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


+68
Cheetah
ALAMO
The_Observer
TMA1
owais.usmani
Isos
limb
mnztr
lyle6
The-thing-next-door
LMFS
miketheterrible
Arrow
RTN
Sujoy
jhelb
kvs
hoom
Walther von Oldenburg
Cyrus the great
Hole
dino00
AttilaA
0nillie0
Interlinked
AlfaT8
BM-21
Benya
sepheronx
max steel
GunshipDemocracy
OminousSpudd
Rmf
KoTeMoRe
JohninMK
Book.
xeno
Akula971
Vann7
victor1985
nemrod
Morpheus Eberhardt
magnumcromagnon
Asf
Viktor
runaway
flamming_python
Rpg type 7v
Regular
d_taddei2
collegeboy16
Werewolf
Zivo
KomissarBojanchev
George1
TR1
TheArmenian
franco
KRATOS1133
NationalRus
Cyberspec
Mindstorm
nightcrawler
medo
brudawson
Admin
GarryB
Austin
72 posters

    Russian Army ATGM Thread

    avatar
    ALAMO


    Posts : 1785
    Points : 1787
    Join date : 2014-11-26

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  ALAMO Thu Feb 10, 2022 10:18 pm

    Actually, Malyutka was vastly used for training purposes, as they made a target drone out of it.
    This is a common practice, so I guess they will use newer missiles once run out of the old ones.
    It is just the same story as with the free fall bombs they have used in Syria.
    Some of them are models from the 50s, that were upgraded in 60s, 70s and so on. So if they are dropping them, it means that those are old stocks disposed of.

    GarryB likes this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9405
    Points : 9389
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Isos Thu Feb 10, 2022 10:53 pm

    This radar kornet may be a replacement for the khrisantema-S.
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2


    Posts : 2525
    Points : 2701
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  d_taddei2 Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:38 am

    ALAMO wrote:Actually, Malyutka was vastly used for training purposes, as they made a target drone out of it.
    This is a common practice, so I guess they will use newer missiles once run out of the old ones.
    It is just the same story as with the free fall bombs they have used in Syria.
    Some of them are models from the 50s, that were upgraded in 60s, 70s and so on. So if they are dropping them, it means that those are old stocks disposed of.

    The war in Syria opened up the eyes of the Russians, and they learnt a lot on this type of warfare. And how old anti aircraft guns, older armour, older basic systems such as sagger and spg-9 were useful for a prolonged war based on low tech warfare. There was a couple of articles a while ago that Russia was looking at a replacement for SPG-9 with something similar based on experience learnt in Syria. I would imagine a lighter anti tank gun with better range better rounds but still remaining cheap, probably a  max range of 2-3km, with various rounds. Even SPG-9 newer rounds will penetrate 400m of armour after ERA, which isn't bad. And they will most likely re-name it to anti armour or anti material weapon rather than anti tank gun as to get away from the wording that it's designed for such when in fact its not. Another thing they could do is design the gun to be able to fire the guided missile called Bulat that Russia has made, Bulat I believe is 57mm, and currently the SPG-9 is 73mm a newer gun that's designed to be lighter and with newer technology on rounds it could be a fraction smaller even if the new gun is the same size as spg-9 they could easily still use Bulat and use spacers that they designed for the T-62 tank (115mm gun) so it was able to fire Bastion ATGW which is 100mm. So it could be done, this would be a nice add on and give the new gun a cheap guided rocket out to 2.5km.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33171
    Points : 33685
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB Fri Feb 11, 2022 8:43 pm

    Russia made anti-air versions of ATGMs in last time. First was special version of Ataka ATGM with HE-frag warhead and proximity fuse, which is used by helicopters and on the ground by BMPT and Uran-9 robot.

    I have cheated and looked it up and the Shturm comes in HE and HEAT versions, but its replacement the Ataka actually comes in three models, HEAT and HE Frag, but also rod, which is a proximity fused anti aircraft missile version.

    The Vikhr was a multirole missile and it could be selected before launch as to whether it is blast fragmentation or HEAT... I presume for the former a specific fuse sets off the explosive to form the plasma armour penetrating beam or in the latter other fuses detonate it from different directions and it just explodes without forming a beam.

    This has the advantage of being able to do both without having to load a specific warhead equipped version.

    Why would they go for anti-air version of missile?. One reason is laser guidance of missile, so it is cheap and simple for production and second is price

    The missile uses laser beam riding guidance but the actual launch control system has a target auto tracker which means you can have it automatically track something or manually track something yourself with the enormous advantage that the target does not need a IR signature to make it stand out, or a significant radar cross section to get a lock... you can fire it at anything the system will track or you can follow manually... and it is cheap and very accurate.

    Sosna is bigger and is placed on BMP-3, MT-LB or BTR-82 vehicle, while Gibka-S and Kornet-D1 are placed on Tigr-M or Typhoon-K 4x4. Smaller and faster vehicles, more suitable for convoy protection and fast deployments.

