Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Share

    AlfaT8
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1149
    Points : 1162
    Join date : 2013-02-02

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  AlfaT8 on Tue Jun 04, 2013 5:03 pm

    As Sa'iqa wrote: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...
    Better post the links for those number my friend. angel

    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 6:15 pm

    Shershen is really sound like very potent ATGM. It wish my country would buy this system. But I think it's not as cheap.

    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 8:06 pm

    AlfaT8 wrote:
    As Sa'iqa wrote: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...
    Better post the links for those number my friend. angel
    he cant ,hes just blabling his ass off pwnd
    and kornet 2000$ ???? this guy is insane lol!

    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 Jun 04, 2013 8:39 pm

    As Sa'iqa wrote: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)

    Unfortunately mate , what you heard is NOT true . Javelin's off the shelf price is around $210,000 ( Missile + Launcher) .

    Kornet E costs around $875,000 for 1 launcher and 10 missiles.

    The RPG 29 is cost effective as well at around $500 for a launcher and $300 for missiles .

    If you want dirt cheap ATGMs , then you need to approach Iran Smile They managed to reverse engineer a few Russian and US ATGMs and are now selling them in the black market .

    Rpg type 7v wrote:
    he cant ,hes just blabling his ass off pwnd
    and kornet 2000$ ???? this guy is insane lol!

    Are you a Psychiatrist ? Or do you excel at Telepathy ?

    This guy joined the forum just this month and within 3 days you have concluded that he is insane without even knowing who he is . Get a grip .


    Last edited by Sujoy on Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:55 pm; edited 1 time in total

    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 Jun 04, 2013 9:08 pm

    Kornet E costs around $875,000 for 1 launcher and 10 missiles.

    Turkey payed $70 million for 80 launchers and 800 missiles. We don't how much of that was launchers, or how much was missiles. We also don't know how much the Russians gouged the Turks either, the Kornet was still the cheapest one in the competition.

    No doubt the missile cost more than $2k though.

    It was chosen over Spike and TOW.

    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 11:01 pm

    Probably I was wrong. It still seems though that Kornet is cheaper, I've read on one blog that cost of guided missles with a seeker is three times higher than that of missles with semi automatic guidance. If it's true, I don't know but it's at least plausible.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:29 am


    Trained and smart at crews are rare and too valuable to lose.

    Wow... so Javelin... which was not available during the cold war... so the US couldn't make a fire and forget ATGM during the cold war EITHER, could determine which crews were well trained and which were not?

    Amazing.

    But soviet union didnt put such a value on people like nato, due to communism and "everybody is equal" school , which was a mistake.

    How did you work that out? Sending US troops into battle with Dragon was not sending them to their graves?

    Dude ,read first post carefully , were talking about ATGM

    Yeah... why didn't the Soviets develop an expensive and largely redundant fire and forget capability for their ATGMs when even the rich powerful west didn't either...

    Unfortunately mate , what you heard is NOT true . Javelin's off the shelf price is around $210,000 ( Missile + Launcher) .

    Kornet E costs around $875,000 for 1 launcher and 10 missiles.

    The RPG 29 is cost effective as well at around $500 for a launcher and $300 for missiles .

    If you want dirt cheap ATGMs , then you need to approach Iran Smile They managed to reverse engineer a few Russian and US ATGMs and are now selling them in the black market .

    The difference is that $210K for Javelin half the cost is the missile, whereas the Kornet costs for the missile are much less...

    At $105K per missile the Javelin is a short range Dragon replacement that costs more than the Kornet Heavy ATGM missile system.

    In comparison the Metis-M1 has a higher speed missile, much better penetration and better mobility for a fraction of the cost.

    Turkey payed $70 million for 80 launchers and 800 missiles. We don't how much of that was launchers, or how much was missiles.

    The launchers are the major cost with such missiles as they often include thermal sights effective to the range of the missile, which means a much better thermal sight than that fitted to the Javelin.

    So even assuming a price of $300K per launcher, that would mean $24 million for the 80 launchers, leaving 46 million for 800 missiles, which means about 60K per missile which is pretty reasonable for a 5.5km range heavy ATGM.

