Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Share

    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 Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:00 pm



    Unless you live in some cave or something you wouldn't be making such statements . The US exports the maximum arms anywhere in the world . The money that the US spends on defense R &D is the highest for any country . It's US allies that purchases from the US . But by your logic , from the F 16 to the F 22 and everything in between the US imports from aboard .
    Not talking about aviation, America is a top dog there, can't argue with that. But from artillery to small arms, US army is outsourcing European projects. America wins most of export tenders with bribes and political means. For example Javelin was accepted in India, US, Ireland because of what ? Spike has way better performance.

    We English NEVER hire people from abroad . The people that you are referring to are mostly illegal immigrants who have sneaked into UK from Asia and Africa and have therefore reduced the local population to a minority in cities like London , Birmingham and Manchester. That's the reason why you see such a lot of dark skinned people in the UK . Completely un productive , just staying there by force . This illegal immigration is happening not just in the UK , but across Europe , including Russia
    I was hired by British company that was looking for experienced people in Eastern European countries. I'm an immigrant worker and after quarter I will leave this country. But I can always stay like most people from EU. British people are low quality material so I was told by people who hired me. Not motivated, unreliable, can't handle stress, can't asses situation and do their own choice. Not saying that all of You guys are like that, but It reflects in society as well. I can only call british lazy people that have very bad work ethic. Indians are better workers than You and You call them a problem. Wonder why Your IT market is "infected" by us immigrants. Sorry, but that's what I think. Can't say anything bad about UK, just You people became lazy, rude, benefit sponging people, totally different what I've seen in 95 when I first visited London.

    Of late Russia has realized the huge problems posed by these Muslims , Indians, Chinese illegal immigrants and is now adopting corrective measures .
    Russian muslims are not a problem, even in troublesome regions most of them are very secular.


    Very soon your Lithuania will also be taken over by these illegals and then you and I would not be having this discussion .
    We will never have immigrant influx. We have almost no social support, people are not fond of immigrants, very high requirements to get job, but small wage and long hours of work. We are basically high skilled slaves for minimal wage. Not really attractive place to immigrate. But thats good.

    Russians are aware of Spike & Javelin but have yet not been able to come up with a top attack ATGM . Inability ...? or sheer laziness ?
    Or maybe lack of small electronics, but not it's not an issue now, so many foreign companies are more than willing to produce components or sell rights to produce them in Russia. There is no embargo. We know only rumours that top-attack weapon is being developed and we will see it in 2020. Expect it to be more advanced than Javelin and cheaper too. Most likely we will see upgraded Kornet missiles too, not to mention whole family of small ones thanks to miniaturisation.

    [b]Javelin can destroy ....[/quote]
    Thats cool, but Javelin needs time to be locked on target, cooling takes time, so You expose Yourself. Not best thing when You are facing modern tank with thermals. Couple air burst rounds would sure destroy Your day along with Your beloved Javelin. For spike it can be launched without locking on, without visual contact and then can be targeted to attack specific part of a tank. Not to mention some variants have longer distance and missile controls can be shared through units. And it is even cheaper than Javelin. Why waste it to hit certain window of a house when You can do it with cheaper alternatives, is there a mini javelin? No, it's a clunky overkill that just got his ass served by other system.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 918
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:49 pm



    Why You think they are using it place You have no enemy tanks in?

    Serious problems with the 5,56 mm caliber effective engagement range and lack of any efficient squad level anti infantry/solid cover weapon



    I have nothing against advanced fire and forget and top-attack weapons as they are cheaper than tank and You can employ them with deadly effect.

    Sure they are cheaper than tank ,but also an HE-Frag round (shot by an MBT or IFV 3-4 km away) is ,at its own time, dozen of times cheaper than an FGM-148 Wink and ,to the contrary of an attacked MBT or IFV, the chances of survival of a Javelin's operator would be very close to zero.

    FGM-148's seeker is effectively "blinded" by IR opaque smoke screen generated by 3D6M and 3D17 grenades (and theirs derivated), even a pair of seconds of lock's break and the Javelin would go totally out of course.

    Moreover when even an ambushed MBT, devoid of any air defense coverage and of active protection, would even fail to blind Javelin guidance and would be ultimately hit, its chances of survival would be much greater than against a "classical" horizontal penetration, even more if the MBT is in movement.

    The imcoing missile could strike anywhere (from top turret ,to top engine vain ,to top of track skirt) and the space passed through by the penetrating jet would be ,at cause of the particular angle of attack, in the order of up to 1/1,5 m instead of up to 5-6 m, lethality of the penetration (accounting for total MBT loss, mobility kill ,fire power kill, or partial crew kill) would be therefore several times inferior to that achieved by an horizontal penetration of the MBT.



    I repeat ,in a conventional war,FGM-148 would be almost totally useless against enemy armored divisions spearhead advancing deep in your territory to destroy your logistic net and your most critical structures, it would play a limited role in urban combat and in some choke point ambushes.




    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Sujoy on Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:55 pm

    Regular wrote:For example Javelin was accepted in India, US, Ireland because of what ?

    Please note that Javelin has been Rejected here in India though I agree that bribes were paid by the manufacturers . I won't blame the US ( or any country) for bribing because if there is an inherent culture in India to receive bribes , bribes will be paid . It's really good that Javelin has been rejected or else we the taxpayers would have had to foot the bill.