    Sosna has the same advantages of Kornet in being laser beam riding, but it is also very very fast... it reaches its target at 10km in about 12 seconds, and it is not that heavy... it is about 42kgs with its solid rocket booster in the launch tube, and about 30kg after booster separation. Kornet is about 33kgs... Ataka and Khrisantema is about 40-45kgs.

    So that is an advantage of Igla-S and Verba and the new missile that they are 1/3rd the weight, but as you mention their IR seekers and proximity fuses tend to make them rather more expensive.

    For shooting down helicopters the extra cost might be worth it, but for shooting at cheap simple drones it isn't.

    Bulat seems to be a lightweight Kornet for armoured vehicles that don't need 1.2m of penetration to deal with.

    As such a HE warhead equipped Bulat might be even better for engaging drones... especially if you are carrying them in big numbers anyway.

    So seems the Russkies found this way better method of obsolete gear disposal much before the UK waste NLAWs

    It is their better understanding of combat where they know accurate ATGMs are not just going to be used against tanks and their precision and standoff range actually makes them very very useful in combat... so making them cheap means you can make them in enormous numbers.

    They might not have the paper performance of Javelin but how many of those can you afford...

    I can't imagine things like AT-2 ATGW will still be in storage and 180mm artillery rounds the former was phased out long ago,

    Actually they have a broad range of simulators based on obsolete gear... the OSA for example is excellent because it is command guided so you have a mobile self contained system that can launch 6 supersonic targets that can be manouvered in ways to simulate an enemy attack and they have enormous numbers of missiles available still.

    However I doubt Russia still produces the sagger munitions and missiles don't last forever. And it was a popular weapon so chances are that they may have cleared stocks of it even though it was vastly produced.

    Reports from the mid 1990s said that the Igla MANPADS was tested with Malyutka target missiles flying below 25m altitude simulating cruise missile targets.

    9 Iglas were fired and 5 missiles made contact with the target and destroyed it.... four missiles did not make direct contact with the rather small missile, which led directly to the development of the Igla-S which amongst its other improvements added a proximity fuse so not making contact with a target does not prevent the missile shooting it down.

    Improved updated Malyutkas were advertised for sale in the 2002 and 2004 Arms catalogue... 800mm armour penetration... which is 50mm better than Javelin.

    Either way Russia most likely saved itself a job of disposal of munitions by sending to Syria. The west doesn't stock pile much munitions as older systems are sold on with the munitions and many munitions are disposed of.

    Saving money and at the same time killing terrorists is a good thing all round I think.

    This radar kornet may be a replacement for the khrisantema-S.

    Or maybe it is a unified launcher that can use both... the original Khrisantema was laser beam riding and radar homing but for compatibility and to improve performance they added laser beam riding guidance to Ataka so the Mi-28NM and BMPT don't need the black thimble radio command control antenna to use them.

    able to fire the guided missile called Bulat that Russia has made, Bulat I believe is 57mm,

    I don't think it is 57mm calibre. It looks about half the calibre of the Kornet and the Kornet is 152mm calibre so it is probably closer to 75-80mm calibre at best.

    and currently the SPG-9 is 73mm a newer gun that's designed to be lighter and with newer technology on rounds it could be a fraction smaller even if the new gun is the same size as spg-9

    The SPG-9 is a 73mm calibre weapon and is very much like the 73mm gun on the BMP-1 except that gun has a closed rear end so it uses less propellent but also has recoil.

    The SPG-9 obviously being a recoilless rifle.

    The early RPG-7 launchers had rockets of about a 73mm calibre but the rocket tube was a 40mm calibre so the size of the rocket limited its velocity and performance.

    The intended replacement for the RPG-7 was the RPG-16 which confused the hell out of everyone in the west who thought it was an RPG-7 scaled up to a 58mm calibre launch tube that would use oversized rocket of large calibre too, but actually it fired 57mm calibre rockets that were loaded inside the tube completely without sticking out the end when loaded.

    Despite having a relatively small calibre it had better penetration and the larger calibre rocket was faster and could go further than the RPG-7, but of course limiting the calibre to the calibre of the tube meant less growth potential... the RPG-7 could get bigger and bigger warheads with better penetration than any sub 58mm calibre rocket warhead could achieve so they went back to the RPG-7.

    Considering it is not about super penetration (for that there is Bulat and Kornet and Metis and a range of other missiles)... a direct fire HE and HEAT round is what they want so perhaps going to a 57mm calibre weapon might be interesting in terms of mobility and cost... with good enough performance... it not longer has to deal with heavy armour...

    You could add smoke and illumination rockets as well as jamming or even a drone rocket...
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2


    Posts : 2525
    Points : 2701
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  d_taddei2 Fri Feb 11, 2022 9:28 pm

    Have to admit I don't know much about Bulat missile, but if it's around 75-80mm then that would easily fit around any future new spg-9 replacement and I would imagine Russia will take this into account when designing it.

