Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Share

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western 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.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:22 pm

    lol and still no fire and forget mode of operation for the poore russian soldiers  Laughing Laughing 
    and the rest of your posts is irrelevant trolling geek 
    i was comparing it because jav has 2,500m range and 21kg weight, so the russians are copying some of the characteristics...Idea

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1955
    Points : 1962
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Regular on Sun Nov 10, 2013 7:47 pm

    Copied characteristics. respekt  Funniest thing I've heard for some time. I think A-10 copied characteristics of Wright flyer. Characteristics of flight.

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 895
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Modern ATGM Comparisons

    Post  d_taddei2 on Sun Nov 10, 2013 8:06 pm

    alittle off topic, but i think the AT-15 is an awesome anti tank missle although expensive, but when the missle
    is put to use as the  9P157-2 Khrizantema-S tank destroyer (BMP-3), now this does get scary. (pretty good bit at 1.40)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExPjLMwpwEw

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1955
    Points : 1962
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Regular on Sun Nov 10, 2013 9:10 pm

    Khrizantema is really dangerous thing. Gadafi troops where on the receiving end of this beast in the last stages in Libyan war.
    Russia recently delivered small batch of Khrizantemas to new Libyan government.
    Some pictures
    http://milinme.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/chrysanthemums-to-libya/

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Modern ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Mon Nov 11, 2013 10:50 am

    lol and still no fire and forget mode of operation for the poore russian soldiers
    Fire and forget has little value... RPG already is fire and forget anyway.

    Top attack is the advantage as the heavy frontal armour of western tanks is bypassed with top attack weapons.

    i was comparing it because jav has 2,500m range and 21kg weight, so the russians are copying some of the characteristics.
    Awww come on.

    Are you actually trying to say you think the Russians sat down and decided they wanted to copy SOME characteristics of Javelin?

    There are only two useful features of Javelin... top attack flight profile and fire and forget... both of which use thermal seekers that make it enormously expensive to buy and to actually use.

    In such a case fire and forget is a liability... a modern decent DIRCMs would make it useless in the fire and forget mode which is also the lofted top attack mode.

    In other words it becomes a direct fire CLOS ATGM with less penetration than most existing models.

    Of course they looked at Javelin and decided to copy its max range... Rolling Eyes 


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:52 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:alittle off topic, but i think the AT-15 is an awesome anti tank missle although expensive, but when the missle
    is put to use as the  9P157-2 Khrizantema-S tank destroyer (BMP-3), now this does get scary. (pretty good bit at 1.40)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExPjLMwpwEw

    to answer to you and garry there is a reason max ranges if infantry atgm are about 2,5km... after 2000m the accuracy of tank rounds starts to drop more and more as they slow down and balistic forces take over.

    khrizantema is supersonic 400m /s and has the highest range out there of modern atgms - 6km.

    however lack of fire and forget capability is a serious flaw that puts helicopters in great danger because they have to stay up and keep line of sight for targeting.

    In modern battlefield tanks are followed by shorad and all new shorad systems and manpads that accompany tanks have much longer ranges and 2-3 times faster missiles then khrizantema.
    also important to note is that average speed from 0-6000m is less then 300m/s so engagment times on max range will be about 20s. tooo long.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  medo on Tue Nov 12, 2013 10:18 am

    Rpg type 7v wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:alittle off topic, but i think the AT-15 is an awesome anti tank missle although expensive, but when the missle
    is put to use as the  9P157-2 Khrizantema-S tank destroyer (BMP-3), now this does get scary. (pretty good bit at 1.40)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExPjLMwpwEw

    to answer to you and garry there is a reason max ranges if infantry atgm are about 2,5km... after 2000m the accuracy of tank rounds starts to drop more and more as they slow down and balistic forces take over.

    khrizantema is supersonic 400m /s and has the highest range out there of modern atgms - 6km.

    however lack of fire and forget capability is a serious flaw that puts helicopters in great danger because they have to stay up and keep line of sight for targeting.

