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 Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:27 pm

    so according to you khrizantema is a failed project and billions blown for design and production out of which nothing will come .ok .
    Krisantema is the natural replacement for ATAKA and hardly cost billions... it was made by the same company that makes ATAKA and Shturm.

    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.
    Repeat after me FIRE AND FORGET means the weapon is fired and requires no further INPUT from the operator. ACLOS is a type of fire and forget.


    Lets see how metis works in forest or tall grass or behind fenses of buildings , how well will the wire do??
    If you can't see your target how do you aim at it in the first place?

    It is called tactics and is one of the advantages of holding the high ground.

    How does Javelin get a lock on a target hidden in a forest or behind fences?

    Thermal sights can't see through trees or fences either.

    More importantly to fire in fire and forget mode it needs a clean lock on in thermal mode and when the targets engine is not running odds are it will not get a lock so most of the time it will have to be fired in CLOS mode... the same as Metis-M1

    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.
    Krisantema is planned as a replacement for ATAKA on the Mi-28M, and like the air launched ATAKA will outrange most SHORAD.

    The Krisantema will be carried in clusters of 8 launch tubes, while the much larger and heavier HERMES will be also available... a bit like on the Cobra where TOW and Hellfire could be carried... the difference being that the Krisantema is rather better than TOW and HERMES is better than Hellfire.

    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?
    Because it is better than both Shturm and Ataka and will be fitted to helicopters when they are routinely using MMW radar sensors.

    nope you lost in pantcir thread.
    Just ego for you isn't it. clown 

    Point is, that Khrizantema could with radar ACLOS mode work in any weather, what Konkurs and Shturm-S could not.
    It has higher speed, longer range, a larger, more powerful warhead, and can work in a range of conditions that would prevent the use of Shturm or Ataka or Konkurs... like monsoon rain, fog, heavy snow, white out, brown out, dust storm etc etc.


    _________________
    “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

    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 Thu Nov 14, 2013 3:50 am

    May I ask You why You consider Javelin as a benchmark of fire and forget ATGM. You know, in all in my army years I've only seen Javelin few times and they were not carried by grunts everyday. They are transported in Humvees. Fragile and expensive. Totally worthless in ranges we usually have. Even in polygon You could reach targets with Carl Gustav or AT4. And they are reliable, not fragile and there are more soldiers who are equiped with them. That's why European countries who have wooden terrain have little use of 2500m range Javelin offers. Tank warfare would be limited and Bill, Euro Spike ane NLAW is better suited than slow reaction time Javelin. I personal like NLAW as rather simple, quick to use short range ATGM. While Javelin could be used in an ambush I see very limited use of it in a warfare. It would be unguided hand held weapons that would do all the fighting. If my incompetent MOD would have any brain we would order NLAW rather useless stuff we get.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:00 am

    Lithuania should just order Russian weapons instead of all these overpriced Swedish/European/American equipment.
    For things like ATGMs, small arms, even armoured vehicles and tanks - Russian equipment won't be at a disadvantage fighting against other Russian equipment; it'll work as well as anything else.

    Of course as large sections of Baltic states economies are owned by Swedish banks; it makes sense that they'll buy from them.

    runaway
    Master Sergeant
    Master Sergeant

    Posts : 351
    Points : 372
    Join date : 2010-11-12
    Location : Sweden

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  runaway on Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:33 am

    flamming_python wrote:Lithuania should just order Russian weapons instead of all these overpriced Swedish/European/American equipment.
    For things like ATGMs, small arms, even armoured vehicles and tanks - Russian equipment won't be at a disadvantage fighting against other Russian equipment; it'll work as well as anything else.

    Of course as large sections of Baltic states economies are owned by Swedish banks; it makes sense that they'll buy from them.
    Now Swedish weapons are good, not better than Russian, although made with qualitive and yes they are expensive. I dont think the swedish banks control weapons buying, rather NATO standards and demands...
    The Carl Gustav M48/86 is a great weapon, and my personal favorite on the firing range! Sold to over 40 countries its no wonder Baltic or other states wants them.


    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 Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:58 am

    I wouldn't say all European weapons are overpriced. Carl Gustav is amazing launcher and cheap, G36 rifles without optics are cheap and not to mention second hand systems. Nordic banks have little to do with what we can buy. Their hegemony only started recently anyway. They are invading other countries as well. NATO has stupid rules about standards. Somehow it works different from country to country and we are limited. Meh. Politics also play big role. Americans are not loving us like they love Georgia so no free stuff any time soon. Maybe we will get some useless MRAPs from Afghanistan one day.
    Most of Russian ATGM would be overkill as ranges are short, tank warfare would be limited. Urban warfare would be common too.
    From Russian weapons I would definetly be interested in Metis-M (light, cheap, reliable), Kord(we simply don't have anything like it), Ags-30( our Mk.19 is too heavy to carry it around), Nona-m mortar(120mm with such compact size and mobility), 2A45 Sprut towed gun (I still think that anti tank guns could be used in defensive scenario). They would fill in gaps and suplement army more than few tanks or IFVs. More expensive, but in dire need would be new Mi-8 helicopters and Yak-130 jets. Soon there will be no pilots at all to fly them. We don't need other equipment. I see no point to be a chess figure of US wars in 'stans. For defence and territorial integrity it's enough.
    Russian Kalashnikovs, PKMs are still being used by part time warriors, border guards, interior troops. They are getting old and look like something from Stalker. I'm sure they will still be used for ages.
    I'm not warmonger myself, less offensive weapons we have the safer we are.