    Although it seems Bulat is designed to work on various ATGW platforms, such as kornet and Metis I wonder if they will make a lightweight and cheap platform for it, as a replacement for AT-4 fagot, it has the same range and function. And it seems that if they did the system would be more accurate, lighter, lighter munitions, and packs more punch. A win win for the operator.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33171
    Points : 33685
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB Sat Feb 12, 2022 12:07 pm

    Well that is the problem... we don't know a lot about the Bulat except seeing it, and we can see it is a much smaller missile that appears to be fitted to new BMP turret designs with a retractable launcher mount that looks the same as the Kornet mount but carries 8 ready to fire missiles instead of the usual four.

    We know the Bulat is intended for use against less heavily armoured targets... ie AFVs but not MBTs and lighter structures for which a 1.2m penetration or 10kg HE equivalent warhead of the standard Kornet is overkill, but we don't know it speed or its range... and to be honest I don't think a smaller slimmer missile would necessarily be slower or shorter ranged.

    I have speculated in the past that it might be a good replacement for Metis in urban areas for use against the weaker sides and rear ends of vehicles, or even to target the weaker and vulnerable rear turret areas of current western tanks where ammo is stored.

    Metis itself could be improved by replacing the wire guidance with laser beam riding, so it could be a heavier missile with 950mm of penetration and the Bulat missile could be carried for lighter targets so more missiles could be carried than if there was just one missile type.

    They have already done this before with BRDM-2 based vehicles using both Konkurs and Faggot, where the mix of missiles meant rather more missiles could be carried than if only Konkurs were being carried.

    I seem to remember the load being either 14 Konkurs, or 10 Konkurs and 10 Fagots. The range of the Fagot is 2.5km and the penetration is less but not all targets require the extra penetration or range.

    I suspect the Bulat is a cheaper lighter missile with less penetration that might even make more sense with a HE payload most of the time.

    zardof likes this post

    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2


    Posts : 2525
    Points : 2701
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  d_taddei2 Sat Feb 12, 2022 9:12 pm

    On one article it states this. However still lacking information.

    "The beginning of flight tests of the Bulat was reported in August. The missile is capable of hitting targets at a distance of at least 3 km - both lightly armored enemy vehicles and low — flying targets-drones and helicopters"

    GarryB likes this post

    JohninMK
    JohninMK


    Posts : 10797
    Points : 10918
    Join date : 2015-06-16
    Location : England

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  JohninMK Mon Feb 21, 2022 10:52 pm

    The newest self-propelled anti-tank missile system (ATGM) "Kornet-D1", created for the Airborne Forces, has reached the final stage of testing. This was reported by the press service of Rostec.

    Designed specifically for the Airborne Forces, the Kornet-D1 ATGM is mounted on the BMD-4M chassis and has two automated launchers, each with its own sighting system, which allows firing at two different targets at once. To date, the complex has begun final firing tests, and the machine is also undergoing tests at the same time.

    Holding "High-precision complexes" has begun the final stage of firing tests, the machine is also undergoing laboratory and road tests

    So far, nothing has been reported on the timing of the adoption of the complex for service, but training commanders of the Kornet-D1 ATGM crews are already being trained on the basis of the Omsk Airborne Training Center. These complexes will go into service with the anti-tank artillery battalions of the Airborne Forces. Plans for the speedy completion of state tests of the complex were announced at the end of 2020.

    As previously reported, the Kornet-D1 ATGM is being created in two versions - based on the BMD-4M and the Tiger-M. In both versions, the complex is armed with two launchers, which are equipped with automatic tracking, allowing you to hit the target without the participation of the operator. In the version for the Airborne Forces, the Kornet-D1 ATGM uses missiles with an increased range. A missile with a tandem HEAT warhead is capable of hitting a target at a distance of 8 km, with a thermobaric warhead - up to 10 km. In this case, the second missile can hit low-speed aircraft.


    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 1645423595_snimok

    https://topwar-ru.translate.goog/192528-razrabotannyj-dlja-vdv-protivotankovyj-kompleks-kornet-d1-vyshel-na-finalnyj-jetap-ispytanij.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=ajax,elem,se

    GarryB, dino00, d_taddei2, Hole and Lennox like this post

    Atmosphere
    Atmosphere


    Posts : 223
    Points : 225
    Join date : 2021-02-01

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Atmosphere Tue Feb 22, 2022 4:46 am

    "with a thermobaric warhead - up to 10 km"

    Good luck for anything from machine gun nests to the vast majority of ATGM teams.

    GarryB and Hole like this post

    Hole
    Hole


    Posts : 6352
    Points : 6340
    Join date : 2018-03-25
    Age : 46
    Location : Scholzistan

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Hole Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:32 am

    I´m just curious what the explosion of an thermobaric warhead could do to an APS???
    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9405
    Points : 9389
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Isos Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:01 am

    Hole wrote:I´m just curious what the explosion of an thermobaric warhead could do to an APS???