    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 Apr 30, 2013 12:03 am

    Sujoy wrote:
    What was the reason for rejection? What about Indian nag? Or other atgm systems?

    Mindstorm wrote:

    Why You think they are using it place You have no enemy tanks in?

    Serious problems with the 5,56 mm caliber effective engagement range and lack of any efficient squad level anti infantry/solid cover weapon
    there is nothing wrong with 5,56 mm. And they have good anti infantry weapons too. It's not the case. M3 MAAW with thermobaric warhead can do better job than Javelin




    Sure they are cheaper than tank ,but also an HE-Frag round (shot by an MBT or IFV 3-4 km away) is ,at its own time, dozen of times cheaper than an FGM-148 Wink and ,to the contrary of an attacked MBT or IFV, the chances of survival of a Javelin's operator would be very close to zero.
    I've already stressed out this issue. But still has it's own usage. Would have worked against hordes of blind t-72 perfectly. But times change and we live in a dynamic world where AT teams will have hard time to lay ambush upon tanks. Especially if tank commanders will have access to UAV imaging.
    FGM-148's seeker is effectively "blinded" by IR opaque smoke screen generated by 3D6M and 3D17 grenades (and theirs derivated), even a pair of seconds of lock's break and the Javelin would go totally out of course.
    It's only effective when lock on is detected and I would rather rely on modern APS than smoke screen.

    Moreover when even an ambushed MBT, devoid of any air defense coverage and of active protection, would even fail to blind Javelin guidance and would be ultimately hit, its chances of survival would be much greater than against a "classical" horizontal penetration, even more if the MBT is in movement.
    Not sure if there is tank that can be properly protected from top-attack. Still feature to come.
    The imcoing missile could strike anywhere (from top turret ,to top engine vain ,to top of track skirt) and the space passed through by the penetrating jet would be ,at cause of the particular angle of attack, in the order of up to 1/1,5 m instead of up to 5-6 m, lethality of the penetration (accounting for total MBT loss, mobility kill ,fire power kill, or partial crew kill) would be therefore several times inferior to that achieved by an horizontal penetration of the MBT.

    You are right, Javelin missile can't choose where exactly to strike on the target and might not achieve kill.

    I repeat ,in a conventional war,FGM-148 would be almost totally useless against enemy armored divisions spearhead advancing deep in your territory to destroy your logistic net and your most critical structures, it would play a limited role in urban combat and in some choke point ambushes.
    There are so many thing that would be useless in conventional war. Don't see it happening. As You've mentioned, Javelin could be perfect in urban environment, there it would shine. Shoot from buildings and etc. But then You might question what does tank do in urban environment?
    Again, I'm not saying that Javelin is bad or useless, but it is not the best on market and the main disadvantage is it's price.

    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 Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:31 am

    It's only effective when lock on is detected and I would rather rely on modern APS than smoke screen.

    The FGM-148's laser rangefinder will trip the T-90's LWS. But, using both smoke and APS is the best option.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 918
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:50 am

    there is nothing wrong with 5,56 mm. And they have good anti infantry weapons too.


    Nothing wrong ?
    Its ridiculously poor (for lethality, cover penetration and effective range) operational results in the latest theatres of war has opened the greater debate of the latest 30 years on the need to urgently and radically select a new caliber for the main rifle's ammunition of NATO forces.

    Just to name some of the most authorative publication on the subject:

    "Biting the Bullet" , by Anthony G. Williams and Nicholas Drummond

    http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btb.pdf

    At pag 9 you can read :

    In the open and undulating countryside of Afghanistan, Taliban forces frequently engage ISAF units at distances beyond 300 metres. Using Russian made sniper rifles and machine guns firing high-powered 7.62 mm ammunition (equivalent in performance to the 7.62 mm NATO), the enemy can engage allied forces at ranges of up to 900 metres. Equipped with SA80 weapons firing 5.56 mm ammunition, British troops are unable to return fire because the effectiveness of small calibre 5.56 mm rounds diminishes rapidly at ranges beyond 300 metres; even the long-barrelled L86 light support weapon is ineffective beyond 400 metres. The only recourse is to call in artillery or air support to engage the enemy. But the precious time it takes to coordinate fire support invariably costs lives or allows the enemy to escape.

    The economics of using an inappropriate calibre merit further comment. Infantry platoons equipped with the Javelin anti-tank missile (see Figure 5) frequently use them to engage dug-in enemy positions at ranges of 1,000 metres
    . These are hugely effective and their ability to obliterate large areas makes them ideal for suppression even when they do not kill. But Javelin anti-tank missiles cost in excess of €100,00014 each and with a conservative estimate of 10 missiles fired per week, the annual cost of these munitions alone is in the region of €52 million. Of the total number of missiles fired since 2002, few if any have been used to destroy an enemy tank. Indeed, the total cost of Javelin missiles fired to date would probably be sufficient to re-equip the entire British Army with a new small arms weapon system.

    As you can find the reason for the very "odd" FGM-148's employment in theatres of war ,that you can observe in the hundreds of video present on the net, is very simple....