    In modern battlefield tanks are followed by shorad and all new shorad systems and manpads that accompany tanks have much longer ranges and 2-3 times faster missiles then khrizantema.
    also important to note is that average speed from 0-6000m is less then 300m/s so engagment times on max range will be about 20s. tooo long.
    There is a little problem. SHORADs will be few kilometers behind tanks, not in the same line. Kkrizantema missiles fly fast and low, straight to the tank and not high and slow as Javelin. SHORADs and MANPADs will not be able to fire on Kornet or Khrizantema missiles, if they don't want to fire on and kill their own forces in front of them, specially when infantry is outside. Not to say it is very hard to lock a missile, which fly around 1 m over ground.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:23 am

    to answer to you and garry there is a reason max ranges if infantry atgm are about 2,5km... after 2000m the accuracy of tank rounds starts to drop more and more as they slow down and balistic forces take over.
    Ballistic forces take over from what?

    Ballistic forces are relevant from muzzle to target impact.

    The 2.5km range is chosen mostly because it is so called medium range... ie generally just outside the limit of small arms fire.

    It means that when used in the vast majority of cases like most weapons in this class the range and penetration requirements make it fully man portable but allow engagement of a range of enemy targets outside of small arms range... like MG posts, Sniper positions, and light bunkers or fortified rooms in buildings.

    however lack of fire and forget capability is a serious flaw that puts helicopters in great danger because they have to stay up and keep line of sight for targeting.
    Targeting is fully automatic like Kornet-EM which leaves the pilot free to manouver the aircraft over a fairly wide range of angles after launch. The relative high speed of the missile means less time involved in guidance.

    also important to note is that average speed from 0-6000m is less then 300m/s so engagment times on max range will be about 20s. tooo long.
    420m/s is the average speed over 6km range target engagements.

    The air launched Krisantema is reported to fly faster and have a range of 8km, but its replacement... HERMES will be the standard anti armour weapon where the ground forces are firing back... and at 1,000m/s peak speed targets out to 16-18km will not have much time to react and little chance of seeing the helo that attacked them let alone shooting back.

    Medo of course raises several relevant points too... as usual.... Smile 


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:49 pm

    medo wrote:
    Rpg type 7v wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:alittle off topic, but i think the AT-15 is an awesome anti tank missle although expensive, but when the missle
    is put to use as the  9P157-2 Khrizantema-S tank destroyer (BMP-3), now this does get scary. (pretty good bit at 1.40)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExPjLMwpwEw

    to answer to you and garry there is a reason max ranges if infantry atgm are about 2,5km... after 2000m the accuracy of tank rounds starts to drop more and more as they slow down and balistic forces take over.

    khrizantema is supersonic 400m /s and has the highest range out there of modern atgms - 6km.

    however lack of fire and forget capability is a serious flaw that puts helicopters in great danger because they have to stay up and keep line of sight for targeting.

    In modern battlefield tanks are followed by shorad and all new shorad systems and manpads that accompany tanks have much longer ranges and 2-3 times faster missiles then khrizantema.
    also important to note is that average speed from 0-6000m is less then 300m/s so engagment times on max range will be about 20s. tooo long.
    There is a little problem. SHORADs will be few kilometers behind tanks, not in the same line. Kkrizantema missiles fly fast and low, straight to the tank and not high and slow as Javelin. SHORADs and MANPADs will not be able to fire on Kornet or Khrizantema missiles, if they don't want to fire on and kill their own forces in front of them, specially when infantry is outside. Not to say it is very hard to lock a missile, which fly around 1 m over ground.
    i wasnt talking about hitting the missiles at all it seems you cant read , i was talking about anihilating the attack helicopter which is in the open, you kill it and you also break the chain and missiles have lost guidance and have become useless and miss thier targets...

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:57 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    to answer to you and garry there is a reason max ranges if infantry atgm are about 2,5km... after 2000m the accuracy of tank rounds starts to drop more and more as they slow down and balistic forces take over.
    Ballistic forces take over from what?

    Ballistic forces are relevant from muzzle to target impact.

