Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18648
    Points : 19204
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 16, 2018 2:37 am

    Ataka was modernised to enable its wider use on platforms... originally it was only used on the Hind, which already had the command antenna for controlling the missile as it was also used for the Shturm that preceded it.

    The Mi-28 also had the nose thimble for controlling ataka and shturm missiles, and there was a small light patrol boat that also had Shturm/Ataka launchers and a thimble mounted on the mast to control the missile.

    It was light and cheap and quite accurate with a decent little punch.

    Now however shturm is largely used up and the replacement for ataka has arrived in the form of the Krisantema... my initial understanding of the Kris is that it was SARH where a pencil radar beam is directed at the target and the missile homes in on the reflections... but there is obviously no nose mounted radar sensing antenna in the missiles so I rather suspect there is a tail mounted radar beam sensor and that it probably works like a laser beam homing missile... it looks back at the launch platform to sense its position in the beam and manouvers itself to centre itself.

    If that is the case then to carry both the Krisantema and the Ataka, you would need three types of guidance options... the radio command thimble, a radar, and a laser beam for a laser beam riding missile.

    By converting the ataka to laser beam riding as well as radio command guidance it means all current uses of the ataka can continue to use it, while new systems that don't have the command guidance thimble like the BMPT Terminator and the Mi-28NM can operate both ataka and krisantema... with laser beam riding... which seems to be pretty standard on most new and upgraded Russian aircraft and armoured vehicles, or radar tracking like the new helos... and interesting to note the new UAVs that will operate tethered to Russian armoured vehicles include thermal and radar... perhaps UAV deployment will extend to guiding ATGMs from standoff ranges.

    Such missiles are certainly ideal for UCAV use as they are fast and pack a decent punch with good accuracy and relatively low cost.
    avatar
    dino00

    Posts : 316
    Points : 361
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Location : portugal

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  dino00 on Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:51 am

    Russian ATGM "Cornet" will be able to attack the tanks from above, as American Javelin

    The peculiarity of such ATGM is that the ammunition makes a "slide" and strikes an armored vehicle from above, where the armor of the hull is the thinnest

    https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/5486371

    Misleading title aparently they already can atack from above.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18648
    Points : 19204
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Aug 26, 2018 3:16 am

    Kornet always flew about 5m above the line of sight to the target... to prevent it flying into bushes or trees or walls etc... it is commanded to fly high until it gets within 1km of the target and then it drops down to the line of sight... it probably has the extra advantage of having the sensor not having to look through 5km of rocket engine exhaust fumes...

    Potentially instead of commanding the missile to drop 1km before impact, you could command it to drop 5m at the last second... or indeed having it climb higher...

    The tricky thing is that the Javelin is moving at subsonic speed, while Kornet is supersonic... but I am sure the computer control system will manage...
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 2458
    Points : 2452
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Isos on Sun Aug 26, 2018 8:02 am

    GarryB wrote:Kornet always flew about 5m above the line of sight to the target... to prevent it flying into bushes or trees or walls etc... it is commanded to fly high until it gets within 1km of the target and then it drops down to the line of sight... it probably has the extra advantage of having the sensor not having to look through 5km of rocket engine exhaust fumes...

    Potentially instead of commanding the missile to drop 1km before impact, you could command it to drop 5m at the last second... or indeed having it climb higher...

    The tricky thing is that the Javelin is moving at subsonic speed, while Kornet is supersonic... but I am sure the computer control system will manage...

    It doesn't know what distance is the target to have a top attack mode. Doing it manualy is just impossible at such distances.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18648
    Points : 19204
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Aug 27, 2018 5:51 am

    It doesn't know what distance is the target to have a top attack mode. Doing it manualy is just impossible at such distances.

    Why would it not know the distance to the target?

    How does it know the target is within range?

    It is already pointing a laser at the target for the missile to fly down.

    If it does not know the distance to the target how could it possibly have the missile fly 5m above the line of sight until it is 1km away from the target... how would it know when it is 1km away from the target?

    It does not need to alert the target by lasing it... it could look beside the target for something 50m away but the same distance and lase that to get range information...
    avatar
    0nillie0

    Posts : 136
    Points : 138
    Join date : 2016-05-15
    Age : 32
    Location : Flanders, Belgium

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  0nillie0 on Sat Sep 01, 2018 11:54 am

    I would like to introduce a topic of discussion regarding integration of ATGM's on vehicles such BMPT or infantry fighting vehicles.