    And that is the export price... not the domestic price.


    _________________
    “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 Wed Jun 05, 2013 11:40 am

    If someone is interested in an apple to apple comparison (... rather sensibly "unbalanced" in FGM-148's favor, being one between an export deal and a domestic procurement program) can give a look to this cute graph :






    ....enough said Very Happy .


    Turkey contract included also all other ancillary costs (obviously not present in recent Javelin procurement deals for US Army) for establish a Kornet-E foreign operative basis such as : instructor training and simulator devices, technical documentation tutoring, maintenance's equipment and training, stocking elements etc....


    Moreover Turkey contract included also some special and unique in-deal "benefits" :


    "This cooperation model was tested in Russian-Turkish relations back in 2004 and 2005, Alexander Vassilyev says, when Russia supplied Turkey with anti-tank missile systems Kornet-E.
    The contract provided for a partial assembling of final products in Turkey, with eventual growth in the production of Turkish-made parts. Both parties to the deal stand to gain, given Turkey’s aspiration for building its own defence industry that would be maximally concentrated on its territory.
    Besides, Russia and Turkey could jointly re-export end products to third countries".


    Difference in procurement cost between even only the export Kornet-E and ,instead, the domestic production of US FGM-148 for US Army is simply crushing.


    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:18 pm

    Ok but you still havent told us -what is the difference!? Suspect

    Department Of Defense
    Private
    Private

    Posts : 32
    Points : 27
    Join date : 2013-05-07
    Location : In The Neighborhood

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Department Of Defense on Wed Jun 05, 2013 3:23 pm

    I just have one question for all those who say that Javelin isn't worth it . Why has Russia or any other country for that matter failed to come up with a top attack missile ?

    I remember hearing similar arguments when the US introduced AESA radars in fighters. We were told that AESA is a failure waiting to happen . And yet 20 years later these same nations are struggling to develop AESA radars for their aircrafts.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Jun 05, 2013 5:34 pm

    Department Of Defense wrote:I just have one question for all those who say that Javelin isn't worth it . Why has Russia or any other country for that matter failed to come up with a top attack missile ?

    I remember hearing similar arguments when the US introduced AESA radars in fighters. We were told that AESA is a failure waiting to happen . And yet 20 years later these same nations are struggling to develop AESA radars for their aircrafts.

    Who said that?

    As well, AESA radar for other nations were in R&D for quite some time, but PESA radar in terms of Russia was under development for a long time already, and had a strong industrial base around it, thus making it cheaper and effective to have PESA radar. What makes AESA good now more so than PESA is its strong ECCM charactoristics as well as not requiring the need of high energy for high output. AESA has its drawbacks, like the quality of tracking/engaging (in the sense that they can be not entirely accurate) but overall, has its advantages. PESA was cheaper/easier to build for Russia and they produced radar that outperform the AESA alternative in terms of raw power, but lack the ECCM charactoristics as well as LSI mode. The ECCM can be accomodated by sub-systems that can be attached to the aircraft (new ECM/EW equipment are being installed on all current and future aircrafts) but the LSI mode is very important, and I am surprised they did not have such a feature on the Irbis-E. But they can keep the radar off and use other passive sensors to pick up radiation leakage from other aircrafts.

    Javalin isn't a bad system. Actually, it is a great system. Problem is the cost and effectiveness. Technically, it relies on the IR signature of the tank in order to be stricken. There are indeed countermeasures like Smoke or even better: Newer covers for tanks/armor that reduces its signature. Although, that costs money in itself and does not protect it from Passive mode. Other systems like RPG-29 have proven itself to be quite effective against tanks without the need to hit from atop.

