Cyrus the great wrote:
If an increase in range creates an unreasonable increase in costs than it would be best to maintain the Metis-M as it is. Your idea of incorporating a wireless direct link in the Metis-M is a great idea; it would increase the safety of operators and its overall effectiveness without increasing cost beyond reason. I also love Werewolf's idea of incorporating a proximity fuse in the Kornet, which should be incorporated into the Metis-M. I still can't believe that the Konkurs was able to penetrate an M1A2 Abrams considering that it's been in service for almost half a century. I wonder if Americans will still maintain that the M1A2 cannot be penetrated by the latest Russian ATGMs now that a last generation Russian ATGM has achieved just that.
I think you are leaving out a the exact circumstances of those engagements just like many others who try to portray something in favor over something else like F-15 kill ratio against bananarepublics against obsolete 3rd generation jets without radars or similiar comparision things.
The konkurs ATGM was to be believed an Iranian produced one and since they got the plans for the common Konkurs we can put the armor penetration figure of around 500-600mm RHAe penetration value, enough to penetrate any tank WW1 till this very date (excluding ERA/APS) of its side turret armor.
If you hear or we speak about one weapon defeating another, especially when Tanks are defeated, it is important to evaluade the circumstances, where the weapon has hit and under what angle because that can increase/decrease the effeciency against the tank. Both of those instances the Saudi M1A2S was hit on its side turret where the armor is weak and could not withstand a RPG-43 hand thrown AT grenade.
Cyrus the great wrote:
Americans are now saying that the Saudi M1A2 that was taken out by the Konkurs Missile was a monkey model and that therefore its evisceration is not indicative of a true M1A2's armour credentials. What the hell!? Why didn't they accept this basic fact when people were telling them that Iraqi tanks in the first gulf war didn't have composite armour, lacked FCS, lacked passive night vision and used ammo that the Russians wouldn't use for training?
Well of course they are saying it and ignoring till his very day that Iraq did had monkey models made by Poland with no more higher quality than the already existing T-55A's they had. It is a self evident propaganda cycle jerk....anyway, those models are most probably different from the M1A2Sep2 versions but it makes absolutley no difference because not a single M1A2Sep2 be it Saudi M1A2S or american M1A2 SEP2 never recieved any armor upgrades to their side turret protection, both are absolutley equal.
It is geting really funny when Abrams fanboys like Damian90 mention Saudi M1A2 having decreased armor when speaking about those two Konkurs ATGM launches against both Saudi M1A2 and hitting side armor and destroying the first one and damaging the second one. The funny thing here is that this guy actually has not that bad of understanding about Tanks, doctrines, technology and design philosophy, but he is such a die hard fanboy that he purposely ignores,leaves out or portraits incidents to bring his agenda through. He mentioned that Saudi M1A2S Abrams do not have the american HA(Heavy Armor) Package which is the Depleted Uranium which are two big armor plates placed only in the front turret next to the gun left and right, no other place for DU armor on that tank, he knows it and still portraits it as the main reason why a Konkurs could penetrate the side armor of a Saudi M1A2 S Abrams and destroy it entirely.
The Saudi M1A2S probably do have decreased armor values but certainly not the side armor and even if you could double the side protection of the turret and hull the Konkurs and even weaker Fagot would still destroy the tank when hitting exact same way. The only tanks that could survive such a blow to the side turret armor are tanks that have APS or ERA or both against a Monobloc shaped charge like common old Konkurs.
Cyrus the great wrote:
Having to keep the launcher pointed at the target is a bit dangerous in a dynamic and ever changing environment, and so I'm not really a fan of this system, but there doesn't seem to be a cost-effective alternative that doesn't also increase complexity and so I understand why the Russians have taken this route. ATGMs are unlikely to be as important as Russia's imperative to upgrade its ICBMs, air defence, aircraft and armoured vehicles.
Yes, it is dangerous but there are solutions to decrease the risk of being spotted or hit by decreasing the missile needs to reach its speed, making the ATGM launching plattform suitable to be fired from a prone position or capability to be fired remotley without being directly in physical contact of the ATGM launching plattform, this avoids direct thermal signature exposing of yourself and giving the enemy a source where to fire, along with Laser Beam Riding that provides high jamming resitance, high velocity due lack of wire guidance and a good guidance system that leaves a low chance of being alerted to the target.
I always wondered why the Kornet-D was so much more powerful than the Spike-ER when they have a similar weight. This puts it all together now. A top attack missile with dual guidance would be almost twice as expensive as a direct engagement variant. How much would an ATGM with an EFP weigh in comparison to a conventional ATGM? It seems that an ATGM with an EFP would be significantly lighter.
I've learned a great deal from this post. I'll now have to read up on some of the things that you mentioned.