    We have seen recently that the first examples of BMPT (entering service now ), T-15, B-11 "Kurganets" IFV, and others are equipped with externally mounted ATGM's. This is a tradition carried over from "Berezhok" turret and before that from the BMP-1 and BMP-2. Modern dedicated tank destroyers such as 9P157-2 however always carry the missiles inside the hull. Recent vehicles such as BMPT have the missiles covered by a thin layer of what appears to be sheet metal at worst, or some stronger composite at best. We see also in the "prototype" turret of the 57mm weapon complex installed on T-15 at Army 2018, again externally mounted ATGM's with no cover or protection. We have seen a retractable launcher for Bulat ATGM in concepts, but AFAIK not much is known about this family of weapons, nor has the turret even reached prototype stage.

    Would it not make more sense to develop a turret with a retractable launcher as seen in "Tigr-M GAZ-233116", rather than mount ATGM's relatively unprotected carried outside the turret at all times?
    The nature of the typical ATGM's carried by aforementioned vehicles is such that they are quite rugged and stored in sealed canisters as opposed to some Western ATGM's, but still i wonder. Also i realize that the missiles are installed at the time of entering combat zone, but we have to consider at the very least the following :

    If such vehicles as BMPT have to escort tanks, then they are likely to be under fire from artillery while traveling to front line. I find it hard to imagine that the current way of mounting ATGM's is ideal for transporting under such conditions. The missile's themselves, or the launchers, can be damaged from artillery shrapnel before the vehicle reaches the frontline. I do realize that this is simply part of warfare. A tank gun can also be damaged by shrapnel before it fires its first round. But in the case of ATGM's there is a clearly presented solution already used by vehicles in service.

    Retractable launcher has a downside of being more complex and requiring additional space in the turret, also it takes longer to bring the weapon in a ready to shoot position.
    But advantages are that missiles can be stored inside vehicle for prolonged periods of time, are better protected from shrapnel or mine/IED blasts, and could even be reloaded under armor if designed correctly.
    Also on a more basic level, missiles are less exposed to the environment which can be hostile through climate, or trough advanced electronic warfare ( mostly mitigated by the transport canisters).

    If you take a single retractable launcher of Kornet-D type, which has a capacity of 4 missiles, it does not require as much space in the turret. For larger missiles such as Ataka, this is off course more problematic.
    I think that on a vehicle as T-15 based BMPT, such a feature might be rather more efficient, and hope to see this incorporated in the future turret designs.

    Just my 2 cents on the topic. Feel free to discuss or provide me with some info i did not know.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1154
    Points : 1154
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Hole on Sat Sep 01, 2018 4:36 pm



    There´s a version of the AU-220 turret with an internal launcher, as you can see in the picture.

    The Krizantema-S and Kornet-D and so on are dedicated tank hunters. They only got ATGM´s. And no infantry to transport. That´s why they have more complex launchers.

    The Berezhok and Epocha turrets are for AIFV´s, the missiles are just a part of their armament. The external launchers are easier and faster to reload. The new launchers are better than the old ones on the BMP-1/-2. Even if a missile is hit by a bullet or shrapnel, i doubt that the warhead or the solid propellant would explode.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18648
    Points : 19204
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:57 pm

    Would it not make more sense to develop a turret with a retractable launcher as seen in "Tigr-M GAZ-233116", rather than mount ATGM's relatively unprotected carried outside the turret at all times?

    ATGM tubes are pretty much the equivalent of a round of ammo... if one gets damaged by small arms fire it is not the end of the world.

    I rather suspect that in every unit there will be a recon vehicle that can detect where the shots are coming from and locate the precise location of the shooter and pass that information to all the vehicles in the force so the threat can be targeted.

    If you have a retracted launcher they will likely just shoot at something else... which would certainly be harder to replace...

    When you need an ATGM it is rather likely that you will need it urgently, so externally mounted ready to fire weapons sound more useful to me... and most launch tubes seem to have light armour over them too.

    But in the case of ATGM's there is a clearly presented solution already used by vehicles in service.

    But as you pointed out... these rounds are on IFVs and APCs so they are a last line of defence... self defence weapon... being Atakas and Kornets they have the enormous advantage over TOWs and HOTs and other such western missiles in that they can be fired on the move, but this is not the primary missile intended to defeat enemy MBTs. In combat it is rather likely it will more often be used against pillboxes and strong points... the real ATGMs will be inside tanks to be fired through their main guns and therefore very well protected, but also inside dedicated ATGM platforms that do have retractable missiles like the Shturm and the Kornet... and the other main sources will be from support vehicles... ie Coalition... Mi-28NM and Ka-52, not to mention UCAVs... and ground units with light ATGMs and RPGs... seriously there will be no shortage of anti armour weapons in a Russian unit.

    Retractable launcher has a downside of being more complex and requiring additional space in the turret, also it takes longer to bring the weapon in a ready to shoot position.
    But advantages are that missiles can be stored inside vehicle for prolonged periods of time, are better protected from shrapnel or mine/IED blasts, and could even be reloaded under armor if designed correctly.
    Also on a more basic level, missiles are less exposed to the environment which can be hostile through climate, or trough advanced electronic warfare ( mostly mitigated by the transport canisters).