    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 Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:11 pm

    I love how people put RPG-29 in to consideration. It isn't new and it's not ATGM, so no point in comparing it with Javelin. And not sure how easy it would be to dazzle Javelin's IR. I wonder how come Spyke is more cheaper while being more advanced than Javelin.
    Maybe it will sound like nonsense, but would it possible to create top attack RPG? An unguided one acting same way as Bill, projecting force downwards. Launcher with integrated spotting rifle, digital sight would help with accuracy.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  sepheronx on Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:26 pm

    Regular wrote:I love how people put RPG-29 in to consideration. It isn't new and it's not ATGM, so no point in comparing it with Javelin. And not sure how easy it would be to dazzle Javelin's IR. I wonder how come Spyke is more cheaper while being more advanced than Javelin.
    Maybe it will sound like nonsense, but would it possible to create top attack RPG? An unguided one acting same way as Bill, projecting force downwards. Launcher with integrated spotting rifle, digital sight would help with accuracy.

    Of course it isn't a ATGM, as it isn't guided. But, its sole purpose is the same. To take out armor or fortification. New or old, doesn't matter, as long as it follows the same concept - Missile to fortification: Fortification destroyed or damaged. They could, they could easily build one that is a top attack missile. But, what is the point? The guidance system would make it stupidly expensive when something less expensive can do the same thing, and has been. Countermeasures existed for a long time, and Russia as well as other countries are aware of its capabilities. It is IR. It relies on picking up IR signature to determin what it is before it has a lock. Block that signature, and it would be hard to get a lock on.

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Jun 05, 2013 7:39 pm




    Why has Russia or any other country for that matter failed to come up with a top attack missile ?


    Those questions has been clarified several times in the past on this same forum , but i can understand that not all have get the chance to follow this subject.


    In substance also US has NOT developed any kind of "top attack" flight's profile (that characterizing FGM-148 Javelin) for its company level main ATGM Rolling Eyes .

    FGM-148 Javelin in fact represent no more no less than the successor of M-47 Dragon and it cover the same operational tasks and show very similar CONOPS to the former close range ATM of US Army.

    Top-attack flight's profile was ,therefore, implemented for strict system's weight to penetration-power-ratio reasons; in facts a weapon ,such as FGM-148, having the volumetric and weight requirements to be transported and operated by a single warfighter would have been completely incapable to penetrate Soviet MBT equipped with ERA even under favorable geometry of engagement (and at the close ambush range ,where FGM-148 was foreseen to be operated, that would have signified a surely neutralized ATGM's squad).

    The elegant solution found was to let the relatively weak tandem warhead of the new ATGM system in question to attack the enemy tank from an interception's aspect historically getting less passive protection in classic MBT's designs and to add a "fire and forget" feature to increase chances of survival of the ATGM squad.


    Naturally ,as always in those sectors, no design compromise come out for "free" Very Happy

    You "pay" the top attack flight's profile and the fire and forget feature of FGM-148 with :

    1) A significantly higher unit price (much higher even of competitor system in the long range/heavier class !!), meaning a much lower number of system deployed for each sector.

    2) A very long FC-to-target collimation's time and FCA cooling (naturally not only worsening the number of targets engaged for units of time but also sensibly enlarging the window open for enemy sensors of enemy armored/mechanized/infantry formation to detect and engage the FGM-148's operator before it would get the chance to even employ its weapon).

    3) High susceptibility to IR-opaque battlefield obscurants -such as the by now ubiquitous 3D6M and 3D17 aerosol grenade- (even 2-3 sec of lock's break in the top attack mid-flight phase is equal to a surely wasted missile)

    4) Reduced speed of the missile itself, offering to the potential target more time to maneuver to interpose a solid object (such as a building) between it and the incoming ATGM and/or to employ soft/hard countermeasures and rendering at any effect impossible to employ FGM-148 against UAVs ,helicopters or low-flying aircraft.

    5) Prevent the redirection "on the fly" of the missile to other targets in the event that the one initially designated was neutralized/incapacitated by other element of ally's fire.


    Kornet and Kornet-M (and theirs export version Kornet-E and Kornet-EM) pertain to a completely different category of ATGM (the same of the US TOW series just to be clear) offering completely different level of performances and opening tactical solutions totally outside the technical and operative capabilities of close range ATGMs such as FGM-148, Metis-M or Spike-MR.



