Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

haha, even in COD the time it takes for one to get a lock on a target with javelin would mean you getting a magazine worth of ammo stuck to you before the missile even goes out of the tube.

Mindstorm wrote:

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)   

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  ) 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 ?

actually youre full of rubbish ,you are one of few posters i dont even bother to read here anymore, too much philosophy (just for example you post  pictures of production and aquisition and say how many times jav is expencive compared to kornet metis and what not but not once do you mention the actuall PRICE of the javelin  !!! so what is the cost?!) ...
so now we are quoting video games and some never heard of invented rules to make Jav look bad?  

medo wrote: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.

that can be said for ANY atgm ,actually arena and trophy dont work agains top attack and actually work against horizontal attack kornet metis ...  !

BlackArrow wrote:

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?

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...

what is important is that its tens of time cheaper then the tank its targeting ....and thats all there is to it.
this is just apples and oranges.
If javs were manufactured in India they would be cheaper ,but thats the price USA pays for high technological and industrial streinght and high waiges = high standard.

Morpheus Eberhardt wrote:

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.

wow i feel soo much flattered and honoured you wrote so much about me, yes i busted many myths of the team putin   members over here, please stop
But it really wasnt my intention its hard when you are neutral and look objectivly at things the climate here is pretty RED, so you end up looking like pro-usa even if thats the least you actually wanted... but russia is a democracy last i heard so they have to tolerate me

that can be said for ANY atgm ,actually arena and trophy dont work agains top attack and actually work against horizontal attack kornet metis ... pirat !

This radar is not like radar in Arena or Trophy, to detect and destroy incoming round in last ten meters. This is surveillance radar, which is there to find/detect ATGM teams. Range of Fara-VR is 10 km, but max. range of Javelin is 2 km, so there is good chance tank detect and fire on atgm team before it come to its range.

this radar will give away tanks units position and even make them vulnerable to anti radiation missiles  

Rpg type 7v wrote:this radar will give away tanks units position and even make them vulnerable to anti radiation missiles  

Same as Arena or Trophy. Don't be ridiculous. This is low power radar working on batteries and with personal around it. Tanks radio station is more powerful than this radar. To lock anti-radar missile on it, you must really come close to it. Too close to be safe for anti-radar missile carrier.

Rpg type 7V wrote:actually youre full of rubbish ,you are one of few posters i dont even bother to read here anymore, too much philosophy (just for example you post  pictures of production and aquisition and say how many times jav is expencive compared to kornet metis and what not but not once do you mention the actuall PRICE of the javelin Laughing !!! so what is the cost?!) ...

"Full of Rubbish" , "Philosophy" ?

Poor Rpg7, your crumbling attempt to troll here has not only put yourself in a very bad corner, but you continue to go deeper and deeper post after post.


Let proceed :


1) What i've attached is a graph with the allocations by part the same US DoD contractors for FGM-148's procurement ,for each year of contract's signature.
It represent the most reliable (and ,above all, protected by any lmean attempt to present only a partial price.......) figure for weapon procurement effective price tag .

If you are interested in the figure of the latest deal (including ancillary costs) closed with Javelin Joint Venture you have the contract signed just a pair of months ago, amounting to 176 ml Dollars for 120 CLU and 842 missiles (ostensibly a 2013 price tag of about 240.000 Dollars for each CLU and 175000 Dollars for each missile).


http://www.emarketsdaily.com/raytheon-company-nysertn-declares-javelin-joint-venture-receives-176m-contract/183212/

 

Rpg type 7V wrote:so now we are quoting video games and some never heard of invented rules to make Jav look bad? Shocked Laughing

 

I image that you are perfectly aware that you need VERY URGENTLY psychological aid, your situation degrade by days.

Of what damn you talk about ?

If your worrysome (.......for your mental sanity) ,nonsensical words was related to mine direct reference to "video", you should very quickly execute a check of your inference capabilities.


This is one of the dozen of possible samples of uncut video of FGM-148's operative employment in actual theatres of war.

 

Literally ANY uncut video like this one (to the contrary of practically ALL the marketing video presentations of FGFM-148 by part Raytheon and Lockheed Martin that cut always the pre-fire sequence.....try to guess why .....) show the ETERNITY necessary to effectively shot FGM-148 ,for seeker collimation and focal cooling requirements.


It is not difficult at all Rpg type 7V: you must only connect some synapses between info number 1 and concept number 2.



If you instead refer to the effective iso-planar engagement range of FGM-148 , you should definitely give a look to this ...videogame    ("play" it entirely so at least you will learn a thing or two about the system on which you've attempted so miserably to troll )

pag 47

www.scribd.com/doc/36176275/TM-91425-688-10-M98-Javelin-Weapon-System    



Videogames ? Philosophy ? Rubbish ?...........     What a low level clown.