    You mean APC ?

    Not much unless it has windows opened. It's not a weapon you use against armored vehicles. It's good agaibst soft targets or closed area like inside a bunker.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8159
    Points : 8304
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  magnumcromagnon Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:56 am

    Isos wrote:
    Hole wrote:I´m just curious what the explosion of an thermobaric warhead could do to an APS???

    You mean APC ?

    Not much unless it has windows opened. It's not a weapon you use against armored vehicles. It's good agaibst soft targets or closed area like inside a bunker.

    Incorrect. Take for example RPO-A's 93mm thermobaric munition has the same (but probably significantly greater) destructive power than a 152/155mm HE-Frag artillery shell. Thermobaric munitions routinely have as great or even greater destructive force than standard HE-Frag munitions that are twice their diameter's size.

    There's a version of of RPO-A called "MGK Bur" that fire rockets with a reduced diameter of 62mm, but yet it's destructive force is as great or greater than a 122mm HE-Frag artillery shell. The 152mm Kornet rocket with a thermobaric warhead would have a destructive force that would easily surpass a 203mm HE-Frag artillery shell.

    Also, keep in mind very few APC's have MBT level armor. The vast majority of APC's are either lightly or medium armored, but even medium armored APC's are only rated to defeat 30mm autocannon shells from the front, and 12.7mm to 14.5mm heavy-machine gun rounds from the side, and only 7.62mm light-machine gun rounds from the rear.

    A munition with a destructive force that easily surpasses 203mm HE-Frag shells would not have any trouble obliterating a medium armored APC.

    d_taddei2 likes this post

    Isos
    Isos


    Posts : 9405
    Points : 9389
    Join date : 2015-11-07

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Isos Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:06 am

    As I understood, thermobaric isn't about balst destruction but burning the area quickly making a depression/surpression which kills and destroys. But even little armor should protect from it if it is well closed. A bit like steel protects submarines from underwater pressure.
    Atmosphere
    Atmosphere


    Posts : 223
    Points : 225
    Join date : 2021-02-01

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Atmosphere Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:08 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    Isos wrote:
    Hole wrote:I´m just curious what the explosion of an thermobaric warhead could do to an APS???

    You mean APC ?

    Not much unless it has windows opened. It's not a weapon you use against armored vehicles. It's good agaibst soft targets or closed area like inside a bunker.

    Incorrect. Take for example RPO-A's 93mm thermobaric munition has the same (but probably significantly greater) destructive power than a 152/155mm HE-Frag artillery shell. Thermobaric munitions routinely have as great or even greater destructive force than standard HE-Frag munitions that are twice their diameter's size.

    There's a version of of RPO-A called "MGK Bur" that fire rockets with a reduced diameter of 62mm, but yet it's destructive force is as great or greater than a 122mm HE-Frag artillery shell. The 152mm Kornet rocket with a thermobaric warhead would have a destructive force that would easily surpass a 203mm HE-Frag artillery shell.

    Also, keep in mind very few APC's have MBT level armor. The vast majority of APC's are either lightly or medium armored, but even medium armored APC's are only rated to defeat 30mm autocannon shells from the front, and 12.7mm to 14.5mm heavy-machine gun rounds from the side, and only 7.62mm light-machine gun rounds from the rear.

    A munition with a destructive force that easily surpasses 203mm HE-Frag shells would not have any trouble obliterating a medium armored APC.

    This reminds me of something.
    Why are HEF rounds used with Thermobaric ones existing?
    d_taddei2
    d_taddei2


    Posts : 2525
    Points : 2701
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  d_taddei2 Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:09 am

    Isos wrote:
    Hole wrote:I´m just curious what the explosion of an thermobaric warhead could do to an APS???

    You mean APC ?

    Not much unless it has windows opened. It's not a weapon you use against armored vehicles. It's good agaibst soft targets or closed area like inside a bunker.

    Actually you would be surprised, light armour can be destroyed by thermobaric missiles. Something like a M113 could be destroyed by a RPO, on impact it still produces blast that's more than capable of puncturing a APC and the intense heat, blast wave and pressure etc can destroy or kill occupants, the heat alone would set many components inside the vehicle alight causing horrendous amounts of smoke and carcinogenic fumes not what you want to be breathing in, and not mention your uniform and skin burning as well, a horrendous way to die. It's not going to do puncture the latest IFV but light armoured APC it will. I know this because while serving in N. Ireland we got wind of IRA trying to purchased in the late early 1990's purchasing then at $800 a piece the fall of Soviet Union made selling arms cheap illegally
    And they were concerned not just attacking Sanger's but also Saxon APC, snatch landrovers, and stated that FV432 and Spartans wouldn't be a solution as they would be penetrated too, Spartans and FV432 weren't deployed to N.I. but they were mentioned if troops could use them instead and weapons intelligence guy said no that those would be vulnerable as well.

