Russian Army ATGM Thread

Firstly 120mm AFIK is about $5K a round. Secondly if you have drones moving around the battlefield, the need for non-line of sight weapons becomes essential. The 120mm cannot do this. If the tank I discribe can launch a drone vertically (maybe even tethered) and see several KM out it can take its time in launching much slower ATGMs several KM out and even attack tanks hiding behind terrain. I think tandem warheads on a 120mm mortar can match the penetration of a 120mm cannon. Also think like fuel air warheads become possible. You can also reduce the crew to 2 people and protect them better and build an air transportable vehicle that can take on 5-6 tanks and still win.

mnztr wrote:Firstly 120mm AFIK is about $5K a round. Secondly if you have drones moving around the battlefield, the need for non-line of sight weapons becomes essential. The 120mm cannot do this. If the tank I discribe can launch a drone vertically (maybe even tethered) and see several KM out it can take its time in launching much slower ATGMs several KM out and even attack tanks hiding behind terrain. I think tandem warheads on a 120mm mortar  can match the penetration of a 120mm cannon. Also think like fuel air warheads become possible. You can also reduce the crew to 2 people and protect them better and build an air transportable vehicle that can take on 5-6 tanks and still win.

Current APFSDS cost is upwards 17K.
It already used to be 10K during the first Gulf War.
People keep thinking that drones are going to be unopposed like they're in NK or Syria.
Drones like the TB-2 are already obsolete because of their inherent link issue. 150km relay is needed.
The best way to take out the TB-2's is actually to make sure they have no return airfield.

Furthermore, the tactical targeting system of the TB-2 is really obsolete and will show on LWR. This is excactly why the Turks are so much busy with their own LWR system.

Targeting and recon drones will become incredibly tiny if they have to. You can even launch them just like you do a illumination flare...then launch.

mnztr wrote:Firstly 120mm AFIK is about $5K a round. Secondly if you have drones moving around the battlefield, the need for non-line of sight weapons becomes essential. The 120mm cannot do this. If the tank I discribe can launch a drone vertically (maybe even tethered) and see several KM out it can take its time in launching much slower ATGMs several KM out and even attack tanks hiding behind terrain. I think tandem warheads on a 120mm mortar  can match the penetration of a 120mm cannon. Also think like fuel air warheads become possible. You can also reduce the crew to 2 people and protect them better and build an air transportable vehicle that can take on 5-6 tanks and still win.

Honestly what you are describing is basically more suited for the role of a tank destroyer instead of a tank. The thing is, the role of a tank necessitates that it must be prepared to take on most threats head-on. Whether it performs as the mobile spearhead of an armored thrust, or acting in concert with infantry as fire support, the tank has little choice but to be exposed to within direct LOS of the enemy. But that counts both ways, with the tanks in prime position to effectively and efficiently dispatch of targets whenever they get within FOV of the tank's optics. And if all your targets are within LOS anyway then why not choose the best possible weapon for the task in the high velocity smoothbore gun?

There is simply no contest - the tank gun is the most effective and efficient direct fire weapon there is. And yes, modern tank ammunition might be inherently expensive, but they simply don't come close to ATGMs outside of actual gun adapted ATGMs. Tank ammunition can also be carried in much greater numbers for the same bulk of missiles which means greater number of stowed kills. In terms of lethality tank ammunition have far better effects on target owing to much better armor defeat mechanisms (KE ammo vs. predominantly HEAT warhead ATGMs) or just general construction (HE shells have more boom than ATGMs since they have more explosives and frangible metal). And as I've mentioned previously tankers are trained to fight in formation where every tank overlaps with his neighbor's field of fire that they can service multiple opponents simultaneously whether they are bunched close or spread out. At the end of the day the tank gun is simply too well-suited for the tank for anything else to replace it.

mnztr wrote:Targeting and recon drones will become incredibly tiny if they have to. You can even launch them just like you do a illumination flare...then launch.