Haha at that Javelin video. I bet temperature doesn't help. Well CLU are getting upgraded but to make cooldown faster, but still. French are using Eryx for such situations. With same effects. Only difference is that Eryx missile cost about 5000 dollars.

Thanks for the FGM 148 manual Mindstorm.  

mindstorm it seems you didnt get me: inventing KISS principle (whatever that means) , and quoting call of duty videogame (ah that was another user) to badmouth a jav IS WRONG.
Acording to your data -The missile is TENS  OF TIMES cheaper then any modern tank out there and worth it in my book.
A million dollar missile is better then a crap one which just damages the tank, instead of destroying it ,and then that tank kills every soldier on the battlefield.

Regular wrote:Haha at that Javelin video. I bet temperature doesn't help. Well CLU are getting upgraded but to make cooldown faster, but still. French are using Eryx for such situations. With same effects. Only difference is that Eryx missile cost about 5000 dollars.

jav is completely passive unlike kornet with lazzers and radiation bzzz...metis wires can be broken .

the time to lock on is larger OK , BUT new electronics will shorten that further eventually ,and besides the USA soldiers are taking their time in afganistan not rushing things...

The thing is once missile is on its way you get the hell outta there with a jav , BUT with a russian missile you have to stay put to aim it!  

What is more dangerous , to be slightly exposed but passive and in hiding untill you get a lock , or to be exposed while missile is in flight untill it hits the tank?!?!?  

And lets face it the whole tank brigade will be alerted when they see their comrade hit ,and your crew is just getting up and packing to leave ... exposed as hell !!!! 

Meanwhile the same JAV crew in that time is long gone !!!!

Comparing Javelin with Kornet, let us see war experiences. Against what enemies Javelin was used? Taleban in Afghanistan and Iraqi insurgents in Iraq. Do they have any air force, armored divisions, artillery, radars, thermal imagers, UAVs, ...? No, but US army have and still, when they get in trouble, they call air force, not using Javelins. And at the end of the day, Javelin didn't have any impact on war.

On the other hand Kornet was used against the most modern and best trained army - Israel army from the hands of Hesbolah. Hesbolah doesn't have air force, radars, armored units, UAVs, etc, but Israel have. And still Kornet prove to be effective against Merkava tanks and have big influence on war, that it didn't end as quickly and successfully as Israel army want. Although Kornet use laser guidance, this didn't change anything in battlefield.

well it was used against iraq tank armada in gw1 and gw2 . and it proved good!
kornet in liban too.

Javelin was not use in GW1, because its production start in 1996.

Combat history of Javelin (from Wikipedia):

Combat history[edit]

The Javelin was used in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq [6] on Iraqi Type 69 and Lion of Babylon tanks. In one short engagement, a platoon of special forces troops equipped with Javelins destroyed two T-55 tanks, eight armored personnel carriers and four troop trucks.[17]

Most Iraqi tanks were destroyed by air force and Abrams tanks and in both GW1 and GW2 majority of destroyed tanks were actually abandoned (low moral of Iraqi army).

Of course Javelin work fine in US hands, but it was in position of superior army against inferior opponent and not vice versa like in Kornet case. There is still a question, how would Javelin works in hands of Hesbolah against Israel army and their Merkavas.

Rpg type 7v wrote: 1) mindstorm it seems you didnt get me: inventing KISS principle (whatever that means)  

Inventing KISS principle? Me ?    

If instead to vaste your whole day trolling you would ,from time to time, talk to some engineer ( ......for the precision any western engineer) or ,even better, become one yourself - if you manage to -  you would have instantly recognized the acronym.

It was "codified" in the US engineering community in the half of '60 years and has , since then, remained a true cornerstone of western engineering design's fundamentals (with people putting it at the center of theirs work such as  Kelly Johnson, George E. Ellis, Ben Rich )

It stand for :

Keep It Simple Stupid

FGM-148 , in this meaning, is a true engineering blasfemy

Rpg type 7v wrote:2) .....quoting call of duty videogame (ah that was another user) to badmouth a jav IS WRONG.

....Enough said.

Now re-read segment one and two of your statement and try to ascertain who is wrong.....

Rpg type 7v wrote:Acording to your data -The missile is TENS  OF TIMES cheaper then any modern tank out there and worth it in my book

Excuse me ,but this over-simplistic approach is so wronged and far from operational reality and concept of efficiency that i find even unfair to crumble it.