    TR1
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  TR1 on Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:11 pm

    Department Of Defense wrote:I just have one question for all those who say that Javelin isn't worth it . Why has Russia or any other country for that matter failed to come up with a top attack missile ?

    I remember hearing similar arguments when the US introduced AESA radars in fighters. We were told that AESA is a failure waiting to happen . And yet 20 years later these same nations are struggling to develop AESA radars for their aircrafts.

    The US did not introduce AESA to fighters.
    Japan did.
    And the USSR had the first fighter PESA.

    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 Wed Jun 05, 2013 8:56 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    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.

    The APFSDS can be propelled by two propulsion units, the launch motor and flight motor. Initial thrust needed for safe separation from the launch tube is provided by the launch motor. The launch motor is expended before the missile fully leaves the tube creating a soft launch for the operator. After the soft launch, the flight motor provides thrust for 5.2 s propelling the missile to its maximum speed .

    Pre-guidance is prior to flight motor ignition. During pre-guidance, the system waits for the ATGM to reach a safe separation distance after firing the launch motor. The line of sight (LOS) of the seeker nears its maximum value depending on the distance to the target.Once the seeker angle exceeds its negative limit, the ATGM transitions from altitude hold to terminal guidance. Terminal guidance puts the ATGM on a trajectory for target interception by maintaining a constant seeker angle .

    Terminal guidance uses the same roll and yaw errors as pre-terminal guidance. However, pitch error changes as the ATGM achieves target interception by placing itself on a constant glide slope similar to proportional navigation of guided missiles.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 06, 2013 3:41 am

    I just have one question for all those who say that Javelin isn't worth it . Why has Russia or any other country for that matter failed to come up with a top attack missile ?

    Except for its cost the Javelin would be the ideal anti US weapon.

    The Abrams runs very hot and would be easy to target with the system so with hit and run tactics it would be excellent if they could afford it.

    The problem is it is a short range ATGM... think of it as a super Dragon or super Milan. The vast majority of its use has been against non armoured enemy point troop positions where its ability to hit the target in fire and forget mode is meaningless because you can't get a lock with an IR sensor on a sniper position or a particular window in a building, so it is just a very expensive SACLOS missile most of the time.

    BTW the Soviets had plenty of diving top attack missiles... santimetr (SALH artillery fired missile in 152mm calibre), Smelchak (SALH artillery fired missile in 240mm calibre), Krasnopol (SALH artillery fired missile in 152mm calibre), Kitolov-2M (SALH artillery fired missile in 122mm calibre), Gran (SALH artillery fired missile in 120mm calibre), and there are guided rounds for their other calibres too including Naval calibre guns.

    The simple fact is that a direct fire weapon can get top attack performance in two ways... a cheap way... like BILL2 by flying over the target... and by putting an expensive seeker into the missile and lofting it up into the air.

    The main advantage is that it exposes the thin top armour of the enemy vehicles... the main disadvantage is that it is so expensive you can't afford to equip your forces with plenty of them.

    I remember hearing similar arguments when the US introduced AESA radars in fighters. We were told that AESA is a failure waiting to happen . And yet 20 years later these same nations are struggling to develop AESA radars for their aircrafts.

    AESA is a huge generational leap ahead of old cassegrain and dish radar, but it is very expensive. It is not a huge generational leap ahead of PESA which also enjoys many of the advantages of electronic scanning but without the cost of AESA.

    For the Russians they can afford to wait for AESA to mature because a really good PESA is better than an immature AESA. As they introduce AESA radars to SAM batteries and at sea the technology will improve and get smaller and cheaper and it will go into AWACS and fighter aircraft soon enough.

    Maybe it will sound like nonsense, but would it possible to create top attack RPG? An unguided one acting same way as Bill, projecting force downwards. Launcher with integrated spotting rifle, digital sight would help with accuracy.

    I have suggested that before on this forum...