    The dedicated anti tank systems have such features... it is the vehicles that only occasionally need ATGMs that have them externally mounted in their launch tubes... which should provide plenty of environmental protection anyway.

    Much of the time a BMP-3 for example would fire a 100mm HE round where a western equivalent would either have to fire its ATGM weapon where its 25-35mm gun is ineffective, so actually the Russians are in a good position in these terms anyway... with 57mm guns able to fire powerful HE rounds, not to mention direct fire 120mm mortar guns...
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1422
    Points : 1598
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  d_taddei2 on Fri Sep 14, 2018 3:33 pm

    A bit off topic. I can't remember which thread it was when there was a mention of a design of anti tank gun something along the lines of spg-9. I presume that this has came about due to syrian conflict where spg-9, and cheaper ATGW systems proved to be very useful in this type of conflict and prolonged war. Anyone got news on this new anti tank gun (anti armour gun)
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18648
    Points : 19204
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sun Sep 16, 2018 5:55 am

    I suspect the new system will likely be a special forces weapon that is mobile and relatively cheap, but effective enough against most targets.

    Lets face it... send British troops to the Falklands Islands where the enemy has no tanks, and give them something expensive like Milan and they will happily use it to take out sniper or machine gun positions.

    Now obviously it is better they use Milan missiles rather than a frontal charge on such targets, but having a 1.5km range super RPG with a decent HE round would have been much cheaper, yet still effective.

    If the threat is tanks then Metis-M1 already fits the bill, but against non tank targets it is a bit overkill.

    If there are no enemy tanks then an SPG-9 with HE rounds with delayed fuses could be used on all sorts of targets... including unarmoured vehicles, and light bunkers where the round penetrates into the target before exploding...

    Some of the later engineer rockets they have (RPO, MRO, LRO) can be fired at targets up to 800m or so, but they haven't really got a rocket launcher in that 500-1,500m range... just below the 2km range Metis-M1...

    Of course soon they will also have the 40mm Balkan in a man portable role together perhaps with the 57mm grenade launcher they are developing that could possibly replace 82mm mortars, or at least supplement them.

    But in answer to your question... no, I have not actually heard anything.

    Upgrade for special forces use with all weather optronic sights and new ammo types, is what I would expect.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1422
    Points : 1598
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:54 pm

    GarryB wrote:I suspect the new system will likely be a special forces weapon that is mobile and relatively cheap, but effective enough against most targets.

    Lets face it... send British troops to the Falklands Islands where the enemy has no tanks, and give them something expensive like Milan and they will happily use it to take out sniper or machine gun positions.

    Now obviously it is better they use Milan missiles rather than a frontal charge on such targets, but having a 1.5km range super RPG with a decent HE round would have been much cheaper, yet still effective.

    If the threat is tanks then Metis-M1 already fits the bill, but against non tank targets it is a bit overkill.

    If there are no enemy tanks then an SPG-9 with HE rounds with delayed fuses could be used on all sorts of targets... including unarmoured vehicles, and light bunkers where the round penetrates into the target before exploding...

    Some of the later engineer rockets they have (RPO, MRO, LRO) can be fired at targets up to 800m or so, but they haven't really got a rocket launcher in that 500-1,500m range... just below the 2km range Metis-M1...

    Of course soon they will also have the 40mm Balkan in a man portable role together perhaps with the 57mm grenade launcher they are developing that could possibly replace 82mm mortars, or at least supplement them.

    But in answer to your question... no, I have not actually heard anything.

    Upgrade for special forces use with all weather optronic sights and new ammo types, is what I would expect.

    We only have to look at syria for perfect examples but I agree with everything u have said. All I remember was the article wasn't specifically about the gun but about something else and within it mentioned that they would be designing a replacement for spg-9 based on experience from syria
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1154
    Points : 1154
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Hole on Sun Sep 16, 2018 9:43 pm

    Well, there is not much you could make better on that gun. I guess they will use modern optics (night-capable) and new ammunition.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18648
    Points : 19204
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:38 am

    I guess they will use modern optics (night-capable) and new ammunition.

    I think they will go further than just thermal sights... I would expect a ballistic computer calibrated to the weapon so that a point of aim would be generated in the scope and you just put that aim point on the target and fire... rifle scopes already do that...

    I rather doubt this will be a general issue army weapon... most Russian soldiers were driven there by vehicle so that vehicle can deal with point targets 1.5km away quite easily with 30mm cannon shells or 100mm HE frag rounds, or soon 57mm HE shells.

    The value of the SPG9 is its simplicity and range and mobility, with low cost.

