Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 11, 2013 11:28 am

    Blow off panels will save the crew from a propellent fire, but if the HE ammo sympathetically detonates then blow off panels make no difference.

    Blow off panels are weak spots that give burning material and exploding material a direction to go first that is usually directed away from the crew for their protection.

    Blow off panels DON'T have to be pointed up... there is no reason why blow off panels could not be fitted to the belly of the tank under the underfloor autoloader magazine on T series tanks.

    The T-80s autoloader was flawed as it had the propellent stubs in the crew compartment rather than under armour plate so any penetration set off a propellent explosion. The Black Eagle variant moved all the ammo to the external turret bustle and blow out panels were fitted to it because in that position an penetration could direct an explosion into the turret... blow out panels on top ensure the explosion is directed up and away from the crew.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1444
    Points : 1605
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 21
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue Jun 11, 2013 1:10 pm

    can we expect the armata having some blowoff protection on the bottom as mentioned?

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 817
    Points : 984
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:32 pm

    It looks like usual travel path of ATGM. Can You post videos of real instances then?




    Regular ,what has to do the "travel path" with what i've said ?

    It is the "supposed" missile's signature (with the usual grossly blurred and inflated light's radial contour , very tipical of similar low level attempts of video staging Very Happy ) the factor at which i was refering.


    About tank and COIN operations ,we must stress one more time that tank are NOT weapon systems conceived for "home to home" urban fighting , therefore them will NEVER excel in this role ,not today and neither in the future .


    MBTs ,instaed, occupy the CENTRAL and ,perhaps, most important position in ground offensive and defensive operations in large scale conventional conflicts.


    In those type of close range urban combat the most important features to obtain an efficient support vehicles, become

    1) Very wide angular coverage, lethality and sustainability of the fire
    2) Ductility and variety of fire (to cope with different kind and consistence of coverage of enemy defilated infantry)
    3) Optimized sensor suit with full panoramic coverage for commander and gunner
    4) Reduction to the minimum possible of the target area offered to enemy direct fire ,in particular in the vertical dimension.
    5) Increase of passive and dynamic protection ,in particular for incidence angles superior to 25 degrees (mostly enemy elevated fire positions from tall buildings).



    A vehicles like БМПТ respond perfectly to those operational requirements because purposely designed for the task; Syrian tanks instead suffer the usual penalities of any MBT in this specific role; moreover them are constuituted mostly by '80 years EXPORT specimens with vastly outdated sensor ,offensiveù and defensive suit (even export version of K1 ERA is often not present !).

    In spite of that and of the highly "penalizing" role of employment, Syrian T-72s thanks mostly to their cheapness (meaning very high number for the financiary resources allocated) reliability ,resilience to enemy fire and easiness of repair , represent the centerpiece of SAA operations and by far the most lethal and feared killer of the insurgents.





    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5563
    Points : 5575
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:12 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:can we expect the armata having some blowoff protection on the bottom as mentioned?

    In Armata, from what I have seen so far, the crew will be completely separated from the ammo.

    Hopefully this solution manages to not have highly vulnerable bustles though.
    Can you imagine if a turret bustle on say a Leo-2 or an Abrams is full of HE rounds, and gets penetrated (something not too hard to do)?
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5563
    Points : 5575
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  TR1 on Tue Jun 11, 2013 10:18 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz_JMQRaSgo&feature=player_embedded

    Another video of Kornet hitting a T-72.

    For the record- I think the big detonation video we see is real. I don't see an issue with the shitty camera quality of the Konkurs, and legacy tanks are easy to penetrate from side angles.
    However, for me, it looks like a set up. The T-72's behavior, the fact that the video cuts, doesn't seem to me that it is Syrian army. What is it doing all alone, with no clear purpose, aimlessly driving with no support, then suddenly pausing right in front of rebels?
    The instant nature of the explosion, plus the size, seems suspicious. Probbaly they packed it with shells, big artillery HE ones.