    I would imagine a kornet thermobaric missile will pack more punch than a RPO.

    Might I add that the RPG-26 thermobaric missile the RShG-2 which still has penetration capability of 300 millimeters of concrete and 500 millimeters of brickwork. So penetrating a APC wouldn't be an issue.

    Also remember that the shockwave from the weapon could incapacitate troops inside a vehicle even if the armour isn't penetrated.
    magnumcromagnon
    magnumcromagnon


    Posts : 8159
    Points : 8304
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  magnumcromagnon Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:39 am

    Isos wrote:As I understood, thermobaric isn't about balst destruction but burning the area quickly making a depression/surpression which kills and destroys. But even little armor should protect from it if it is well closed. A bit like steel protects submarines from underwater pressure.

    If you believe that than request VVP to drop a FOAB on top of your head, while you sit comfortably in a Bradely AFV, listening to Cher's greatest hits! Wink Razz

    Atmosphere wrote:This reminds me of something.
    Why are HEF rounds used with Thermobaric ones existing?

    There's pros and cons between HE-Frag and thermobaric warheads, and neither does everything better than other enough to replace either one. HE-Frag warheads are better at hitting targets out in the open because shrapnel covers a much greater area in comparison, while thermobaric warheads are better at hitting targets hiding in buildings. HE-Frag shrapnel would get caught within the walls of a internal building structure. Meanwhile thermobaric warheads of a similar caliber would have more than twice the blast force! Thermobaric warheads would also introduce asphyxiation (burning up the oxygen inside the building), searing heat with the traveling blast wave, and would collapse the building structure on top of the heads of the OPFOR.

    d_taddei2, kvs and Atmosphere like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33171
    Points : 33685
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:22 pm

    HE will detonate underwater and in most other places, thermobaric, as used by the Russians... think of it as being a mist of fuel that spreads as it explodes that can reach into gaps and openings and continue to explode consuming the oxygen as it goes.

    Both detonate and so both create shockwaves, but Thermobaric bombs are all fuel, while by weight HE bombs have 3/4ths of their mass to store and release oxygen to burn the remaining 1/4th fuel at a supersonic speed... so a thermobaric bomb has three times more fuel by weight... but it spreads around the target as it detonates.

    It is not great at penetrating armour, but if the hatches are open or there are openings then you would be in trouble, whether in an armoured vehicle or bunker.

    The point is that if it was super effective against armour then why bother with a shorter ranged HEAT version?

    The standard Kornet is a 152mm calibre missile, while the RPO-A is a 93mm weapon so the volume and weight of the thermobaric round should be pretty substantial.

    As I understood, thermobaric isn't about balst destruction but burning the area quickly making a depression/surpression which kills and destroys. But even little armor should protect from it if it is well closed. A bit like steel protects submarines from underwater pressure.

    Thermobaric rounds are exactly about detonation and not so much about burning... they are burning in the sense that they consume local oxygen like a fire would, but they detonate like explosives rather than burn like napalm.

    Light armour like a BTR-60 would be crushed and defeated, but heavier armour should do a lot better if the hatches are closed.


    This reminds me of something.
    Why are HEF rounds used with Thermobaric ones existing?

    The difference between thermobaric and HE Frag is that thermobaric has a small spreading charge that vapourises the fuel and spreads it rapidly around the target area in a fine mist and detonates it... the misted fuel and air surrounding it detonates and causes a massive shockwave and intense heat.

    HE Frag does not need to expand to explode and is packed with fragments ready to be thrown around the target area at high speed.

    A blast explosive does damage from shockwaves, which has a very limited range because it is expanding in 3 dimensions...how much gas could you concentrate inside the warhead space? As it expands it slows its acceleration once all the explosive has exploded and the gas plume continue to expand outwards.

    HE Frag is not about the blast wave... it is about accelerating large and or small lumps of material and throwing them in every direction... you just need to look at the two main types of hand grenade to get an understanding.

    The attack grenade has lots of very very small fragments that are relatively light... when the grenade goes off they are rapidly accelerated to very high speed which makes them lethal to 5-10m or so, so if you throw it further than that you will be safe from your own grenade fragments. Because the fragment are small and light they also slow down fairly quickly so you are less likely to be injured by your own grenade fragments, while the large number of very small fragments mean lots of injuries on targets close to where the grenade explodes... attack grenades are used during attacks on enemy positions including throwing them into rooms before you go in yourself to soften up the enemy in that room.

    The defense grenade has fewer but much bigger and heavier fragments... the extra weight of the fragments means they remain lethal over much greater distances, which means you might not be able to throw it far enough to ensure you wont get injured by your own grenade fragments. The heavier fragments don't go as fast but they retain their speed and are lethal or dangerous over much greater distances, though there are rather fewer of them they do spread damage over a greater area but targets near the explosion are not shredded so badly. Defense grenades are designed to be thrown from a safe position... behind a rock wall, or from a trench against troops in the open closing in on your position where they are exposed in the open and you are safe behind cover.