    Special forces will love these... especially those working with "freedom fighters", but also mountain troops will also appreciate these too.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1422
    Points : 1598
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  d_taddei2 on Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:40 am

    Hole wrote:Well, there is not much you could make better on that gun. I guess they will use modern optics (night-capable) and new ammunition.

    Anti tank is anti tank gun lol not complicated lol. But possibly new calibre, lighter system, as u mentioned new rounds and optics. As GarryB said a longer range RPG providing cheap bunker buster and anti armour. I would expect it would do well on export market replacing older systems but also providing countries with a cheap alternative if they can't afford more expensive systems.

    It's quite crazy years ago everyone was getting rid of AA guns anti tank guns and older ATGW as well simple aircraft. Now with current and past warfare has shown us that these cheaper older systems are actually useful for this type of warfare. AT-3/4/5 in the west are deemed out dated as is spg-9. AA guns have found to be very useful at ground attack and even then finding a bit of a come back in anti air role. And finally older tanks and aircraft such as
    T-55, mig-21, mig-23, su-22 have proven still effective for this warfare.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 278
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:52 pm

    How much more would it cost to add a QWIP sensor on the Kornet?  QWIP sensors are being used a lot more and will only get cheaper as time goes by.

    I used to be puzzled with how a 13 kg missile (the Spike LR missile) achieved a range of (5.5km) until I found out that it was achieved through a very slow missile, so it's fuel burns slower.



    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18648
    Points : 19204
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Sat Oct 13, 2018 9:01 am

    How much more would it cost to add a QWIP sensor on the Kornet? QWIP sensors are being used a lot more and will only get cheaper as time goes by.

    Initially it would probably be quite expensive, but over time the cost would come down.

    The main problem would be... why bother... the Kornet-EM can hit targets at 8.5km for tanks and 10km for soft targets including aircraft and it is already supersonic... I think it makes more sense to make the guidance system in the launcher than in the missile because every time it is used in the missile it is destroyed, whereas in the launcher you can also use it for recon...

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 278
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sat Oct 13, 2018 11:15 am

    Gary B wrote:

    Initially it would probably be quite expensive, but over time the cost would come down.

    The main problem would be... why bother... the Kornet-EM can hit targets at 8.5km for tanks and 10km for soft targets including aircraft and it is already supersonic... I think it makes more sense to make the guidance system in the launcher than in the missile because every time it is used in the missile it is destroyed, whereas in the launcher you can also use it for recon...


    I definitely appreciate considerations of cost - especially when looking at missiles like the Javelin; it costs around $240, 000 for each CLU and $175, 000 per missile, so I'm not advocating for anything as absurd as that.

    The Kornet EM is a great weapon system but at 75 kg it seems to be only a platform based weapon system. What about the semi man-portable Kornet-E? The Kornet E and the Metis-M1 are man-portable but they don't have the capabilities of the Kornet-EM.

    The Metis-M1 is still my favourite due to its portability and cost-effectiveness but it could do with a similar range to the Spike-LR -> 4km. The Metis-M1 is just under 30 kg with the launcher + 1 missile and the 1PN86-VI Thermal imaging sight.

    Would it be sensible to add a fiber optic link and increase the length of the Metis-M1 to 1200mm in order to accomodate an extra 2-3 kg of rocket fuel so as to increase its range to 4km? An overfly or top attack ability would make it lethal to *every* tank.

    The Kornet E already flies 5 meters above ground, and I wonder if the Metis-M1 could be programmed to fly 10 meters above ground and dive onto the top of the tank when it reaches the tank.  

    This would make it as capable as the Spike-LR but so much more cost-effective. The Spike-LR2 now has a range of 5.5km. The Spike-LR and LR2 are very slow missiles and that's probably how they achieve a range similar to the Kornet-E. It would be great to keep the speed of the Metis-M1 while extending its range by at least 2x and making it more lethal against armour by giving it an overfly capability.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1154
    Points : 1154
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Hole on Sat Oct 13, 2018 4:32 pm

    Kornet weight is between 28 (Kornet) and 33 kg (Kornet-M).
    It is used in 2 or 3 man anti-tank squads. One guy carries the tripod and sight, the other one (or two) carrie two or three missiles.



    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 278
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sat Oct 13, 2018 5:35 pm

    Hole wrote:Kornet weight is between 28 (Kornet) and 33 kg (Kornet-M).
    It is used in 2 or 3 man anti-tank squads. One guy carries the tripod and sight, the other one (or two) carrie two or three missiles.



    Those pictures are of the Metis-M1 -- a weapon system that is truly portable. The Metis-M1 has a total weight of 29 kg. The Kornet-E weapon system has a total weight of 63 kg.

