Russian Army ATGM Thread

Yup, but this one looks like a light version, with one operator inside only.
Something like an operator stand is on the passenger side.
Rosomak's weight is about 20t, so you can imagine the difference ...

I think that Russian version of Kornet on a Tigr chassis carries "only" 8 missiles, 4x each battery with independent operator panels.



The one from my printscreen, seems the bigger version.
There is more space between both batteries, plus some space on the hull sides - there is storage for additional rocket load.

Don't know the Russian light vehicle's names, but that one seems bigger and obviously heavier - but not in a 20t class for sure.

Looks like this one :





GAZ 233036, so seems a Tigr on steroids

The Israelis had something similar based on the Plasan Sandcat equipped with Spike missiles too. Its really a doctrinal choice if one wants to mount missiles on a protected or light vehicle.

d_taddei2 wrote:

Hole wrote:It seems the new version can´t be reloaded from inside the vehicle. The turret is fixed on top.

Yeah that's what I thought, I thought the design of retractable down into the vehicle was good idea not just for reloading. But disguising the vehicle as any other tigr vehicle which could be useful when in convoys, especially with drones these days picking off key vehicles. It also keeps vehicle profile low.

This is exactly the difference. ATGM version with twin independent launchers is clear ATGM. It could reload inside vehicle and it engage targets in frontal sector, not in 360^o. On long distance, tanks will not drive that quickly around it. This version with single fully rotating combat module with 4 missiles more reming on air defense complex like Gibka-S. They both are reloading from outside, but Kornet with range of 10 km, give longer range than Igla-S or Verba on Gibka-S. Interesting is radar antenna in frontal part of combat module, which is angeled to look upward, what is caracteristical for air defense complexes, not for ATGMs, which targets are on the ground. It also have data link and big monitor on the left side of operator, as it could be seen from the open door behind the journalist woman. This one will most probably use missiles with proximity fuse and will be used for protection against helicopters and UAVS for ATGM units, or together with Gibka-S to protect convoys. No doubt, it could use standard anti-tank missiles as well, it have standard Kornet launcher and EO guiding complex.

Seems you misunderstood me.

Rosomak-S is a plain AT team carrier. You have two teams, with two tripods&targeting subsystems, and a ammo supply of 8 missiles in total.
You need to disembark teams, they need to get into position, mount a system, and viola, they can shoot.

It is a battle taxi, not a tank destroyer per see.

So we can't compare it directly to the dedicated, light weight tank destroyer that Tigr with Kornet batteries obviously is.

This is why the difference is so visible.

One would expect much better than 8 missiles load, having a 20+ ton carrier, right?

Edit : just checked my old memory and it is not as good as it used to be A plain version is more like 16t not 20+, but still ... Tigr is a quarter of that, if not less ...

Well, ballistic protection would be an issue, but it is hardly here.
While Rosomak is a well battle proven platform, used in waste numbers (700+ pieces in the PSZ only) and heavily modified due to Afghan experience, the spikebus is nothing fancy.
It has just the same parameters as "base version", that is 7,62x54 resistance for sides, and 14,5x114 for some frontal arc.
Base Tigr represents the Russian version of armor protection, that is different animal, but in general it's armor standard is slightly higher that STANAG 2, that makes overall resistance to 7,62x39 BZ round from 5-10m. And that is only if we consider it represents the same vanilla standard, because some Tigrs are armored to the level of partial resistance to 12,7x108 and overall for 7,62x54. No idea what is the standard for Kornet carriers, but sure about the protection of Rosomak, belive me on that

So sure, the first is quite better, but can't be considered as "protected".

Couldn't they find another letter instead of the S used by russia for the krisanthema-S ? They copy even the name. It's not dangerous to use another letter like maybe X or M for missile.

"S" is for Spike, genie.
And no, neither X nor M corresponds to the polish name of the missile.

Tigr is also well battle proven in real combat, from Chechnya to Syria...