    Of course grenades need to be light enough to throw, while ATGMs might have a mix of a layer of light and a layer of heavy fragments to get the best of both worlds where the light fragments give good coverage of close objects like a drone, while heavier fragments to reach further against heavier structures or targets like a light truck or car.

    Atmosphere likes this post

    avatar
    Cyrus the great


    Posts : 296
    Points : 304
    Join date : 2015-06-13

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great Wed Mar 30, 2022 12:24 pm

    What do you guys think of Russia creating a top attack Kornet warhead that has the same Inertial/laser guidance as the Sokol missile?

    GarryB likes this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33171
    Points : 33685
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB Wed Mar 30, 2022 9:46 pm

    The optical guidance of the Sokol missile makes the missile more expensive than a simple dumb laser beam riding missile which just has an optical sensor looking back at the launcher to detect its position in the beam.

    The Bofors Bill 2 has a MAD sensor that detects the metal mass of the target so it flys several metres above the line of sight and when it reaches the target it detonates a warhead directly downwards...

    I would think adding a precise ranging system like MMW radar to the existing Kornet system would allow the outgoing missle and the target to be tracked and ranged and when the missile was over the target the laser the missile is flying down could send a code to detonate the missiles warhead, but instead of rolling in flight the missile would have to fly like a plane with the warhead pointing down all the way to the target...

    The standard HEAT warhead uses an indentation like pushing a wine bottle into the front of the HE charge and then lining the surface with exotic metals to create mass for the beam of plasma.

    Traditionally the best way to increase penetration is special metals, increased HE mass, the most efficient bottle shape, the best standoff distance for the beam to form before reaching the armour, but the easiest way traditionally is the increase the calibre of the warhead.

    I wonder if an oval shaped warhead would work, and that if width was still relevant to penetration...

    On early tank HEAT rounds the warhead itself was placed in a a stabilised mount with ball bearings to reduce the spin rate from the rifling because the spin from the rifling reduces the penetration of a HEAT rounds.

    Eventually the Soviets realised that when the best anti tank rounds a tank fires... sabot rounds and HEAT rounds, really are not improved with rifling they came out with the smoothbore tank gun... APFSDS rounds have Sabots and are not spun... simply because the longer and thinner a projectile is the faster you have to spin it to get full stabilisation, which is why arrows and darts use fin stabilisation... even in dart guns.

    The British continued to use rifled barrels because they liked HESH rounds which are quite destructive against non armoured vehicles, any add on armour like rail armour or spaced armour renders it useless... even IFVs with add on armour can withstand HESH rounds as shown in Desert Storm when a 120mm HESH from a Challenger hit a Warrior... at the time they raved about the amazing armour of the IFV, but really it was the ineffectiveness of the round against spaced armour that was the real issue.

    Hoenstly I think Kornet is just fine as it is, and Bulat is a smaller lighter missile for targets not as well armoured as tanks I would think that a unified launcher could be developed, and the latest Metis missile could be a 3-4km range missile with laser beam riding guidance added to replace the wire guidance so it could be faster... its 950mm penetration is just fine and it could be used together with Bulat as light portable missiles where the improved metis could be used against enemy tanks from most angles and the Bulat could be used against everything else being smaller and lighter and probably cheaper... a HE version for use against drones and hard points would be good for Kornet units because you can carry x number of Kornets but double that in Bulat, so for instance a Tigr vehicle with a normal load of 16 Kornets should be able to carry 16 Bulat missiles plus 8 Kornets, which should be 24 missiles...

    d_taddei2, magnumcromagnon and Cyrus the great like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1164
    Points : 1164
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  lyle6 Thu Mar 31, 2022 7:31 am

    Cyrus the great wrote:What do you guys think of Russia creating a top attack Kornet warhead that has the same Inertial/laser guidance as the Sokol missile?
    They already have the Krasnopol for that. The Kornet is also fine as it is. Otherwise NATO wouldn't be bothering with Trophy at huge expense.

    GarryB, d_taddei2 and Cyrus the great like this post

    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33171
    Points : 33685
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB Thu Mar 31, 2022 1:46 pm

    On several of the Combat Approved TV shows involving ATGMs like the one on the Krisantema there has been footage of a Kornet like missile that is fired at a T-72 type target and in the video the missile flys a metre or so above the tank and as it approaches the tank it does not drop down onto target, it flys above it and as it flys over it fires a HEAT beam directly downwards at the tank penetrating the top of the turret and setting off the ammo in the under turret autoloader blowing the turret off the tank and destroying it.

    The first few times I watched it I assumed it was Bofors Bill 2, but on closer inspection it seems to be either a Kornet or a Metis missile (which both look very similar in shape but not size).

