weapon is only as good as the tactics employed.

    If the Javelin is useless because its range is only 2.5km then Metis-M1 is also useless because its range is 2km. The RPG... whether it is 7 or 29 or a disposable 27 or 28 is not useless either.
    Very simply unless the battlefield is a flat open and empty desert there will always be opportunities to attack enemy forces in conventional and unconventional situations.

    Many people look at Javelin as some sort of super weapon simply because it is fire and forget.
    In reality it is a gold plated replacement for Dragon.
    In those terms it is a huge step up... partially because Dragon was rubbish.

    But even a state of the art high tech military force will not be able to control the ground in a 1,000m radius of all its forces let alone 2.5 times that.

    Once the attacker has opened fire and revealed its position then it comes under attack, but in the case of Spike and Javelin they can leave as soon as they fire their weapons which minimises the risk they take.

    Ambush 101 is to find a position with a good view of the enemy, but with covered escape routes.

    Personally I am not really interested in comparing Russian systems with American systems in conventional war contexts simply because if Russian forces ever have to deal with American forces with Javelin then the odd tank being lost or the odd Javelin team being taken out is not really relevant as the final decision will be at the strategic nuke level... and everyone loses.

    It is far more likely to look at these systems in terms of what a guerilla could do with them in an insurgency, or what US forces use them for in an insurgency.

    Currently British forces using Javelin have been using them for their precision to hit point targets at long range. Return fire in such cases is non existent so they could just as easily be using Milan or indeed Metis-M1 because operationally the expensive fire and forget capability doesn't matter when you are firing at enemy sniper positions or machine gun nests, or a Toyota.

    They could probably save a fortune by buying the HE warhead equipped METIS-M1 systems.

    Considering most of the targets they use Javelin on at the moment are not armoured vehicles they will likely be firing the Javelins in manual mode anyway.

    Of course politics will prohibit them from making a sensible economic choice.

    I think stinger and Mistral are capable to lock on small targets as Javelin or Spike, while Starstreak is SACLOS missile.

    In my personal opinion the best defense against ATGMs like Spike and Javelin and also low flying Kornets are AA guns with modern radar and EO FCS. They could not only shot down ATGM, but immediately after that they could fire on ATGM crew and inside 2 km range rain of 30 mm gun rounds could be very deadly and this is one of the rules for BMPT. Even in urban battlefield Javelin need visual contact with target to lock missile on it and in that case rapid fire from AA guns could be still deadly for ATGM team.

    The problem with these systems... and the Igla for that matter is that they need preparation before they can be fired... the seekers need to be cooled which takes a few seconds.
    You are not going to get much warning of an ATGM attack so I think shooting them down with anything other than fully automatic systems like APS will always be problematic.
    I also think using APS is a more efficient way of dealing with such threats.

    It would probably be better to focus on IR camouflage plus of course IR and optical jamming for Javelin and Spike, as well as smoke and active countermeasures like ARENA too.

    BTW

    With modern thermal sights and fire control systems the Kliver turret suddenly seems very interesting with 4 ready to launch Kornet missiles and a 2A72 30mm cannon it could be used against air and ground targets, yet it is small and light enough to be mounted in all sorts of armoured vehicles.


    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  medo on Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:11 pm

    The problem with these systems... and the Igla for that matter is that they need preparation before they can be fired... the seekers need to be cooled which takes a few seconds.
    You are not going to get much warning of an ATGM attack so I think shooting them down with anything other than fully automatic systems like APS will always be problematic.
    I also think using APS is a more efficient way of dealing with such threats.

    It would probably be better to focus on IR camouflage plus of course IR and optical jamming for Javelin and Spike, as well as smoke and active countermeasures like ARENA too.

    Of course camouflage and active and passive protection is very important in this day, actually it is a must.

    Talking about air defense, it is important to know few points. If you are in war, air defense is active 24/7 from first to the last day. What means you are not moving your systems down like in a parade, but they are always up and ready. Attack could happened any time from anywhere. SAM and AAA systems will always have at least one radar on, data links on, system will work and missiles will be ready to fire anytime. When attack happened you have just few seconds to react, lock target and launch missiles or gun. Half a minute, how much Javelin or Spike need to fly for 2 km range is quite a lot of time for air defense. MANPADS are different, because you don't have your missile all the time on your shoulder ready to fire, but SP systems are in always ready, specially when you are in environment, where such kind of attacks could happened any time from anywhere. When armor unit is in such environment, radars are looking 360° and all eyes and sights will be looking in all directions, so when ATGM is launched, there will be a warning.