This is the Kornet-D1. Launchers can be retracted. 8 + 8 missiles. In one of the "Combat approved" shows they showed how easy the driver or operator can replace the empty canisters with new missiles.


Same missiles/configuration. Taifun as base.

Some called the optics/radar + 4 missiles configuration on the BTR-MDM for the VDV a recon and command vehicle. Maybe the new Tigr-M bases version has the same job.

Roof with hatches

Inside

Reloading

Thanks Medo for posting that Arabic video.
The English version should appear soon on RT where it is called Kalashnikova show.
The presenter, Anna Kinishenko is cute.

That new Kornet turret is the version for the airborne (VDV).
Advantages and disadvantages vs the twin retractable turrets:
+ : Turret is more sturdy, can be rotated while driving
+ : Turret rotates full 360 degrees
+ : Turret takes little or no space inside vehicle where additional missiles can be stored
+ : Radar on turret can be used for reconnaissance and can be used to shoot at air targets
-  : Has only 4 ready to fire missiles vs 8 for the other model
-  : Missiles cannot be reloaded from inside the vehicle

I think they'd take both versions and they'd operate in a classic sensor-shooter fashion as with all the mobile Russian air defense systems. The non-turreted versions would still be better as tank destroyers though.

Krepost wrote:Thanks Medo for posting that Arabic video.
The English version should appear soon on RT where it is called Kalashnikova show.
The presenter, Anna Kinishenko is cute.

That new Kornet turret is the version for the airborne (VDV).
Advantages and disadvantages vs the twin retractable turrets:
+ : Turret is more sturdy, can be rotated while driving
+ : Turret rotates full 360 degrees
+ : Turret takes little or no space inside vehicle where additional missiles can be stored
+ : Radar on turret can be used for reconnaissance and can be used to shoot at air targets
-  :  Has only 4 ready to fire missiles vs 8 for the other model
-  :  Missiles cannot be reloaded from inside the vehicle

The main disadvantage of the turreted Kornet in the tank destroyer role is its non-retractability. One good round of shelling and you're down a turret. Not good for what is essentially an ambush vehicle where you'd expect and are supposed to tank artillery barrages.

New Kornet D1.

Nice... incorporating night and all weather capable radar with optics makes it more capable and able to operate when other systems are useless.

It would also probably allow targets to be detected and tracked in situations where other systems are not so effective either.

Same version as the one for the VDV.

So it has optics and radar... nice.

Hole wrote:Some called the optics/radar + 4 missiles configuration on the BTR-MDM for the VDV a recon and command vehicle. Maybe the new Tigr-M bases version has the same job.

Yes, I heard for recon and command vehicle designation. But few points doesn't went for it. This vehicle have crew of two, driver and commander/operator. Command vehicle need at least three crew members. Other thing is radar. It have circle radar antenna fixed in combat module, what show it is engagement, tracking radar and it is little angeled upward. Modern PESA/AESA technology give to that radar capabilities to detect targets in its sector of scanning. For recon porpouse it need surveilance radar, which could rotate or move on vider sector of surveilance, like Credo-1 radar. I would still say, this is more combat vehicle, that recon and command vehicle, only poprouse is different. Radar could detect smaller drones at longer distances that thermal imager.

I like these two different versions.

Both seem light and highly mobile, while one has two separate launchers each with four ready to launch Kornets... I wonder if that means they could also carry the smaller Bulat missiles... two per Kornet meaning potentially up to 8 per launcher ready to fire.

The effective range of these missiles should allow it to be used at effective standoff distances and in the ground to ground role the potent HEAT rounds should deal with any current armoured vehicles even if it requires a double tap of two missiles miliseconds apart riding the same laser beam to the same target.

In the HE role the range is extended to 10km and it can deal with drones relatively efficiently and effectively which makes it quite a versatile vehicle when plugged in to the local air defence network as well as the local battle management network where enemy armour formations are displayed and shared.