    It wouldn't be that hard... a simple gyro would tell the spinning rocket which direction was down... a simple magnetic anomaly detector would tell it it is passing over a large metal object... the sight used in the RPG-32 could be improved... a ballistic computer and laser rangefinder could input a rough time of flight to the target so it could ignore any metal objects on the way to the target... the warhead could use a long focus shape so it detonates 10m above the target and fires a plasma lance down at the thin top armour...

    Of course it isn't a ATGM, as it isn't guided. But, its sole purpose is the same. To take out armor or fortification. New or old, doesn't matter, as long as it follows the same concept - Missile to fortification: Fortification destroyed or damaged.

    Actually the RPG-29 is a good comparison to the Javelin as both will be used against similar targets in Iraq or Afghanistan. The RPG-29 has better penetration, but lower accuracy and shorter range, but you could carry 10,000 for the price of 20 Javelins and a Javelin isn't more effective than 500 RPG-29s.

    Especially when RPG-29 can use the right ammo for the job... HE for soft targets and HEAT for hard.

    The APFSDS can be propelled by two propulsion units, the launch motor and flight motor. Initial thrust needed for safe separation from the launch tube is provided by the launch motor. The launch motor is expended before the missile fully leaves the tube creating a soft launch for the operator. After the soft launch, the flight motor provides thrust for 5.2 s propelling the missile to its maximum speed .

    But the heavier the missile the larger and heavier the initial thrust needed to get the missile moving in the first place... and that first propulsion unit will have to be very powerful because the missile is going to have to have a penetrator that is at least as heavy as a modern APFSDS penetrator... which means 7-10kg for the DU penetrator alone... now add the propellent needed to accelerate that lump of metal to 1.5-1.8km/s and you are talking about a missile weight of at least 25-30kgs... probably much more... 35-40kgs... and now you need a booster charge that will blow that missile out of the tube and far enough forward to that the very powerful high energy rocket motor can accelerate the payload to 1.5km/s without killing the operator... plus you need guidance equipment... some method of steering the missile, plus the launch tube and aiming device and I would suggest to you we are talking about a vehicle based missile.


    _________________
    “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

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:06 am

    The one area where there is potential for APFSDS ATGMs would be with a variant of HERMES... the whole missile weighs about 110kgs, with the missile itself probably being half that with a 30kg warhead.

    The initial launch speed is 1,000m/s, so a dramatic reduction in missile weight and size, plus an increase in booster size from 170mm to 210mm... say a 15kg 2m long DU rod could be the payload with a solid fuelled rocket motor to boost speed and maintain performance out to 8-10km range with simple laser beam riding guidance offering cheap simple control.

    A 2m long penetrator weighing 15kgs of DU travelling at 2km/s would be a devastating weapon against armoured targets with the advantages of short flight time and enormous kinetic energy and relative low cost making it a very effective anti armour weapon.

    For use against unarmoured targets perhaps a small side thruster rocket mounted near the tail could twist the penetrator at the instant of impact resulting in a shattered penetrator of high mass tumbling through the target at very high speed... like a ship or motor vehicle that would otherwise have a small hole punched through it without the modification.

    For a Mi-28N a missile that can hit tanks 10km distant in 5-6 seconds would be interesting...


    _________________
    “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

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Jun 06, 2013 2:57 pm

    I am surprised that Hermes isn't out yet or being purchased, that missile in itself is quite amazing. I hear that the Pantsir-S1 is using the same missile tech as the Herme's, thus technically, it is being fielded just not for any other roll. Ka-52 was initially supposed to get Hermes missiles, but I guess KBP's lobbying isn't strong enough.

    As for the AESA radar: What navy equipment has AESA radar on it in Russian armed forces? All I know of in AESA being used is the Nebo-SVU radar which uses AESA technology. Zhuk-A is undergoing tests with a 1000+ T/R module and the test of PAK FA's radar is apparently going well too (probably use same T/R modules as the Zhuk-A) and I think A-100 is supposed to get AESA radar, no?

