Russian Army ATGM Thread

Its physical shape (of the drawing) looks rather to me like the blurred out image of the missile on the Mi-28NM video with a large nose mounted optical sensor...

With an air launch it had a range of 25-30km so 15km from a ground launch sounds about right.

I confused Bulat with Baikal, and thought that was their new ATGM, but clearly they have more than one.

Ironically their old missiles are still going strong.

In 5 years they´ll have the "short-range" Kornet and Khrizantema, the medium-range Bulat and Baikal and the long-range Hermes/Klenok. Multiple layers, just like the russian air defence.

Hole wrote:In 5 years they´ll have the "short-range" Kornet and Khrizantema, the medium-range Bulat and Baikal and the long-range Hermes/Klenok. Multiple layers, just like the russian air defence.

With targetting via battle management and essentially constant surveillance via networked UAVs and distributed ISR means, poorly developed militaries are going to have mean survival times of minutes in a battlefield. It even seems that as of late some nice Western "brotherly" neighbours want to participate in the tests...

LMFS wrote:

Hole wrote:In 5 years they´ll have the "short-range" Kornet and Khrizantema, the medium-range Bulat and Baikal and the long-range Hermes/Klenok. Multiple layers, just like the russian air defence.

With targetting via battle management and essentially constant surveillance via networked UAVs and distributed ISR means, poorly developed militaries are going to have mean survival times of minutes in a battlefield. It even seems that as of late some nice Western "brotherly" neighbours want to participate in the tests...

And there's good indication that they will have 'wolf-pack' swarming functionality.

Hole wrote:
VL ATGM called Baikal. Under development.

Translated:

Interesting materials (slides) on the main directions of the development of anti-tank missile systems in the Russian Federation from the report of S.A. Bakaneev "Conceptual ideas and main research results of military scientific schools of the Mikhailovskaya Military Artillery Academy" at the XXIII All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference of the Russian Academy of Missile and Artillery Sciences (RARAN) in 2020. Source: "Actual problems of protection and security . " Russian Academy of Rocket and Artillery Sciences; NPO Spetsmaterialov JSC. St. Petersburg: Publisher: Russian Academy of Rocket and Artillery Sciences (Moscow), 2020.

“Further development of the ATGM system is advisable to carry out in the direction of creating a single wearable ATGM, ensuring the defeat of all modern and promising MBT (including mounted - BDZ-1 and built-in - BDZ-2), a tank from above, such as" Effect "and a single self-propelled ATGM, such as" Baikal "(" Klevok "), for firing from closed firing positions, maximally unified with a promising helicopter complex".

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4276303.html

Interesting slides from the report of the head of the Mikhailovsky military artillery Academy, Lieutenant-General Sergei Bakaneev, dedicated to promising anti-tank missile systems, have appeared on the Web. The report was made at the XXIII all-Russian scientific and practical conference of the Russian Academy of rocket and artillery Sciences, published in the collection "Actual problems of protection and security" and published in the electronic scientific library.

According to General Bakaneyev, the best way to develop anti-tank missile systems is to create a single portable ATGM to defeat existing and promising tanks equipped with built-in and mounted dynamic protection, and a single self-propelled ATGM for firing from closed positions, as unified as possible with a promising helicopter complex. The main difference between the new anti-tank missiles and existing ones will be hitting targets in the least protected projection, the upper one.

Current anti-tank systems can be upgraded by installing night thermal imaging sights, creating unified battery management vehicles, integrating anti-tank systems into unified tactical control systems, and ensuring compatibility with advanced intelligence tools. The expansion of the range of targets to be hit is ensured by the improvement of cumulative warheads and the creation of new ones: concrete-piercing, high-power high-explosive, high-explosive fragmentation, as well as the development of ways to overcome new armored vehicle protection systems.

https://translate.yandex.com/translate?lang=ru-en&url=https%3A%2F%2Frg.ru%2Fsila%2F

In 5 years they´ll have the "short-range" Kornet and Khrizantema, the medium-range Bulat and Baikal and the long-range Hermes/Klenok. Multiple layers, just like the russian air defence.