    "An Army Outgunned : Physics Demands A New Basic Combat Weapon" by Ph.D. Joseph P.Avery

    http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdf

    Among the others, at pag 3-4 you can read :

    "The advertised maximum effective range of both the M14 with a 150 gr., 7.62 mm NATO cartridge and the M16’s 62 gr., 5.56 mm M855 NATO cartridge was 460 meters. This equal classification is odd considering the dramatic difference in cartridges.
    “Effective” is the key word. In this instance, it denotes the maximum range a projectile is expected to inflict casualties or damage.
    Both projectiles fired at a paper mache mannequin at 460 meters may sail the distance, but one will probably bounce off.
    As previous studies concluded, a truly lethal maximum effective range for an M885, 5.56 mm NATO projectile is about 200 to 250 meters (218- 273 yards) .Therefore, because half of our firefights occur well beyond 300 meters, our weapons are marginally effective.
    An excellent 2009 U.S. Army Command and General Staff College study, Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan, brilliantly summarized the problem, and it is not limited to Afghanistan.

    The study concluded that American military weapons, cartridge lethality, combat optics, doctrine, and marksmanship training are vastly inadequate, costing American soldiers their lives.
    After a mountain of operational evidence concluding that the American military’s BCW was vastly inadequate to address a broad array of battlefield dynamics,the Army finally started to take steps to improve the M16’s maximum effective range and lethality.

    The Army itself demonstrated proof of the M16’s obsolescence when the 101st Airborne and other units started using significantly enhanced 7.62 mm M14s in Afghanistan in mountain battles where the M16A4 and M249 proved basically useless.
    In the interim, the soldiers themselves used captured AK-47s to better compete in the mountainous terrain. As the title of this article emphasizes, we are clearly outgunned, and that situation will continue as we fight a geo-diverse global war on terrorism and face advanced new weapons, such as the AK-12, the 5th-generation Russian AK.


    "Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer" by United States Army Major Thomas P. Ehrhart
    Read it entirely.

    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331



    All of that has obviously generated a lot of urgent measures taken directly in the theatres the last very recently (SAS returning to 7,62 caliber ammunitions).

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294631/SAS-use-bigger-bullets-kill-enemy-outright-claiming-shoot-wound-policy-lives-risk.html


    is nothing wrong with 5,56 mm ? Reformulating the statement replacing "wrong" with "right" would produce an assertion surely much more near to reality...... Wink




    And they have good anti infantry weapons too. It's not the case. M3 MAAW with thermobaric warhead can do better job than Javelin

    M3 MAAW has a round with thermobaric warhead ?


    It's only effective when lock on is detected and I would rather rely on modern APS than smoke screen.

    Not ,it is effective whenever any MBT's crew (or IFV or APC) in the platoon detect the FGM-148 launch and/or its very clear propulsion signature, at this point it can lay the multispectral opaque aerosol screen (capable to cover the entire platoon for 20-25 seconds), two or three seconds of lock-on break are more than sufficient for the FGM-148 to go irreparably out of course.
    In the mean time the fire point area would be quickly saturated by HE-Frag round...

    If present APS would act as the second layer of defense, on the missiles eventually not going out of course; if present modern anti-tandem top of turret/hull ERA tiles (like those present on the T-90MS) will act as the third layer of defense.
    All of those defense layers (in-built in the vehicles and not taking into account those at division level) are synergistic not mutually exclusive.


    But i continue to ask :
    What would protect, instead, those FGM-148's operators (like those of the video highlighted) from : 30 mm autocannon barrage, 100/125 mm He-Frag rounds, thermobaric tube/gun launched guided missiles, 30mm grenade barrage etc... all shot from well outside FGM-148's maximum engagement range ?




    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Sujoy on Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:42 am

    Regular wrote:What was the reason for rejection? What about Indian nag? Or other atgm systems?

    The disadvantages of the Javelin that I have outlined in my previous posts in this Thread , plus the weight of the Javelin . India is either scorching hot ( in summers) or blistering cold ( in winters) and the huge weight of the Javelin makes it un suitable in both conditions.

    However, the IA has used an alibi to reject the Javelin by stating that they need 100% ToT .

    443 Nag missiles are supposed to be purchased by the Indian Army . There were problems with the seeker heads and chances are that they will be purchased from Rafael .

    Other ATGMS ( hand held or vehicle mounted) , the IA has in plenty are Konkurs ; Kornet E ; Invar ; RPO-A Shmel; Milan 2T ; Carl Gustav ; C-90 LAW .

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:51 pm

    Shmel wouldn't be as good in those distances they were using. Kornet would do good as it has good AP missile.

    The latest version of Shmel is reported to be accurate up to 800m or so, which means it is effective against a lot of targets being fired upon in Afghanistan, but I agree a good weapon to replace the Javelin as it is used in Afghanistan needs a couple of kms range and guidance for accuracy. The best replacement is not the big relatively heavy Kornet, it is actually the light portable Metis-M1... considering most of the targets are not armoured a mix of mostly HE warhead missiles would be the much cheaper option.

    Anyways Javelin is not cost efficient system and now it was toppled by other even cheaper but more advanced systems.

    A megaphone to yell out to the bad guys that instead of spending 40K on a missile to kill you will give them 10K US dollars to just go home and you save 30K.