    Mind you a turret flip is very possible - in Ossetia a Georgian T-72 was hit, and the explosion threw its turret off, which flew THROUGH the roof of a building on the way down. From the tank there was only a crater left- it was totally destroyed. But I think that only happened after ammunition cook off, not instant result of hit.

    Either way, it doesn't say much about T-72 that we did not know.
    However, Konkurs strong!!!

    The Army really needs to work on its flank protection if they want to win. They keep getting outmaneuvered by rebels with heavy weapons. Maybe it is a matter of manpower...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:05 pm

    and i dont understand you, yes missiles are getting expensive but so are tanks ,so it will be justified, whats the price of latest t-90 m,s ,versions?

    Modern combat has shown that ATGMs rarely are actually fired at tanks... the exception has been with Israel, the problem with Javelin is that in its lock on after launch mode it flys up high and then tries to lock onto the target from above without input from the soldier that launched the missile. The flight speed over 2km is something like 120m/s which means you have a slow high flying missile that needs to be able to see a distinct IR signature right after launch to get a lock.

    The addition of Nakidka, or even a new APS that can engage top attack missiles could make it totally ineffective against tanks... which while its primary purpose would not make it obsolete as the vast majority of targets it will be used for include a wide range of targets many of which are not even armoured.

    If this is the case however it brings into question the huge cost of the missile and launcher for a system that will spend most of its time in SACLOS mode anyway.

    It is a neat idea, but just not practical.

    can we expect the armata having some blowoff protection on the bottom as mentioned?

    It may have blow off panels in the turret area to allow the gas from burning ammo to vent upwards away from the crew if the side of the vehicle is penetrated.

    Rpg type 7v

    Posts : 374
    Points : 228
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Modern ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:55 pm

    so it seems russians have finally recognised their 1.flawed doctrine and 2.that their weapons are aging :
    so the result is=
    1.the top attack version ,
    2. and new 152mm calibre warhead at total system weight of 14,5kg ,and 2.500m range , hmm very good i say.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2050
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Regular on Fri Nov 08, 2013 11:44 pm

    As I've mentioned before Russians where working with top attack ATGM for some time. It wasn't just rumours. I believe it will be more similar to Bofors Bill 2 rather than Javelin.


    Last edited by Regular on Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:38 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Spelling :D)
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:15 am

    Sorry RPG but now you are just ignoring what is being posted...

    so it seems russians have finally recognised their 1.flawed doctrine and 2.that their weapons are aging :
    Did you even read that page?

    Top attack weapons have always been desirable, but not at the cost of being as pointless as Javelin.

    Pointless in the sense of being far to expensive to actually use or be widely deployed except in armed forces used to pssing away taxpayers money.


    so the result is=
    1.the top attack version ,
    2. and new 152mm calibre warhead at total system weight of 14,5kg ,and 2.500m range , hmm very good i say.


    for comparison rpg--7 with 105mm tandem warhead has 11,5kg weight and 200m effective range.
    Except it mentions two weapons... one being an ATGM that will likely coexist with the Metis-M1 simply because the latter is so cheap and simple and portable it is unlikely to be replaced quickly... it calls it a medium range ATGM, which I would suggest would fit quite nicely between the short range ATGM (Metis-M1) and the Kornet-EM long range system.

    The short range system uses two different types of warhead with the top attack version using a gyro stabiliser and thrust vector control to whip the warhead 90 degrees, presumably using a sensitive magnetic anomaly detector to sense the presence of the tank.

    The Russians have never had anything against the top attack flight profile, but the method of reliably achieving such an attack profile had to be cheap and simple but effective so that it can be widely deployed and use in numbers to make it effective.

    Javelin is an example of how not to do it... a thermal sight in the launcher is one thing... fitting it to every missile however means they are very expensive.

    The idea of making them able to be used in a dumb command to line of sight mode actually makes them worse because a much cheaper and simpler missile like Metis-M1 uses that mode of firing... as does Javelin when firing on targets with little or no IR signature.