    The 2.5km range is chosen mostly because it is so called medium range... ie generally just outside the limit of small arms fire.
    deviations of round at those ranges become more pronounced from IFV tanks and small arms are out of range ofcourse, giving at crew more chanses of survival
    It means that when used in the vast majority of cases like most weapons in this class the range and penetration requirements make it fully man portable but allow engagement of a range of enemy targets outside of small arms range... like MG posts, Sniper positions, and light bunkers or fortified rooms in buildings.

    however lack of fire and forget capability is a serious flaw that puts helicopters in great danger because they have to stay up and keep line of sight for targeting.
    Targeting is fully automatic like Kornet-EM which leaves the pilot free to manouver the aircraft over a fairly wide range  of angles after launch. The relative high speed of the missile means less time involved in guidance.
    kornet em still needs inputs its ACLOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLOS#Automatic_Command_to_Line-Of-Sight_.28ACLOS.29
    also important to note is that average speed from 0-6000m is less then 300m/s so engagment times on max range will be about 20s. tooo long.
    420m/s is the average speed over 6km range target engagements.

    The air launched Krisantema is reported to fly faster and have a range of 8km, but its replacement... HERMES will be the standard anti armour weapon where the ground forces are firing back... and at 1,000m/s peak speed targets out to 16-18km will not have much time to react and little chance of seeing the helo that attacked them let alone shooting back.
    cant wait to see hermes i think it shall be very good. but guidance still seems like an issue in russian army
    Medo of course raises several relevant points too... as usual.... Smile 

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  medo on Tue Nov 12, 2013 8:57 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:
    medo wrote:
    Rpg type 7v wrote:
    d_taddei2 wrote:alittle off topic, but i think the AT-15 is an awesome anti tank missle although expensive, but when the missle
    is put to use as the  9P157-2 Khrizantema-S tank destroyer (BMP-3), now this does get scary. (pretty good bit at 1.40)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExPjLMwpwEw

    to answer to you and garry there is a reason max ranges if infantry atgm are about 2,5km... after 2000m the accuracy of tank rounds starts to drop more and more as they slow down and balistic forces take over.

    khrizantema is supersonic 400m /s and has the highest range out there of modern atgms - 6km.

    however lack of fire and forget capability is a serious flaw that puts helicopters in great danger because they have to stay up and keep line of sight for targeting.

    In modern battlefield tanks are followed by shorad and all new shorad systems and manpads that accompany tanks have much longer ranges and 2-3 times faster missiles then khrizantema.
    also important to note is that average speed from 0-6000m is less then 300m/s so engagment times on max range will be about 20s. tooo long.
    There is a little problem. SHORADs will be few kilometers behind tanks, not in the same line. Kkrizantema missiles fly fast and low, straight to the tank and not high and slow as Javelin. SHORADs and MANPADs will not be able to fire on Kornet or Khrizantema missiles, if they don't want to fire on and kill their own forces in front of them, specially when infantry is outside. Not to say it is very hard to lock a missile, which fly around 1 m over ground.
    i wasnt talking about hitting the missiles at all it seems you cant read , i was talking about anihilating the attack helicopter which is in the open, you kill it and you also break the chain and missiles have lost guidance and have become useless and miss thier targets...
    You talk about Khrizantema, which is ground based ATGM mounted on BMP-3 chassis. There is no helicopter Khrizantema missile yet and I doubt it will ever be. Helicopters have longer range ATGMs. Ataka have 8 km range, Vikhr have 10 km range, Hermes will have even longer range, so they will be practically also out of range of SHORADs and MANPADs, considering they are few km behind tanks. Here is actually the point of BMPT kind of vehicles to support tanks in the first lines, which should have ATGM like Kornet-EM with 10 km range. They will actually keep helicopters out of their effective range, being with guided missiles or fire and forget missiles.

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:11 pm

    you dont know what you are talking about ,khrizantema is to replace ataka and shturm and older atgm missiles on helicopters...attack 

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  medo on Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:21 pm

    Did you see any Khrizantema missile on a helicopter? Russia restart production of Vikhr missiles for Ka-52 in the mean time that Hermes is ready for production. If they will place Khrizantema on helicopter, it will for sure have increased range to at least 10 km if not more. Khrizanthema will be relevant for Mi-28, when it will get its radar mounted. For now Ataka is good enough.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  medo on Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:24 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:you dont know what you are talking about ,khrizantema is to replace ataka and shturm and older atgm missiles on helicopters...attack 
    Not exactly. Khrizanthema is to replace Ataka and Shturm atgms on Shturm-S ground based ATGM complex mounted in MT-LB vehicle.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 734
    Points : 917
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Nov 13, 2013 12:37 am

    Rpg type 7v wrote:i was comparing it because jav has 2,500m range.......