    Garry what You think about todays ATGM systems, Bill 2 or Spike, even Indian Nag?

    I have always had a lot of respect for BILL2... if it was American there would have been millions made. On paper the ARENA can actually deal with BILL2 it is the steeply diving top attack missiles it has problems with due to their steep trajectory.

    Spike looks like a very sensible idea too, though with modern UAVs and digital datalinks I think an electronic connection rather than fibre optics might have been a cheaper and simpler choice... the vast majority of ATGMs have been used against unsophisticated enemies incapable of defeating most simple guidance systems.

    I don't really know enough about the Nag to comment on it, but I am sure it will likely get the job done.

    As a result - as the rounds get newer, their range decreases.

    There is an adapter available that increases the angle of the optical sight for the RPG-7 that extends the range of the newer rockets.

    The main problem with the RPG-29 is its fixed calibre... generally they have followed the pattern of bringing out a new RPG-7 rocket and then releasing a new disposable rocket equivalent. The advantage of the disposable model is that the warhead is the calibre of the tube so the rocket motor can match the warhead size.

    For instance the RPG-22, RPG-26, RPG-27, and RPG-28 have warheads that are matched by the RPG-7 (except the RPG-28). The RPG-27 is a disposable rocket with a 105mm calibre rocket warhead... there is an RPG-7 equivalent and an RPG-29 equivalent. The RPG-28 however has a 125mm calibre rocket warhead but the RPG-29 can't use such a large warhead and I have seen no RPG-7 model because a 125mm warhead with a 40mm rocket tube is just too nose heavy to fly.

    In the disposable model the rocket motor can be larger than the 105mm tube of the RPG-29.

    Common Sense

    For a very long time common sense has been wrong and since proven wrong.

    Russians are aware of Spike & Javelin but have yet not been able to come up with a top attack ATGM . Inability ...? or sheer laziness ?

    Top attack is expensive. Fitting a missile with a thermal imaging camera is not cheap as every time that missile is launched that camera is destroyed. There is also a thermal camera in the launcher. Together they make the system very expensive to buy and to use. The Russians recognise that having a very expensive missile with bankrupt them, so they will either not get many at all, or they will blow their budget to engage tanks they might never face in real combat. Instead they have just made very capable long range missiles and very cheap and simple short range systems that they can produce in enormous numbers and use regularly and export... Metis-M1 is one of their best sellers... it is powerful ( over 950mm of penetration) and it is effective to 2km, which is useful against a range of static targets like MG nests and sniper positions and bunkers. There is a dedicated model with a HE warhead for such use. A three man team can carry a launcher and 5 missiles.

    Javelin can destroy fortified bunkers and can also hit any particular room in a building .

    Like any other ATGM made since the 1970s... the G in ATGM means guided.

    It has a soft-launch, so it can be fired from inside an enclosed space (read bunker or building).

    Not unusual or amazing, though in some situations a useful feature, it is not exactly critical.

    The actual rocket motor ignites some twenty or so meters from the launch location. This moves the signature away from the troops firing the

    The rocket motor of the RPG-7 ignites at about 11 metres from the tube... do you think that makes them invisible?

    The Javelin homes using electro-optical recognition. It actually sees the target and homes on a video image. This means there is no active targetting source (such as a laser or radar) to stop. Javelin is a fire and forget rocket.

    Correction, it homes on an IR image of the target and a tank sitting in the middle of a field with its engine off will not be discriminated by the IR sight to allow a fire and forget attack.

    During tests the target had to be heated by a bank of a dozen hair dryers so that they could get a lock and fire on the old range target.

    They could certainly have guided the missile manually, but that makes it no better than the much much cheaper Metis-M1.

    Or maybe lack of small electronics, but not it's not an issue now, so many foreign companies are more than willing to produce components or sell rights to produce them in Russia.

    Not really an electronics thing... Shkval-M from the Su-25TM and the similar system in the Ka-50 from the late 1980s had video autotracking capability and optronic guidance. The SA-19 SAM on the Tunguska is optronically guided too.

    As far as I can tell I suspect they are waiting for QWIP technology to become cheaper. They are already producing QWIP chips under licence from Thales of France in their Catherine XC thermal cameras they are licence producing now.

    In a nutshell think of the light sensitive chip array in a digital camera. A QWIP sensor is very much like this, but can be sensitive to IR and UV light as well as visible light. It means you can have a sensor chip that can magnify existing light levels like an image intensification scope, but can also see in thermal imager frequencies and can combine the image of normal light, low light levels, and heat to form a composite image that combines the best features of all those technologies.

    The biggest problem with thermal imagers is that although you can see in total darkness a human is an orange blob that is hard to identify, as are vehicles etc. With a QWIP sensor you can use normal video like Spike and a thermal view like javelin on a chip that when it is mass produced might cost a dollar a chip to make.

    Most digital cameras already detect IR light... get your video camera or digital still camera and look through the viewfinder or at the screen and point the camera at your remote control for your TV and press a button on the remote... you can see the flashing IR light.

    Some spotlights used for hunting have IR filters and can be used with digital cameras to see in the dark fairly long distances.

    Thats cool, but Javelin needs time to be locked on target, cooling takes time, so You expose Yourself. Not best thing when You are facing modern tank with thermals.