    Fitting a thermal imager to Metis-M1 gives it all the all weather, day/night launch capability and target detection capacity of Javelin, but at less than $20K per missile it is much cheaper to use in numbers against a range of targets like MG nests and sniper positions than Javelin.

    Of course the troops in the field don't care how much it costs so they will use it against anything and everything... again its cost counts against it.

    Rpg type 7v

    Posts : 374
    Points : 228
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Sat Nov 09, 2013 2:03 pm

    Regular wrote:As I've mentioned before Russians where working with top attack ATGM for some time. It wasn't just rumours. I believe it will be more similar to Bofors Bikk 2 rather than Javelin.
    bofors atgm is awesome weapon and its principles of work are revolutionary.
    but i think the russians will go with lofted trajectory (like americans only 20yrs latter) instead of straight fight path with angled warhead. the increase lenght and weight of missile seem to suggest that ,and i have been correct in every prediction ive made on this forum.
    ------------------
    OK there should be a correction ,point blank range is given at- 350 meters ,which is still very good .
    I am having problems with weight while 1st version is ok for a soldier , the second is getting very heavy at nearly  20kg and going around with it and putting it on shoulder and aiming is for a very strong man. Analysys shows anything more then 15kg is taking much more energy to carry and handle for a human...
    As for penetration values i compared to kornet which has same warhead diameter (152mm) , but kornets warhead is heavier at 7kg compared to 5,2kg for this system so i would give it 10-15% less penetration value so if kornet is about 1.1-1,2m this shoud penetrate 1000mm od armour ,which is much better then 650mm for rpg.
    -------------------
    Tr1---- you dont need to foam , just mention your analysis and why mine is "flawed' Wink 
    Garry-- capability comes at a cost ,and jav is very capable Twisted Evil
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2050
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Regular on Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:51 pm

    There is no doubt Javelin could be used effectively. It's not effectiveness of Javelin that gets all the criticism. It's the price. But hey You were comparing ATGM with RPG. If You served in the military You know that there is even tactical difference how they are employed.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:10 am

    but i think the russians will go with lofted trajectory (like americans only 20yrs latter) instead of straight fight path with angled warhead.
    Again your reading comprehension comes into question.

    Of the two weapon types mentioned... the 2.5km range ATGM which according to you should be the Javelin copy but 20 years late clearly states it has laser beam riding guidance with remote control... sounds to me like the missile guides via a laser beam... perhaps flying 5m above the beam to the target and then diving down when it approaches the target area... there is certainly no indication it uses a lofted flight profile.

    The other missile it mentions simple and effective in a high noise environment... ie EO jammers etc, which suggests to me it is either MAD + CLOS guided, or perhaps MMW radar guided... the talk of jet vanes acting on the rocket motor exhaust suggests it is designed to fly over the target and when it detects the target it turns 90 degrees down and fires its warhead at the top of the target.

    and i have been correct in every prediction ive made on this forum.
    You predicted Russia SHOULD copy Javelin. Your complaint was that the Russians didn't have any Javelin like weapons.

    The information provided suggests that as usual the Russians have found a cheap and simple way of getting a result the west has spent a fortune on and continues to do so.

    Look at 40mm grenade launchers... the US wants air burst grenades and gets high tech Swiss timing fuses and puts FCS and laser range finders on auto grenade launchers to make them really expensive... the precision of the fuses makes each round rather expensive... but they can create an airburst.

    The cheap simple russian solution is a small bounding charge to blow the grenade into the air before the main charge explodes. Fraction of the cost... in service since the early 1980s, widely deployed.

    US system far more sophisticated but not in service anywhere.


    OK there should be a correction ,point blank range is given at- 350 meters ,which is still very good .
    This is likely to be a close in weapon to repel a tank attack to support an RPG-7.

