Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Share

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  etaepsilonk on Thu Nov 21, 2013 1:17 pm

    To medo:
    Yes, I agree. But producing excellent weapons doesn't mean that you become immune from bean-counting, or from questionable, but nice-looking and fashionable technology development trends.

    Btw, bill is not wire guided, but laser beam riding missile. And it is in NO WAY an equivalent to Metis or Milan, they're much lighter and more transportable (full bill system weighs something like 50 kg, I assure you, hauling that weight in battlefield conditions is not an easy task). It would be much more appropriate to compare it to higher tier ATGMs.
    About potential friendly fire. I was thinking that majority of ATGMs have self-destruct feature for exactly those kinds of situations, haven't they?

    To GarryB:

    Yes, I'm aware, that US military has AT weapons other than Javelin Smile 

    And thanks for insight about US/Russian missile systems, but I sort of already knew that too Neutral 

    Now I'll examine the following:
    Yes, they have the option to engage enemy with AT4 and Javelin, but not only those. US military also has Carl Gustav at it's disposal, and there were some plans to re-introduce M67 recoilless rifles (not sure if that has materialized though). Also US won't be shy about using trophy SPG-9s if needed.

    " and when the target is a group of enemy in a bunker or building then you can't use the fire and forget mode of Javelin anyway... that only works with vehicles with engines turned on."

    Well, if enemy is in the bunker, or in the vehicle with engine turned off, that means, he's immobile, and therefore, susceptible to Artillery or CAS strikes, isn't he? Smile 



    "Metis-M1 can be ready to fire from the march."

    You have misunderstood me. I meant, the operator doesn't have to guide the missile when it fires, so less strain is put on him.



    "Javelin is only fire and forget against vehicle targets with lockable IR signatures... which equates to only a very small fraction of battlefield targets."

    Javelin has an Imaging Infra Red seeker, so target doesn't have to be very hot to have a lock-on at him.



    "How? Javelin and Spike cannot receive target data from other sources and guide itself to a target based on that data.

    A Metis-M1 operator could receive the same target data... locate the target and fire rather faster than an operator of Javelin as there is no lock time."

    Yes, they can. Actually, automated information systems are nothing special and are not limited to any particular guidance technique. Here's an example of Russian ATGM automated control system.
    (google komandirsha-e)
    Now, because 3rd gen ATGMs are not limited by line-of-sight, they've much more potential utilising this kind of systems.
    Also, I don't really know Javelin's lock-on time specifications, so can't really comment on that. But please note, that Javelin's crew, because they don't need to guide the missile, can reload much faster after firing, if needed. So, even if Javelin takes time to aquire the target (and I really doubt that it is much, anyway), that's more than compensated, in case multiple firings are required.



    "Metis-M1 also has a reduced signature launch capability."

    No, it hasn't.



    "Range limitation is seeker acquisition range and has nothing to do with flight profile. The lofted trajectory along with its low flight speed actually makes it vulnerable to enemy fire."

    Seeker range is not a limitation, if Lock-on-after-launch feature is applied. And I believe, that any object, regardless if it's high or low, in the ground, or underwater, is vulnerable to enemy's fire (only God is invulnerable Smile  ). Besides, I don't know of any man portable ATGM, going faster than transonic. So, I don't think, that in this case, survivability because of speed, really matters, anyway.



    "Kornet EM uses ACLOS and should be able to follow high speed targets including aircraft... and lofted Javelins..."

    Yes, ACLOS is a pretty welcome feature in ATGMs, that allows to engage fast targets more effectively (althouth not to the extent, that FF missiles could provide). Also, I would be very cautious about Kornet's ability to engage aircraft (or another missiles). It is, after all, just a Mach 1 missile, and I'm pretty sure, doesn't contain air interception algorithms in it's software, lowering Pk even further.



    "METIS-M1 pretty much covers all those features"

    Is it a fact, or just an opinion?




    "The costs listed were for the US army which was buying Javelin missiles... 175K is the missile price... add quarter of a million for the launcher too!"

