Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian Army ATGM Thread

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28751
    Points : 29281
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:20 am

    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.
    Hole
    Hole

    Posts : 4031
    Points : 4027
    Join date : 2018-03-24
    Age : 44
    Location : Merkelland

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Hole Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:21 pm

    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.

    GarryB likes this post

    LMFS
    LMFS

    Posts : 3368
    Points : 3370
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  LMFS Fri Mar 19, 2021 4:52 pm

    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...

    Hole likes this post

    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7294
    Points : 7443
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  magnumcromagnon Fri Mar 19, 2021 6:41 pm

    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. Twisted Evil
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 7294
    Points : 7443
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  magnumcromagnon Fri Mar 19, 2021 10:24 pm

    Hole wrote:Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Ewr5e410
    VL ATGM called Baikal. Under development.

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 8812265_original

    Translated:
    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Transl11

    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

    GarryB, medo, dino00, LMFS and Hole like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28751
    Points : 29281
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB Sat Mar 20, 2021 8:59 am

    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.

    dino00 and d_taddei2 like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 472
    Points : 474
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  lyle6 Sat Mar 20, 2021 1:14 pm

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

    Posts : 7294
    Points : 7443
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  magnumcromagnon Sat Mar 20, 2021 7:09 pm

    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.

    Hole likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28751
    Points : 29281
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB Sun Mar 21, 2021 8:09 am

    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.
    avatar
    limb

    Posts : 152
    Points : 160
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  limb Thu Mar 25, 2021 3:18 pm

    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? Laughing
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 472
    Points : 474
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  lyle6 Thu Mar 25, 2021 9:34 pm

    limb wrote:

    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.

    It matters because massive IR plume is a "kill me" sign for every single thermal camera within LOS. A tank has armor, and can move much faster to a safe location so its very safe.

    limb wrote:
    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.
    The ataka, vikhr, and soon Hermes missiles were developed for use primarily by attack helos, and moonlight in use on ATGM carriers. Not very many ATGM
    carriers built compared to the hundreds of thousands of stand alone systems distributed to infantry ATGM teams, BTRs, BMPs, scout cars, etc.

    limb wrote:
    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.
    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.


    limb wrote:
    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?  Laughing
    No need for hysterics. Do the same drills against a tank opening fire - stop and pop smoke to break out of LOS, reposition to a location that is less exposed and re-engage, this time knowing the general direction of where the enemy is likely to be. They even have the same warning - a massive IR plume that appears out of nowhere.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28751
    Points : 29281
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB Fri Mar 26, 2021 1:25 pm

    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...
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 472
    Points : 474
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  lyle6 Sun Apr 18, 2021 3:43 pm

    GarryB, dino00 and LMFS like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28751
    Points : 29281
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:55 am

    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.
    Sujoy
    Sujoy

    Posts : 1283
    Points : 1441
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India || भारत

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Sujoy Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:43 pm

    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.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 28751
    Points : 29281
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:52 pm

    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.

    Sponsored content

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 25 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Apr 23, 2021 4:29 pm