    I am having problems with weight while 1st version is ok for a soldier , the second is getting very heavy at nearly 20kg and going around with it and putting it on shoulder and aiming is for a very strong man. Analysys shows anything more then 15kg is taking much more energy to carry and handle for a human...
    Based on the weight of the system and the weights of the missiles it is pretty clear that the short range system has a launcher that is 4.5kg which will likely be carried by the gunner along with a round of ammo.

    With the Metis-M1 each missile weighs about 13kg so the two support soldiers will be carrying two missiles (26kgs each)... the support soldiers for these systems will be carrying 20kg and 30kgs each respectively.

    As for penetration values i compared to kornet which has same warhead diameter (152mm) , but kornets warhead is heavier at 7kg compared to 5,2kg for this system so i would give it 10-15% less penetration value so if kornet is about 1.1-1,2m this shoud penetrate 1000mm od armour ,which is much better then 650mm for rpg.
    And also much better than the 750mm of Javelin, and only slightly better than the 900mm of the RPG-28... which has a 125mm calibre warhead...

    These penetration figures are actually a bit excessive as top attack does not require anything like that level of performance...

    capability comes at a cost ,and jav is very capable
    How do you know? It has only ever been used against targets much cheaper much simpler systems would be effective against.

    you dont need to foam , just mention your analysis and why mine is "flawed'
    As I said before, top attack is a useful feature, but when most targets such systems are used against in real combat (not battlefield 4) like Afghanistan or Iraq it is precision and HE power that matter and of course stand off distance. Milan would have done a similar job at a fraction of the cost.

    The ideal system for the US and UK forces would have been Metis-M1... its effect on target using HE rounds would have been much greater yet its costs would mean they could have had 10 times more the number of missiles and still had billions left over in the budget for bribes.

    This new ATGM (the 2.5km range weapon) is probably the Baikal ATGM that was mentioned a number of times before, but you largely ignored because you wanted a Russian Javelin NOW.

    The thing is however I suspect this new ATGM will actually be rather better than Javelin in terms of price and performance.

    AT-3 in modernised form maybe, but theres better equipment out there,
    Even with upgrades it is still not great, the Metis-M1 moved all the complex and expensive bits into the launcher module so that each missile is about $10K which is ridiculously cheap in terms of what it is... an ability for a team of 3 men to carry a launcher and 5 missiles able to hit targets at 2km with a payload able to penetrate 950mm of RHA...

    If you already have AT-3 it probably makes sense to buy an upgrade, but starting from scratch... even a poor country... Metis-M1 is ideal.

    Compact, portable, powerful, cheap.

    Mount it on a dune buggy and you have very mobile anti armour capability.
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    ATGM systems

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:06 am

    Of course, fire-and-forget ATGMs are nothing new in Russia. In one post I talked about Sokol-1’s guidance system. Sokol-1’s guidance system goes beyond just fire-and-forget. Its guidance system is what you can call a fifth generation guidance system, while a fire-and-forget guidance system is a third generation guidance system.

    The feature that makes Sokol-1’s guidance system a fifth generation guidance system is that it has a combined guidance system consisting of two forth generation guidance systems.

    One of these two fourth generation guidance systems in Sokol-1 is a passive imaging guidance system that detects, identifies, acquires, locks on, and tracks the desired target on its own, all automatically. In the mode being discussed, all of this happens after the gunner has fired the projectile.

    On the other hand, in a fire-and-forget missile (third generation), the operator plays the major role in the detection of the target, has the sole responsibility for its identification and acquisition, and has to initiate the lock-on. Only then, the guidance system can track the target.

    Of course, if the Sokol-1’s gunner wants to, he can stay in the guidance loop, either through this passive imaging guidance system just discussed or through the semiactive laser guidance system that the projectile also incorporates.

    On the issue of FGM-148, amongst its deficiencies is a third generation guidance system which itself has many deficiencies, with one of these deficiencies being that it’s one of the easiest guidance systems to jam.