    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 Thu Nov 14, 2013 11:46 am

    GarryB wrote:
    so according to you khrizantema is a failed project and billions blown for design and production out of which nothing will come .ok .
    Krisantema is the natural replacement for ATAKA and hardly cost billions... it was made by the same company that makes ATAKA and Shturm.
    ok so why isnt replaced
    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.
    Repeat after me FIRE AND FORGET means the weapon is fired and requires no further INPUT from the operator. ACLOS is a type of fire and forget.

    The operator must keep line of sight there is input its from a computer its not true fire and forget clown 

    Lets see how metis works in forest or tall grass or behind fenses of buildings , how well will the wire do??
    If you can't see your target how do you aim at it in the first place?

    It is called tactics and is one of the advantages of holding the high ground.

    How does Javelin get a lock on a target hidden in a forest or behind fences?

    Thermal sights can't see through trees or fences either.

    More importantly to fire in fire and forget mode it needs a clean lock on in thermal mode and when the targets engine is not running odds are it will not get a lock so most of the time it will have to be fired in CLOS mode... the same as Metis-M1
    the enemy migh be trying to hide and jav can using top attack go where metis cant Wink 
    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.
    Krisantema is planned as a replacement for ATAKA on the Mi-28M, and like the air launched ATAKA will outrange most SHORAD.

    The Krisantema will be carried in clusters of 8 launch tubes, while the much larger and heavier HERMES will be also available... a bit like on the Cobra where TOW and Hellfire could be carried... the difference being that the Krisantema is rather better than TOW and HERMES is better than Hellfire.
    hahaha tell that to medo i was saying him the same all the time ,you are atacking him not me , you are on my side kiwiman and you dont even know it respekt 
    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?
    Because it is better than both Shturm and Ataka and will be fitted to helicopters when they are routinely using MMW radar sensors.
    medo said they wont so who is right a?pirat 
    nope you lost in pantcir thread.
    Just ego for you isn't it.  clown 
    yes cheers 
    Point is, that Khrizantema could with radar ACLOS mode work in any weather, what Konkurs and Shturm-S could not.
    It has higher speed, longer range, a larger, more powerful warhead, and can work in a range of conditions that would prevent the use of Shturm or Ataka or Konkurs... like monsoon rain, fog, heavy snow, white out, brown out, dust storm etc etc.
    like i said too... I love you 

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  medo on Thu Nov 14, 2013 1:29 pm

    http://www.btvt.narod.ru/4/xrizantema.htm

    http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1650.html

    Khrizantema was designed as self propelled ATGM complex to replace aging Shturm-S complex, which could use both Shturm and Ataka missiles. Khrizantema is accepted in armament and Russian army units are receiving them. There is an option to use Khrizantema missiles on helicopters, but up to now I didn't see any evidence, that this missile was placed or tested on helicopter. Until Mi-28N doesn't get its radar, there is no sense to use those missiles on Mi-28N, when newer Ataka missiles do their job just fine and have range of 8 km. Ka-52 is for now the only helicopter, which could use them in radar mode, but MoD decide to equip them with Vikhrs until Hermes is ready. In my opinion Mi-28N and Ka-52 will in future use Vikhr/Hermes combination and Khrizantema will be, what it was designed to be, excellent self propelled tank hunter.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:48 pm

    ok so why isnt replaced

    Fairly obvious isn't it?

    All three weapons are fairly cheap and the Russian military has enormous stocks of Shturm and Ataka... with all the exercises they are doing now they will likely be working their way through those stocks.

    Krisantema is likely a little more expensive but when bought in numbers will be rather cheaper than Hermes and Vikhr.

    The point is that Krisanthema uses SARH which means it needs a MMW radar to paint the target or it uses laser beam riding guidance.

    The Ka-52 can provide the latter as the Vikhr uses the same guidance, but the thimble nose guidance system on the Mi-28 and Mi-24/35 is a radio transmitter... not a radar. The Ka-52 has its radar and could in theory use Krisantema right away but the Russian Government has clearly decided to use Vikhr with the Kamov, so for the Havoc to use Krisatema to its full all weather day/night potential it needs the radars recently cleared for service to be fitted... so there is not rush to get them into service.