    I think the Metis-M1 can be improved upon by extending its range, adding a fiber optic link and giving it a programmable overfly or top attack capability. That would still be considerably cheaper than the $500, 000 Spike MR/LR system. Each Spike missile has a cost of $100, 000 and the launch unit has a cost of $400, 000.
    avatar
    Hole

    Posts : 1154
    Points : 1154
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 42
    Location : Merkelland

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Hole on Sat Oct 13, 2018 10:27 pm

    This is a f...ing Kornet.




    It is manportable. Truely!
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3387
    Points : 3471
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  medo on Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:45 am

    And the vehicle based on BMP-3 behind is also Kornet.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18648
    Points : 19204
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Mon Oct 15, 2018 1:09 pm

    The Kornet EM is a great weapon system but at 75 kg it seems to be only a platform based weapon system. What about the semi man-portable Kornet-E? The Kornet E and the Metis-M1 are man-portable but they don't have the capabilities of the Kornet-EM.

    Actually Metis-M1 has very similar performance to Javelin except the top attack capacity... 2km range compared with 2.5km, and 950mm penetration compared with 750mm... but a fraction of the cost...

    It is reported that they are developing a mid range compact missile... they have shown a retractable launcher with large numbers of missiles ready to fire on some of their new armour models... but it might be a while before we learn more.

    The Metis-M1 is still my favourite due to its portability and cost-effectiveness but it could do with a similar range to the Spike-LR -> 4km. The Metis-M1 is just under 30 kg with the launcher + 1 missile and the 1PN86-VI Thermal imaging sight.

    Why does it need a 4km range?

    If Russian infantry want a 4km range diving top attack capacity they have Gran.

    Would it be sensible to add a fiber optic link and increase the length of the Metis-M1 to 1200mm in order to accomodate an extra 2-3 kg of rocket fuel so as to increase its range to 4km? An overfly or top attack ability would make it lethal to *every* tank.

    So take a small light cheap anti tank missile and make it expensive?

    A fibre optic link instead of a wire link would be useless without adding an optical seeker in the front of the missile... a seeker that DIRCMs can already likely defeat...

    The Kornet E already flies 5 meters above ground, and I wonder if the Metis-M1 could be programmed to fly 10 meters above ground and dive onto the top of the tank when it reaches the tank.

    Kornet uses lasers to guide the missile, Metis does not need lasers...

    Only Spike ER seems to have anything like the penetration of the Metis or Kornet...

    Kornet weight is between 28 (Kornet) and 33 kg (Kornet-M).

    That is just the missile weight.

    Those pictures are of the Metis-M1 -- a weapon system that is truly portable. The Metis-M1 has a total weight of 29 kg. The Kornet-E weapon system has a total weight of 63 kg.

    Spike LR weighs 45kgs and is hardly comparable to Metis...

    Its range is 5km, but its penetration is less than Metis...


    I think the Metis-M1 can be improved upon by extending its range, adding a fiber optic link and giving it a programmable overfly or top attack capability. That would still be considerably cheaper than the $500, 000 Spike MR/LR system. Each Spike missile has a cost of $100, 000 and the launch unit has a cost of $400, 000.

    If you add a fibre optic cable I suspect you want to make it optically guided as well... which will increase the costs without improving the performance much if at all.

    The reason Javelin and Spike are so slow is to allow the system to gather the target into view... so their flight path is lofted into the air and it pretty much glides down on the target... I suspect the latest version of ARENA would kick its arse. and a forward looking optic is just inviting DIRCMS.

    It is manportable. Truely!

    Not really... certainly not in the sense of the Konkurs or Fagot... or Metis...

    Of course the real question is some units need to deal with tanks and Metis is portable and effective, but given the choice wouldn't you prefer to deal with tanks using a supersonic long range missile like Kornet or Kornet-EM.

    The Russian military have a lot of guided anti tank missiles that don't get slowed down by dragging cables... AT-2, shturm, ataka, krisantema, Vikhr, and soon Hermes... makes them great for aircraft and vehicle launched applications... an at the moment they seem to be developing a mini missile with fire and forget capacity.... if it is based on the Metis then the major changes I would make are smaller warhead... you don't need 950mm penetration if you are attacking the roof of a vehicle... a digital datalink to do away with the wire dragging completely... a backup laser tracker for beam riding in backup mode, and a QWIP based IIR seeker with a two stage rocket motor and actual wings so it climbs up and then glides down with the launch platform operator selecting the target manually while the missile is in flight...

    99% of the time you would be better off just using a Kornet or Metis however... cheaper and simpler.

    Of course if you look at the new sniper scopes that are no bigger than your hand but include sat navigation and maps and laser rangefinders and thermal cameras and ballistic computers etc etc the thermal scope on the Metis is huge and I would say an upgrade in the sight and control system could dramatically reduce its size and weight...