The interesting thing is that the short range will likely be Bulat and Metis... the former might reach to 5-6km, but the latter 3km range perhaps in light portable missile designs... the Bulat being a small calibre light weight Kornet, but its narrower shape would reduce weight and drag would be reduced so range might not be much shorter than standard Kornet... it just has a smaller warhead for lighter targets. The Metis is a short range light ATGM but penetrates 950mm of armour so it is a short range missile but not a light target missile.

The Kornet/Krisantema missiles in the 6-10km range are also designed to defeat heavy armour or point targets with HE warheads, but beyond that there is Hermes and Vikhr and LMUR and this new missile.

The thing is that Baikal is only a 15km range missile when vertically launched... when fired from an aircraft or UAV its range should be better by 50% of more and upgraded Hermes in ground launched versions with 100km range and terminal manouvering to evade air defences makes it even more potent...

This is not to mention their enormous range of anti armour weapons from cluster munitions from heavy artillery from guns and rockets as well as air delivered cluster bombs etc etc.

lyle6 wrote:Note the base vehicle - Kurganets. So much for being cancelled. Journos and NATO cargo cultists have to eat yet another L.

They also said Su-57 was cancelled, only for MOD to order 76 of those birds. They said Bumerang wouldn't make it to the 2015 Victory Day Parade, only to be seen rolling that very day. They said at the same parade that the T-14 completely broke down, only for it to start moving on it's own again without anymore issues. They said the T-14 was cancelled, only for MOD to order 100 of them.

None of the new vehicle types will be cancelled because that would mean cancelling all of them and starting again from scratch which would be a total waste of time and money.

The Kurganets and Boomerang are getting changes in size I believe to make them more comfortable for soldiers with kit.

That is what early production and testing is for... to find problems and issues before starting mass production... clearly something the F-35 needed.

GarryB wrote:Can you be clear what you mean by kinetic kill ATGMs? I would take kinetic kill to mean APFSDS type solid penetrators which I don't normally associate with ATGMs which tend to use chemical or explosive HEAT warheads.

The main difference is that APFSDS use hard metals to penetrate using kinetic energy, while chemical or explosive HEAT warheads tend to use soft metals to add mass to explosively formed penetrators which use heat and velocity with added mass of molten metals to penetrate.

Think of an APFSDS projectile, but being self propelled and guided instead of having to be fired from a gun.

I believe that in the near future the concept of the missile tank with kinetic energy missiles will be useful, because tanks are becoming ever more expensive, less numerous and more sophisticated just like combat aircraft, so you need more expensive and deadlier, if fewer munitions to destroy them.

The other reason is simply that chemical propellants are at their technological limit and railguns and electrothermal guns are fantasy. Only missiles can accelerate above 2000 m/s while being compact and efficient. Increasing gun calibre could improve APFSDS performance but thats unsustainable too.

A related concept to a kinetic energy ATGM is a ramjet powered APFSDS round, and AFAIK russia has black projects to design one for its 152mm tank guns. Now imagine the ramjet powered APFSDS to be guided. And have a range of 4+km. And have a RHA penetration of 3000mm+.

The IT-1 was actually ahead of its time, because it was born in a time where tanks were relatively simple and mass produced. Currently precision matters in HE strikes too, so a missile tank can have a stash of HE or thermobaric ATGMs too.

But back to hypersonics. No, I disagree - there is a world of difference in launch signatures between KEMs and conventional ATGMs, like just watch any videos of the launches of both.

Launch signature wouldnt matter when you have a missile coming at 1600-3000 m/s. By that logic the smoke blast of a conventional tank cannon is a fatal flaw.

There is also not a single KEM that has been rendered light enough to be man portable which limits it to carriage on vehicles which have vastly more detectable signatures compared to manpower. Possibly because, again massive and very lethal backblast involved.

There are plenty of nonmanportable conventional HEAT ATGMs and they're in service. Doesnt matter. BTW the US LOSAT was mounted on a humvee without any problems.


Anyway Russia is on the right track with the hermes. if they manage to make a variant with a tungsten rod on its second stage, it could be a deadly direct fire kinetic energy tank killer.