    As I mentioned, I don't really know the details of this contract, but I'm strongly inclined to believe, that this contract wasn't just for missiles and their launchers, but also spare parts, maintenance, operator training and so on.

    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 21, 2013 8:06 pm

    Btw, bill is not wire guided, but laser beam riding missile.
    I don't have it in my hands, but all sources said it is wire guided SACLOS ATGM.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  etaepsilonk on Thu Nov 21, 2013 8:20 pm

    medo wrote:
    Btw, bill is not wire guided, but laser beam riding missile.
    I don't have it in my hands, but all sources said it is wire guided SACLOS ATGM.
    Oops, my mistake Embarassed . I had actually read about the system many years ago, and forgot some of the pecularities, probably mistook that for RBS 70.

    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 21, 2013 8:29 pm

    I dont understand . jav has the range of 2500m, it can close an 5 km arc from left to right.
    100 of javs can cover the 500km front , is that good enough????.
    and those are launchers there would be 2-3 missiles for each. so its NOT expencive.
    once first tanks are destroyed, armour columns will stop or be slowed down allot,untill reinforcements can be called. so jav is perfect.
    Enemy tanks will be pounding the last known location of the atgm crew but it will be the wrong headgerow because the Jav crew is already aiming from its reserve position... while the metis and kornet crew will be blasted to bits and if they get up to reload or escape god help them.
    And garry you are making a fool of youself for the 10th time .pls i didnt want to do this it was fun ,but please stop it ...

    Javs seeker is cool, very cool -59degrees , do you know anything on the battlefield cooler than that?
    If you doubt Jav can lock check out few videos posted here even , and how Jav blasts old rusted t-55 hulls on the training grownds... Non working tank may take a bit longer to lock on to but it be locked just like anything else.And what tank on the active battlefield is not running its engine or at least running his APU  ,how is it going to charge the front by levitation??
    So please stop this circus i dont read long posts ,sorry i dont want to waste my life on that ,if you reply try to be precise concrete AND SHORT and admit you were wrong instead of wrong excuses!
    Ok ,i was mistaken it wasnt gw1,it was gw2 and thousands of round were shot with good results.

    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 21, 2013 9:55 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:To medo:
    Btw, bill is not wire guided, but laser beam riding missile. And it is in NO WAY an equivalent to Metis or Milan, they're much lighter and more transportable (full bill system weighs something like 50 kg, I assure you, hauling that weight in battlefield conditions is not an easy task). It would be much more appropriate to compare it to higher tier ATGMs.
    About potential friendly fire. I was thinking that majority of ATGMs have self-destruct feature for exactly those kinds of situations, haven't they?
    Yes Bill is wire guided, Bill 2 is tandem warhead. I have both carried and fired the system, and i ensure you its portable:
    Tripod 11,5kg
    Missile 20kg
    Sight in protective housing 5kg
    Night sight 9kg

    And there isnt such a thing as IFF on ATGM´s.. as i know of Question


    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  etaepsilonk on Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:15 am

    runaway wrote:
    etaepsilonk wrote:To medo:
    Btw, bill is not wire guided, but laser beam riding missile. And it is in NO WAY an equivalent to Metis or Milan, they're much lighter and more transportable (full bill system weighs something like 50 kg, I assure you, hauling that weight in battlefield conditions is not an easy task). It would be much more appropriate to compare it to higher tier ATGMs.
    About potential friendly fire. I was thinking that majority of ATGMs have self-destruct feature for exactly those kinds of situations, haven't they?
    Yes Bill is wire guided, Bill 2 is tandem warhead. I have both carried and fired the system, and i ensure you its portable:
    Tripod 11,5kg
    Missile 20kg
    Sight in protective housing 5kg
    Night sight 9kg

    And there isnt such a thing as IFF on ATGM´s.. as i know of Question


    Yes, I mistook the guidance with that of RBS70.
    And thanks for your insight. Always glad to read people's experience with any weapon's practical usage. Smile 

    I was under the impression that, RBS 56 weight would neccecite a separate anti tank platoon, isn't it? And such missiles as Metis, Javelin, Milan, ERYX wouldn't, because of their lighter weight (note, that those are actually low tier ATGMs, while BILL- the middle tier ATGM, at least, I think so).