    Of course Javelin and Spike as well as Kornet are good ATGMs, but ATGMs are part of helicopter armament and they are also on a list of air defense targets.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 10, 2011 8:19 am

    Certainly with vehicles like Pantsir-S1 able to engage up to 4 targets at one time unless the ambush is combined a significant air attack missiles like Javelin and Spike will be very vulnerable with their low flight speeds and high flight profiles in fire and forget modes.

    With the improved visibility from Russian armoured vehicles with thermal sights and panoramic sights such surprise attacks will also become more difficult, but at the end of the day even on the steepest flight angle the Javelin is not a diving top attack missile.

    The charts and diagrams and test fires I have seen show at most a 45 degree angle of attack which makes me think that if ARENA can't stop it then a small modification of the system would allow it to stop it.

    The original design of ARENA was to launch the intercepting munition up in the air to detonate and fire intercepting fragments down into the ground so as not to put at risk accompanying infantry units. It would not take much modification to make it fire fragments straight up as well as straight down and increase the angles the sensors operate at to hit top attack weapons too.
    The munitions are already lofted high enough to intercept Bill 2 type weapons that fly about a metre or so above the tank and detonate their warheads down onto the tanks roof.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  medo on Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:49 pm

    The charts and diagrams and test fires I have seen show at most a 45 degree angle of attack which makes me think that if ARENA can't stop it then a small modification of the system would allow it to stop it.

    The original design of ARENA was to launch the intercepting munition up in the air to detonate and fire intercepting fragments down into the ground so as not to put at risk accompanying infantry units. It would not take much modification to make it fire fragments straight up as well as straight down and increase the angles the sensors operate at to hit top attack weapons too.
    The munitions are already lofted high enough to intercept Bill 2 type weapons that fly about a metre or so above the tank and detonate their warheads down onto the tanks roof.

    Arena and Iron Fist are good active protection systems and maybe they need a small modification or maybe not, to deal with top attack ATGMs. Their base is radar, which cover 360° around tank. If tank is also equipped with RWS with 12,7 mm machine gun, than radar and RWS ballistic computer and FCS could be also connected, so tank could defend itself in higher elevations with fire of its 12,7 mm machine gun. If machine gun doesn't hit the missile, than Arena or Iron fist could still defend tank with its warheads.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Wed Aug 10, 2011 6:06 pm

    Not all diving top attack weapons are as slow as Spike and Javelin.

    Most laser guided artillery shells for example travel much faster and would be a very difficult target for your average 50 cal HMG.

    Something similar to a claymore mine is probably the most effective hard kill system, but soft kill systems should not be ignored.

    The thermal sight in the Javelin and the optical sensor in Spike are not high tech expensive models, they are relatively low quality cheap models.

    The Russians have already deployed dazzling lasers to defeat optics, and they have already shown anti sniper hardware that detects the direction and trajectory and calibre of weapons fire.

    It wouldn't take too much to incorporate a weapon sensor that uses sound and heat to detect incoming threats and assess them as being Javelins or sniper fire and sharing that info with the unit so the source of the sniper or missile fire can be shelled rapidly and that the target of the fire can be warned. Certainly something like a DIRCMs system could defeat the seeker on Spike or Javelin in their fire and forget modes.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3052
    Points : 3150
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  medo on Thu Aug 11, 2011 7:40 pm

    GarryB wrote:Not all diving top attack weapons are as slow as Spike and Javelin.

    Most laser guided artillery shells for example travel much faster and would be a very difficult target for your average 50 cal HMG.

    Something similar to a claymore mine is probably the most effective hard kill system, but soft kill systems should not be ignored.

    The thermal sight in the Javelin and the optical sensor in Spike are not high tech expensive models, they are relatively low quality cheap models.

    The Russians have already deployed dazzling lasers to defeat optics, and they have already shown anti sniper hardware that detects the direction and trajectory and calibre of weapons fire.

    It wouldn't take too much to incorporate a weapon sensor that uses sound and heat to detect incoming threats and assess them as being Javelins or sniper fire and sharing that info with the unit so the source of the sniper or missile fire can be shelled rapidly and that the target of the fire can be warned. Certainly something like a DIRCMs system could defeat the seeker on Spike or Javelin in their fire and forget modes.