What I don't like so much about that launcher is that the optics are on the bottom as independent optics on an arm that can be raised and turned 360 degrees without getting in the way of the other launcher would give it the best arcs of fire.

These two separate four shot or 8 shot launchers probably have limited angles of fire... I suspect when engaging one target one set of missiles will be raised for the engagement so it has 360 rotation but it can only look in one direction at a time so you lose the capacity to have better threat coverage.... say with one set of missiles engaging enemy ground targets with HEAT missiles, while the other scans the air for enemy drones with HE rounds.

The other launcher I like the optics being extended upwards to the level of the missiles, and the radar seems to suggest night and all weather capability and perhaps also the ability to launch other missiles.

The round dome and the flat rectangular array below it suggest perhaps a radar and a datalink... when using Kornets it might not do much except a moving target might attract attention so zoomed optics can see well camouflaged targets, but the potential for missiles like Pine because it is laser beam riding too, but also Khrisantema with laser beam riding or radio command or SARH mmw radar homing options... but also with datalinks perhaps even LMUR type missiles could also be carried and fired where the datalink would allow the missile to be launched based on radar signals of targets at 10km plus ranges through heavy rain or snow with the missiles IIR seeker sending back a view of the target detected by the radar by its movement... when the missile gets within visual range it can send back a proper airborne view of the targets to be engaged and the operator can then select the target to be hit.

It might even be used for controlling drones operating ahead of the force spotting for targets out of line of sight the missiles can be launched towards and have the drones mark the targets for the terminal part of the attack out of line of sight of the launch vehicle.

The one with 360deg coverage and a radar station is a universal guard platform.
Can be used on the move.
Kornet can be easily used as an anti-air asset, perfectly keen on downing helos, drones etc.
In some aspects, it is obviously better than Verba - range&altitude.
The only disadvantage is the target speed - it won't kill a jet, obviously.
But you can put a Igla/Verba there, I saw that combo on some film already, need to find it for you.
Me likes.

ALAMO wrote:The one with 360deg coverage and a radar station is a universal guard platform.
Can be used on the move.
Kornet can be easily used as an anti-air asset, perfectly keen on downing helos, drones etc.
In some aspects, it is obviously better than Verba - range&altitude.
The only disadvantage is the target speed - it won't kill a jet, obviously.
But you can put a Igla/Verba there, I saw that combo on some film already, need to find it for you.
Me likes.

I would imagine that where there is a convoy etc that there will be a mix of vehicles, kornet is firstly an anti tank weapon, with a secondary function of anti air, and will most likely be used like that. The other vehicles will be strelets armed with Verba, and the other vehicle will be Tigr M mounted with 1L122E radar this is designed to locate up to15 aerial targets per second and perform target assessment in one second. Its purpose is to give Russian soldiers armed with MANPADS a command and target indication vehicle to receive more precise target data. So as you say Verba will be used for jet aircraft, and other air targets, and the kornet for Helis and drones. Which actually makes it difficult for Helis to come after the convoy considering they would be detected by radar, and information passed onto Verba and kornet teams. And any defence systems that the Heli has will find it difficult considering two different types of missiles and different speeds to try and counter them and the number missiles. In future u might find that Verba becomes a MANPAD only system and strelets type systems are replaced by Sonsa-R type missiles.

Laser beam riding Kornets can't be stopped by DIRCMS... they have no optical port pointing at the target for the DIRCMS to dazzle and blind..., and because they are laser beam riding the aiming system essentially determines what they can be used against but they should be able to be used against practically anything... even if they have to be tracked manually.

Having tube launched missiles like Kornet, Khrisantema, SOSNA-R/Pine, as well as Verba and Igla-S and the new MANPADS called Mark or Label some sort of rotary launcher with tubes loaded on it that can mount different weapons could be rather interesting for ground and air vehicles.