Also, unless the enemy is real incompetent, he will always have his tanks movements screened from long range observation and engagement by terrain. Unless you're on some really nice vista with good view of the surroundings for miles upon miles (a position that has a nice tendency to attract artillery fires as well), you're mostly going to be well within the tank's considerable engagement zone where its you with 2nd gen uncooled thermals versus tanks with cooled combined third gen multichannel sights with much more powerful zoom optics and sophisticated image processing to go along with it. There's a reason why tanks are still considered the best counter to other tanks.

Youre implicitly calling the military planners of virtually all countries armies retards for adopting ATGMs that outrange tank guns then. I ask again, what is a tank crew gonna do to with a 1600m/s missile approaching them? You assume they'll be able to fire back?

Think of an APFSDS projectile, but being self propelled and guided instead of having to be fired from a gun.

Yep... has been proposed before...

The Hermes was going to be one such missile... essentially a long thin missile with a long solid rocket booster to accelerate it to speed... instead of a 30kg HE warhead a 30kg 30mm diameter core of DU that is 2-3m long that has steering and command guidance... the enlarged solid rocket booster accelerates the missile to 2km/s at 1.5km from the launcher and then burns out and falls away... the remaining front section of the missile is small because it is dense and heavy but not heavier than the original missile... 30kgs of DU takes up much less space than 30kgs of HE with a shaped charge warhead which requires and empty hollow metal lined section.

A 30kg DU rod travelling at over 1.5km/s out to say 8km would be devastating... the 125mm APFSDS round moves at 1.8km/s but is only 7kgs.

The problem is efficiency... the propellent needed to launch that missile is probably 100kg of solid rocket fuel... which is about 5 times more than the propellent used in the 125mm gun.

I believe that in the near future the concept of the missile tank with kinetic energy missiles will be useful, because tanks are becoming ever more expensive, less numerous and more sophisticated just like combat aircraft, so you need more expensive and deadlier, if fewer munitions to destroy them.

The other reason is simply that chemical propellants are at their technological limit and railguns and electrothermal guns are fantasy. Only missiles can accelerate above 2000 m/s while being compact and efficient. Increasing gun calibre could improve APFSDS performance but thats unsustainable too.

Scramjet propulsion opens the door to higher speeds than solid rockets can practically attain... the Zircon missile moves at 3.2km/s for instance.

The newest model Hermes missiles will have scramjet motors in their second stages so after being accelerated to 1.3km per second at 1.5km range the solid rocket booster falls away and the main scramjet engine could light up and actually accelerate the next stage of the missile to faster and faster speeds... obviously a low altitude your top speed would be limited, but climb very high and dive on the target and gravity can assist in getting to higher impact speeds on target... with the added bonus of a top attack weapon hitting the thinner armour.

Ironically hitting at a diving speed of 3km/s you wouldn't need a long rod penetrator... a 5kg lump of mild steel with a sort of a point at the front that spreads out to maybe a chunk with a 6cm radius and maybe 20-30cm long would be devastating to the top armour of any tank without having to waste money on expensive or exotic expensive metals like DU or Tungsten...

A related concept to a kinetic energy ATGM is a ramjet powered APFSDS round, and AFAIK russia has black projects to design one for its 152mm tank guns. Now imagine the ramjet powered APFSDS to be guided. And have a range of 4+km. And have a RHA penetration of 3000mm+.

The Pine or SOSNA missile is a two stage tube launched weapon with anti aircraft and anti armour roles... in its current form its solid rocket booster accelerates it up to about 1.4km/s and then it coasts to the target... with an 8-12 second flight time to targets 10km away.

They are upgrading it to extend its range to 20km AFAIK... so perhaps some form of ramjet sustainer to maintain speed to target and of course laser beam riding guidance.

The IT-1 was actually ahead of its time, because it was born in a time where tanks were relatively simple and mass produced. Currently precision matters in HE strikes too, so a missile tank can have a stash of HE or thermobaric ATGMs too.

The IT-1 was interesting... the US equivalent was essentially the Sheridan and M60A2, but it was found that much cheaper simpler lighter vehicles... the MTLB in the Soviet army, and the M113 in the US Army could carry cheaper slower and less effective missiles, but as the US missile was bloody awful and never worked despite being taken into combat multiple times, they ended up realising a missile tank is silly.