    But regardless, PESA radar has its advantages and Irbis-e is the most powerful fighterborn radar.

    medo
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  medo on Thu Jun 06, 2013 4:29 pm

    sepheronx wrote:I am surprised that Hermes isn't out yet or being purchased, that missile in itself is quite amazing. I hear that the Pantsir-S1 is using the same missile tech as the Herme's, thus technically, it is being fielded just not for any other roll. Ka-52 was initially supposed to get Hermes missiles, but I guess KBP's lobbying isn't strong enough.

    As for the AESA radar: What navy equipment has AESA radar on it in Russian armed forces? All I know of in AESA being used is the Nebo-SVU radar which uses AESA technology. Zhuk-A is undergoing tests with a 1000+ T/R module and the test of PAK FA's radar is apparently going well too (probably use same T/R modules as the Zhuk-A) and I think A-100 is supposed to get AESA radar, no?

    But regardless, PESA radar has its advantages and Irbis-e is the most powerful fighterborn radar.

    Gamma-DE and Nebo-M are also AESA radars.

    sepheronx
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 7302
    Points : 7612
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 27
    Location : Canada

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Jun 06, 2013 5:56 pm

    medo wrote:
    sepheronx wrote:I am surprised that Hermes isn't out yet or being purchased, that missile in itself is quite amazing. I hear that the Pantsir-S1 is using the same missile tech as the Herme's, thus technically, it is being fielded just not for any other roll. Ka-52 was initially supposed to get Hermes missiles, but I guess KBP's lobbying isn't strong enough.

    As for the AESA radar: What navy equipment has AESA radar on it in Russian armed forces? All I know of in AESA being used is the Nebo-SVU radar which uses AESA technology. Zhuk-A is undergoing tests with a 1000+ T/R module and the test of PAK FA's radar is apparently going well too (probably use same T/R modules as the Zhuk-A) and I think A-100 is supposed to get AESA radar, no?

    But regardless, PESA radar has its advantages and Irbis-e is the most powerful fighterborn radar.

    Gamma-DE and Nebo-M are also AESA radars.

    Any idea who makes the TR modules? Are there any info in regards to links on the T/R Modules used for these systems?

    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 Jun 06, 2013 7:08 pm

    can we stop this massive offtopic and stick with ATGM...
    So , read post number 17 here...
    Kornet is also only just man-portable!, its more suited for a vehicle.!
    Hypersonic missile can get over mach 6 or 2km/s, so penetrator can be lighter.And guns still cant launch AP rod to those speeds.
    The moment you start adding guidance the thing becomes more expencive ,its natural.
    If u add mclos or saclos that needs human operator you shall have expensive launch platform but still cheaper missiles.

    If u add fire & forget capability ,you lower the risks for your crew , but then your missiles also become expensive...
    But even that is OK actually ,because its worth it ,if the targets are valued much more then the missile ,and you can count on a good hit probability.
    And you actually dont need a super-trained crew if you dont need a human to guide the thing, and it guides itself , unlike saclos where training and calm is important.
    And stop with that hype about exported rpg-29 or newest rpg-7 ,they are good but , less talked rpg-28 is the real killer, achieving 15-20% better penetration rates.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Fri Jun 07, 2013 11:45 am

    I am surprised that Hermes isn't out yet or being purchased, that missile in itself is quite amazing. I hear that the Pantsir-S1 is using the same missile tech as the Herme's, thus technically, it is being fielded just not for any other roll. Ka-52 was initially supposed to get Hermes missiles, but I guess KBP's lobbying isn't strong enough.

    HERMES is a family of missiles for air to ground and ground to ground use that will come with a range of terminal seekers including GLONASS for fixed targets, IIR and MMW radar for fire and forget use, and semi active laser homing.

    I suspect the small sized seekers that are cheap but with enough resolution to be effective is likely the stumbling block. Keep in mind the design is unified with the SA-22, but the SA-22 has a simple command guidance terminal phase rather than self guidance so it is simpler and cheaper.

    What navy equipment has AESA radar on it in Russian armed forces? All I know of in AESA being used is the Nebo-SVU radar which uses AESA technology. Zhuk-A is undergoing tests with a 1000+ T/R module and the test of PAK FA's radar is apparently going well too (probably use same T/R modules as the Zhuk-A) and I think A-100 is supposed to get AESA radar, no?