    Agree. How is Shtora IR jammer effective against Javelin or Spike IIR homing heads? Could it blind them as IR locator in SACLOS ATGMs?

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:27 am

    In its current form I don't think it directs its energy up high enough to cover such threats.

    Also of course shtora is generally set off by a laser, so neither Javelin or Spike would set it off.

    It is getting to the point where tanks will need ESM suites like fighter aircraft...

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Aug 13, 2011 9:53 am

    Actually just looking at this page:

    http://kbptula.ru/eng/kbp/news/news015.htm

    It looks to me like the new Kornet is actually three new missiles, with their designations being shown as 9M133FM-3 which is the 10km range missile with a HE frag warhead and 320m/s flight speed which in the cross section clearly has the warhead in the front of the missile with presumably a nose mounted proximity sensor and a weight of 33kgs, plus the 9М133М-2 ATGM and 9М133FM guided missile with flight ranges of 8km, flight speeds of 300m/s and missile weights of 31kgs. Note the latter two missiles have rear mounted warheads so I would presume that the HE version does not have a proximity fuse and would be used against soft ground targets, while the HEAT version would be used against armoured targets.

    The faster 9M133FM-3 is likely a dedicated surface to air version so the system would not be as dual use as say the Vikhr which has a switch to turn on a proximity fuse to allow use in an air to air role. With the proximity fuse turned off it was detonated with an impact fuse for armour penetration.

    It means it is not quite as dual use as first expected as the missiles are either for one purpose or the other.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Aug 14, 2011 5:23 pm

    Of the many launches shown none seem to me to have the missile fly any great distance above the line of sight.

    At 9:26 of the video that i had previously pointed out,you can clearly obserbe a fire sequence with a Kornet-E guided to a cruise line some meters above the LOS.
    As you well know nobody need to point the laser beam of a beam rider weapon like Kornet several meters above its intended target ,at now even with the beam totally coinciding with the line of sight would be almost impossible to receive a warning from the target/guidance sequence ,therefore a laser beam pointed even only some dozen of cm out of the surface area of its target would render it totally untrackable by any LWR at today operative worldwide .
    An APC, IFV, or MBT attacked by a Kornet-E ,as well proved in Lebanon in 2006, become usually aware (when it happen)to be under attack tracking the optronic/IR signature of the shooting sequence (or,at much closer range,tracking directly the inbound ATGM directly with the commander/gunner sight-observation system) and ,as you can easily guess, also in this istance,the parameter by far the most important for become aware to be under attack and ascertain the fire position of the enemy become the range from which you are attacked


    A weapon is only as good as the tactics employed.

    If the Javelin is useless because its range is only 2.5km then Metis-M1 is also useless because its range is 2km. The RPG... whether it is 7 or 29 or a disposable 27 or 28 is not useless either.
    Very simply unless the battlefield is a flat open and empty desert there will always be opportunities to attack enemy forces in conventional and unconventional situations.


    I agree ,but for completely different motivations (little note : the operational range of FGM-148 Javelin is 2000 m not 2500 m ,like well specified in its same field manual).

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-94/appf.htm

    In the same line of reasoning you was using here is present the reason at the basis of my assertions : it is not a problem of tactics but of completely different CONOPS connected to completely different class of weapons.
    An RPG-29 isn't ,in any way, an "inferior" weapon in respect to a Kornet it is simply a "different" weapon in a completely distinct class.
    Physical parameters can aid to distinguish the boundary between a class of weapon and another without being strictly or exclusively linked ,in a bi-univocal way ,to one of the two.
    I repeat ,the "mistake" ,if so we can say, is in the naive mind of someone attempting to compare FGM-148 Javelin (a weapon in the same class of M-47 Dragon or Metis-M1) with a Kornet (a weapon in the same class of BGM-71 TOW or Euromissile HOT).
    What i have pointed out is that,in a large scale conflict, attempting to employ FGM-148 in the same operative roles planned, by the same US Army ,for a BGM-71 TOW-2 (a weapon designed,from its start, to confront Soviets forces in an immense scale multifront ground offensive in the Great European Plain and which remain,at today, the main anti-tank weapon of actual Brigade combat team's anti-tank segment of US Army) would lead to outcomes simply disastrous ; "tactics" have simply zero to do with that .
    Tactics,in fact, have a sense only within the extent of the specific weapon system's CONOPS,anything outside that fall fatally in a pointless death-spiral of low level ,childish, "creative" dissertations.