And such sensors would have pathetic range, FOV, and resolution that they would have to get in real close to their targets, which makes them much more vulnerable and less likely to actually even perform their missions. There is no way around physics, and any decent sensor is bound to have a certain size and form factor to work effectively.

lyle6 wrote:
Honestly what you are describing is basically more suited for the role of a tank destroyer instead of a tank. The thing is, the role of a tank necessitates that it must be prepared to take on most threats head-on. Whether it performs as the mobile spearhead of an armored thrust, or acting in concert with infantry as fire support, the tank has little choice but to be exposed to within direct LOS of the enemy. But that counts both ways, with the tanks in prime position to effectively and efficiently dispatch of targets whenever they get within FOV of the tank's optics. And if all your targets are within LOS anyway then why not choose the best possible weapon for the task in the high velocity smoothbore gun?

There is simply no contest - the tank gun is the most effective and efficient direct fire weapon there is. And yes, modern tank ammunition might be inherently expensive, but they simply don't come close to ATGMs outside of actual gun adapted ATGMs. Tank ammunition can also be carried in much greater numbers for the same bulk of missiles which means greater number of stowed kills. In terms of lethality tank ammunition have far better effects on target owing to much better armor defeat mechanisms (KE ammo vs. predominantly HEAT warhead ATGMs) or just general construction (HE shells have more boom than ATGMs since they have more explosives and frangible metal). And as I've mentioned previously tankers are trained to fight in formation where every tank overlaps with his neighbor's field of fire that they can service multiple opponents simultaneously whether they are bunched close or spread out. At the end of the day the tank gun is simply too well-suited for the tank for anything else to replace it.

And such sensors would have pathetic range, FOV, and resolution that they would have to get in real close to their targets, which makes them much more vulnerable and less likely to actually even perform their missions. There is no way around physics, and any decent sensor is bound to have a certain size and form factor to work effectively.

Sensor minituraization has been ongoing for decades, what type of sensor do you really need? All you need is a decent camera and GPS overlay. i.e an 8K camera from a cellphone. You can use that to transmit images, and the tank computer can target and launch missile from this. The tank maingun will be around until someone with a new concept lays waste to a bunch of tanks. The warning is already in. US tanks with longer range sensors and guns obliterated Iraqi tanks. Add 1 more KM and eye in the sky and its game over. The tanks can lead the charge, they will be seen coming by the drones, missiles will be launched before they even see their targets.

mnztr wrote:Targeting and recon drones will become incredibly tiny if they have to. You can even launch them just like you do a illumination flare...then launch.

And their range will suffer greatly because of it. The anti-drone systems deployed would vastly extend beyond these mini drones flight ranges, making them obsolete by the time their inducted in to service.

Drones are only really effective against greatly resource deprived militaries.

mnztr wrote:
Sensor minituraization has been ongoing for decades, what type of sensor do you really need? All you need is a decent camera and GPS overlay. i.e an 8K camera from a cellphone. You can use that to transmit images, and the tank computer can target and launch missile from this. The tank maingun will be around until someone with a new concept lays waste to a bunch of tanks. The warning is already in. US tanks with longer range sensors and guns obliterated Iraqi tanks. Add 1 more KM and eye in the sky and its game over. The tanks can lead the charge, they will be seen coming by the drones, missiles will be launched before they even see their targets.

None of which changes the fact that you need something that does facetime with the enemy on a professional basis, and that something being a highly mobile, heavily armed and armored tank. There's simply no two ways around it, the tank is an essential part of the combined arms team as much as the other combat arms like artillery, infantry, aviation, etc. In fact, the mere presence of a tank alone severely complicates the job of every planner who now has to be prepared for the ever present possibility of enemy armored thrusts. Its not for nothing that every army is more equipped to deal with tanks rather than the more mobile aviation - successful armored thrusts can and did win wars outright.