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 278
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:18 pm


    Garry B wrote:

    Actually Metis-M1 has very similar performance to Javelin except the top attack capacity... 2km range compared with 2.5km, and 950mm penetration compared with 750mm... but a fraction of the cost...

    It is reported that they are developing a mid range compact missile... they have shown a retractable launcher with large numbers of missiles ready to fire on some of their new armour models... but it might be a while before we learn more.


    The Javelin has a range of 2 km not 2.5 km, it's absurdly expensive and its reliance on infrared guidance prolongs its launch time -- exposing the operators to fatal danger. The Metis-M1 can be launched as soon as the target has been observed -> which makes it superior for most battlefield engagements from a cost-effective standpoint.

    It would be great if the replacement for the Metis-M1 is more advanced but just as compact and just as light.

    Garry B wrote:

    Why does it need a 4km range?

    If Russian infantry want a 4km range diving top attack capacity they have Gran.


    I think it only requires a 4 km ability for stand off ranges in relation to tanks and IFVs -- platforms that can reliably shoot at operators from distances below 4 km.

    Garry B wrote:

    So take a small light cheap anti tank missile and make it expensive?

    A fibre optic link instead of a wire link would be useless without adding an optical seeker in the front of the missile... a seeker that DIRCMs can already likely defeat...



    I'm not advocating for making the Metis-M1 more expensive; I certainly don't want to add optical seekers in front of every missile. I just think that a small complimentary tactical drone (with various onboard guidance systems) should be used to make the Metis-M1 more lethal without incurring the expense of incorporating the guidance on every missile.

    Like you've already noted, most battlefield targets are bunkers and sniper posts, so using an expensive missile in those engagements is not at all cost-effective. Having a dedicated QWIP/electro-optical guided round for neutralising tanks (say 1 out of 10 missiles) seems sensible.

    With a ratio of 1 out 10 missiles for anti-tank operations, you could have an extremely capable round with a lock-after-launch capability and a semi-active laser guidance - like the Sokol-1. And you could have this capability while retaining the inexpensive Metis-M1 missiles for everything else.


    Garry B wrote:

    Kornet uses lasers to guide the missile, Metis does not need lasers...

    Only Spike ER seems to have anything like the penetration of the Metis or Kornet...


    A smart, small rotary drone with various guidance systems can perform the role of target detection, identification and round guidance for the legacy Metis-M1 missiles.

    Garry B wrote:

    Spike LR weighs 45kgs and is hardly comparable to Metis...

    Its range is 5km, but its penetration is less than Metis...


    That would make it comparable to the Konkurs-M with a weight of 45kg. A lot of military sites put the total weight of the Spike LR system at 45kg, but other sites say that the Spike-LR and Spike-MR share the same firing post - which does not make sense.

    Army technology:

    Army Technology wrote:

    Spike-MR and Spike-LR have the same firing post. The firing post consists of the command launch Unit (CLU), the thermal imaging sight and a tripod.

    The Spike LR 2 missile has a weight of 12.7kg, the ground launcher is 12kg, the tripod is 2.8kg and the CLU with the thermal sight is 9kg. The only way the Spike LR could have the same weight as the Metis-M1 is if the launcher and CLU have been conflated or treated as one unit by some sites.

    The French MMP seems to actually have a total weight of 26kg and has a range of 4-5km.

    Garry B wrote:
    If you add a fibre optic cable I suspect you want to make it optically guided as well... which will increase the costs without improving the performance much if at all.

    The reason Javelin and Spike are so slow is to allow the system to gather the target into view... so their flight path is lofted into the air and it pretty much glides down on the target... I suspect the latest version of ARENA would kick its arse. and a forward looking optic is just inviting DIRCMS.



    I only want those features for a dedicated anti-tank round while retaining the inexpensive legacy rounds for every other battlefield target.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18648
    Points : 19204
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB on Fri Oct 19, 2018 10:39 am

    The Javelin has a range of 2 km not 2.5 km, it's absurdly expensive and its reliance on infrared guidance prolongs its launch time -- exposing the operators to fatal danger. The Metis-M1 can be launched as soon as the target has been observed -> which makes it superior for most battlefield engagements from a cost-effective standpoint.

    The Russians/Soviets have already displayed Shtora EO jamming system and DIRCMS for aircraft... not to mention binocular sized laser beam systems designed to defeat optics like sniper scopes.... who seriously think that a missile with an IIR looking at a tank is going to get a nice clean lock and be launched at that tank and not be interfered with all the way to impact?

    The Metis system is already widely deployed in service and sells very well on the international arms market... what actual benefit is there to try to make it fly further?