Usually in the figger of a Tow2/Metis figure but with range of Kornet-E/D, but you would have to change the entire warhead/seeker section to accomodate the needs. The difference in Shaped charge warhead and the EFP warhead is that relative low amount of explosive that can surround the EFP can be present that leaves little space behind the EFP for the grenade to be fired into the hole which would be punched through by the EFP's.
To illustrate what i mean by the difference and little space with EFP configuration (Bill2) in the warhead with the solution for after armor effects in form of a Bunkerfaust princip it would need still a larger warhead section.
That is the concept of a Bill2 an Top attack EFP weapon.
The middle part is propolusion the two bodies left and right are both EFP's directed downwards. The warhead itself leaves little room above to accomodate another warhead construction to propell a small charge of explosive through the same whole the EFP creates. That leaves only one possiblity to strap a grenade launching tube right behind both EFP charges, timed in exact manner to "fire" the grenade through the roof punched holes by the time the remains of the warhead reach the space right above the holes. The time difference at what speed the missile is traveling should be very low so the explosion from the EFP's will not effect the trajectory or the position of the grenade launching devices in the warhead and leave them capable enough to fire the projectile into the tank. The Bill2 is a relative elegant way of a top attack approach with feasible costs/effeciency.
Those soldiers don't look as though they fight on behalf of the world's premier military power. Why weren't they told what specific weapons and warheads were capable of?
Very low discipline and brainwashing to believe they are liberators, they are usually very trigger happy and just do not give a shit about the weapons they have, they just want to shoot. Just like the Apache WSO said to the Operator for the permission of engagement of the camera team "Come on, let us shoot!"
I agree that Russians are doing it "smart", fairly cheap, reliable, easy to use. However best? Thaats abit arguable if we talk about overall versatility Kornet and Metis are extraodinary, but if we talk about pure effect on tanks i would go with Javelin or Spike. If i was to buy ATGM for common infantry id go with Kornet and Metis depending on unit size Metis is company weapon, Kornet would be on batallion lvl at least thats how it work here. However i wouldnt mind either having what in Yugoslavian army was called "POČ" - basically dedicated anti tank company armed with Spikes. (Back in Yugoslavia they used mix of M79 Osa, M80 Zolja, Malytkas, Fagots, Rapira guns depending on unit).
Fine let us take into consideration of the effeciency against tanks of the "best" like Javelin a top attack weapon that is refered in US army research papers as being a mere "mobility or firepower killer" against tanks like the T-90, since Javelin is a Monobloc shaped charge and has greatly reduced chances of penetrating and killing a T-90 turret roof fitted with ERA and anti radiation cover mounted on top which decreases Spalling and increases protection, but even without ERA like it says.
I quote the Javelin 2 upgrade list of US army figures which were provided by Mindstorm
FOLLOWING ARE THE CAPABILITIES TO BE ACHIEVED FOR THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II MISSILE AS AN UPGRADE TO CURRENT JAVELIN MISSILE SYSTEM: PORTABILITY-CCMS-M INCREMENT II WILL BE A MAN-PPRTABLE SYSTEM. THE BLOCK O AND BLOCK I CLU WEIGH APPROXIMATELY 15 POUNDS. THE CCMS-M INCREMENT II ROUND SHALL NOT EXCEED 30 POUNDS, WITH A DESIRED WEIGHT OF 20 POUNDS OR LESS. IMPROVED COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS (LETHALITY). CCMS-M INCREMENT II WILL ACHIEVE A MOBILITY OR FIREPOWER KILL AGAINST T-90 PIP 1 TANK CAST TURRET WITH AND WITHOUT APPLIQUE ARMOR AND ALSO PROVIDE INCAPACITATING OR LETHAL EFFECTS AGAINST LIGHT/SOFT VEHICLES, PERSONNEL IN OPEN AREAS, PERSONNEL WITHIN STRUCTURES OR STANDARD EARTH AND TIMBER BUNKERS. LETHALITY.
Haven't heared much nice things about its "effeciency" of the Spike-ER and it was often unreliable in its guidance.
Top off the notch and technology are already in russia's possesion and Kornet-D beats every other ATGM in its lethality, versitility, technology wise of its guidance with automated guidance solution for vehicles, it completley outranges every other ATGM in comperision with its massive warhead.
Militarov wrote:CCD/IIR seekers are expencive that goes for granted but in 2-3 years if orders are big enough for domestic and export? More production = lower price, thats general formula. Even that money wasteland F35 will eventually become more affordable if orders are big enough, well.. at least for US domestic purposes.
IIR/CCD seekers are very common in Air to Air missiles aswell in MANPADS and they do exist since decades and in relative large numbers and still these seekers cost a freaking fortune.