    Once the attacker has opened fire and revealed its position then it comes under attack, but in the case of Spike and Javelin they can leave as soon as they fire their weapons which minimises the risk they take.

    Sure, but one more time,only if we talk of weapons in the same class of FGM-148 and in tactical situations and ranges where the employement of a missile in the class of "Javelin" offer any advantage against systems dozen of times cheapers and easy to carry around.
    The "fire and forget" capability of FGM-148 is not only cited very often and out of turn in absurd comparations with systems in totally different class (an anti-tanks teams shooting from a fire point 2 - 2,5 km farther is in a tactical position dozen of times safer than an ambush team shooting with a javelin from 1600-1800 m ,well within the engagement footprint of pratically any enemy infantry/mechanized/armoured brigade level weapon ) but also for tactical situations where would become immensely most efficient to employ different class of weapons .
    If,as you've already brightly pointed out,return fire is not a problem and you occupy an ambush position, still not detected by your enemy, at very reduced ranges from the opposing forces ,the employement of a weapon like FGM-148 is,in the vast majority of the istances, simply a gold-plated option.
    In fact,also if we restrict the field to all russian-built weapons, if the type of target, tactical situation and range involved allow the engagement of your intended targets with Metis-M1 or,even better,RPG-29 or Shmel-M (enjoying a natural "fire and forget" nature and total immunity to soft kill countermeasures),try to employ a Kornet is not only a solution totally wrong but even counterproductive.


    The faster 9M133FM-3 is likely a dedicated surface to air version so the system would not be as dual use as say the Vikhr which has a switch to turn on a proximity fuse to allow use in an air to air role.

    9M133FM-3 could engage pratically any target except maybe the most armoured (for which the 8 Km capable missile with shaped charge warhead and 1100-1300 mm RHA of penetrative power will be purposely employed).
    That likely mean that 9М133FM missile will constitute a minority percentual of Kornet-EM's missile mix ,to use only against specific very strongly armoured targets

    Agree. How is Shtora IR jammer effective against Javelin or Spike IIR homing heads? Could it blind them as IR locator in SACLOS ATGMs?

    Against a Spike-MR / FGM-148 class threat , the defence offered by Shtora-1 is not linked to its TShU1-7 IR directional jammers ,but to the thermal opaque(0,37 - 14 micron)aerosol screens produced by 3D17 granades.
    Good luck at home on a not-export T-90 (even not considering Nakidka !!) masked by a pair of thermal opaque aerosol screens like that at 4:47 of this video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5MvPYHDNlc

    TShU1-7 is employed against the flare collimators present in the guidance of BGM-71 TOW amd Euromissile HOT ATGM which ,like already explained ,represent the standard anti-tanks weapons of western ground forces.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15470
    Points : 16177
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 15, 2011 7:45 am

    At 9:26 of the video that i had previously pointed out,you can clearly obserbe a fire sequence with a Kornet-E guided to a cruise line some meters above the LOS.

    I think that part of the video is a computer simulation of the firing sequence.

    In the actual test firing of the missile shown in lots of other parts of the video the missile didn't seem to do this.

    I don't read or understand Russian... can you understand what is being said in the portion of the video you are referring to?

    I don't know, but I suspect that the portion of the video might be an optional method of launching the missile in case there are a lot of obstructions between the launcher and the target. As an added bonus it would also direct the laser beam away from the target so there is no possible way for them to know they are under attack.

    Diverging 1mm per metre a laser beam at 10,000m would be 10m across, so aiming 10m above the target not only clears the flight line of the missile so it flys over bushes and other vehicles between the launcher and the target, but it means no laser energy at all will hit the target till the missile is very close.

    For total stealth an engagement with the Kornet-M system could begin with detection of the target. The first step of course is to determine the target is within range and that could be done by picking something that is beside the target at the same range but not likely to detect the laser range finder. Once it is determined that the target is within missile range (lets say the target is a light truck, so we select the HE equipped missile (9М133FM) with a range of 8km) and the range is 7.5km but the vehicle is stationary.
    The operator will put the crosshair on the centre of the target and fire the missile.

    If there are a lot of small trees and bushes a button might be pressed to raise the flight profile to avoid a collision with fences or trees or bushes on the flight to the target.