ANY defeating mechanism or system is much cheaper than the weapon it is intended to suppress/hinder/destroy.
The problem is that those systems are unavoidably subject to elements such as:

- Dispersion in the space of all possible area of employment , from which originate the presence and fire power's density variable as a function of actual operative space's saturation (for effect of both enemy and allied  strategic and tactical choices , average mobility and starting positions of both).
A costly and slow to produce system show a markedly inferior density in operative area chosen by you, and even more in those chosen by your enemy (that can achieve a local critical breakthrough without even confronting it !).  

- Effect of attrition , representing one of the main reasons for which numerical advantage require a disproportionately huge quality advantage, by part of the opposing forces, to be counterbalanced.
Two or three HE-Frag round shot ,indirectly, by a pair of BMP-3 IFVs from 3-5 km of distance ,with negligible ISR support, on a pair of FGM-148 squads can ,by itself, trigger a true collapsing reaction on the enemy defending lines ,because suddenly the defending potential fall under a critical threshold.
To do the same against a system cheaper and easier to produce you need orders of magnitude greater ISR coverage and fire power's density and requirement in the area and...... significantly more time.

- Effect of enemy counter-systems and of PK random variables ;something as simple as a battlefield obscurant barely efficient in the IR segment of operation of FGM-148's seeker or a modern ERA tile with times of initialization capable to reduce main charge warhead under a precise threshold and your entire infantry anti tank doctrine go literally to the hell (and unfortunately you usually discover the bad surprise directly on the battlefield against an advanced enemy  ) ; the same is true for variables of engagement - missile often hit and penetrate in not vital area of the target ,miss or malfunction.....is sufficient to observe AGM-114's shot on GW1 against ground target (all VERY TRIVIAL ones ) and see the amount of irreparable loss inflicted .


A lot of people could design and produce a gold-plated "super SAM" with very impressive characteristics/features and with a price tag of 10-15 millions for each missile and very difficult to manufacture , well I can say to you ,without any fear of denial, that any of those attempting a similar thing, defending themselves sustaining that theirs SAMs would anyhow cost much less than any aircraft it would be capable to destroy, would be kicked out violently by the Institution or Company where it work  .

Mindstorm, stating that "FGM-148 , in this meaning, is a true engineering blasphemy" is just so wrong in many ways. You should be very well aware of the design goals that all 3rd generation ATGMs, not just the Javelin, (attempt to) bring to the modern battlefield. And those very goals are axactly what puts them ahead of the SACLOS missiles, and in the broad picture, even outweigh majority of disadvantages that they have, compared to 2nd generation  

And those very goals are axactly what puts them ahead of the SACLOS missiles, and in the broad picture, even outweigh majority of disadvantages that they have, compared to 2nd generation

Hell RPG look at it


Tell me what is better to use in Afghanistan, Jav or this baby

hehehe, the T-64/72/80/90 tanks with their small roundish turrets are actually the hardest to destroy w/ jav among 3rd gen tanks. I wouldnt say the falcon tank, because if jav didnt hit the turret it would hit the turret ring cover on both sides that are not that better armored than the hatches. the 3rd gen t-series also have a small engine compartment while western tanks have an even longer one that is covered by a turret bustle which contains ammo, and chi type-99's engine just sticks out.

I think many of you are misunderstanding a little the purpose of 3rd gen ATGM.
1. It has reduced workload for the operator.
2. Survivability of the operator increased (due to fire and forget).
3. Self-guidance immensely improves it's performance perspectives in network-centric environment (especially so for Spike ATGM, for example).
4. Soft-launch feature for such missiles as FGM-148 allows safe operation in confined spaces (buildings), as well as reduction of the launch signature (although those advantages may also be true for ERYX)
5. Optional top-attack profile, which not only allows top attack (well, duh   ) , but also, due to higher trajectory, introduces improved kinematic efficiency, that means, a bit longer range and/or higher impact speed.
6. Vastly improved accuracy against moving targets. In A-stan, Javelin was shown to reliably target motorcycles and technical trucks even on high speed. Even a highly trained SACLOS missile operator would have serious difficulty to achieve the same performance.

So there you have it, folks   Now, a question. Could all those features be successfully mimmicked in SACLOS missiles to the same extent as FF ones? If you can't find an answer, there you have the rationale for FF missile usage.  

Also, a bit about the cost. Something about 175000 US dollars per missile was mentioned. Although I don't know for sure, that Javelin contract would also seem to include spare parts, operator training, storage and maintenance expenses throughout the system's operational history. I mean, of course, Javelin is expensive, but not THAT expensive.  