Again, you are assuming that technology would only work for one side. In fact tanks are getting third gen QWIP thermals that are world's apart in visual clarity and range over smaller uncooled systems. Since they would have something like an ESU-TZ to mesh every sensor output into one coherent picture of the battlefield, every thermal sensor can be used as a triangulation node to generate range and angle information those very same tanks could use to engage the drone and all of it purely passive. Add that ground targets are harder to see and detect on account of ground clutter versus the clear backdrop of the sky for aerial targets and I don't even see how drones could remotely threaten a modern ground force. And we haven't even mentioned organic air defence units...

Regarding 120mm weapons, a gun launched missile is no where near cheap enough to be used as a one shot drone killer, and no one system is going to cut it taking on the enormous range of drone like platforms.

In many situations obsolete ATGMs could be used instead of drones... for instance the Shturm and later Ataka command guided supersonic missiles can be used to 5km and 6km respectively against small point targets like vehicles and bunkers and deliver a HE or HEAT payload accurately and quickly in a way that is very difficult to stop.

The Russians probably have thousands in stock... cheap simple and available in large numbers they would be very useful in mountains... they are even fitted to light patrol ships because they can accurately and cheaply target point targets quite some distance away with a useful payload of HE.

The solution needs to be as broad as the problem.... from 410 calibre buckshot rounds and 12 gauge equivalents through to 40mm grenades and the various calibres of standard military calibres in light automatic cannon and grenade launcher with air burst rounds... particularly 23mm and 30mm and 57mm.

For swarm attacks heavier calibre rounds become practical as well with much bigger heavier shells loaded with ridiculous amounts of ball bearings or specially cut cubes surrounding a small charge of HE to launch those mass fragments in all directions.

The problem with shotgun type weapons is their short range, and it is also a problem with airburst rounds, but that is also a valuable thing as it restricts the area of possible damage to friendly equipment and personel in the area too.

Putting a 40mm grenade launcher, a 12 gauge automatic shotgun, and a 410 gauge shotgun in the turret nose on a drone would be fairly straight forward... flying that drone around the place firing the suitable weapon depending on the target and how close you can get to it then means choices can be made in destroying drones that will allow effectiveness and cost be determined... with a bit of experience you might find one weapon or another is a bit redundant.... if your attack drone easily manages to get very close to the targets for each shot then you might choose to remove the 12 gauge shotgun and carry more 410 ammo as it is smaller and lighter with lower recoil but firing the same material in smaller quantities. In terms of actual price the more widely produced 12 gauge ammo is probably cheaper but larger and heavier and with a better effective range and more recoil so would probably offer better performance with more pellets fired at each target per shot.

The 40mm grenade launcher would need new rounds developed for it.... a fixed fuse round that automatically detonates at say 50m range from the muzzle would be the simplest and cheapest option and if it can be used effectively with a drone with a thermal camera and laser range finder and ballistics computer and a gun turret for precise aiming of the grenades and shotguns to reduce the requirements for manouver for the drone itself then perhaps that might be the only thing you end up using. No 40mm grenade will be cheaper than a 12 gauge birdshot round.

To be effective however the 40mm grenade might need a laser command signal airburst system which will make it more expensive... but also vastly more effective and can be used in aircraft and in ground positions against targets in the air and on the ground....

Specialist versions could be made with different fragmentation patterns and even reduced propellent charges to increase the fragment count and charge weight for use at shorter ranges from an aircraft, while standard ground fired rounds could retain their 2.5km range for a range of ground and air targets... (unlikely to hit air targets at 2.5km though... but with a 20 round burst you could fill an area of airspace with a lot of deadly fragments....)

magnumcromagnon wrote:

mnztr wrote:Targeting and recon drones will become incredibly tiny if they have to. You can even launch them just like you do a illumination flare...then launch.

And their range will suffer greatly because of it. The anti-drone systems deployed would vastly extend beyond these mini drones flight ranges, making them obsolete by the time their inducted in to service.

Drones are only really effective against greatly resource deprived militaries.

How much range do they need? Most tank to tank engagements are about 2km if you can pop up in a drone and effectively target in a range of 2-5km(unarmed drone) you will defeat just about every tank on the planet without them ever seeing you.

mnztr wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:

mnztr wrote:Targeting and recon drones will become incredibly tiny if they have to. You can even launch them just like you do a illumination flare...then launch.