    ShockedShocked

    And where come from this laughable notion ? LaughingLaughing   

    Incredible how similar low level fairy tales can continue to survive in the average troll mind for so long....


    FGM-148 has a maximum engagement range of 2000 meters in ideal conditions ( practically in the Metis-M1's ballpark Wink) and was conceived as nothing more than an improved substitute of M-47 with enough maximum fire range to allow the FGM-148 ATGM team to at least remain outside of enemy MBT''s coaxial machine gun in close range ambush ; obviously it could NEVER be employed as the main dismounted/motorized infantry ATGM weapon for large scale anti-armoured/IFV operations  (TOW remain still today the US Army main anti armour for high intensity ground wars) ,for the simple reason that the immense stand-off range and lethality advantage exhibited by almost any enemy battlefield contesting systems (such as medium caliber auto-cannons ,wide caliber grenade launchers , IFV/MBT's HE-Frag rounds with programmable fuses, tube and gun launched guided missiles etc....) would render the recollection of a FGM-148's teams ,after a battle against the armoured-mechanized forces of any serious ground force, a true challenge even for the Jigsaw puzzle world champion........


    FGM-148 is a fearfully cursed design ,characterized by ridiculous cost , maintenance's fragility and manufacturing complexity (all factors codifying for enormously reduced presence and fire density on the battlefield) total lack of any efficient ductility of employment against different kind of battlefield's challenge (meaning vastly reduced survival for the operators against any heterogeneous enemy menaces) a lock-on mode extremely frail for such a class of weapon and very easy to break for any up-to date countermeasure systems mounted on same generation of MBT/IFV/APC (such as the multispectral 3D6M and 3D17 aerosol) and ,in the end, one of the MOST LAUGHABLE effective target engagement time of any weapon in its category ever Laughing  ( do you know , before "forget" ,someone should manage to "fire" in the first instance Razz before an advanced enemy manage to choose in what way vaporize you...)












    When one of those FGM-148 teams (coming from nations literally loving to self-praise the, only supposed, virtues of theirs cursed and heavily mistaken weapon designs, pointing at operations against third world enemies totally incapable to defend themselves Razz )  will see what happen when 7-8 thermobaric Metis-M1 (for remain silent of any HE-frag programmable round) with about the same cost of a single FGM-148, will come from different directions at obliterate theirs fire position and other two or three squads or support vehicles in the same time required for them to merely initiate focal coolant operation, anyone will understand the real meaning of COST-EFFICIENT weapon conceived for large scale warfare against a world level enemy .





    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3182
    Points : 3310
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  flamming_python on Wed Nov 13, 2013 8:40 am

    Love your posts Mindstorm, big fan respekt 

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15458
    Points : 16165
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Wed Nov 13, 2013 9:39 am

    i wasnt talking about hitting the missiles at all it seems you cant read , i was talking about anihilating the attack helicopter which is in the open, you kill it and you also break the chain and missiles have lost guidance and have become useless and miss thier targets...
    Krisantema is a MMW radar guided missile, though in its ground based form is SARH rather than ARH. It has a backup laser beam riding guidance option, but will likely operate in a SARH mode in the air launched model... which means the helo can pop up and fire its missile and then drop down behind cover with only its mast mounted MMW radar sticking up marking the target... what sort of western air defence system can lock on to such a target at 6-8km range let alone score a hit?

    deviations of round at those ranges become more pronounced from IFV tanks and small arms are out of range ofcourse, giving at crew more chanses of survival
    You haven't said why. For laser beam riding missiles from Russian tanks 2.5km would be the distance where they are just starting to become more useful than an APFSDS round in terms of lethality and cost as APFSDS lethality starts to drop off, but the accuracy of the autotracker remains very high and of course the HEAT warhead remains lethal at any range.

    kornet em still needs inputs its ACLOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLOS#Automatic_Command_to_Line-Of-Sight_.28ACLOS.29
    Did you even read the link you provided?