    Last edited by George1 on Thu Mar 22, 2018 2:15 pm; edited 2 times in total (Reason for editing : Corrected the spelling of)
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:54 am

    I am sure there are a lot of experts that think Javelin is the best medium range ATGM out there at the moment because it is claimed to be fire and forget, but at the end of the day Metis-M1 is probably a much better all round system to employ in terms of bang for buck.

    Javelin is only fire and forget with a contrasting target with a distinct IR signature... like a tank or armoured vehicle with its engine running.

    I rather suspect even an old tank with sandbags piled on top of it would be safe from a lock on from Javelin... which means it is a run of the mill CLOS guided missile with no top attack capability against the vast majority of the battlefield targets it will be used against.

    Metis-M1 at a fraction of the cost and otherwise similar performance makes rather more sense.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 817
    Points : 984
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Nov 16, 2013 11:21 am

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:On the other hand, in a fire-and-forget missile (third generation), the operator plays the major role in the detection of the target, has the sole responsibility for its identification and acquisition, and has to initiate the lock-on. Only the, the guidance system can track the target.
    All right Morpheus, but the debate ,at which i've chosen to participate only because it show some of the most classical factoids widely spread on similar subjects  ( and obviously repeated by typical forum troll...) , has turned around some precise metropolitan legends.


    The first myth is to represent FGM-148 as the main US Army ATGM when obviously IT IS NOT and cannot be for mere parametrical reasons.
    FGM-148 is a man-portable close range  (2000 meters in ideal conditions  -not 2500- Wink ) light infantry ATGM successor of M-47 characterized ,in particular ,by an immense cost and complexity of manufacture (give a look of the total US FGM-148 production at today to get an idea of what we talk Very Happy ) and a simply ridiculous time for target engagement totally inconsistent with engagement's dynamics and tempo of a modern ground battle against any serious enemy .


    Try to reason in those terms : you have two identical Armies with same resources at theirs disposition

    - In the first Army (A) you can acquire ,at X price, a single close range ATGM very difficult to manufacture and to maintain, requiring a very long training's time to achieve some proficiency, lacking any anti-material/fortifications or anti-manpower optimized rounds ,in need to engage relatively modern armored targets only in top-attack profile for the limited penetration potential of the warhead, relying on a seeker requiring an independent and continual stable IR lock easily breakable by the most common multispectral obscurants, and requiring an enormous amount of time to execute focal cooling and target collimation operation before shoot.    

    -In the second Army(B) you can acquire ,at the same X price, 7-8 close range ATGM very easy and quick to manufacture, requiring only about 16 hours of training to achieve proficiency, capable to employ  anti-material/fortifications or anti-manpower optimized rounds, with a warhead with a greater penetration potential (but lacking top-attack mode), not requiring any type of "lock" on the target and employing a guidance almost impossible to jam and capable to engage a target in one third of the time required to the system of Army A to complete focal cooling and collimation .


    In what Army you would chose to enlist , in the A with that single ATGM or in the B with those 7 ATGM ?


    Enemy don't care a bit of what you employ in your engagement , what instead your enemy care is only how much vehicles , sniper position, bunkers, building exposed and defilated manpower you can destroy in unitary time at same cost taken into account, well i would not be an FGM-148's operator neither its supporting vehicles and troop against an enemy armed with 7 Metis-M1 Laughing




    The second myth is represented by the presentation of AGM-114 "Hellfire" as a fire and forget missile, in reality its same acronym is one of the several classical examples of the terribly PR-marketing-oriented western habit to misrepresent its weapon designs


    From ,Hellfire Getting the Most from a Lethal Missile System By Captain Adam W. Lange

    "The name “Hellfire” is derived from an acronym for Heliborne launched,Fire and Forget, but the name can be misleading.
    Fire and forget gives the impression that the missile guides itself to the target autonomously without further input by the air crews after launch.
    This, however, is a misconception and only partially true.
    The Hellfire missile is a guided munition, much like the older TOW missile. It requires a coded laser beam to be placed on the target, and the missile will actually follow or “ride” the properly coded beam to the point of impact.
    Thus, the missile never actually acquires the target in question, but rather acquires the laser beam.