    Also, I would like to ask a question. Does the BILL have a self-destruct feature (for example, for such situations like accidently heading for friendly troops, or civilians)?

    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 Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:21 am

    etaepsilonk wrote:
    Also, I would like to ask a question. Does the BILL have a self-destruct feature (for example, for such situations like accidently heading for friendly troops, or civilians)?
    Yes it does, if the missile in flight lose correction signals, it auto destruct after 2 seconds. Most common however is after launch some 500m of flight when due to dust and recoil gunner loses sight and frantic try to find missile, it starts to roll and wobble due to hasty steer commandos it also self destruct.

    And yes the system is attached to anti tank platoon, and can also be fired from vehicle.
    Range is 150-2200m. Speed is slow 250 m/s. Time to 2200m is 13s. Its easy to aim on target with a sight magnification of 8x.

    When you fire, remember to wait for dust to settle and keep steady, when sight is restored, find and keep target in sight. Aim for middle of vehicle and missile will fly 0,75 over LOS and will strike from top. If you are not disturb and vehicle doesnt get in cover, hit probability is very high.

    System has additional modes, type 2 config when missile flies along LOS and strike in side of usually light armored targets like buildings. Type 3 config missile flies 1,05m over LOS for soft targets, with special algoritsm it strikes troops and MG squads.


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:12 am

    Yes, they have the option to engage enemy with AT4 and Javelin, but not only those. US military also has Carl Gustav at it's disposal, and there were some plans to re-introduce M67 recoilless rifles (not sure if that has materialized though). Also US won't be shy about using trophy SPG-9s if needed.
    AT4 and CG would not be much use for most targets as they would both need to be fired from within small arms fire range to be accurate enough to be effective... that is why ATGMs are used instead.

    Well, if enemy is in the bunker, or in the vehicle with engine turned off, that means, he's immobile, and therefore, susceptible to Artillery or CAS strikes, isn't he?
    When I say bunker... I don't mean Hitlers bunker complex... I am talking about log and stone and sand bunker built by enemy forces to stop small arms fire.

    Using Artillery or CAS for every position with sandbags to stop bullets would be even more expensive than using Javelin.

    Equally a tank covered in sandbags will not have a strong enough IR signature for Javelin to lock onto either...

    You have misunderstood me. I meant, the operator doesn't have to guide the missile when it fires, so less strain is put on him.
    He has to monitor the missile when he can't get a lock with the thermal sight... which would be a lot of the time in COIN type warfare.

    Javelin has an Imaging Infra Red seeker, so target doesn't have to be very hot to have a lock-on at him.
    During tests static tank targets had to be heated by a bank of hairdryers to create enough of an IR signature to allow a lock for testing. When the enemy is actively trying to obscure its IR signature things will be even more difficult for the operator.

    Also, I don't really know Javelin's lock-on time specifications, so can't really comment on that. But please note, that Javelin's crew, because they don't need to guide the missile, can reload much faster after firing, if needed. So, even if Javelin takes time to aquire the target (and I really doubt that it is much, anyway), that's more than compensated, in case multiple firings are required.
    Sometimes it wont get a lock.

    In fact the majority of the targets it will likely be used against probably means most of the time it wont get a lock.

    "Metis-M1 also has a reduced signature launch capability."

    No, it hasn't.


    Look at 7.07 in the above video... how close is the camera to the launcher?

    Also:

    The missile is ejected from its launch container by a booster motor stage, then the main rocket motor ignites. This allows the weapon to be fired from a confined space, though a clear area of at least 2 m behind the launch tube is necessary.
    Source: http://warfare.be/db/catid/261/linkid/1663/


    Seeker range is not a limitation, if Lock-on-after-launch feature is applied.
    Javelin has no lock on after launch option. It is either thermal image locked on before launch or it is commmand to line of sight guided. There is no wire or datalink between the launcher and the missile.