    By 2018 when most of the Mi-28s have been upgraded to M level and new Ms are in production the Krisantema will be in production as the cheap simple ATGM for the Mi-28M while the Hermes will be the heavy long range system. The Kamov will have the Vikhr and Hermes respectively in production for the same roles.

    Right now Ataka is good enough and in stock... the Mi-24/35s will likely be using up stocks of Shturm and Ataka too... they are still effective missiles for most purposes.


    The operator must keep line of sight there is input its from a computer its not true fire and forget
    The operator must do nothing... it uses an autotracker to track the missile and the target...

    If the operator still had to follow the target with his crosshairs then it would be CLOS... like older systems from the 1980s.

    the enemy migh be trying to hide and jav can using top attack go where metis cant
    When fitted with a thermal sight the Metis-M1 can see anything the Javelin can see and hit anything a Javelin can hit... or are you going to suggest the Javelin can see through buildings?

    To use top attack capabilities the Javelin has to get a lock before launch... if the target is behind a wall or some trees... or even if it is a tank with its engine off or with IR signature reduction camouflage then Javelin wont get a lock and can only be fired in CLOS mode and is no better than Metis-M1... well it is actually worse because Metis-M1 can penetrate an extra 200mm of RHA.

    medo said they wont so who is right a?
    Medo didn't say they wont... he said they aren't. I am not saying they are, I am saying they will.

    Until Mi-28N doesn't get its radar, there is no sense to use those missiles on Mi-28N, when newer Ataka missiles do their job just fine and have range of 8 km.
    The Krisantema has two modes of guidance... laser beam riding, and SARH MMW radar guidance. Mi-28N has a MMW radar communications pod but not a radar yet. It also is not equipped to use laser beam riding missiles as Shturm and Ataka are radio command guided missiles.

    The Mi-28M however will be upgraded to allow the use of laser beam riding missiles and with its MMW radar will be able to guide at least two Krisantema missiles at once... likely the radar can lock onto multiple targets at once so there is potential for multiple target engagement there for the future... the MMW radar on the Pantsir-S1 allows 3 targets to be tracked and four missiles to be guided at one time so there is potential for the radar of the Hokum to do something similar.

    Ka-52 is for now the only helicopter, which could use them in radar mode, but MoD decide to equip them with Vikhrs until Hermes is ready.
    It is rather likely that Ka-52 could guide Krisantema in laser beam riding mode too, but Vikhr is available and offers better performance from the box in terms of speed and penetration as well as range.

    In my opinion Mi-28N and Ka-52 will in future use Vikhr/Hermes combination and Khrizantema will be, what it was designed to be, excellent self propelled tank hunter.
    It is all speculation on my part though I do remember as part of the description of the Mi-28M that it would include the Krisantema as a replacement for Ataka and Shturm... note Shturm was developed for the Hind and the Ataka was to replace it, though there are still Shturm missiles in stock.

    With their drive to upgrade everything I suspect they will soon stop purchasing Ataka and as Shturm and Ataka are used up they will be replaced by Krisantema.

    To convert Mi-28M to allow the use of Vikhr would require an upgrade of the EO system to allow laser beam riding weapons... but such an upgrade would also make it compatible with Krisantema too while Vikhr isn't MMW radar guided.

    Personally I think the future missiles should be Vikhr, Krisantema, and Hermes for the former twos low cost and different performances, and the latter for sheer performance.



    _________________
    “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

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:19 am



    RPG type 7V wrote: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.



    RPG i repeat , when you want to attempt to troll on something you must at least arm yourself with much more than commonly spread factoids (vast majority of which ridiculously false and ,usually, fruit of technical detail's ignorance when not selective bias and voluntary twisting ).

    One of those factoids present ,only in low level common imaginary, is the idea linking "western" missiles with "fire and forget" (such as for "joint", "stealth" ,"networked", "LPI", "fifth generation", and similar coded wording garbage ) ,you have .....unsurprisingly Razz .....fallen for such a low level mistake for the main missile weapon of AH-64.


    What should it be this main missile weapon supposedly having put AH-64s, in all those years of operative employment (against third world enemies, totally incapable to defend themselves in any way) out of "harm's way" of enemy battlefields menaces thanks to its "fire and forget" capability ?

    AGM-114 "Hellfire" missile - Helicopter Launched - Fire and Forget - ? Laughing Laughing



    If any ,even only AGM-114's denomination acronym is a crushing proof of the ridiculous level of PR-marketing-oriented intellectual dishonesty of over-ocean weapon designers Laughing

    But it is not all, because even the only version -among the many of this cursed weapon which has gained......as usual.....its totally PR-constructed "reputation" in limited conflicts against defenseless third world enemies - showing a very limited "fire and forget" capabilities would still be totally useless against ground forces equipped with vehicles an systems even only at domestic 1980 years standard and would leave the carrying helicopter immensely more exposed to OPFOR's fire than domestic corresponding guided missiles.