    Remaining low but a couple of metres above the line of sight has advantages including not flying into fences or bushes or other items in the missiles path, but the problem with a conventional rolling missile is that what if the warhead is not pointing directly downwards as it flys over the tank turret... perhaps thruster rockets to kick the nose up as the missile approaches the target with four warheads pointing up and down and left and right with the thrust vectoring to kick the nose up and direct a beam from the top down at the tank if one of the beams would not be pointing down as the missile passes overhead...

    Maybe a steep climb as the missile approaches the targets position for a steep terminal dive on the target with a conventional full calibre warhead pointing forward.... the Bulat, with its much smaller warhead would still be plenty powerful enough to penetrate the thinner roof armour of even the heaviest vehicle so it could be applied to Bulat instead of Kornet which could remain cheap and simple...

    The new LMUR missile with is IIR seeker should be a diving top attack weapon that can eliminate enemy armour very effectively and its 15km plus range from a ground launch should make it very useful... a two way video datalink means it is like a suicide drone that could collect useful information on its way to the target too, while the new 9M100 if it is ARH could also use diving top attack flight profiles too...

    Russia has enormous anti armour options... more options than HATO has tanks really.

    d_taddei2 and magnumcromagnon like this post

    lyle6
    lyle6


    Posts : 1164
    Points : 1164
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  lyle6 Thu Mar 31, 2022 5:27 pm

    GarryB wrote:On several of the Combat Approved TV shows involving ATGMs like the one on the Krisantema there has been footage of a Kornet like missile that is fired at a T-72 type target and in the video the missile flys a metre or so above the tank and as it approaches the tank it does not drop down onto target, it flys above it and as it flys over it fires a HEAT beam directly downwards at the tank penetrating the top of the turret and setting off the ammo in the under turret autoloader blowing the turret off the tank and destroying it.
    That was probably a TOW-2B. The Russians never really went into the fly-by EFP route since Russian ATGMs are designed against NATO tanks - ammo in the frontal hull and ammo in the aft of the turret. If you are looking at it from the front any penetrator that punches through the armor is directly in line with the ammo immediately behind. It doesn't matter if the ammo is compartmentalized, as most penetrators retain enough kinetic energy to punch through the thin ammo doors like those in the Abrams. Russian tanks on the other hand have the ammo under the lowest and least likely be hit profile and after the T-14, under the thickest layer of protection. While this minimizes the chances of a hit in the horizontal plane this does make it that the target profile is maximized in the vertical plane instead so there the top attack route makes sense.
    avatar
    Cyrus the great


    Posts : 296
    Points : 304
    Join date : 2015-06-13

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Cyrus the great Tue Apr 05, 2022 5:52 am

    GarryB wrote:The optical guidance of the Sokol missile makes the missile more expensive than a simple dumb laser beam riding missile which just has an optical sensor looking back at the launcher to detect its position in the beam.

    The Bofors Bill 2 has a MAD sensor that detects the metal mass of the target so it flys several metres above the line of sight and when it reaches the target it detonates a warhead directly downwards...

    I would think adding a precise ranging system like MMW radar to the existing Kornet system would allow the outgoing missle and the target to be tracked and ranged and when the missile was over the target the laser the missile is flying down could send a code to detonate the missiles warhead, but instead of rolling in flight the missile would have to fly like a plane with the warhead pointing down all the way to the target...

    The standard HEAT warhead uses an indentation like pushing a wine bottle into the front of the HE charge and then lining the surface with exotic metals to create mass for the beam of plasma.

    Traditionally the best way to increase penetration is special metals, increased HE mass, the most efficient bottle shape, the best standoff distance for the beam to form before reaching the armour, but the easiest way traditionally is the increase the calibre of the warhead.

    I wonder if an oval shaped warhead would work, and that if width was still relevant to penetration...

    On early tank HEAT rounds the warhead itself was placed in a a stabilised mount with ball bearings to reduce the spin rate from the rifling because the spin from the rifling reduces the penetration of a HEAT rounds.

    Eventually the Soviets realised that when the best anti tank rounds a tank fires... sabot rounds and HEAT rounds, really are not improved with rifling they came out with the smoothbore tank gun... APFSDS rounds have Sabots and are not spun... simply because the longer and thinner a projectile is the faster you have to spin it to get full stabilisation, which is why arrows and darts use fin stabilisation... even in dart guns.

    The British continued to use rifled barrels because they liked HESH rounds which are quite destructive against non armoured vehicles, any add on armour like rail armour or spaced armour renders it useless... even IFVs with add on armour can withstand HESH rounds as shown in Desert Storm when a 120mm HESH from a Challenger hit a Warrior... at the time they raved about the amazing armour of the IFV, but really it was the ineffectiveness of the round against spaced armour that was the real issue.