    Isn't Polment an AESA? There were new AESA radar arrays for S-400 which I would expect to have a naval equivalent too.

    Nebo-SVU is a long wave radar... its AESA elements will not be related to the modules use in high frequency AESAs... its elements will look like TV antenna... big metal loops.

    This is what I am talking about:



    In fact put a staring focal array with 360 degree coverage and it would be RPGs ideal SHORAD sensor package...

    Kornet is also only just man-portable!, its more suited for a vehicle.!

    In its new 33kg missile version it has a range of 8km in the anti armour role and 10km in the anti aircraft/anti MG post role so in many ways it bridges the gap between long range heavy ATGM and man portable system.

    Hypersonic missile can get over mach 6 or 2km/s, so penetrator can be lighter.And guns still cant launch AP rod to those speeds.

    It depends on the weight of the projectile... the 2km/s projectiles will not be heavy ones... 2-3kgs perhaps, so the 125mm gun can fire 7kg projectiles to 1.8km/s muzzle velocity... in this case guns are more efficient.

    The moment you start adding guidance the thing becomes more expencive ,its natural.

    Of course but a powerful inaccurate anti armour weapon is not much use.

    If u add mclos or saclos that needs human operator you shall have expensive launch platform but still cheaper missiles.

    If u add fire & forget capability ,you lower the risks for your crew , but then your missiles also become expensive...

    But if you have a projectile moving at 2km/s then the flight time to impact will be so short then fire and forget become meaningless... it would be cheaper to have CLOS guidance and just have the operator keep his head up for 5 seconds while his missile travels that 10km to hit the target than make the missile cost 300K a shot.

    But even that is OK actually ,because its worth it ,if the targets are valued much more then the missile ,and you can count on a good hit probability.

    But that is the problem between design and reality... the Javelin is VERY COST EFFECTIVE against tanks costing 2 million dollars each, but against an Afghan villager with an SVD in a tree that has been pestering you all day firing a Javelin is simply not worth it... It makes rather more sense to show a flag of truce... go over to his tree and offer him $10K to piss off home to his wife and kids than fire a very expensive ATGM and blow him and the tree up.

    And stop with that hype about exported rpg-29 or newest rpg-7 ,they are good but , less talked rpg-28 is the real killer, achieving 15-20% better penetration rates.

    RPG-28 is for domestic use only AFAIK and is quite heavy but certainly effective enough. Its 125mm calibre warhead makes it incompatible with the 105mm RPG-29 and with a 40mm tube I think it will be too hard for the RPG-7 to use.

    I suspect a new RPG based on the RPG-32 design that can take 72mm, 105mm and 125mm and possibly 135mm and eventually 152mm rockets with a ballistic computer and laser rangefinder in the sight with a thermal channel to improve accuracy and make it day night all weather capable. I suspect a gyro might be added to the rockets to stabilise their flight trajectory to make them easier to shoot too... make them less susceptible to cross winds.


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

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

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

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

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Fri Jun 07, 2013 12:58 pm

    If u add fire & forget capability ,you lower the risks for your crew , but then your missiles also become expensive...


    It lower the risks only if your enemy is the usual immensely inferior opponent over which you enjoy a so crushing numerical and technological edge that the ridiculous cost-inefficiency of your systems don't produce any negative effect on the outcome of the conflict.


    The point is that in all the latest conflicts against those immensely inferior opponents that NATO so much love to engage, voices on the "possible" employment or presence of a single Kornet-E (export version) launcher in a particular place or instance circulate....almost as legendary tales...and each time, invariably, alarmed questions and concerns, by part of the diplomatic delegates of the nations involved in the conflict come quickly to Moscow and in western media the "case" is reported together with the usual comical reprimand of Federation's behavior Razz Razz

    Simply PATHETIC.