And their range will suffer greatly because of it. The anti-drone systems deployed would vastly extend beyond these mini drones flight ranges, making them obsolete by the time their inducted in to service.

Drones are only really effective against greatly resource deprived militaries.

How much range do they need? Most tank to tank engagements are about 2km if you can pop up in a drone and effectively target in a range of 2-5km(unarmed drone) you will defeat just about every tank on the planet without them ever seeing you.

Because all the handheld anti-drone guns on the open market (that are probably cheaper than the drones, and are reusable) already can defeat drones out to 2km, and their relatively the size of a carbine. All they really have to do is incorporate these anti-drone antennae's (covering 360 degrees horizontally and 180 degrees vertically) in to the APS/PPS defense suite such as Afghanit. These anti-drone antennae's could be designed to listen (ELINT/SIGINT) passively to detect their emissions, and emit actively to defeat said drones. These anti-drone antennae's would likely be much more powerful than their hand held counterparts because there's a much greater power resource at hand. Experience in Syria has shown that the Jihadist drone operators end up looking like Jackson Pollack paintings, having their emissions triangulated and hit with high-ordinance to the point of being blown to smithereens. The farther the range the greater the chances of the operators survivability!

Most tank engagements are 2km because in most places that is about as far away as you can see to engage another tank from a tank, but even with a drone launched from a tank that climbs vertically to an altitude of 4km that can now see over low hills and trees and buildings and can spot targets 5km away or 10km away then those tanks directly below that drone can now fire tank gun tube launched missiles that might be laser beam riding missiles... lofted into the air by the time the missile has travelled three quarters of the range to the target they could then start looking back for a laser beam to ride to the target... the drone could point a very low powered laser at the target and the missile can use that to guide itself to hit the target.

New tank gun fired ATGMs with optical sensors that can detect and find their own targets are being developed... the Sokol-5 missile springs to mind in 125mm calibre and 152mm calibre too.

It would not need to target to be lased and would arrive without warning... after it is fired the drone can remain aloft to monitor the results and then drop back down to refuel and be launched again, or another tank could launch their drone.

For Armata the drones will have thermal imaging sensors and MMW radar to find targets and will operate from a tether that provides power and communications to the tank operating it so no datalink traffic...

As I said tethering is an option. Also I am talking pretty tiny drones, maybe even smaller then a human hand. All they would is send target coordinates and the missile can do the rest. When the missile is in the air its sensors can do the fine targeting. If a small drone goes 2-300m into the air it can see pretty far.

Have the soviets ever experimented with kinetic ATGMs(ATGMs that travel at high supersonic or hypersonic speeds, have dense cores, and act as giant APFSDS darts)? They are completely overlooked in terms of future anti-tank weapons(vaporware railguns overshadow them), but they seem to have many advantages over both top attack and conventional trajectory HEAT ATGMs. With russian world class expertise in hypersonic missiles and rocket propellants, theres no reason why they could not develop a kinetic ATGM that could pierce far more armor than could be practically added on NATO tanks.

The main advantages also include:
the enemy tanks and their APSs having even less reaction time
Its much harder to create ERA against them
Not limited in velocity by conventional propellant(very important in case electrothermal guns turn out to be pipe dreams), mentioned in the video



The Americans tested these kinetic ATGMs and the only reason they weren't procured was their much higher cost and because HEAT ATGMs could still penetrate most modern tanks. however as APSs can now kill low supersonic and high subsonic projectiles with very high success, they could render HEAT ATGMs obsolete. Also modern tanks are becoming ever more expensive and much less numerous, so in the future it might be worth the higher cost to be able to destroy them with great reliability.

If these missiles enter service, I imagine the concept of a missile tank could be reborn. think of a larger(in order to store more of the larger missiles) heavily armored khrizantema with more missiles(like 20-25) armed with both hypersonic kinetic energy ATGMs, and heavy thermobaric or HE warhead supersonic/subsonic guided missiles for anti-infantry and antihelicopter work.