    The laser designator or “observer,” either airborne or ground-mounted, must always positively control the missile after it is launched in order to bring it to bear on the target in question."
    Practically all version of AGM-114 -except the AGM-114L- employ this kind of missile guidance (immensely more fragile , easy to detect and easy to break in respect to domestic coded beam riding  ) and this bulk of Hellfire was ,incidentally , not only by very far the most employed in pasted conflict by US Army ,including anti-armor operations, but also the unique with still orders by part of US Army up to 2014  Wink

    Even more also the unique version with limited real "fire and forget" capabilities , the AGM-114-L, would still leave the carrying helicopter equally vulnerable against any relatively well equipped enemy (even only to domestic '80 years !).
    The reason is that the unique AGM-114-L's modality of engagement showing a true "fire and forget" capability is the LOBL/LOBL-I (both representing, by a wide edge, the selection most commonly chosen by AH-64D crew in US Army training against relatively strong OPFOR) which can be realized only at very short range against enemy vehicles   because the missile's MMW seeker for unavoidable power aperture reason has only very limited discriminating range of acquisition of target in high clutter such as mobile APCs, IFVs and MBTs -within 2,7-3 km -

    The long range fire and forget mode - LOAL - (up to 7,5-8 km in good environmental scattering conditions) can be realized only against motionless targets (such as bunkers ,buildings, machine gun nests refueling vehicles etc..) and only after that the AN-APG-78 FCS has transferred to the missile enough data to allow independent acquisition by part of the missile seeker at the intended point and anyhow with markedly reduced Phit even against those motionless targets !    


    In substance an AH-64D ,even wanting to employ the unique AGM-114's model with some kind of "fire and forget" capabilities ,against an enemy equipped at domestic '80s standard would be very likely destroyed NOT by S-300V, Tunguska-M1, Thor-M1, IGLA  etc... but more simply by 30 mm AP auto-cannon, fuse programmed HE-Frag rounds and gun launched missiles  (all not matching well with integrity of helicopter's hull, cabin and rotor blades Laughing) by part of the same vehicles it would have intended to attack, all enjoying a substantial range of engagement advantage over AGM-114L's  LOBL-I engagement mode.



    Naturally all what is in need to maintain integer the PR-constructed reputation of similar cursed weapon designs is to continue simply to attack only defenseless enemies lacking entire class of weapons and with MBT's park composed by export T-55, Type-69 and some scaled down T-72Ms  Razz Razz Razz
    In this way the western PR could continue to praise the virtues of  AH-64 and its Helicopter Launched FIRE and forget missile Laughing
    avatar
    Morpheus Eberhardt

    Posts : 1929
    Points : 2040
    Join date : 2013-05-20

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat Nov 16, 2013 3:33 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:All right Morpheus, but the debate ,at which i've chosen to participate only because it show some of the most classical factoids widely spread on similar subjects  ( and obviously repeated by typical forum troll...) , has turned around some precise metropolitan legends.
    Mindstorm, I agree that the debate in which you have chosen to participate is about the more significant aspects of the subject that was being discussed. The reason for my approach was to indicate the factoids promoted by the "wikipedias" of the world are not even correct, let alone significant.
    avatar
    BlackArrow

    Posts : 141
    Points : 119
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  BlackArrow on Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:18 am

    Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:
    On the issue of FGM-148, amongst its deficiencies is a third generation guidance system which itself has many deficiencies, with one of these deficiencies being that it’s one of the easiest guidance systems to jam.
    Easy to jam?
    How do you know that? What do you know about the Javelin missile's guidance system, anyway?Rolling Eyes

    I can tell you one thing, you talk about the Javelin round being too expensive - but I bet it's a lot cheaper than a missile from the S-400 system or an R-37 air-to-air missle...
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1488
    Points : 1514
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Zivo on Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:46 am

    How do you know that? What do you know about the Javelin missile's guidance system, anyway?
    From various publications.