    Spike uses fibre optics, so it can use lock on after launch... but I suspect the image of the target wont be that great from the missile in  flight anyway.

    If the IR signature of the target is not strong enough javelin has been known to miss.

    What do you think will happen when you launch a missile in fire and forget mode that tracks the IR signature of the target and the target pops IR obscurant smoke grenades?

    Is FF better when the result is a guaranteed miss?

    When manually guided you still have a chance if you keep pointing where the target was and hope it wont move...

    Also, I would be very cautious about Kornet's ability to engage aircraft (or another missiles). It is, after all, just a Mach 1 missile, and I'm pretty sure, doesn't contain air interception algorithms in it's software, lowering Pk even further.
    It was designed from the outset to be able to engage low speed aerial targets why wouldn't it have air interception algorythms?

    A moving target is a moving target... allowing some lead shortens the flight time and improves performance on target.

    It wont be used to shoot down F-22s... it will be more for UAVs and UCAVs and of course helos and A-10s.

    As I mentioned, I don't really know the details of this contract, but I'm strongly inclined to believe, that this contract wasn't just for missiles and their launchers, but also spare parts, maintenance, operator training and so on.
    You can choose to believe whatever you like, but it does not mention spare parts or maintainence or training... these are contracts for Missiles and Launchers.

    I dont understand . jav has the range of 2500m, it can close an 5 km arc from left to right.
    100 of javs can cover the 500km front , is that good enough????
    I see 2km range in top attack:



    and 2km range in direct attack:



    So congrats... it has the same range as Metis-M1.

    and those are launchers there would be 2-3 missiles for each. so its NOT expencive.
    once first tanks are destroyed, armour columns will stop or be slowed down allot,untill reinforcements can be called. so jav is perfect.
    And replace those Javelins with Metis-M1 and the same area (400km for 100 launchers) is covered but instead of paying 100 x 250,000 =  25 million for the launchers, plus say three missiles per launcher or 300 missiles at 175,000 a pop = 82.5 million more, you get 100 Metis launchers at 85,000 dollars each for 8.5 million, and those 300 missiles will cost you 3.9 million.

    Javelin therefore costing a total of 25 million + 82.5 million or 107.5 million dollars, while Metis-M1 will cost just under 12.5 million.

    Say Javelin is not expensive again... with a straight face.

    Enemy tanks will be pounding the last known location of the atgm crew but it will be the wrong headgerow because the Jav crew is already aiming from its reserve position...
    Have looked at several videos of US forces using Javelin and they really don't seem to move very far at all between the time they fire the missile and when they stop moving for a rest... looks like that launcher is heavy.

    while the metis and kornet crew will be blasted to bits and if they get up to reload or escape god help them.
    The Kornet crew will be 8km from the tank... and the Metis crew will be fine because if they do their job right the target wont know what hit them.

    Javs seeker is cool, very cool -59degrees , do you know anything on the battlefield cooler than that?
    The bodies of the Javelin crew wont get that cold... I agree.

    and how Jav blasts old rusted t-55 hulls on the training grownds..
    Did you not see the bank of hair dryers used to heat up the targets before they fired upon them?

    Ok ,i was mistaken it wasnt gw1,it was gw2 and thousands of round were shot with good results.
    Since Metis entered service it has had good results in several conflicts yet costs a fraction of what Javelin costs.

    If you paid attention to the videos showing US soldiers firing Javelin at targets the camera shows the results of the hits... the camera man was safe to continue to film the target... does that suggest that perhaps the fire and forget capability of Javelin in that case was irrelevant?

    if the target couldn't detect and open fire on the camera man what chance to detect and open fire on the Javelin operator in that instance?

    Showing Javelin operators "Surviving" firing at Afghans says nothing about their performance against a real enemy that knows what they are doing.