In the mid 1980s the Soviets introduced top attack self forging fragment munitions for their standard artillery and air dropped cluster bombs with MMW radar sensors.

In the mid 1990s these were upgraded to add an IR sensor to detect if the target was a vehicle and whether it was on fire or not to more efficiently use the munitions as they fall from altitude over an enemy armoured force.

As you mention APS systems can intercept subsonic and mildly supersonic missiles coming in horizontally, what you didn't mention is that Russian APS systems can also intercept APFSDS rounds too... which suggests it should be able to do the same from higher angled with minor modifications if it does not already.

They tested a few high speed ramjet powered tank rounds, but I suspect experience with scramjet propulsion would likely make them more interesting and relevant.

There is little need. Trophy has a dead time of ~1 s after inception. The two launchers only have a minimal overlap in the front and back of the vehicle, with the rest of the vehicle only covered by a single launcher. Any platform with a two round salvo can exploit this, or even just two well-coordinated ATGM teams.

lyle6 wrote:There is little need. Trophy has a dead time of ~1 s after inception. The two launchers only have a minimal overlap in the front and back of the vehicle, with the rest of the vehicle only covered by a single launcher. Any platform with a two round salvo can exploit this, or even just two well-coordinated ATGM teams.

Trophy has a dead time of up to 3 seconds if the ATGM's are on two diferent axison the same side.

A simultaneous launch on the same axis has to be half a second apart to avoid getting hit by the same cassette.

The diving top attack submunitions they put in service in the mid 1980s fires a self forging fragment at the top of the tank... it fires about 200m away with what is effectively a flat metal plate with high explosive charge behind it... when the HE charge goes off it accelerates the metal plate downwards at speeds of about 3km/s which reshapes the flat sheet of metal into a projectile roughly the shape of a shuttle cock as used in badminton.

It is not a perfect penetrating shape... it does not have a pointed tip and is not made of super hard material that would be better for penetration... it is simply mass and speed directed at a thin area of armour that will penetrate about 200mm which is not enough for the front or side of a tank but easily enough for the top.

The warhead fires about 200m away from the tank so the actual penetrator is moving at about 3km/s as it passes through the interception zone of most APS systems... even if it was hit it relies on mass and speed so a deflection wont stop it penetrating top armour like it would with a HV APFSDS which would shatter with too much yaw.

The main advantage of the system really is that it is in wide spread production and service and can be delivered by any Soviet and Russian artillery rocket or standard cluster bomb...

GarryB wrote:The diving top attack submunitions they put in service in the mid 1980s fires a self forging fragment at the top of the tank... it fires about 200m away with what is effectively a flat metal plate with high explosive charge behind it... when the HE charge goes off it accelerates the metal plate downwards at speeds of about 3km/s which reshapes the flat sheet of metal into a projectile roughly the shape of a shuttle cock as used in badminton.

It is not a perfect penetrating shape... it does not have a pointed tip and is not made of super hard material that would be better for penetration... it is simply mass and speed directed at a thin area of armour that will penetrate about 200mm which is not enough for the front or side of a tank but easily enough for the top.

The warhead fires about 200m away from the tank so the actual penetrator is moving at about 3km/s as it passes through the interception zone of most APS systems... even if it was hit it relies on mass and speed so a deflection wont stop it penetrating top armour like it would with a HV APFSDS which would shatter with too much yaw.

The main advantage of the system really is that it is in wide spread production and service and can be delivered by any Soviet and Russian artillery rocket or standard cluster bomb...

Those are cluster submunitions and the effect you guys describe is called EFP(explosively formed penetrator). AFAIK the russians never made an ATGM with EFPs, however the Americans have the TOW2B and the swedes have the BILL 2 which are both top attack ATGMs. The only way to use EFPs on ATGMs is to make them top attack, but future APSs will certainly  be developed  to counteract those.

They don't need to make ATGMs with SFFs, they already have submunitions in artillery rockets and aircraft delivered cluster bombs... available in enormous numbers.