Good points.
But there is other approach to 3 gen ATGM systems.
Some ATMG systems than can be controlled remotely, like Skif and it's successor Shershen. You can be about 15 meters from launcher and You can control up to four multiple launchers too. Imagine it being set in the tree(as seen in presentation) or other high ground. I think it's even better than having FF ability. Talking about FF It uses auto-tracking and operator can switch to manual if he wants. Target is not illuminated too. Fire trajectory is above the target and missile only climbs down before actually hits making it harder to detect. By having control using optical channel You can fire from obstructed position or improvise top attack.

Why the hell did troll name himself RPG7 if he hates Russian systems? A better title for him would've been FGM-148 or something.

What is your opinion on the Swedish BILL, another top attack ATGM? The presiding opinion among westerners is that its absolutely superior to anything non NATO, and is cheaper than the javelin and there haven't been many malfunctions of it advertised.

Bill 2 uses simple and not over-sophisticated principle. How it's superior to anything non NATO? I don't know, there are simply few top attack ATGM systems out there. Spike is non Nato but it has it's own advantages as well as disadvantages.
What is more interested that Bill has it's little brother NLAW that would actually puts FF Top attack principle in a good use for first time. Imagine how hard would be to use Javelin in urban warfare and compare it to NLAW. Reaction time, weight, cost and simplicity goes in favor to NLAW.
But Russian ATGM have their own advantages that makes them superior in their usage. Distance and penetration. If Syrian rebels manage safely engage and hit moving tanks from great distances then You have rethink about propaganda we are fed about crappy russian weapons.

I will try to give my insight about the systems you're discussing, but note that I'm actually not very knowledgable on the subject, therefore, some of my statements could be incorrect.

Skif (Shershen). ATGM with appearant emphasis on modularity. Nice, but not anything revolutionary. It's remote control ability is not anything special, and certainly not better, than that FF could provide. You see, even if operator could be safely hidden, the guidance unit couldn't be (it must be near launch tube, because of SACLOS guidance), and in case of firing detection, valuable equipment could easily be destroyed. Even worse, guidance unit needs to be retrieved, and I think the enemy won't just sit idle and allow perpetrator to go unpunished, while he's in full display    Now compare this to FF missile, if it has LOAL capability (such as Spike), it only needs GPS, or any locating device, and comm link (all of it easily disposable and cheap), and operator doesn't need to retrieve anything and can just safely retreat after firing.
Also, I'm not aware, that this system is in operational use in any country's armed forces (I could be wrong, however).

RBS 56 Bill2. Simple and complex at the same time. While having one of the most powerful warheads of any contemporary ATGMs, it's range, however, is pretty short, given the system's large weight. I think, it is mainly, because missile follows the path ABOVE the LOS, it's guidance mechanism actually tends to be more complicated, with extra sensors and processing required. In addition, while it's top-attack feature is indeed fearsome, but also pretty susceptible to countermeasures, that is, it's MAGNETIC proximity fuse could be jammed in the same fashion as magnetic mines (I think, that are the reasons why not too many countries have followed this guidance concept).

NLAW/SRAW. Jack of all trades, but master of none. This type of system brings a new type of weapon, something between RPG and ATGM. Basically it's main goal is to improve Pk of light grenade launcher, when targetting high speed targets (motorbikes/technicals). It's lack of seeker on the projectile and the launcher make whole system seem pretty cheap and affordable. However, not as "cheap and affordable" as I would like to have. Basically, it's laucher complexity is perfectly justified, but not the projectile. It brings INS unit, and guidance kit, all of it on a rocket with pretty short range. Additionally, it contains no link with the launcher, so small mistake in calculating the trajectory, or any significant change in target's direction of movement will make the rocket more likely to miss. Then comparing these type of weapons to current short range ATGMs, (Metis-M, ERYX, Spike-SR), I'm thinking, that a small decrease in cost does not really compensate a significantly reduced capability. Instead of current versions, I would propose this modification:
Get rid of the guided rounds. Retain all guidance kit in launcher, and add a feature in which aim point is provided in the sight itself. I believe, this would be almost as effective, and much cheaper.

Swedes always produce excellent weapons. Bill2 is excellent atgm, but not fire and forget type as spike or Javelin but wire guided SACLOS system like TOW-2B. It is top attack, but missile fly low over ground and still high enough to make attack on tank roof. Bill2 is practically Metis-M1 or Milan with top attack missile.

There is also one important question regarding fire and forget missiles. In urban and other ground battlefields in time of fightings quite often come to friendly fire. In SACLOS variant you could still direct missile away if you recognize after launch that target is friendly. With fire and forget missile you could do nothing in that case.