    _________________
    “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

    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 Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:47 pm

    They should invent cam-missiles, basically you have a pretty slow but very agile missile(just fast enough to fly properly) like those in COD. you shoot it upwards towards the target, then dip the missile a bit to see where exactly the target is then execute a dive. the idea is you shoot it behind a ridge, building, any kind of hard cover with only the knowledge of general direction where enemy is(no need to pop up). It should be realtively easy to create, the most expensive bits should prolly be the camera and the FCS.

    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 22, 2013 5:32 pm

    Yes it does, if the missile in flight lose correction signals, it auto destruct after 2 seconds. Most common however is after launch some 500m of flight when due to dust and recoil gunner loses sight and frantic try to find missile, it starts to roll and wobble due to hasty steer commandos it also self destruct.
    Bill2 could not lost signals, because it is wire guided, only if wire is cut. I think operator is smart enough, it will not use it in forest or similar environment or flying paths, where wire could be quickly cut. I personally more think that operator have neutralisation button to either disarm warhead or to self destruct missile, if operator see target is friendly. But at the end, operator could just crash missile on the ground.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  etaepsilonk on Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:58 pm

    To runaway:
    Thanks for information Smile 

    To medo:
    I think, poster "runaway" was talking about losing lock on the missile's light lamp, by which missile's position is determined by the launcher.

    To GarryB:
    Thanks for the links. I was preparing a long answering post, but got it deleted by accident Sad  , sorry.
    I came to conclusion, that all our debate essentially boils down to whether or not the creation of reliable FF ATGM seeker is possible. Do you think it's an impossible task?

    To collegeboy16:
    Well, who knows. Maybe one day you'll develop one Smile 


    Last edited by etaepsilonk on Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:19 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 Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:13 pm

    except the Jav is likely to pulverize a tank, with top attack ,while metis might just damage it or even not penetrate the frontal glacis...pwnd 
    and what was the weight of the latest metis atgm versions ? 23-24kg? thats heavier then Javelin affraid 
    .
    and lets not forget advantage javelin has in nightfighting capability...Idea 
    newer javelins have better rocket fuel and trajectory so they have 2,5 km range ,that is an old chart ,thats why its online.Wink 
    you wont admit you made a mistake , typical,  jav can lock to anything out there , a human at 36C can be locked. Stay cool my friend lol1

    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 Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:18 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:They should invent cam-missiles, basically you have a pretty slow but very agile missile(just fast enough to fly properly) like those in COD. you shoot it upwards towards the target, then dip the missile a bit to see where exactly the target is then execute a dive. the idea is you shoot it behind a ridge, building, any kind of hard cover with only the knowledge of general direction where enemy is(no need to pop up). It should be realtively easy to create, the most expensive bits should prolly be the camera and the FCS.
    http://www.armyrecognition.com/eurosatory_2012_show_daily_news_pictures_video/the_israeli_company_rafael_unveils_the_mini_spike_missile_electro-optical_weapon_system_1306124.html


    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15465
    Points : 16172
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:31 am

    that all our debate essentially boils down to whether or not the creation of reliable FF ATGM seeker is possible. Do you think it's an impossible task?
    The problem with Javelin is the cost of thermal Imager chips... Metis-M1 can be fitted with a thermal imager but it is used on the launcher only.

    On Javelin the chips are in the launcher and in the missile so obviously the missile will be destroyed every time the system is used which makes it expensive.

    In 5-10 years time when QWIP thermal imager chips are a dollar each to make then a Javelin type weapon will be very cheap... more than that the quality of the image will be dozens of times better which will greatly improve performance in terms of fire and forget capability.

    The main problem is that defences will have improved by that time too.

    I fully expect Armata to have DIRCMs to protect the tank from optically guided missiles, so it will be pointless except against third world countries.

    Javelin is not a bad system... it is a gold plated over engineered system for blasting bunkers and shooting positions.