    More importantly if the tank has IR concealment... even those rubber mats fitted to old T-72s might block the heat signature, or there are a lot of IR signals around the tank that might distract it and you wont get a good lock. Equally an optical port in the missile pointing towards the tank... the Russians have developed a range of anti optics laser systems and the thought that they might not fit them in their brand new armoured vehicles seems a little strange to me.

    BTW at about 120m/s both Javelin and Spike are slow missiles... Igla missiles were tested against Falanga missiles which suggests to mean that Igla-S should be able to shoot both ATGMs out of the sky too.

    And you have assumed that the US will be sitting on it's a$$ till 2020 doing nothing . By then the US/NATO will have far more advanced ATGMs that will be resistant to jamming and any other countermeasures and can hit enemy targets from 2 miles or more .

    And there we have it... this is all about who has the biggest dick.

    If the Russians introduce a new ATGM with diving top attack capability, you think the US response should be to make an even more capable missile...

    With respect the country with the biggest ATGM is not the "winner" or the best country.

    The country that develops weapons that meet its current and near future needs is what we really should be talking about.

    For Javelin to be a good system it is not good enough to just be sophisticated and effective... it needs to do the job (which it does), but it needs to do the job better than other missiles could do it, and that is where it fails because it is simply too expensive.

    It would actually be an ideal weapon for the guerillas as a fire and run away weapon with a good chance against the Abrams because the gas turbine on an Abrams burns very hot and would be an easy IR target from any angle.

    For the US army however they would be better off with something like Milan.

    there is nothing wrong with 5,56 mm.

    There is nothing wrong with 5.56mm as such, but any guerilla force will look for weaknesses and the fact that NATO forces largely replaced all their infantry weapons with weapons in 5.56mm including their squad support weapons (FN Minimi) it was pretty obvious the best (safest) way to fight was from 700-900m with PKMs and SVDs. The chance of a kill is greatly reduced but the chance of getting shot is also greatly reduced.

    It's only effective when lock on is detected and I would rather rely on modern APS than smoke screen.

    The various EO systems that would detect the IR signature of an incoming missile should allow the cheaper smoke screen option to be used in conjunction with APS systems. Drozd and ARENA could both deal with low speed missiles, it was only the steep trajectory that made them vulnerable... I would suspect they have dealt with that issue.

    Not sure if there is tank that can be properly protected from top-attack. Still feature to come.


    The top attack feature of Javelin only works with an IR signature lock. IR dazzlers like Shtora should be effective, and camo systems like Nakidka should too. Launched in conventional mode ARENA and DROZD should be effective.

    is nothing wrong with 5,56 mm ? Reformulating the statement replacing "wrong" with "right" would produce an assertion surely much more near to reality......

    The whole purpose of the 223 was to be effective at normal battlefield ranges. That means 200-300m which is pretty much what it does.

    The problem is not the 223 round, but the NATO armies thinking that because they can hit targets on a shooting range at 600m that it is some sort of replacement for the heavier rounds and heavier weapons like the FN FAL and FN MAG.

    Obviously if you dissect a paper target you learn very little from the wound channel and you can assume because you hit in a fairly lethal place that it would be effective to that range. Of course in the real world the wind and the fact that the shooter is likely tired and hungry and scared and the target is not a white paper target with clearly defined circles showing an aim point and of course is likely moving or perhaps even shooting back and the effective range will shrink dramatically... even with a "good shot".


    _________________
    “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

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    ATGM Missiles

    Post  Sujoy on Fri May 31, 2013 3:25 pm



    I was reading somewhere that a Top Attack version of the Kornet may be on the anvil .

    However , I would be more interested to see if KBP designs an ATGM that can fire APFSDS rounds .

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Werewolf on Fri May 31, 2013 6:09 pm

    Sujoy wrote:

    I was reading somewhere that a Top Attack version of the Kornet may be on the anvil .

    However , I would be more interested to see if KBP designs an ATGM that can fire APFSDS rounds .

    Wow, holy cow.
    I don't think that this is an option, developing an ATGM with APFSDS capability.
    ATGM's are recoiless and APFSDS depends only on speed and mass, recoilless version of an APFSDS wouldn't work and nobody could handle an ATGM or better to say a portable Sabot launcher with such massive propellant.

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Sujoy on Fri May 31, 2013 7:00 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Wow, holy cow.

    I don't think that this is an option, developing an ATGM with APFSDS capability.
    ATGM's are recoiless and APFSDS depends only on speed and mass, recoilless version of an APFSDS wouldn't work and nobody could handle an ATGM or better to say a portable Sabot launcher with such massive propellant.

    The thing is APFSDS rounds still concentrates force in a small impact area . The APFSDS round in any case will be made of a dense material like depleted uranium alloy or tungsten carbide.

    I accept it that a penalty on distance will have to be paid . In other words , one cannot expect to fire an APFSDS round from 1000 m or beyond like a HEAT round. However, in the modern battlefield tanks are hardly engaged by ATGMs from huge distances. The conventional distance would be around 500m - 750m .

    Therefore, the current velocity of release of the Kornet will suffice to release an APFSDS round as well .

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:02 pm

    I was reading somewhere that a Top Attack version of the Kornet may be on the anvil .