    Target tracking, missile tracking and control are automatic.
    So tracking the target, tracking the outgoing missile, and controlling the missile so it hits the target are all automatic... the only input required is to lock on the target and to fire... the rest is... as you prove... automatic.

    It is fire and forget in the sense that the operator just needs to fire and the missile should hit... it is very much like an IR guided missile or a TV guided missile except some of the guidance mechanism remains on the launcher.... the expensive bits so that the missile itself can be cheap and usable.

    cant wait to see hermes i think it shall be very good. but guidance still seems like an issue in russian army
    There will be at least four different guided models using IIR, MMW radar, Glonass guided, and SALH, though they might combine different guidance options to make them more flexible.

    When it enters air and land and navy service it will be a very powerful system.

    you dont know what you are talking about ,khrizantema is to replace ataka and shturm and older atgm missiles on helicopters...
    They have said that, and that would be a good idea, but there is no evidence it will happen.

    Certainly Kris has all the advantages of ATAKA with better range, speed, penetration, and the MMW radar guidance option, plus laser beam riding guidance, while ATAKA is radio command guidance with one laser beam riding model suggested for Ka-52... though it seems Vikhr won that contest.

    BTW Great post as usual MINDSTORM...

    Of course the huge irony is that with QWIP based Thermal imagers printed like CDs in 5-10 years time a thermal imaging CCD sensor of the sort used in digital cameras that can see in thermal frequencies will be about a dollar a chip so you can have a seeker in your missile and your launcher with much much better resolution.

    Right now the sensors in Javelin in the missile and the launcher are the same and are designed to be as cheap as possible, which means they are no good for long range or high resolution but they are still expensive.

    In 5-10 years such sensors will be cheap and you could put them in RPG rockets with a small cheap CPU so you can aim the weapon.. zoom in and get a lock on some digital image and then fire the rocket which will then home in on that particular target... fully passive and all weather, day/night.

    Right now Javelin is enormously expensive and does certainly replace Dragon III, but would not be good enough to replace Metis-M1.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:26 pm

    medo wrote:
    Rpg type 7v wrote:you dont know what you are talking about ,khrizantema is to replace ataka and shturm and older atgm missiles on helicopters...attack 
    Not exactly. Khrizanthema is to replace Ataka and Shturm atgms on Shturm-S ground based ATGM complex mounted in MT-LB vehicle.
    so according to you khrizantema is a failed project and billions blown for design and production out of which nothing will come .ok .yes sir


    Last edited by Rpg type 7v on Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:31 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:30 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    i wasnt talking about hitting the missiles at all it seems you cant read , i was talking about anihilating the attack helicopter which is in the open, you kill it and you also break the chain and missiles have lost guidance and have become useless and miss thier targets...
    Krisantema is a MMW radar guided missile, though in its ground based form is SARH rather than ARH. It has a backup laser beam riding guidance option, but will likely operate in a SARH mode in the air launched model... which means the helo can pop up and fire its missile and then drop down behind cover with only its mast mounted MMW radar sticking up marking the target... what sort of western air defence system can lock on to such a target at 6-8km range let alone score a hit?

    deviations of round at those ranges become more pronounced from IFV tanks and small arms are out of range ofcourse, giving at crew more chanses of survival
    You haven't said why. For laser beam riding missiles from Russian tanks 2.5km would be the distance where they are just starting to become more useful than an APFSDS round in terms of lethality and cost as APFSDS lethality starts to drop off, but the accuracy of the autotracker remains very high and of course the HEAT warhead remains lethal at any range.

    kornet em still needs inputs its ACLOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLOS#Automatic_Command_to_Line-Of-Sight_.28ACLOS.29
    Did you even read the link you provided?

    Target tracking, missile tracking and control are automatic.
    So tracking the target, tracking the outgoing missile, and controlling the missile so it hits the target are all automatic... the only input required is to lock on the target and to fire... the rest is... as you prove... automatic.

    It is fire and forget in the sense that the operator just needs to fire and the missile should hit... it is very much like an IR guided missile or a TV guided missile except some of the guidance mechanism remains on the launcher.... the expensive bits so that the missile itself can be cheap and usable.

    cant wait to see hermes i think it shall be very good. but guidance still seems like an issue in russian army
    There will be at least four different guided models using IIR, MMW radar, Glonass guided, and SALH, though they might combine different guidance options to make them more flexible.