What the Soviets realised is that long range shooting accuracy only makes sense if the target remains still, or you can correct your aim after you fired the round. A tank gun fired missile meant a moving target could be hit at very long range which is something even the most accurate western tank gun cannot achieve with standard unguided tank rounds.

Instead of a missile firing super tank the Soviets managed to improve the capacities of all their tanks from the T-55 right through to the best and most expensive tanks. The missiles could also be fired from other vehicles with large calibre guns including artillery... and they gave their armour some capacity against helicopters and aircraft too.

The upgrades to the tanks to allow missiles to be fired also added better optics and laser range finders to otherwise older obsolete vehicles.

Launch signature wouldnt matter when you have a missile coming at 1600-3000 m/s. By that logic the smoke blast of a conventional tank cannon is a fatal flaw.

The amount of solid rocket fuel needed to get a missile to such speeds already makes the system not man portable, and also very expensive potentially.

Guns use propellent rather more efficiently than rockets do.... experience around the world is for systems to use both.

The difference between a tank gun muzzle flash that might be 6-8 metres long and 4-5 metres wide is nothing compared with the rather larger rocket plume from a solid rocket booster accelerating a Hermes like missile to over 1km/s.

The solid rocket booster on the Hermes with a 20km range has a burn range of about 1.2 to 1.5km, so that big bright burning column of fire accelerating about 1.5km across the battlefield is going to be a bit more obvious than an instantaneous flash of a tank gun firing to be fair.

Anyway Russia is on the right track with the hermes. if they manage to make a variant with a tungsten rod on its second stage, it could be a deadly direct fire kinetic energy tank killer.

The thing is that the Hermes is a multi use system intended to be used against a wide variety of targets, so some sort of combination HE Frag and HEAT warhead is actually rather more likely most of the time.

Youre implicitly calling the military planners of virtually all countries armies retards for adopting ATGMs that outrange tank guns then.

I am not calling anyone retarded.

ATGMs outranging tank guns means nothing if the tank remains in dead ground as it approaches your position and then proceeds to machine gun your position.

Plus the little factor of an infantry or vehicle based ATGM like an M113 based TOW vehicle or something similar can be engaged out to about 12km with the 125mm gun and HE Frag rounds.

I ask again, what is a tank crew gonna do to with a 1600m/s missile approaching them? You assume they'll be able to fire back?

If the tank is an Armata then the APS will detect the incoming threat and intercept it 10-20m from the tank causing the penetrator to yaw and become ineffective while alerting the crew to the attack and turning the main gun towards the location the incoming round seemed to come from... which is probably the first step in destroying the platform that launched the attack in the first place.

The incoming projectiles trajectory can be logged and passed to all nearby friendly forces to warn them of the threat too and they can all start scanning for ground or air sources of such weapon types to engage.

Any available airborne drones will be directed to look in that direction too.

Hermes is going to come out of the box with top-attack capability. I've yet to see a tank with roof armor that can resist getting caved in with a direct 152 mm shell, and Hermes is even more massive.

The warhead on the current model is a 30kg dual purpose HEAT warhead with fragmentation capacity and smart fuse for different targets.

The proposed future Hermes with 100km range and powered second stage able to manouver to evade enemy air defences is reportedly going to have double the HE payload of about 58kgs of HE... which might be a tandem warhead of course...

Not a bad video.

The laser beam riding guidance has four frequencies, which can be considered to be like colours as we see them.

The laser beam the missile rides is made up of four colours, so say top left is blue, top right is orange, bottom left is red and bottom right is green.

The missile is launched and looks back at the launcher and sees what colour it can see... if it sees blue it knows it is high and to the left so it will turn right and descend... if it then sees red then it stops descending and keeps turning right... if it sees green then it stops turning right and turns left a little and climbs... if it sees orange it stops turning right but keeps descending.

It is conceptually the same as the mirror landing system for aircraft carriers the British invented a very long time ago.

The launcher tracks the target and directs the beam, the missile uses the beam to steer itself to the target... the launcher will often hold its aim 5m above the target so the missile flys above bushes and fences and things on the ground... when it gets to 1km from the target the launcher automatically drops the beam directly onto the target.