Perhaps a launch position at the bottom of the rotary launcher with a ring the full radius of the rear fuselage of the UAV that is hollow through the centre, with perhaps 15-20 tubes around the circumference of the fuselage that can rotate around with a sheet metal cover/fairing around all the positions except the bottom two or three, so you can carry missiles in all sorts of combinations and rotate them round till they get to the 6 o'clock position for launching.

You could fire at air or ground targets, hard or soft... you could even mount 122mm unguided rockets in there too... in their own tubes...

It would be like a CAS UKSK launcher that could be loaded depending on the mission.

A big aircraft like an An-2 replacement could have an opening in the top of the compartment where tubes from inside the aircraft could be loaded, so you might have large numbers of missiles available per mission... perhaps even the new bombs designed for UAVs as well... or RPO rockets and RPG-29 rockets and SPG-9M rockets....

The students of the 5th course of the Mihailov Military Artillery Academy in the composition of the anti-tank missile complex "Kornet" destroyed the armored technical conditional opponent in the study of the Luzhen Polygone district.

GarryB wrote:Laser beam riding Kornets can't be stopped by DIRCMS... they have no optical port pointing at the target for the DIRCMS to dazzle and blind..., and because they are laser beam riding the aiming system essentially determines what they can be used against but they should be able to be used against practically anything... even if they have to be tracked manually.

Having tube launched missiles like Kornet, Khrisantema, SOSNA-R/Pine, as well as Verba and Igla-S and the new MANPADS called Mark or Label some sort of rotary launcher with tubes loaded on it that can mount different weapons could be rather interesting for ground and air vehicles.

Perhaps a launch position at the bottom of the rotary launcher with a ring the full radius of the rear fuselage of the UAV that is hollow through the centre, with perhaps 15-20 tubes around the circumference of the fuselage that can rotate around with a sheet metal cover/fairing around all the positions except the bottom two or three, so you can carry missiles in all sorts of combinations and rotate them round till they get to the 6 o'clock position for launching.

You could fire at air or ground targets, hard or soft... you could even mount 122mm unguided rockets in there too... in their own tubes...

It would be like a CAS UKSK launcher that could be loaded depending on the mission.

A big aircraft like an An-2 replacement could have an opening in the top of the compartment where tubes from inside the aircraft could be loaded, so you might have large numbers of missiles available per mission... perhaps even the new bombs designed for UAVs as well... or RPO rockets and RPG-29 rockets and SPG-9M rockets....

I always thought it would maybe be useful to a new type of rocket that could be designed to take out UAV cheaply mounting the rockets in a a S-5, S-8 or S-13 rocket pod. Although UAV are smaller than aircraft they are still fairly large when add the wings into the equation, even a S-5 rocket exploding near one of the wings would be enough to blast a wing off causing it to crash. A cheap proximity fuse and firing a hail of even S-5 Could be deadly and of course u can also design the rounds to self destruct once they get to a certain range. This would allow a cheap method of taking out drones and these pods can be mounted on helicopters, fighter jets, Su-25, Yak-130, and even various sizes of cargo aircraft if needed. For some countries on a tight budget, using something as simple as a An-2 or TVS(an-2 replacement) with pods mounted on wings would be enough to take out drones.

In South America drug lords are using drones to fly drugs over borders, this could be a cheap method of stopping it. Flying patrols in a An-2 armed with these would be useful. I wonder if they could mount one of those hand held anti UAV rifles to a TVS or helicopter as a sort of cheap soft kill system.

Well considering the threat I would ask how many obsolete ATGMs they have in storage, because swapping out the HEAT warheads for HE frag warheads would allow them to be used against any visible drones for the price of using up old stocks of missiles.

Something like this vehicle (the VDV one with the radar and presumed powerful optics) should allow guidance of a range of missile types and if you track the outgoing missile and the target you should be able to command detonate an old wire guided or command guided missile at a useful distance from the target where a blast of ball bearings would shred any drone and yet be non lethal at distances of more than 20m, making it not dangerous to friendly forces or civilians in the area.