    When it enters air and land and navy service it will be a very powerful system.

    you dont know what you are talking about ,khrizantema is to replace ataka and shturm and older atgm missiles on helicopters...
    They have said that, and that would be a good idea, but there is no evidence it will happen.

    Certainly Kris has all the advantages of ATAKA with better range, speed, penetration, and the MMW radar guidance option, plus laser beam riding guidance, while ATAKA is radio command guidance with one laser beam riding model suggested for Ka-52... though it seems Vikhr won that contest.

    BTW Great post as usual MINDSTORM...

    Of course the huge irony is that with QWIP based Thermal imagers printed like CDs in 5-10 years time a thermal imaging CCD sensor of the sort used in digital cameras that can see in thermal frequencies will be about a dollar a chip so you can have a seeker in your missile and your launcher with much much better resolution.

    Right now the sensors in Javelin in the missile and the launcher are the same and are designed to be as cheap as possible, which means they are no good for long range or high resolution but they are still expensive.

    In 5-10 years such sensors will be cheap and you could put them in RPG rockets with a small cheap CPU so you can aim the weapon.. zoom in and get a lock on some digital image and then fire the rocket which will then home in on that particular target... fully passive and all weather, day/night.

    Right now Javelin is enormously expensive and does certainly replace Dragon III, but would not be good enough to replace Metis-M1.
    you cant read and hear only what you want ,you have an agenda and its useless to argue with strongheaded person. Repeat after me - ACLOS IS NOT FIRE AND FORGET !
    ACLOS still means the launcher has to kep line of sight , it still sends command inputs to the launched missile , but its done by a computer in the launch platform.
    Lets see how metis works in forest or tall grass or behind fenses of buildings , how well will the wire do??tongue 

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  medo on Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:36 pm

    Rpg type 7v wrote:
    medo wrote:
    Rpg type 7v wrote:you dont know what you are talking about ,khrizantema is to replace ataka and shturm and older atgm missiles on helicopters...attack 
    Not exactly. Khrizanthema is to replace Ataka and Shturm atgms on Shturm-S ground based ATGM complex mounted in MT-LB vehicle.
    so according to you khrizantema is a failed project and billions blown for design and production out of which nothing will come .ok .yes sir
    What are you talking about? Khrizantema is a ground based ATGM designed as tank hunter. It's not a failed project, it's a replacement for old Shturm-S. What do you not understand here?

    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5840
    Points : 5892
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  TR1 on Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:47 pm

    Just ignore him Medo, as you can see in the Pantsir thread he is trying to be argumentative for no reason.

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:53 pm

    medo wrote:
    Rpg type 7v wrote:
    medo wrote:
    Rpg type 7v wrote:you dont know what you are talking about ,khrizantema is to replace ataka and shturm and older atgm missiles on helicopters...attack 
    Not exactly. Khrizanthema is to replace Ataka and Shturm atgms on Shturm-S ground based ATGM complex mounted in MT-LB vehicle.
    so according to you khrizantema is a failed project and billions blown for design and production out of which nothing will come .ok .yes sir
    What are you talking about? Khrizantema is a ground based ATGM designed as tank hunter. It's not a failed project, it's a replacement for old Shturm-S. What do you not understand here?
    1.its ok ,so older command guided systems requireing line of sight will remain on helicopters, who will still again be vulnerable to shorad. krizantema was used as an newest example.
    2. then i dont get why khrizantema was developed at all , why not continue using sturm and ataka on ground vehicles as on attack helicopters?


    Last edited by Rpg type 7v on Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:57 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:56 pm

    TR1 wrote:Just ignore him Medo, as you can see in the Pantsir thread he is trying to be argumentative for no reason.
    ahh the resident troll emerges.bounce  nope you lost in pantcir thread.tongue 

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 3051
    Points : 3149
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  medo on Wed Nov 13, 2013 7:09 pm

    Khrizantema was developed to be ground based tank hunter ATGM. It was not developed as helicopter ATGM same as Kornet was not developed as helicopter ATGM. Point is, that Khrizantema could with radar ACLOS mode work in any weather, what Konkurs and Shturm-S could not.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:20 pm


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:20 pm