    However , I would be more interested to see if KBP designs an ATGM that can fire APFSDS rounds .

    Ummm... how would that work?

    The space taken up by a HEAT warhead is not enormous... fitting a propellent charge and a projectile would not be an issue... fitting a barrel that allows the projectile to accelerate to useful speeds will be the real issue and really not practical.

    The only real option would be self forging fragment warheads... already widely used on some mines and top attack submunitions.

    The basic design is a flat metal disk with a huge block of explosive on one side. The explosive is detonated which accelerates the metal disk to enormous speeds... 5-6km/s and in flight towards the target it is reforged into a dart shaped projectile... there is no sabot so it is AP and it is certainly not fin stabilised.

    The advantages are it is a penetrator that uses kinetic energy that doesn't need a gun barrel, the disadvantages are it has to use a relatively soft metal so very hard armours can cause it to shatter rather than penetrate and the fact that it looks more like a shuttlecock used in badminton than a spear so penetration is not ideal.

    Unless it is one of those EM guns that uses a chemical reaction to accelerate a projectile to very high speed very rapidly...

    Therefore, the current velocity of release of the Kornet will suffice to release an APFSDS round as well .

    I doubt another warhead type would be more effective than the HEAT warhead already fitted... the only exception would be an EM gun warhead.

    The likely next step in Russian ATGMs will likely be in an active MMW radar homing head for Krisantema and of course HERMES.

    There was also Baikal.


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

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

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Sat Jun 01, 2013 8:00 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Sujoy wrote:

    I was reading somewhere that a Top Attack version of the Kornet may be on the anvil .

    However , I would be more interested to see if KBP designs an ATGM that can fire APFSDS rounds .

    Wow, holy cow.
    I don't think that this is an option, developing an ATGM with APFSDS capability.
    ATGM's are recoiless and APFSDS depends only on speed and mass, recoilless version of an APFSDS wouldn't work and nobody could handle an ATGM or better to say a portable Sabot launcher with such massive propellant.
    Wink


    http://www.army-technology.com/projects/losat/
    http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-166.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Kinetic_Energy_Missile
    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2007/february/LockheedMartinSCompactKineticEnergy_3.html
    http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ckem.html
    http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/ckem.htm

    welcome

    edit; i finally found a good video of it in action ,enjoy. pirat
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiojguQy8pI


    Last edited by Rpg type 7v on Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:14 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 Sat Jun 01, 2013 8:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The basic design is a flat metal disk with a huge block of explosive on one side. The explosive is detonated which accelerates the metal disk to enormous speeds... 5-6km/s and in flight towards the target it is reforged into a dart shaped projectile... there is no sabot so it is AP and it is certainly not fin stabilised.
    Its not flat disc , none is ,and it doesnt have to be metal but the metal is used.
    The shape is more lke a big needle.
    They are fin stabilised ,and use same finns or aditional canards for control.
    GarryB wrote:
    The advantages are it is a penetrator that uses kinetic energy that doesn't need a gun barrel, the disadvantages are it has to use a relatively soft metal so very hard armours can cause it to shatter rather than penetrate and the fact that it looks more like a shuttlecock used in badminton than a spear so penetration is not ideal.
    It depends on the metal liner used that forms the plasma , you want something with quickest heat conductivity/transfer yet very dense in plastic/liquid form = very expensive, ,depleted uranium gets more penetration against DU armour then copper doped with rare earth elements and actinide group.
    GarryB wrote:
    I doubt another warhead type would be more effective than the HEAT warhead already fitted... the only exception would be an EM gun warhead.
    Antimater warhead!
    GarryB wrote:
    The likely next step in Russian ATGMs will likely be in an active MMW radar homing head for Krisantema and of course HERMES.
    yes soviets/ russians lagged in fire & forget capability which was a huge drawback of their antitank missiles . so they tried to compensate with higher missile speed to reduce crew exposure to counterfire which would brake the guidance.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 735
    Points : 918
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:17 pm

    The shape is more lke a big needle.
    They are fin stabilized ,and use same finns or aditional canards for control.


    Rolling Eyes


    Reading comprehension anyone ?
    Original statement of reference by GarryB :


    The only real option would be self forging fragment warheads... already widely used on some mines and top attack submunitions.
    The basic design is ......




    yes soviets/ russians lagged in fire & forget capability which was a huge drawback of their antitank missiles . so they tried to compensate with higher missile speed to reduce crew exposure to counterfire which would brake the guidance.


    "Fire and forget" capability as main discriminating element between western and domestic design of ATGM in......Cold War ? Laughing Laughing
    So classic : ridiculous conditioned reflex linking automatically and....completely out of context......the word "western" to other encoded words such as "AESA radar", "fire and forget", "situational awareness", "x- generation", "stealth", "networked", and so on with similar marketing garbage or over-simplistic concepts.


    Not even ONE "fire and forget" ATGM has been ever cited or credited, in any Cold War publications both western or eastern, as a weighty AT asset capable to influence, in any way, the evolution of Soviet combined Armored and Mechanized Division's advance in Europe.


    In a major conventional war against a very advanced opponent the first requirement of any weapon system is above all its......presence (you know a wonder weapons not present in the exact place and time where it should count, would perform very badly on the battlefield Laughing ) followed closely by density, reliability and flexibility of employment.