    Imaging Infrared guidance is not terribly complex. If the missile cannot maintain a sight picture of the target's IR signature, it cannot be guided to the target. Multi-spectral obscurants can easily disrupt an infrared image. There's no magic involved.

    Read Mindstorm's post (#100 on this page).

    but I bet it's a lot cheaper than a missile from the S-400 system or an R-37 air-to-air missle
    Apples and oranges. We're talking about man-portable anti-tank weapons.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2050
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Regular on Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:04 am

    Well problem is that Javelin uses passive IR lock on so tank ceew would know that they are targeted. And it doesn't expose the shooter with cloud of smoke. You can't say it's complete crap. For USA it's enormous improvement over Dragon. Still it's very specialised weapon that would work only in ambushes against armour columns.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18633
    Points : 19189
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:27 am

    Easy to jam?
    How do you know that? What do you know about the Javelin missile's guidance system, anyway?
    Jam is not the best word in this case.

    Russian helos are being deployed with DIRCMS fitted... Direct IR counter measures. Basically IR lasers designed to dazzle and in some cases even damage the optical and IR seeker components in missiles.

    They already have laser dazzlers in service to defeat the optics snipers use and have binocular sized systems able to defeat incoming threats like Javelins IIR seeker.

    Javelin is a known in service system so it would be rather silly to assume they have not thought about how they can defeat it... simply using Nakidka IR and radar camouflage would render Javelin a CLOS only system and popped smoke would also break any lock the Javelin might have achieved.

    The point is that it is very easy to deal with while being very expensive... which is not very desirable.

    I can tell you one thing, you talk about the Javelin round being too expensive - but I bet it's a lot cheaper than a missile from the S-400 system or an R-37 air-to-air missle...
    It is also cheaper than a Nimitz Class CVN but the point is that anti armour weapons are used against pretty much any and all enemy positions so you don't want dozens of them... you want thousands.

    Javelin is far too expensive to be used the way Dragon was used.

    Well problem is that Javelin uses passive IR lock on so tank ceew would know that they are targeted.
    I think you mean its passive guidance would not alert the crew to an attack....

    Still it's very specialised weapon that would work only in ambushes against armour columns.
    As a special forces weapon against a well equipped enemy during a counter insurgency it would be a good weapon... but still more expensive than it needs to be.

    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2056
    Points : 2050
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Regular on Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:36 am

    For counter insurgency even M72 LAW is better. I think marines used last of them in Iraq. And mini spike would be ideal in urban warfare with a fraction of Javelin cost.
    IMHO, Only scenario Javelin would shine would be Cold War ambushes on Soviet tank collums just to cause as much attrition as possible. Today tanks aren't as blind, UAVs can pretty much render all ambushes useless. And even different nature of warfare makes Javeling thing of the past. It funny to see it used to blow mud huts when US soldiers get severe punishments if they loose their helmets and etc. Maybe they are wasting missiles that are running out of date, I have no idea.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3386
    Points : 3470
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  medo on Sun Nov 17, 2013 11:21 am

    http://www.npostrela.com/en/products/new-dev/104/266/

    Portable surveillance radars also become quite small and such small radar could be easily installed in tank and this radar could detect Javelin or Spike ATGM launch, considering those missiles fly high and give enough time to launch smoke grenades and change position as well as to fire on ATGM crew.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 817
    Points : 984
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Nov 17, 2013 12:55 pm

    Regular wrote:Well problem is that Javelin uses passive IR lock on so tank ceew would know that they are targeted.
    I hear very often this point called in question about FGM-148's employment.

    FGM-148 employ two motors, a launch and a flight one, both of which produce a very clear IR signature (the latter one even more and for longer time exposed, if the top attack mode is selected ) easily traceable by the thermal sight of a commander or gunner of any enemy MBT (or that of any relatively up-to-date LAV/APC, command vehicles etc...) showing detection range performances some times greater than the FGM-148's CLU and missile seeker optics.