Compared with HEAT penetration performance SFF are poor penetrators and are really only viable against the top or bottom of armoured vehicles.

(note the Soviet weapons from the 1980s and the Russian weapons from the 1990s look for large metal objects as they fall and check to see if they are burning or have an IR signature because they are active vehicles with running engines, but if they reach the ground without spotting a target they flip over and point their warhead and sensors upwards so if a tank drives over it it fires its warhead into the targets belly like an anti tank mine...)

lyle6 wrote:There is little need. Trophy has a dead time of ~1 s after inception. The two launchers only have a minimal overlap in the front and back of the vehicle, with the rest of the vehicle only covered by a single launcher. Any platform with a two round salvo can exploit this, or even just two well-coordinated ATGM teams.

Just because current APS have limited abilities doesn't mean that they won't advance enough to take down multiple sub-hypersonic projectiles coming at once. Also trophy isnt the only APS. theres afganit and iron fist.
Also armor that can disrupt HEAT jets using electrical current(two opposite charged armor plates get connected by the HEAT jet) is bound to appear, which will further make HEAT missiles much heavier, bulkier, more expensive, and slower. If that happens it would make sense to transition to kinetic energy ATGMs.

Also despite current non-kinetic ATGMs having long range, they're too slow to utilize it effectively. It takes more than 10 seconds for them to pass the 4-5km mark, by that time which there's a high chance the tank that's targeted will have moved out of LoS. Kinetic ATGMs can solve that.

They don't need to make ATGMs with SFFs, they already have submunitions in artillery rockets and aircraft delivered cluster bombs... available in enormous numbers.

That's like saying HE or thermobaric warhead ATGMs aren't needed because theres artillery. Or why do we need tanks when theres artillery? Why do we need artillery when theres aircraft?
Also EFPs are one of the only 2 warhead types for top attack ATGMs The Russians are planning to make top attack ATGMs, so  it would make sense for them to consider using EFP warheads, something which I'm extremely surprised and yet frustrated that they haven't designed yet for the following reasons:
1.As you said, the EFP can launch its hypersonic projectile 200m away, while the HEAT warhead needs to make contact with the armor at subsonic-low supersonic speeds. This makes a HEAT warhead top attack ATGM much more vulnerable to APS, since the EFP's prjectile is intercepted much harder. Think of it of harpoon versus 2 stage Kalibr.

2.EFP armed top attack ATGMs can fly at a level trajectory and detonate just above the tank instead of doing a parabolic flight path that limits range. This means conventional level flight path ATGMs can be converted to have EFPs(like how the TOWIIA has a tope attack version in the TOWIIB).

The problem with EFP is their basics.... they take a flat metal plate and essentially turn it into a penetrator via rapid acceleration to very high speeds.

For it to work the metal cannot be a super hard ideal penetrator like DU or Tungsten, and it also means the tip of the penetrator is neither sharpened nor hardened, so despite its enormous velocity and potential for being a rather heavy solid mass of metal, it is not a great penetrator of rather large volumes of armour.

The penetrator itself looks more like a shuttlecock than a dart... with a rounded nose and a flared skirt like an air rifle pellet... and the round nose models rather than the pointed hunting tip models...

The Russians are planning to make top attack ATGMs, so it would make sense for them to consider using EFP warheads, something which I'm extremely surprised and yet frustrated that they haven't designed yet for the following reasons:
1.As you said, the EFP can launch its hypersonic projectile 200m away, while the HEAT warhead needs to make contact with the armor at subsonic-low supersonic speeds. This makes a HEAT warhead top attack ATGM much more vulnerable to APS, since the EFP's prjectile is intercepted much harder. Think of it of harpoon versus 2 stage Kalibr.

2.EFP armed top attack ATGMs can fly at a level trajectory and detonate just above the tank instead of doing a parabolic flight path that limits range. This means conventional level flight path ATGMs can be converted to have EFPs(like how the TOWIIA has a tope attack version in the TOWIIB).

Actually a top attack missile could best be developed by providing the ATGM with proper wings like and aircraft with an aerofoil to keep the missile airborne without using an excessive amount of rocket thrust to move the missile forward and keep it in the air.