    They should invent cam-missiles,
    Spike.

    except the Jav is likely to pulverize a tank, with top attack ,while metis might just damage it or even not penetrate the frontal glacis...
    Except if the tank pops smoke and Javelin doesn't hit it at all.

    and what was the weight of the latest metis atgm versions ? 23-24kg? thats heavier then Javelin
    Metis-m1s missile is 13.8kgs and the launcher is 9.5kgs, which means it is 23.3kgs all up. Add the thermal imager at 6.5kgs and it is 29.8kgs with full night and all weather capability.

    According to FAS Javelin is 28kgs... so very little difference in terms of weight.

    and lets not forget advantage javelin has in nightfighting capability..
    Metis-M1 actually has a better thermal imager than Javelin because it is not designed to be destroyed each time it is used.

    newer javelins have better rocket fuel and trajectory so they have 2,5 km range ,that is an old chart ,thats why its online
    Metis-M1 is the export model of the Russian system do you think the domestic model is worse?

    you wont admit you made a mistake , typical, jav can lock to anything out there , a human at 36C can be locked. Stay cool my friend
    And all they have to do is raise an umbrella and the system loses its lock on that 36C skin and will just land on the ground anywhere...


    _________________
    “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 23, 2013 2:38 pm



    Rpg type 7v wrote:except the Jav is likely to pulverize a tank, with top attack ,while metis might just damage it or even not penetrate the frontal glacis...pwnd

    Laughing Laughing 

    Rpg type 7v, believe me you are corrupted by too much marketing; real requirements by part of US Army for FGM-148, out of typical low level western power point marketing , is immensely lower than pulverize a tank (in particular if we talk of a modern MBT with modern composite turret armor Wink )

    6 or 7 Metis-M1 are immensely more survivable, tactically flexible , and also lethal than FGM-148 , just ,in particular, against very advanced armored threats ,for the possibility that one of the hits will strike a weak point of the MBT, for not say tracks, main gun or optics, or for the chance that one or more of the Metis-M1 operators will be in a favorable flanking position.

    Even more, wanting to remain only within infantry operated weapons (leaving out , autocannons with specialized rounds, fuse programmed HE-Frag, gun-launched missiles , authomatic grenade launchers etc..) each of those Metis-M1 operators could devastate the position of the single enemy FGM-148 squad with........guided , thermobaric missiles for not say too that assault motorized and dismounted infantry troop of an advanced enemy would be equipped with the by far most effective and lethal shoulder-launched thermobaric rocket at world .


    Similar live operation actions.....









    dont match well (for FGM-148's operator body integrity) with an enemy equiped with something like that Razz (with a price tag of 4000 dollars......)  





    You need high numbers and cost effiency to fight against an advanced enemy.
    But that is not a problem for the PR intensive and money hungry US defense system, none will notice the unfaithfulness of marketing innuendo and claims until the body of operator of the 260.000 dollar system and soldiers of those other two or three friendly squads, will return in a compact and burned out version, as result of an engagement against an enemy equipping itself ,at the same price, with high number of weapons like those up shown.








    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 Sat Nov 23, 2013 3:28 pm

    ah yes... the spike missile, i once saw a video where it goes through a window from far away, i prolly forgot the name since it sounds generic. They should name it as valkyrie like in COD, sounds much cooler and unique.
    The mini-spike is very interesting, good for harassing from nowhere with top attack. Against vehicles with hard-kill countermeasures, EFP warheads would still do damage, though against unmanned turrets they prolly wont do much .

    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 23, 2013 6:52 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:ah yes... the spike missile, i once saw a video where it goes through a window from far away, i prolly forgot the name since it sounds generic. They should name it as valkyrie like in COD, sounds much cooler and unique.
    The mini-spike is very interesting, good for harassing from nowhere with top attack. Against vehicles with hard-kill countermeasures, EFP warheads would still do damage, though against unmanned turrets they prolly wont do much .
    Well Mini Spike is tailored for IDF and warfare they fight. I doubt its performance against anything with armor. But it's good if used against technicals, mg posts, snipers or other valuable targets in urban environment. It's relatively cheap (Bit more than 5000 dollars per missile for domestic use if I'm right). And video You saw probably was Spike NLOS, I don't think it's portable. Still I think it's save to take AT out of ATGM when we speak about Mini Spike. It's not wunderwaffe and probably might not be used in conventional war. What would be more suitable in low intensity insurgency is suicide UAV's. USMC already has them.
    Before RPG starts bashing Russia I will add that Russia simply doesn't need such weapons. Insurgents in Caucasus have to be dealt close and personal. GM-94, RPO and the likes are the killers there.