    The operator will do no more than push the button for the different flight profile and then place the crosshairs on the target and push the lock button. The guidance system will then put a box around the truck and start tracking it, so that if it moves it will maintain the box on the target automatically.
    The operator then merely needs to press the fire key and the missile will be launched and the laser beam will be activated. Because the button has been pressed to elevate the flight profile the guidance system will maintain the crosshair on the truck but the actual laser beam the missile is flying down will be elevated by several degrees so that the missile flys high.
    The flight performance of the missile is known and the range to the target is known so when the missile is 1,000m or 500m from the target the laser can be lowered onto the target, so for 2-3 seconds the target will have a very very faint laser beam shining on it.

    The earlier laser emissions to range the target probably reflected more laser energy onto the target than the laser missile riding beam does.

    I repeat ,the "mistake" ,if so we can say, is in the naive mind of someone attempting to compare FGM-148 Javelin (a weapon in the same class of M-47 Dragon or Metis-M1) with a Kornet (a weapon in the same class of BGM-71 TOW or Euromissile HOT).

    Then we agree, Javelin is a stupid and expensive weapon if you think it is a TOW. It is a Metis-M1 class weapon that is still very expensive.

    What i have pointed out is that,in a large scale conflict, attempting to employ FGM-148 in the same operative roles planned, by the same US Army ,for a BGM-71 TOW-2 (a weapon designed,from its start, to confront Soviets forces in an immense scale multifront ground offensive in the Great European Plain and which remain,at today, the main anti-tank weapon of actual Brigade combat team's anti-tank segment of US Army) would lead to outcomes simply disastrous ; "tactics" have simply zero to do with that .

    But wouldn't you agree that the problem is not the Javelin, but the attempt to use it in a way that was clearly not intended. ie as a TOW.
    It is like trying to use an F-16 as a strategic bomber aircraft... it can carry a wide range of air to ground weapon, but lacks the range and weapon capacity to replace a B-52.
    Use it as a fighter bomber aircraft and it is a good aircraft.

    Sure, but one more time,only if we talk of weapons in the same class of FGM-148 and in tactical situations and ranges where the employement of a missile in the class of "Javelin" offer any advantage against systems dozen of times cheapers and easy to carry around.

    I quite agree... and even more telling is that it is expensive because of its fire and forget feature, yet actual operational experience in Afghanistan has shown that the majority of the time it is used against firing positions or buildings rather than heavy armoured vehicles. With such use there is no fire and forget because it can't lock on to a window in a building or the muzzle flash coming from a group of bushes so it would have to be guided manually to the target... just like Metis-M1 or Milan... only they are cheaper.

    In fact,also if we restrict the field to all russian-built weapons, if the type of target, tactical situation and range involved allow the engagement of your intended targets with Metis-M1 or,even better,RPG-29 or Shmel-M (enjoying a natural "fire and forget" nature and total immunity to soft kill countermeasures),try to employ a Kornet is not only a solution totally wrong but even counterproductive.

    Good point. Note that the latest Shmel has a maxiumum firing range of 1.7km, though of course that would be accurate only for targets like buildings. Aimed range for vehicle sized targets is 800m. And of course there are new systems being developed... there is talk of a guided rocket for the RPG-32 launcher and I have also seen a large launcher on a tripod with a significant optical system attached... the RPG-28 is a large heavy missile so I would expect its replacement will be in the 152mm calibre range and might need a 3 man crew and a light vehicle to move around the battlefield.

    9M133FM-3 could engage pratically any target except maybe the most armoured (for which the 8 Km capable missile with shaped charge warhead and 1100-1300 mm RHA of penetrative power will be purposely employed).
    That likely mean that 9М133FM missile will constitute a minority percentual of Kornet-EM's missile mix ,to use only against specific very strongly armoured targets

    Totally agree. The vast majority of battlefield targets don't need weapons that penetrate over a metre of steel to defeat them. I would think that a new design of HEAT warhead that trades armour penetration performance for under armour effect might be a useful thing... sort of the equivelent of the old Armour Piercing High Explosive rounds they used to have.

    Something that will punch a hole in an APC and then explode inside rather than simply punch a hole right through.

    Cyberspec
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1946
    Points : 2117
    Join date : 2011-08-08
    Location : Terra Australis

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyberspec on Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:33 pm

    Great thread/discussion. Learnt a few things I didn't know about.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 6:57 am


      Current date/time is Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:57 am