As mentioned in the video, because the missile looks back towards the launcher instead of forward towards the target the energy of the beam is orders of magnitude less than with a normal laser marked target homing missile.

Advantages are it does not matter how shiny and reflective the target is and the laser beam only has to reach the target for beam riding missiles whereas for a laser homing missile the laser has to reach the target and reflect back far enough for the missile to detect the reflections.

If the target pops smoke the laser has to shine through the smoke, reflect off the target back through the smoke for the weapon to work and most lasers wont manage that.

For laser beam riding missiles a smoke screen might block the guidance beam, but as the Russian beam riders are all supersonic they are unlikely to completely miss.

The frequency of the laser will be optimised to penetrate smoke and dust as much as possible.

The very high speed of the missiles also give less warning time than a wire dragger.

As mentioned in the video... the only thermal imager is in the launcher so it can be the most expensive you can afford because it is fully reusable and can be used just for battlefield observation.

The new Bulat missile has the same layout and design of the Kornet but is probably much lighter and easier to carry in numbers.

It will be designed to kill light armour like IFVs and APCs and bunkers etc and is probably quite fast.

Based on the amount of money paid by India for Kornet missiles the missiles themselves are rather cheap... about $5k each which is very affordable.

GarryB wrote:
The new Bulat missile has the same layout and design of the Kornet but is probably much lighter and easier to carry in numbers.

It will be designed to kill light armour like IFVs and APCs and bunkers etc and is probably quite fast.

Based on the amount of money paid by India for Kornet missiles the missiles themselves are rather cheap... about $5k each which is very affordable.

I was going to suggest adapting a JAGM type missile for ground launching, but I don't know if they can tweak the kinematics enough to match the need for flying at 3000ft or below (U.S Army's requirement for next gen ATGM). Otherwise,  its multiple sensors should address ECM concerns. And it should address best TOWs time of flight.

Based on the image above in post 605, I would say the new ATGM is going to be vertical launch with lock on after launch capacity and a diving top attack flight profile when ground launched.

What would be really interesting is if they could unify the design of this ATGM with the new shorter ranged TOR missile for use against drones and small targets that don't require such a big missile to intercept as the standard TOR.

That would mean it could carry a mix of command guided anti aircraft missiles and optically guided lock on after launch ground to ground and probably ground to air missiles.

DIRCMS would probably work on the optically guided missile above but would not stop a command guided TOR missile.

It is essentially the next in line of helicopter carried missiles... the first practical one was Falanga which used a radio command guidance that allowed high flight speed because there was no wire being dragged along by the missile.

They then experimented a bit with the Swatter... Malyutka, but its wire guidance was a bit of a problem for helicopters and its low speed was a problem too because it meant the helicopter had to hover for a long time which is dangerous for a helicopter...

The AT-6 was known as Shturm and was a 450m/s command guided missile used on the Hind and other helicopters since.

Cheap, accurate, moderately powerful... it was replaced by the slightly faster Ataka with the same guidance, improved to be more accurate and with better penetration.

Krisantema is essentially the next generation, with improved range and penetration and similar speed to the Ataka... about 550m/s.

Khristanetma can be laser beam riding like the late model Atakas, or it can be SARH guided... the latter being all weather and able to ignore smoke or rain or snow or dust visibility levels...

A combined radar/laser riding guidance is hardly enough to warrant being classified as next-gen. Strictly speaking a next-gen ATGM should have fire and forget capability right out of the box, significantly improving the launch platforms survivability against anti-air menaces.

It can operate in a dust storm or snow storm or monsoon rain where visibility is 2m, and can be used against ground and air targets, while being a fraction of the cost of a Javelin missile it can penetrate over 1.2m of armour plate.

The only reason something like a Khrizanthema could even be competitive against NATO targets is precisely because they have trash air defences at the lower levels.

The missile moves at 550m/s what sort of air defences do you expect to take it down... especially considering its range means it will be in the air for less than 20 seconds...

Had NATO had something like Tor or the Tunguska in numbers the entire Russian attack helicopter fleet utilizing direct fire weaponry would have been untenable.