    flamming_python
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  flamming_python on Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:41 pm

    I think even the normal Spike has TV-guidance and lock-on-after launch capability.
    Would be useful in a conventional war; an AT team or helicopter can sit out of the line-of-sight of an enemy column, and launch/guide their missiles to the target in safety; hopefully getting a lock so that they can make their exit or reload in good time - which shouldn't be a problem as the enemy won't know where they 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 Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:28 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:

    Rpg type 7v wrote:except the Jav is likely to pulverize a tank, with top attack ,while metis might just damage it or even not penetrate the frontal glacis...pwnd
    Laughing Laughing 

    Rpg type 7v, believe me you are corrupted by too much marketing; real requirements by part of US Army for FGM-148, out of typical low level western power point marketing , is immensely lower than pulverize a tank (in particular if we talk of a modern MBT with modern composite turret armor Wink )

    6 or 7 Metis-M1 are immensely more survivable, tactically flexible , and also lethal than FGM-148 , just ,in particular, against very advanced armored threats ,for the possibility that one of the hits will strike a weak point of the MBT, for not say tracks, main gun or optics, or for the chance that one or more of the Metis-M1 operators will be in a favorable flanking position.

    Even more, wanting to remain only within infantry operated weapons (leaving out , autocannons with specialized rounds, fuse programmed HE-Frag, gun-launched missiles , authomatic grenade launchers etc..) each of those Metis-M1 operators could devastate the position of the single enemy FGM-148 squad with........guided , thermobaric missiles for not say too that assault motorized and dismounted infantry troop of an advanced enemy would be equipped with the by far most effective and lethal shoulder-launched thermobaric rocket at world .


    i dont think you thought about it top attack is best even more so against intrenched infantry or atgm nests compared to metis direct line of sight attack.
    and what is this Jav warhead weights at 8,5kg ,while even kornet has 7kg , and metis -m what 5kg 6 kg??
    So even against infantry in the open Jav IS better , and the pulverazing of tanks is the right way to call it.

    KomissarBojanchev
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 988
    Points : 1141
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 19
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:57 pm

    You do know the javelin only has a heat warhead, making it almost useless against any type of infantry. Also the metis-M1 thermobaric warhead can just airburst over an obstacle still killing the infantry.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  etaepsilonk on Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:10 pm

    KomissarBojanchev wrote:You do know the javelin only has a heat warhead, making it almost useless against any type of infantry. Also the metis-M1 thermobaric warhead can just airburst over an obstacle still killing the infantry.
    I think, that thermobaric warhead cannot airburst (unless slowed down significantly, by parachute, for example).

    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 Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:36 pm

    Somehow people pointing out that Javelin can hit motorcycles and infantry is as impressive to me as chainsaw used to cut bread.
    It might work in theory but spend some time in actual army and do basic things like repel enemy attack, take the hill, cross obstacle and attack enemy, ambush and etc. I would never imagine ATGM as an threat in battlefield if I'm am not riding in a tank. We were trained to act while being shot by MG's, RPG's, mortars and how to respond against them. Artillery would be nastiest thing. 
    Good luck in eliminating infantry squad with Javelin team.. HEAT round wont do much. By the time You would spend locking in and shooting (to reload Jav it takes about 20-30 seconds too) we would just move in and answer with out CG M2 and M3 with later that has air burst munitions that can hit you from about 1300 meters away. I personally could do 5-6 shots per minute on field with a good assistant. Smoke would be used to actually cover maneuvers. Good trick for stationary targets is to use smoke round and hit the enemy postion and MG gunners would suppress marked area while enemy is blind and smoke doesn't work good with lungs too. Marksmen could always pick You up on their sights as they would flank or take heights. Fire and forget mode would be changed to Fire and get the F out. 