    Hoenstly I think Kornet is just fine as it is, and Bulat is a smaller lighter missile for targets not as well armoured as tanks I would think that a unified launcher could be developed, and the latest Metis missile could be a 3-4km range missile with laser beam riding guidance added to replace the wire guidance so it could be faster... its 950mm penetration is just fine and it could be used together with Bulat as light portable missiles where the improved metis could be used against enemy tanks from most angles and the Bulat could be used against everything else being smaller and lighter and probably cheaper... a HE version for use against drones and hard points would be good for Kornet units because you can carry x number of Kornets but double that in Bulat, so for instance a Tigr vehicle with a normal load of 16 Kornets should be able to carry 16 Bulat missiles plus 8 Kornets, which should be 24 missiles...

    That's a very good and detailed write up.

    A range of different anti-armour tools at Russia's disposal is impressive.

    The reason I think that a top attack Kornet variant is important is because modern tanks can't be destroyed from the front -- limiting operational options; I understand that tanks would ideally be attacked from the sides.

    I don't think that a top attack Kornet variant would even have to be that much more expensive than the current batch; why not put a magnetic sensor onto the Kornet so that it can explode 1-2 metres above the target once it detects the metal of the tank? The Kornet's laser already flies above the line of sight and could be programmed to fly slightly higher if need be.

    A magnetic sensor must surely be much cheaper than the CCD/IIR guidance of the Spike and Javelin missiles or any MMW radar equipped missile.

    I also like the idea of a Metis-M1 with laser guidance.
    GarryB
    GarryB


    Posts : 33171
    Points : 33685
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  GarryB Tue Apr 05, 2022 6:20 pm

    A range of different anti-armour tools at Russia's disposal is impressive.

    Barely scratched the surface...

    The reason I think that a top attack Kornet variant is important is because modern tanks can't be destroyed from the front -- limiting operational options; I understand that tanks would ideally be attacked from the sides.

    The core issue is that currently with laser beam riding you can place your crosshair on the target and launch the missile and the missile will fly down the centre line of your point of aim, so as long as you keep the crosshair on the target the missile will eventually hit.

    When you start lofting it in the air, looking back at the launcher for the beam is pointless because where do you point the beam?

    Pointing the beam up at 45 degrees is fine but when do you drop the beam onto the target.

    The other issue is orienting the warhead so it is directed vertically down to penetrate the top armour... the easiest way is have a normal forward pointing warhead and have the missile climb up and dive down vertically on the target, but then the target has to be discernable to the missile.... the missile needs to see the target itself... either an optical seeker or a laser spot mark on the target.

    Using the existing guidance system you can command the laser to point parallel with the ground but 2m above the target and when it reaches the tank fire its warhead downwards... perhaps at the rear turret bustle or engine... the Kornet has two warheads... a small one at the front to set off ERA and the main full calibre warhead at the rear of the missile whose distance from the armour when it explodes means a nicely formed plasma beam that is more efficient than if it was at the front of the missile.

    A top attack version might have smaller downwards pointing warheads angled to hit the tank in multiple areas... the centre and rear of the turret bustle and also the engine bay area... penetrating roof armour means the warheads can be split up and much smaller than warheads designed to penetrate frontal armour.

    Or you could command a last second pop up and dive on the target instead.

    I don't think that a top attack Kornet variant would even have to be that much more expensive than the current batch; why not put a magnetic sensor onto the Kornet so that it can explode 1-2 metres above the target once it detects the metal of the tank? The Kornet's laser already flies above the line of sight and could be programmed to fly slightly higher if need be.

    A new variant of Kornet would be interesting, but equally if it is a top attack it doesn't need the 1.2m armour penetration performance of the Kornet, so you could make it smaller and lighter like Bulat.

    With modern CCD chips being very very cheap... these days a couple of dollars would get you some you could use optical guidance, perhaps with Bulat where you fire it up into the air at 45 degrees or steeper if the target is closer... having lased the target you know the actual distance and on launch when the missile reaches 3/4ths of the way to the target, controled normally with laser beam riding, but with the guidance beam angled upwards and your crosshairs pointed at the target lasing the target... when the missile gets 3/4ths of the way there the laser beam riding laser is turned off... the missile is built in instructions to immediately dive when it looses its guidance beam.... so the launcher turns off its upwards angled guidance beam and turns on a laser target marker beam pointed where the crosshair is being maintained... when the Bulat starts to dive it ejects its nose cover with its optical guidance looking for the active IR laser... after a second or two the laser can turn off and the missile continues with its optical lock on the target... if the target moves it can follow and hit from above.

    Magnetic sensors could be set off as the missile passes cars or wire fences or power lines on the battlefield...

    d_taddei2 and magnumcromagnon like this post

    RTN
    RTN


    Posts : 609
    Points : 588
    Join date : 2014-03-24
    Location : Fairfield, CT

    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  RTN Tue Apr 05, 2022 6:44 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:The reason I think that a top attack Kornet variant is important is because modern tanks can't be destroyed from the front -- limiting operational options; I understand that tanks would ideally be attacked from the sides.
    Israeli Merkava tanks have a rear entrance as well.

    Sponsored content


    Russian Army ATGM Thread - Page 29 Empty Re: Russian Army ATGM Thread

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu May 19, 2022 7:41 pm