    This point therefore can hold water only if the fire position of the FGM-148 team would be situated ,for some reason, outside of enemy vehicle's field of view ,such as an ambush from the rear of enemy MBT ,IFV  and APC ground formations , anyhow VERY VERY VERY difficult to realize -to the edge of the impossibility - against an advanced enemy and even more if the ATGM in question is a short range one requiring an immense amount of time to complete the fire sequence like FGM-148.



    Cold technical and operative reality, outside of the dishonest marketing-constructed hype around this weapon, is that the basis design concept has produced a weapon very costly and difficult to mass produce ; is sufficient to observe US domestic acquisition's production volume and cost, even under the pressure of open conflicts strongly and urgently requiring them (just for comparison give a look to the volume, times, and cost involved even only in the export deal with India for 15.000 and 10.000 Kornkur-M and 20.000 gun launched "Invar" Wink )  
       

    [/b]


    This factor by itself produce one of the most ridiculous fire density on the battlefield for a weapons in its class , for not say an absurd susceptibility to attrition (.....even more if we consider what enormous amount of time the RF and optical detection systems present on any enemy vehicle present on the battlefield has at its disposition to detect and vaporize the motionless FGM-148's operator waiting to finally get the chance to "fire before forget" Laughing )  


    Returning to the question of lock breaking of FGM-148's seeker we must only consider what would happen when the optical projection of target IR boundary to the current seeker position of Javelin missile (requiring about 14 seconds from ignition of flight motor to reach 2000 m in direct fire mode ,enough said ) encounter even only for few seconds a multispectral opaque screen such as those ones :




    2:42





    7:49 (from RAE-2013)




    Not perfectly encouraging isn't ?



    But naturally all those factors don't matter at all, in facts is sufficient to continue to attack in big coalitions (enjoying crushing technological, numerical, training, ISR and fire power advantage) only third world enemies equipped, at  best, with few, badly maintained and horribly employed antediluvian weapon systems ,and the PR department of money-hungry firms could happily continue at point at the shining operative performances of theirs abortive weapon designs; weapons which would lead theirs operators to be horribly outgunned by any advanced opponent with a grip on the concept of "cost efficiency" and conceiving its weapons to fight large scale conflicts instead to eat its wedge of an overblown defense budget.



    avatar
    BlackArrow

    Posts : 141
    Points : 119
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  BlackArrow on Sun Nov 17, 2013 1:09 pm

    Mindstorm, are you trying to say that the FGM-148 Javelin missile doesn't work? I think there is a lot of evidence that proves otherwise.

    BTW, what have youtube videos of tanks jumping over ramps got to do with anything?

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 817
    Points : 984
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Nov 17, 2013 3:10 pm

    BlackArrow wrote:Mindstorm, are you trying to say that the FGM-148 Javelin missile doesn't work? I think there is a lot of evidence that proves otherwise.

    I say ,with plentiful of argumentations ,that its same design fundamentals are flawed in its innermost basis and in direct opposition with the most basic engineering....KISS rule  (always a bad choice)  Very Happy 

    BlackArrow have you ever seen an FGM-148 emplyed in a theatre of war ?
    Well go at the previous page and you can see some samples in a mine previous post; now instead try to observe any presentation video of FGM-148 (of any lenght), what you notice?

    Yes ; the pre-fire sequence is always horribly clipped , try to guess why.....

    Now what happen when one of those motionless dummy with an oversized tube on its shoulder ,in the hopeless await to finally get a chance to fire theirs overcostly ATGM (often versus fixed targets no more distant than 300-400 meters Razz ) confront an enemy that ,for the same cost, has equipped its troop with seven multi-purpose infantry-portable guided missiles that can conclud the fire sequence in less than half the time ?

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:51 am