By giving it wings it no longer needs to roll in flight and you can have a fixed HEAT warhead pointing down that could be much longer than the width of the missile greatly increasing penetration.

The laser triggered airburst ammo they developed for their 30mm cannon will be standard on all their vehicles for 30mm, 57mm and of course 125mm equivalent rounds, so such a triggering system could also be used to set warheads off as they pass over the target like anti tank missiles or anti aircraft airburst weapons to destroy drones.

With wings it could fly level flight rather further, but without wings the parabolic flight path is a necessity because it is not an aircraft but more a powered artillery round.

The easy way to defeat an enemy APS system is to take a standard 14.5mm HMG or 23mm cannon and load up projectiles with a corner reflector in the nose... cover it with a radar transparent aerodynamic nose cone... fire bursts of rounds at enemy armoured vehicles.... the corner reflectors will make each round look huge.... like an incoming missile.... fire bursts at the enemy armoured vehicles... even from behind cover... you don't need a direct line of sight... any of your rounds that are going to hit the target tank will be intercepted... these 14.5mm rounds or 23mm rounds can be as cheap as standard ball rounds... they could be made in the millions... for unarmoured targets you could design the rear metal portion to break up on impact, the front corner reflector is just a prism shape carved into the front of the round with a plastic cap over top to make it aerodynamic... this is already used in hollow point hunting ammo to make it fly better and further with a large open hole in its nose.

For tanks with APS systems the system will detect large numbers of incoming huge radar targets... they will either run out of defensive munitions or they will turn it off... supersonic Kornet wont give them much time to turn them back on.

For soft targets the 14.5mm rounds and even the tank targets the soft nose plastic cover will shatter and the metal body of the round will fragment and damage optics and antenna and any person or truck or car in the way... you could put a small flash charge that ignites and shows where the round impacted...

Note to be clear SFF are fine for top attack munitions in cluster bombs and rocket artillery and even gun launched cluster shells, but for ATGMs that might face the frontal armour of a modern tank they are not good enough...

GarryB wrote:Note to be clear SFF are fine for top attack munitions in cluster bombs and rocket artillery and even gun launched cluster shells, but for ATGMs that might face the frontal armour of a modern tank they are not good enough...

I think you misunderstand me.  Heavy frontal armor is irrelevant for EFP armed top attack missiles. You assume I mean a ATGM that hits the front of the armor, but I mean an ATGM that flies over the top armor and launches the EFPs downwards.




Notice the 2 cylinders in the BILL 2 atgm pictured. Those are the EFPs. They fire downwards onto the top armor as the ATGM passes in level flight . No lofty trajectory needed. No ultrapowerful tandem HEAT warhead needed.

The easy way to defeat an enemy APS system is to take a standard 14.5mm HMG or 23mm cannon and load up projectiles with a corner reflector in the nose... cover it with a radar transparent aerodynamic nose cone... fire bursts of rounds at enemy armoured vehicles.... the corner reflectors will make each round look huge.... like an incoming missile.... fire bursts at the enemy armoured vehicles... even from behind cover... you don't need a direct line of sight... any of your rounds that are going to hit the target tank will be intercepted... these 14.5mm rounds or 23mm rounds can be as cheap as standard ball rounds... they could be made in the millions... for unarmoured targets you could design the rear metal portion to break up on impact, the front corner reflector is just a prism shape carved into the front of the round with a plastic cap over top to make it aerodynamic... this is already used in hollow point hunting ammo to make it fly better and further with a large open hole in its nose.

For tanks with APS systems the system will detect large numbers of incoming huge radar targets... they will either run out of defensive munitions or they will turn it off... supersonic Kornet wont give them much time to turn them back on.

For soft targets the 14.5mm rounds and even the tank targets the soft nose plastic cover will shatter and the metal body of the round will fragment and damage optics and antenna and any person or truck or car in the way... you could put a small flash charge that ignites and shows where the round impacted...

