Again your reading comprehension comes into question.but i think the russians will go with lofted trajectory (like americans only 20yrs latter) instead of straight fight path with angled warhead.
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.
You predicted Russia SHOULD copy Javelin. Your complaint was that the Russians didn't have any Javelin like weapons.and i have been correct in every prediction ive made on this forum.
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.
This is likely to be a close in weapon to repel a tank attack to support an RPG-7.OK there should be a correction ,point blank range is given at- 350 meters ,which is still very good .
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.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...
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.
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...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.
These penetration figures are actually a bit excessive as top attack does not require anything like that level of performance...
How do you know? It has only ever been used against targets much cheaper much simpler systems would be effective against.capability comes at a cost ,and jav is very capable
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.you dont need to foam , just mention your analysis and why mine is "flawed'
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.
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...AT-3 in modernised form maybe, but theres better equipment out there,
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.