The fact that HATO air defences are totally pathetic does not detract from the performance of this system, which is pretty damn impressive.

Ironically it is the western missiles that are more vulnerable to interception... missiles like the Javelin and the Spike which travel at a quarter of the speed of these missiles and fly up high on a near ballistic trajectory... they tested the Igla in the 1990s to see if it was any good at intercepting tiny drone targets and they found it shot down Malyutka missiles five out of nine times. Because it has an impact/graze fuse it has to actually make contact with the target or the warhead does not go off so 5 direct hits out of 9 attempts against such a small target is quite impressive, but the obvious solution was a proximity fuse, so the Igla-S got a few different improvements including a proximity fuse for engaging small targets like drones or cruise missiles.

The addition of a proximity fuse would suggest to me that western anti tank missiles are going to be in serious trouble... including the new long range missiles.

Of course the real factor for the Russian military is that their anti tank weapons are all affordable, widely deployed and they have a range selection of weapons for a variety of target types.

https://twitter.com/Rebel44CZ/status/1396905084060061697

In case some of you find it useful, here are numbers for the flight time and range of various ATGMs (data is from a mix of official and authoritative sources depending on what I was able to find):

ATGM time of flight to max range:

9M14 Malyutka / AT-3 Sagger: 3000 meters - 26 seconds

9K111 Fagot / AT-4A Spigot A: 2000 meters - 11 seconds

9K111M Fagot-M or Faktoriya / AT-4C Spigot C: 2500 meters - 14 seconds

9M113 Konkurs / AT-5 Spandrel: 4000 meters - 20 seconds

9K114 Shturm / AT-6 Spiral: 5000 meters - 14.5 seconds

9K115 Metis / AT-7 Saxhorn: 1000 meters - 6.2 seconds

9K115-2 Metis-M / AT-13 Saxhorn-2: 1500 meters - 8 seconds

9K115-2 Metis-M1 / AT-13 Saxhorn-2: 2000 meters - 12 seconds

9M120 Ataka / AT-9 Spiral-2: 6000 meters - 15 seconds

9M133-1 Kornet / AT-14 Spriggan: 5500 - 23(?) seconds

BGM-71E TOW-2A: 3750 meters - 21 seconds

BGM-71F TOW-2B Aero: 4500 meters - 23 seconds

Milan: 2000 meters - 12.5 seconds

HJ-8 / Red Arrow-8A: 3000 meters - 13.6 seconds

HJ-8 / Red Arrow-8E: 4000 meters - 19 seconds

All well and good, but in a near peer conflict its not worth risking multimillion dollars worth of advanced attack helicopter just to save on thousands of dollars worth of missiles.

Stocks of shitty multimillion dollar top attack ATGMs are inevitably lower. In a peer to peer conflict, having enough guided munitions not to be used up on the first few days of combat is important.

Except it has to hover in place all the while the missile flies to its target otherwise the missile gets 'lost'. A T-14 with its dedicated MAWS against air-to-ground missiles and integrated digital FCS would have little problem detecting the source of the launch and then sniping the static launcher with a very fast and precise APFSDS shot. A Tor or a Tunguska? Don't even think about it.

Russian helicopters have been able to fire missiles on the move since the Mi-24V with the kokon ATGM. The KA-52 and Mi-28 can easily autotrack their ATGMs. ALso helicopters have DIRCM. The much longer range of supersonic ATGMs allows helicopters to stay at a much longer range from air defences. Also future ATGMs will be able to be guded by drones and infantry instead of the helicopters themselves. You're forgetting that the Mi-28 can still fire behind cover.

NATO has had saclos SAMs since the crotale and roland. This hasnt made russian helicopters less effective.

Even if what you say is true(that cost doesnt matter, that engagement time needs to be at a minimum), it can be solved by having ripple fired  hypersonic   laser beam riding SACLOS kinetic kill ATGMs.  

It doesn't matter if NATO ATGMs are slow and fly on easily detectable paths; the reality is the vast majority of the time the air defence units are going to be out of position or the kill chain is too slow for them to do anything about it. Hence, the push for integrating expensive APS on the close combat elements where they are in prime intercepting point and have enclosed internal engagement cycles necessary to keep engagement times to a minimum.