    Only to provide a practical implication of what just said for the weapon class into examination -ATGM- is sufficient to recall that Indian export contract for 10,000 Konkur-M ATGMs is for 1200 RP crores (about 213 ml US dollars) while a same year US MoD domestic procurement contract (therefore with significantly lower profit's edge for the manufacturer and without ancillary costs such as training/maintenance structures and personnel already operative and paid for in the first procurement contracts) for the "fire and forget" FGM-148 , is 172,5 ml dollars for 710 "Javelin" !!!

    All of that only to receive the "privilege" Laughing Laughing to remain well within lethal stand-off engagement range of enemy : auto-cannons, HE-Frag munitions, infantry mortars, MBT's main cannons and ,ironically, even enemy ATGM's squads.

    You know, no so many nations get the luxury to attentively select its enemies among immensely weaker third world nations, to be attacked only after long-lasting weakening embargo and in big NATO coalitions.

    Is very simple to mask, in this way, behind a crushing unbalanced force and technological ratio, the ridiculous cost-inefficiency of its own weapon design ; inefficiency that would cost you a total defeat ,in a major conventional war ,against a very powerful opponent.



    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:37 pm

    Its not flat disc , none is ,and it doesnt have to be metal but the metal is used.
    The shape is more lke a big needle.
    They are fin stabilised ,and use same finns or aditional canards for control.]

    I am referring to a self forging fragment... called EFP or explosively formed penetrator in the west.

    After the explosive is set off the flat disk is crushed into a slug like this:



    yes soviets/ russians lagged in fire & forget capability which was a huge drawback of their antitank missiles . so they tried to compensate with higher missile speed to reduce crew exposure to counterfire which would brake the guidance.

    They just didn't see fire and forget as being a goal worth the expense and performance limitations. By making the expendable part of the system as cheap as practically possible they were able to develop systems as capable or more capable than western systems at a much lower price that could be introduced into service more widely and produced in much larger numbers. The result is that they ended up with more bang per buck.

    Where they needed fire and forget they spent the money and got it... ie Igla, Strela.



    _________________
    “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

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Sujoy on Sun Jun 02, 2013 3:31 pm

    GarryB wrote:The only real option would be self forging fragment warheads... already widely used on some mines and top attack submunitions.

    That makes sense . And I am not just talking about a APSFDS round with top-attack capability but also a direct attack mode .

    Take the British MANPAD Starstreak . Basically it is the 3 DARTS that eventually hits an aircraft and it has an effective range of around 7 kms .

    An ATGM will not have to fire it's missile to great heights like a MANPAD . SO velocity of release of the missile will not be an issue . Distance as I have mentioned in my previous post , probably is .




    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Mon Jun 03, 2013 10:58 am

    Take the British MANPAD Starstreak . Basically it is the 3 DARTS that eventually hits an aircraft and it has an effective range of around 7 kms .

    Call me Mr Sceptical, but Starstreak is not really combat proven and I am very suspicious of the effectiveness of the three darts it uses as a warhead... I mean the warheads are distributed randomly and would not make the same impact of even HE rounds, so we are talking about three holes in the target no bigger than 50 cal shell rounds... I am not so sure that would be more effective than a good HE/HEAT round.

    An ATGM will not have to fire it's missile to great heights like a MANPAD . SO velocity of release of the missile will not be an issue . Distance as I have mentioned in my previous post , probably is

    Starstreak is a high velocity missile... most ATGMs are transonic generally, while some are actually very slow. To make it an effective kinetic weapon you would need a much bigger rocket motor, which will make it much much heavier.


    _________________
    “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

    Sujoy
    Lieutenant Colonel
    Lieutenant Colonel

    Posts : 914
    Points : 1082
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Sujoy on Mon Jun 03, 2013 7:10 pm

    GarryB wrote:.... but Starstreak is not really combat proven and I am very suspicious of the effectiveness of the three darts it uses as a warhead...

    That's right . Top of my head , it was probably last year that the Indian AF tested the Star Streak as part of their VSHORAD competition and it was found to be NOT EFFECTIVE . As a courtesy the reason/s for it's failure were not made public .

    I used the Star Streak analogy to define a concept and not to advertise the product per se .

    The point is the velocity that is used to propel the Star Streak at altitudes of 7km can be channelized to propel an APFSDS round from a distance of around 750 meters towards a Tank.

    GarryB wrote:To make it an effective kinetic weapon you would need a much bigger rocket motor, which will make it much much heavier.

    I need to do the Math on this to figure out exactly how big the rocket motor should be to fire an APFSDS round but in all likelihood it the ATGM should not weigh more than what the Javelin does and therefore will need not more than 2 people to use it , and that's the minimum that almost all modern day ATGMS need.


    Last edited by Sujoy on Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:54 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 Mon Jun 03, 2013 9:38 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    I am referring to a self forging fragment... called EFP or explosively formed penetrator in the west.