    Russians AFAIK don't have airburst rounds, but they do have RPO-M with effective distance of 1700 meters and it would be even deadly if Javelin operator is in let's say, in enclosed place. And  Russian MG are one the best in the world. Well PKM is certainly better in mobility then our FN MAG. I am not even talking about Russian support weapons.
    Infantry can respond pretty quickly, not to mention it would be easier to pinpoint where they are shot from.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  etaepsilonk on Tue Nov 26, 2013 3:55 pm

    To Regular:
    "Somehow people pointing out that Javelin can hit motorcycles and infantry is as impressive to me as chainsaw used to cut bread."

    I think, if you see enemy's technical, for example, you would very much like to destroy it as quickly as you can. The Javelin would seem pretty useful in this kind of situation.






    "Good luck in eliminating infantry squad with Javelin team.. HEAT round wont do much."

    Javelin was supposed to engage vehicles and not much else. For this reason it doesn't have to engage infantry, there are other weapons for that, like CG, which, BTW, is an amazing weapon.






    "Well PKM is certainly better in mobility then our FN MAG."

    You mean, Lithuania's? I thought we still mainly use MG-42  Smile

    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 Tue Nov 26, 2013 6:34 pm

    etaepsilonk wrote:I think, if you see enemy's technical, for example, you would very much like to destroy it as quickly as you can. The Javelin would seem pretty useful in this kind of situation.
    You are talking about insurgency. Technicals in conventional warfare wouldn't find many uses. Not to mention importance of such target is very small! 


    You mean, Lithuania's? I thought we still mainly use MG-42 Smile
    I mean MG-3. I've only seen MG-42 in a museum. MG-3 is a nightmare for infantry man and good MG when mounted. Trigger, bipod, sensitivity is nothing to write home about. You have belt of 50 rounds and it takes seconds to empty it. Fire rate is enormous and to even remain on target zone You have to shoot very very short bursts. Shooting distance is not so impressive to, You basically have to follow tracers as iron sights become irrelevant at a certain distance. I would take FN MAG or PKM anyday. PS. I've never carried PKM in field only shot in basic training.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:03 am


    Rpg type 7v wrote:i dont think you thought about it top attack is best even more so against intrenched infantry or atgm nests compared to metis direct line of sight attack.


    Yes , i've not thought that FGM-148's top attack profile is better against entrenched infantry in comparison with Metis-M1 direct LOS attack profile and the reason is that..........this position represent the precise opposite of reality Razz

    In facts FGM-148's jet stream, produced by its HEAT warhead , would be capable ,in this instance, to penetrate only one target (personnel or material) before bury itself in the terrain - even more, about the reasons cited by US Army analysts pressing for the development of a thermobaric warhead for the redesigned new iteration of "Javelin" CCMS, is that even the direct attack mode of FGM-148 result widely inefficient against entrenched infantry ,at cause of its lofted approach !-

    Metis M1's profile ,taking into account the same HEAT warhead of a FGM-148, would be several times more efficient in engaging enemy infantry in a house, sandbag enclosed fire position, a building, a bunker and similar.....in facts its 950 mm RHA penetration capable main warhead would penetrate literally from side to side a similar enemy's crowded target destroying any enemy , weapon or stocked material present in its pact.

    Obviously for the same price of a single FGM-148 enemy could procure seven Metis-M1s ,engaging seven of similar targets in less than half the time required to an FGM-148 to merely complete CLU' s target acquisition and collimation Laughing Laughing

    If someone would be even more unfair with FGM-148 ,it could point out that seven of those Metis-M1s can employ in that reduced time seven optimized thermobaric warheads (on the devastating effects of which is sufficient to ask to IDF soldiers confronting merely very few launchers of the inferior Metis-M in the hands of Hezbollah Wink ).

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 7:37 pm


      Current date/time is Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:37 pm