    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  medo on Fri Nov 15, 2013 12:57 pm

    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.
    When we speak about helicopters, it is good to notice, that Ka-52 and Mi-28 will work together as well as with Su-25 or its future replacement. Ka-52 will work as scout helicopter and with long range Hermes ATGM or Vikhr it will clean area of enemy SHORADs (NATO ground forces don't have mobile medium and long range SAMs as Russian ground forces have and they are mostly based on Stinger), so Mi-28 will than easily destroy tanks and IFVs with Ataka or Khrizantema ATGMs.

    Talking about Ka-52, there is more interesting question of its ESM complex and its capabilities to use anti-radar missiles. Ka-52K will use Kh-31A anti-ship missiles, so it is technically also capable to carry Kh-31P anti-radar missile and Ka-52 and Ka-52K will not have much differences in their hardpoints capabilities. With L-150 pastel RWR, use of Kh-31P is possible.

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-19

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Fri Nov 15, 2013 11:06 pm

    While I have been watching this thread and other threads on this forum, I unfortunately didn't have the time to join in any of the discussions since my last post.

    At the risk of this being slightly off-topic, I would like to suggest that, to maintain the quality standard of this forum and prevent it from degenerating into the type of discussions held at forums like "militaryphotos.net", may I suggest for us to refrain from replying to any comments posted by users like “Rpg”, i.e. totally ignoring them.

    To explain the matter a bit further, except for only one instance, “Rpg” has been embarrassingly wrong about everything in every one of his post that I have read. Of course, even in that one instance that I mentioned, he was only partially correct, and more importantly, he misinterpreted every aspect of the subject matter that was relevant to the topic being discussed.

    The instance I am referring to is about the second stage of 57Eh6E (57Э6Е) missile which, of course, doesn’t actually have a rocket motor. Of course, amongst his misinterpretations was that he was thinking of such feature as a deficiency! In reality, this aspect of that missiles design, which has been made possible by some extremely advanced technological features, plays a very big role in providing this missile with its extremely high level of specific aerodynamic and kinematic performance.

    As an aside, the event that actually instigated in me joining this forum was that discussion about the second stage of 57Eh6E.

    Back to the topic:

    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 Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:01 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : Corrected the spelling of)

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:54 am

    As an aside, the event that actually instigated in me joining this forum was that discussion about the second stage of 57Eh6E.
    So the effect of feeding the troll was not all bad.  Smile

    Most of the time I would agree that replying to trolling is a waste of time, but the fact of the matter is that I don't think it is actual trolling... Trolling is intentionally saying stupid things to get a response... sometimes ignorance can appear to be trolling.

    I remember a long while back I was a young member on a forum and there was a poster that only posted when someone posted something really stupidly wrong. I was interested in his answers but he really only rose to obvious troll material... which I think encouraged such posting.

    I wasn't tempted to troll myself but recognised the value of others trolling to get a response.

    At the end of the day not responding to a certain members sillier posts is to suggest he might be right.

    Explaining why he is wrong leads to interesting information being posted including contributions from yourself and Mindstorm that I have found worth reading so while a negative influence I don't think it is destructive to the forum.

    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.


    _________________
    “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

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:21 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

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-19

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:17 am

    GarryB wrote:
    Most of the time I would agree that replying to trolling is a waste of time, but the fact of the matter is that I don't think it is actual trolling... Trolling is intentionally saying stupid things to get a response... sometimes ignorance can appear to be trolling.
    I agree with your assessment. Based on your description of this situation, I now think the measured approach to these situations that you promote is the better approach.

    Morpheus Eberhardt
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1967
    Points : 2092
    Join date : 2013-05-19

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Morpheus Eberhardt on Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:33 am

    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.

    BlackArrow
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 132
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  BlackArrow on Sat Nov 16, 2013 6:18 pm

    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...

    Zivo
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1504
    Points : 1540
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Zivo on Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:46 pm

    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.

    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 Sat Nov 16, 2013 11:04 pm

    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.

    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 17, 2013 1:27 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.



    _________________
    “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

    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 17, 2013 3:36 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.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  medo on Sun Nov 17, 2013 4:21 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
    Captain
    Captain

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Nov 17, 2013 5:55 am

    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.




    BlackArrow
    Junior Sergeant
    Junior Sergeant

    Posts : 132
    Points : 114
    Join date : 2013-05-17

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  BlackArrow on Sun Nov 17, 2013 6:09 am

    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
    Captain
    Captain

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:10 am

    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 ?

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  collegeboy16 on Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:18 pm

    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.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 5:52 pm


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 03, 2016 5:52 pm