It does. Top attack missiles have inherently lower range, which would force the helicopter to move closer to its targets and SAMs. This inevitably risks being detected which would allow tanks to get to cover and SAM systems to shoot the ATGMs down. Apaches or eurocopter Tigers always successfully  jumping out   behind trees or hills and snapshotting is a NATO fantasy, because the existence of such cover isnt gauranteed. Also how will you get to cover without being detected? What about a drone or KA-52 that flies above you and detects you 15-20 km away before youre in range for the ambush?

The fact is, F&F ATGMs are inherently easy to spoof and jam(with as little as a smokescreen or tree cover) as well as to detect their launches. SACLOS ATGMs are injammable, and its hard to detect them in time due to their fast flight time and no designating laser.  

the reality is the vast majority of the time the air defence units are going to be out of position or the kill chain is too slow for them to do anything about it.

The "kill chain" is basically a western bullshitting buzzword, used as an "explanation" why integrated air defenses dont work and that air  power is superior, because Russians are supposedly technologically inferior subhumans who can't relay targetting information in  time between combat vehicles and launchers.

There is no kill chain BS. Slow shitty spike or hellfire with 15s+ flight time  barrage is launched, TOR or tunguska 1-2km behind the tanks detect it and destroy it, tanks recieve warning from air defence (or in the case of T-14, it detects the ATGMs by itself) and pop smoke for good measure. No complicated "kill chain".

Clearly not, because we seen one just hover while practice shooting.

This claim is so idiotic that I won't comment on it. Save these claims for r/credibledefense.

Because these systems are trash. end of story. If they even had something like a Tunguska Russian attack helicopters would be in big trouble.

Roland and stormer HVM are equal to Tunguska and Tor.

That don't exist in metal. You can't fight actual tanks with fantasy missiles.

Neither do fantasy NATO tunguskas. Or fantasy ubermensch eurocopter tigers and apaches that are completely undetectable by russian army air defences if theyre behind cover. Or NATO ubermensch unspoofable, undetectable F&F ATGMs. Or fantasy untermensch bumbling russian army air defences who are too incompetent to detect and shoot down slow shitty short ranged top attack ATGMs.


BTW if the US could create the LOSAT 20 years ago, russians can easily build a mach4+ kinetic kill ATGM. Just modify the hermes.

And sure, the Mi-28 can hide behind trees, its not as if tanks with their powerful zoom optics can't spot a copse just dancing around and set an airburst round over the top just to do a vibe check Razz

Because superior ubermensch NATO tankers can easily detect, let alone accurately target a russian helo 8km or more away

Except, by breaking the LOS, the enemy can't capitalize on the shorter ranges when had it been otherwise he would have been able to train more weapons back at his target.

Irrelevant, because these NATO helos will have been detected by russian IADS(including drones) long before they get behind cover and in range.

Only if you have the very expensive and delicate self-protection suites to equip your tanks with, and in enough numbers for it to matter. Seeing as even now only the T-14 has one integrated it shouldn't come as a surprise if these systems wouldn't be encountered much for them to present any difficulties.

F&F ATGMs are either laser homing or IR guided. All russian tanks have laser warning recievers and will automatically launch smoke grenades when a SALH missile is launched at them. They cant detect IR guided ATGMs, but thats not a problem because the Tor, Tunguska, Strela-10, Sosna, etc can easily detect them and quickly relay the warning to tanks.

Its a short hand for the process(es) between acquiring a target and killing it which are likened to a chain due to how they must be interconnected sequentially for the entire thing to work, hence kill-chain. I like it.

There is no kill chain. Tunguskas and Tors are alwlays together with russian troops. They detect an ATGM approaching, and shoot it down. Simple and quick.

And yeah, sure go ahead, tell that story to the thousands of victims of subsonic ATGMs who barely detected they are under attack until the last few seconds, at which point there's barely not much you can even do anything about it.

Are you seriously comparing the Russian army and its air defences to Syrian militias with no SHORAD at all and who use their tanks as mobile bunkers?