    A small compact man portable system is fine the way it is... making it more expensive by adding thermal optics to the missile makes little real sense because it really would not improve performance in any way, but would dramatically increase costs. It makes more sense to have a much better quality IIR sensor on the launcher so you can spot targets for other units... even if you only engage the close ones, the information you send to HQ can be used for other platforms to engage later...

    The mobility of three men on a battlefield will be pretty pathetic anyway... add a Tigr vehicle and you can have 8 ready to launch Kornets, plus a further 8 missile on board and likely two to three men to operate them with very good mobility and moderate protection...


    It would be great if the replacement for the Metis-M1 is more advanced but just as compact and just as light.

    Why the hurry to replace Metis-M1? Is it not working any more? If the US or UK had any brains they would licence produce it themselves but they are too arrogant to save that sort of money and get such a capable piece of kit into service...

    With current technology they should be able to improve the launch unit to the size of a small cam corder that just clips on to the launch tube including a thermal camera...

    I think it only requires a 4 km ability for stand off ranges in relation to tanks and IFVs -- platforms that can reliably shoot at operators from distances below 4 km.

    With RPGs and flash bangs and small arms fire going off all over the place the launch of a Metis will hardly be noticed by most IFVs... plus with the low cost of the system means you can had dozens of systems there operating in a place where a much richer NATO country might only have one Javelin or Spike.


    I'm not advocating for making the Metis-M1 more expensive; I certainly don't want to add optical seekers in front of every missile. I just think that a small complimentary tactical drone (with various onboard guidance systems) should be used to make the Metis-M1 more lethal without incurring the expense of incorporating the guidance on every missile.

    If you are talking about a drone with optics to find targets then it makes rather more sense to load it with Kornet and have it shoot long range supersonic guided missiles at the targets it finds rather than try to pass target data down to individuals on the battlefield for them to find to launch 2km range Metis at...

    Like you've already noted, most battlefield targets are bunkers and sniper posts, so using an expensive missile in those engagements is not at all cost-effective. Having a dedicated QWIP/electro-optical guided round for neutralising tanks (say 1 out of 10 missiles) seems sensible.

    The problem is that next generation tanks will have all sorts of camouflage and there is no guarantee that an IIR would recognise a tank... they would already have trouble spotting a sniper or MG position or log bunker... which is why getting the operator to put a crosshair on what he wants hit makes more sense than trying to get a computerised automatic system to work it out.


    With a ratio of 1 out 10 missiles for anti-tank operations, you could have an extremely capable round with a lock-after-launch capability and a semi-active laser guidance - like the Sokol-1. And you could have this capability while retaining the inexpensive Metis-M1 missiles for everything else.

    I appreciate what you are saying, but how do you formulate the ratio before combat?

    Metis-M1 already deals with any target... having a more expensive model that could be used for armoured vehicle targets does not really seem a good idea to me... especially when it will be more expensive... and to be honest we are talking about the Russian military... how many anti armour options would they have?

    Dozens... literally... from laser guided artillery shells of 120mm mortar, 100mm, 122mm, 125mm, 152mm, 203mm, 240mm, and that is just gun tubes, then you have aircraft, and of course all your IFVS will have Kornet, plus the dedicated anti armour brigades within a division will have Krisantema and Ataka, and of course there will be Mi-28MN and Ka-52 and of course Su-25SM3 with Vikhr, Ataka, Krisantema, Hermes, and then you have rocket artillery with anti armour submunitions and guided anti armour munitions in 122mm, 220mm, and 300mm.

    A smart, small rotary drone with various guidance systems can perform the role of target detection, identification and round guidance for the legacy Metis-M1 missiles.

    It is reported that armata tank versions will have a drone that is tethered... so I presume it is a rotary wing model... the tether is used to transmit data as well as provide electrical power for the drone. It is supposed to have a radar array and IIR sensors... so it could be used to find targets, but I would suggest rather than passing that data to a front line deployed Metis team, it would make more sense to use the data itself and fire a Sokol-1 missile, or pass the target data back to a Hermes unit to launch long range (20-100km range) attacks on the targets...

    A Metis team is not for hunting tanks, it is to provide protection to other units operating on or near the front line where enemy vehicles could appear and do some damage.

    A Metis team could be sent to an urban area or wooded area where tanks and IFVs are not so useful to dig out enemy vehicles... vehicles find it easier to deal with other vehicles generally better than groups of enemy troops...

    I only want those features for a dedicated anti-tank round while retaining the inexpensive legacy rounds for every other battlefield target.

    The issue I have is that Metis is already a dedicated anti tank round and it is rather cheaper than the on paper more sophisticated western missiles, so you can deploy a lot of them... which is actually a good thing because no soldier on the planet gives a crap about how much things cost... if he is in Afghanistan and someone starts shooting at him from 1,000m and all he has is an M4 and a Javelin you can bet your ass he will fire the Javelin at the target... and to be honest I would probably do the same thing.