With rocket pods I would say the laser homing versions would probably be best for engaging enemy drones with obviously a laser target marker highlighting targets with little or no radar or IR signature.

57mm rockets would probably be best because you wont need a powerful warhead... if you can get the warhead close enough to the target before the warhead is set off then even a relatively small HE frag warhead would do.

Some sort of coded laser beam that perhaps flashes a specific code to set off the warhead as it approaches the target could be used instead of a proximity fuse to set off the payload close enough to the drone... most small light drones are rather fragile so a barrage of ball bearings shattering the small drones structure and more importantly its props should bring it down every time.

It would be relatively cheap and effective enough.

I would say your own drones with EW jammers mounted on it together with a 40mm grenade launcher with command detonated grenades would be very useful too.

Even when used against ground targets command detonated grenades would be useful.

Russia made anti-air versions of ATGMs in last time. First was special version of Ataka ATGM with HE-frag warhead and proximity fuse, which is used by helicopters and on the ground by BMPT and Uran-9 robot. Krizanthema is also meant to engage slow and low flying targets and they made new missiles with extended range to 10 km, so they could modify thermobaric version to be able to engage flying targets. Now we see this with Kornet missile.

Why would they go for anti-air version of missile?. One reason is laser guidance of missile, so it is cheap and simple for production and second is price. Kornet missile according to Wikipedia, cost 6.230 $ in 2012. on the other hand Igla MANPAD cost 60.000 to 80.000 $ in 2003. Igla-S and Verba are most probably more expensive. IR homing head is more expensive. So for the price of one Igla MANPAD, you could get 10 Kornet missiles. To engage drones, Kornet is more cost effective. Other reason is the size. Sosna is bigger and is placed on BMP-3, MT-LB or BTR-82 vehicle, while Gibka-S and Kornet-D1 are placed on Tigr-M or Typhoon-K 4x4. Smaller and faster vehicles, more suitable for convoy protection and fast deployments.

I think changings in tactics and drone engagements were reasons to create this different version of Kornet-D1, for anti-tank warfare standard twin launcher version is good enough.

Tens of thousands.
Back in 2016 or so, they announced a public offer for the disposal of Fagot missiles. 10000 of them in one batch. The offer was published at a public bidding system but removed shortly after. And we have witnessed some unusual transport activities in the Syrian direction. Shortly after, YT was just flowed by the films, where Syrian soldiers were shooting the ATGMs like crazy, using them to hunt down a single opponent sometimes ...
So seems the Russkies found this way better method of obsolete gear disposal much before the UK waste NLAWs

The Soviet Union had a habit of producing vast amounts of munitions. I would imagine some of these stocks have been used up in training, sales to other countries and sent to Syria. And some of the more obscure munitions will have been depleted. I can't imagine things like AT-2 ATGW will still be in storage and 180mm artillery rounds the former was phased out long ago, and the latter Syria is one of few countries who still uses 180mm artillery rounds and I would imagine that Russia's entire stock was sent to clear it out of its inventory. Far better using it than spending money to dispose of it. These are just a couple of examples.

What I know that there was plenty of videos and articles of SAA using sagger, due to cost. Majority of the time SAA are hitting buildings with ATGW so it makes perfect sense to use cheap ATGW systems for such. The sagger being the cheapest on the market. However I doubt Russia still produces the sagger munitions and missiles don't last forever. And it was a popular weapon so chances are that they may have cleared stocks of it even though it was vastly produced. I wouldn't be surprised if Syria was also receiving sagger munitions from Iran and Serbia who still produce the missile. I would also imagine Russia has cleared some of the larger munitions such as Tochka with sending to Syria these would have been produced in much smaller numbers than other systems.

Either way Russia most likely saved itself a job of disposal of munitions by sending to Syria. The west doesn't stock pile much munitions as older systems are sold on with the munitions and many munitions are disposed of.