    Even more if we consider that ,taking into account the crushing relative missile's cost ratio, reliability, very short time of engagement, virtual unjammability, ductility of employment and range, seeing those export version of Kornet ATGM engage with HEAT or thermo-baric warheads NATO's : IFVs, APCs, radio relays, helicopters, MBTs, infantry sniper positions, UAV, field radars, FGM-148's squads, Command bases, columns of refueling vehicles, minesweeping squads etc..etc.. from literally anywhere within 5,5 km (a buried position on an hill more than 5 km far, one the upper windows of a ruined building 4,3 km far ,a tree and brush formation 4,8 km from a main road, a covered hole at 5 km from a command and control base or airfield etc..etc..) would represent the absolute RULE not the very rare EXCEPTION against even a moderately strong opponent.

    We must also add to what just said that the immense increase in engagement range, in comparison to today means of attack of opposing forces (mostly represented by PK machine gun fire, infantry man portable very-light mortars and RPGs) would require a numerical increase and density of surveillance sensor assets of....several dozen of times to obtain similar early threat detection ranges of today and ,even worse, a very high amount of the systems employed by NATO forces both in those surveillance and engagement phase such as UAVs, reconnaissance LAVs and helicopters) would well fall within engagement range of export version of Kornet (or much worse with the latest export version of Kornet-M) so that would become very easy to prepare ambush for those systems using false Kornet-E positions or providing several operatives with false Kornet-E launchers.


    Reality is that, not merely the export version of Kornet ATGM, but even only RPG-29 is a very, very rare system on the battlefields of those theatres of war (the ratio with the antediluvian RPG-7 is less than 1:52 in the opinion of IISS !!).



    But even that is OK actually ,because its worth it ,if the targets are valued much more then the missile ,and you can count on a good hit probability.


    Obviously not.

    FGM-148,as any other weapon of its class, find its unique anti-armor niche of employment in close range ambush operations (it was designed for an hypothetical battle for Baghdad) for the very simple reason that the wide majority of enemy armored, mechanized and infantry motorized weapons vastly out-gun and out-range it; this mean also that, to the contrary of TOW series, it cannot be employed in the typical highly fluid offensive/counteroffensive, area denial or deep consolidation operations characterizing battles against armored and mechanized divisions of an advanced enemy in a open conflict....unless someone is a passionate of tiling puzzles and enjoy to play with the effects of HE and HE-frag munitions ,shot from 4-5 km of distance, on the FGM-148's operators.


    In the places where Javelin is effectively operated the menaces are extremely heterogeneous and majority is constituted by.... other infantry squads Very Happy

    US and UK operatives (also in reason of the very poor ballistics of 5,56 mm main rifle's rounds) employ FGM-148 as main weapon for engage at mid range those kind of menaces















    Naturally anyone is perfectly capable to realize that against the immensely weaker opponents that western powers accurately select as theirs enemies of turn , even a similar ridiculous forced mis-employment of FGM-148 don't produce any serious negative effect except a chronic shortage of missiles or the complete absence of the system when necessary ; forcing at its own time at call for even much more cost-inefficient CAS or helicopter interventions (very often arriving well after that the enemy had evaded the area Laughing ).

    Anyone is also perfectly capable to realize what in those same ,identical situations would have happened if the enemy (in a numerical ratio of 4 up to 28:1 and with rate of fire up to 4 times higher than that of FGM-148) would had been equipped with Metis-M ,Kornet-E or something like this one :







    Anything ,in a weapon system's design, allowing your enemy to deploy on the battlefield weapon systems in the same class capable to produce the same or better effects and to neutralize it but... in crushing numerical and fire rates' overmatch, not only DON'T increase survivability of the operator but GREATLY worsen it.



    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 Jun 07, 2013 3:22 pm

    GarryB wrote:

    This is what I am talking about:



    In fact put a staring focal array with 360 degree coverage and it would be RPGs ideal SHORAD sensor package...
    on what expo was that few years ago and for what platform?
    yesss this is it.
    sure i see this is excellent for mobile shorad if it doesnt overload weight and power requirements.I would change that thing on top for several irst bulbs.and just move those smaller lenses and laser for silent attack to another part of vehicle.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 11:13 am


      Current date/time is Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:13 am