    The thing is that if he was a Russian he would have an AK-74 and a Metis-M1 and probably 10 missiles.

    Another aspect is that an SPG-9 would probably be just as effective against such a target and cheaper still.

    If he was a GRU spetsnaz sniper he could use his thermal sight and laser range finder and locate the target and call in a mortar attack and use the laser on his scope to guide the 120mm mortar round and get a direct hit... but SPG-9 would be cheaper... in fact Metis would probably be cheaper too.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 278
    Points : 286
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great on Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:31 pm

    Garry B wrote:

    The Russians/Soviets have already displayed Shtora EO jamming system and DIRCMS for aircraft... not to mention binocular sized laser beam systems designed to defeat optics like sniper scopes.... who seriously think that a missile with an IIR looking at a tank is going to get a nice clean lock and be launched at that tank and not be interfered with all the way to impact?

    The Metis system is already widely deployed in service and sells very well on the international arms market... what actual benefit is there to try to make it fly further?

    A small compact man portable system is fine the way it is... making it more expensive by adding thermal optics to the missile makes little real sense because it really would not improve performance in any way, but would dramatically increase costs. It makes more sense to have a much better quality IIR sensor on the launcher so you can spot targets for other units... even if you only engage the close ones, the information you send to HQ can be used for other platforms to engage later...

    The mobility of three men on a battlefield will be pretty pathetic anyway... add a Tigr vehicle and you can have 8 ready to launch Kornets, plus a further 8 missile on board and likely two to three men to operate them with very good mobility and moderate protection...



    You make a great point about the inevitable difficulty infrared homing missiles will more frequently encounter with the deployment of the countermeasures you mentioned.

    I suppose the Metis-M1 does not require more range especially in the role it performs, but I'm a little obsessed with the idea of a compact, lightweight ATGM being able to take out tanks from safe engagement distances. I concede that the Kornet's 8km range, power and guidance  is more suited for anti-tank operations especially when infantry mobility is factored in -- as you point out.

    Garry B wrote:

    Why the hurry to replace Metis-M1? Is it not working any more? If the US or UK had any brains they would licence produce it themselves but they are too arrogant to save that sort of money and get such a capable piece of kit into service...

    With current technology they should be able to improve the launch unit to the size of a small cam corder that just clips on to the launch tube including a thermal camera...


    I was under the impression that Russia was thinking of introducing a Fire & Forget missile (Baikal) and that this was to be a replacement for the Metis-M1 for special forces.

    The Metis-M1 is a great, cost-effective ATGW and will be in service for decades more and if Russia does want a compact and portable Fire & Forget ATGM for its special forces - it could easily create a Metis-M1 variant that fits that bill.

    Reducing the size and weight of electro-optical sighting systems would make the Metis-M1 even better, so I hope they do precisely just that; a fiber-optic link would also be a welcome feature. And no, I'm not advocating for adding IIR/CCD systems to the missile.

    Garry B wrote:

    If you are talking about a drone with optics to find targets then it makes rather more sense to load it with Kornet and have it shoot long range supersonic guided missiles at the targets it finds rather than try to pass target data down to individuals on the battlefield for them to find to launch 2km range Metis at.


    Yes, that would be better than using the drones to designate targets; you could probably use laser-guided S-8 rockets as well. The VRT-300 helicopter drone seems capable of achieving these tasks.


    Garry B wrote:

    I appreciate what you are saying, but how do you formulate the ratio before combat?

    Metis-M1 already deals with any target... having a more expensive model that could be used for armoured vehicle targets does not really seem a good idea to me... especially when it will be more expensive... and to be honest we are talking about the Russian military... how many anti armour options would they have?

    Dozens... literally... from laser guided artillery shells of 120mm mortar, 100mm, 122mm, 125mm, 152mm, 203mm, 240mm, and that is just gun tubes, then you have aircraft, and of course all your IFVS will have Kornet, plus the dedicated anti armour brigades within a division will have Krisantema and Ataka, and of course there will be Mi-28MN and Ka-52 and of course Su-25SM3 with Vikhr, Ataka, Krisantema, Hermes, and then you have rocket artillery with anti armour submunitions and guided anti armour munitions in 122mm, 220mm, and 300mm.


    That's a very good point and I really have no answer to that, especially in relation to the general army. SF and Commandos are usually equiped with more capable, more expensive equipment, and so such an expense could be more easily justified for these armed units.

    Even the usually extravagent US Military has conceded that the Javelin is simply not cost-effective and have consequently ordered recoiless rifles for their troops in Afghanistan. The Carl Gustav has made a comeback.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:56 am