    After the explosive is set off the flat disk is crushed into a slug like this:


    They just didn't see fire and forget as being a goal worth the expense and performance limitations. By making the expendable part of the system as cheap as practically possible they were able to develop systems as capable or more capable than western systems at a much lower price that could be introduced into service more widely and produced in much larger numbers. The result is that they ended up with more bang per buck.
    Where they needed fire and forget they spent the money and got it... ie Igla, Strela.
    -They are all explosively formed penetrators ,this one is with a smaller curvature cone for wider area of attack but less penetration.
    -Yes i agree with you it seems west valued their soldiers lives more then USSR.
    But with minituarisation and cheaper electornics its the way to go and russians finally realised that and now seem to get on the vagon, and they also have market to buy from unlike sanctioned USSR.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5390
    Points : 5639
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jun 04, 2013 11:25 am

    Rpg type 7v wrote:
    -Yes i agree with you it seems west valued their soldiers lives more then USSR.

    What a pile of bullshit, i hear this blatant "argument" so often, especially when the matter is Tanks, that Russians/Soviets don't value the lifes of their soldiers, but facts which lunatics of such arguments don't want to hear is, Russians were the inventors of all modern measurements and technologies that safe lifes in Tank warfare, such people come always with the ignorant and stupidy they possess that only Soviet/Russian tanks need one hit to "pop up", FYI only one single tank has stored its entire ammunition in blow off paneled boxes.. the Abrams, the rest of all tanks store half of their ammunition in crew compartment room,like Leo2,Chall2,Arjun,Leclerc next to tank driver and commander.
    Soviets already used body armor during WW2, they are the pioneers of self-sealing tanks,ejection seats for helicopters, Composite armor, Active Protection System like Drozd,Arena, they are the inventor of lot of fields when it comes to protect the lifes of their soldiers or people.
    The most advanced in medical terms were the Soviets during their time, too.


    Everything that is left from your "argument" now is you don't value the lifes of their soldiers.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15468
    Points : 16175
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:22 pm

    I need to do the Math on this to figure out exactly how big the rocket motor should be to fire an APFSDS round but in all likelihood it the ATGM should not weigh more than what the Javelin does and therefore will need not more than 2 people to use it , and that's the minimum that almost all modern day ATGMS need.

    The main problem is that the weight of fuel to accelerate the entire round to high speed will make it very heavy... but as we know from the late model RPG-7 rounds that as the rockets get heavier they need larger calibre tubes or they become too ballistic.

    Also the very high acceleration speeds required will mean no real contact with the projectile for the first second or so.

    The large booster rocket of the HERMES (210mm) with a slim missile with basic guidance and a 2 metre long 40mm thick DU core weighing 10-15kgs would be interesting as an APFSDS weapon... if the velocity can be in the 1.5-1.8km/s range and that speed maintained then it would be a very effective weapon... even if lofted and allowed to attack the target from a steep angle... gaining more speed.

    I suspect an APFSDS payload missile will not be shoulder fired...

    -Yes i agree with you it seems west valued their soldiers lives more then USSR.

    Then we don't agree. The USSR could easily have created a simple TV guided Javelin if they really wanted to kill their own troops and let the enemies armour drive all over them. The problem is that a short range simple ATGM needs to be cheap and widely deployed.

    As an example Metis cost about $30K for the firing post that was reused and had a simple thermal sight. The missiles were less than $10K and could be bought in enormous numbers... and were... so that Soviet troops would have plenty of guided short range anti armour missiles. The US equivalent was Dragon... which was rubbish.


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

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

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Tue Jun 04, 2013 1:56 pm

    GarryB wrote:-snip-
    Then we don't agree. The USSR could easily have created a simple TV guided Javelin if they really wanted to....
    really? Shocked i dont think they could. any prof of that??????
    you know very well you dont have to kill every single tank to stop an armored column ,javelin was worth it...
    Trained and smart at crews are rare and too valuable to lose.
    But soviet union didnt put such a value on people like nato, due to communism and "everybody is equal" school , which was a mistake.

    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 Jun 04, 2013 3:52 pm

    Well electronics and their miniaturisation wasn't strongest thing in Soviet union. That is a fact.
    Soviet Javelin equivalent would be over expensive and over complicated to manufacture for Soviet industry that was affected by stagnation, but don't see why it couldn't be created.
    Infantry carried ATGMs are defensive weapons so why Soviet union would spend it's time and resources on these weapons, it's amazing that Russian man held ATGMs were always improved and developed.
    Javelin usage was covered in few tactical documents, but I don't see how Soviet doctrine would make benefit out of it, can You explain?
    And of course Soviet union didn't care much about soldier lives, look at NATO troops in Western Germany, you think that NATO cared about it's troops so much? Their troops in Berlin were dead man walking. There is no saving private Ryan scenario in real conventional world. Especially high paced one. Us even had plans to use gyro planes to swarm soldiers with AT weapons and I can only imagine very high losses caused by this tactic and not only by enemy fire

    As Sa'iqa
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 416
    Points : 352
    Join date : 2013-06-01
    Age : 22
    Location : Western Poland

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  As Sa'iqa on Tue Jun 04, 2013 4:55 pm

    Javelin is much less cost-effective than both russian and belarussian ATGMs such as Kornet or Shershen. One Javelin missle costs $80,000 while one Kornet costs $2,000 (I've heard so), Shershen is also cheap.

    I think it makes little sense to have such a system today, not to mention 1980s...

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 8:52 pm


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 06, 2016 8:52 pm