Those rounds you mentioned don't have 5km+ range...

limb wrote:
Just because current APS have limited abilities doesn't mean that they won't advance enough to take down multiple sub-hypersonic projectiles coming at once. Also trophy isnt the only APS. theres afganit and iron fist.
Also armor that can disrupt HEAT jets using electrical current(two opposite charged armor plates get connected by the HEAT jet) is bound to appear, which will further make HEAT missiles much heavier, bulkier, more expensive, and slower. If that happens it would make sense to transition to kinetic energy ATGMs.

And yet the Trophy is about the extent of what is to come in the next 10-15 years for NATO vehicles. They won't have anything comparable to the Afghanit which is optimized for defeating multiple simultaneous incoming hyper-sonic projectiles until the Franco-German MGCS, so there's little point in introducing en masse today expensive counters when in service weapons do the job more than adequately.

limb wrote:
Also despite current non-kinetic ATGMs having long range, they're too slow to utilize it effectively. It takes more than 10 seconds for them to pass the 4-5km mark, by that time which there's a high chance the tank that's targeted will have moved out of LoS. Kinetic ATGMs can solve that.

If you're pot-shotting tanks at extended ranges with supersonic missiles where the massive rocket plume is visible to anyone with decent thermals and just happens to look in your general direction you're doing it wrong and deserve to get fragged. Just because the Kornet has a range of 5 km doesn't mean it has to be used with fully maxing out the range in mind. You adapt; use the excellent man-portability of Soviet/Russian ATGMs to infiltrate close to the enemy while under cover/concealment, do a quick set-up, fire, then bugger off. Is it risky? Sure, but then again so is engaging the tank from extended ranges and one could even argue that its even deadlier given the superiority of the tank's sensors and firepower compared to your ATGM setup.

limb wrote:

GarryB wrote:Note to be clear SFF are fine for top attack munitions in cluster bombs and rocket artillery and even gun launched cluster shells, but for ATGMs that might face the frontal armour of a modern tank they are not good enough...

I think you misunderstand me.  Heavy frontal armor is irrelevant for EFP armed top attack missiles. You assume I mean a ATGM that hits the front of the armor, but I mean an ATGM that flies over the top armor and launches the EFPs downwards.




Notice the 2 cylinders in the BILL 2 atgm pictured. Those are the EFPs. They fire downwards onto the top armor as the ATGM passes in level flight . No lofty trajectory needed. No ultrapowerful tandem HEAT warhead needed.

The easy way to defeat an enemy APS system is to take a standard 14.5mm HMG or 23mm cannon and load up projectiles with a corner reflector in the nose... cover it with a radar transparent aerodynamic nose cone... fire bursts of rounds at enemy armoured vehicles.... the corner reflectors will make each round look huge.... like an incoming missile.... fire bursts at the enemy armoured vehicles... even from behind cover... you don't need a direct line of sight... any of your rounds that are going to hit the target tank will be intercepted... these 14.5mm rounds or 23mm rounds can be as cheap as standard ball rounds... they could be made in the millions... for unarmoured targets you could design the rear metal portion to break up on impact, the front corner reflector is just a prism shape carved into the front of the round with a plastic cap over top to make it aerodynamic... this is already used in hollow point hunting ammo to make it fly better and further with a large open hole in its nose.

For tanks with APS systems the system will detect large numbers of incoming huge radar targets... they will either run out of defensive munitions or they will turn it off... supersonic Kornet wont give them much time to turn them back on.

For soft targets the 14.5mm rounds and even the tank targets the soft nose plastic cover will shatter and the metal body of the round will fragment and damage optics and antenna and any person or truck or car in the way... you could put a small flash charge that ignites and shows where the round impacted...

Those rounds you mentioned don't have 5km+ range...

Problem with OTA ATGM’s is that they need to be within 1m of the target’s roof because the EFP’s reach. This situation is already solved with the current crop of standoff APS which scan up to 3m height. Latent Arena-E variant is installed at Turret crown and launches its cassette at 1,5m with a spread of 1m over axis.