Perhaps you don't understand that Javelin is not supposed to be the only anti armour rocket in US forces... at very short ranges the cheap unguided AT4 is used, while at medium ranges the Dragon has been replaced by Javelin, and the standard long range ATGM is the TOW.I think many of you are misunderstanding a little the purpose of 3rd gen ATGM.
For Russian forces they have a wide range of short range unguided rockets for a variety of battlefield targets but such weapons are not much use beyond about 500m or so, so in Afghanistan where the muj are firing from 600-900m with their SVDs and PKMs the US forces are given the choice of AT4 or Javelin. Dragon would have been much cheaper but is out of service.
For the Russian forces they had AT-3 as a general ATGM, which was replaced by AT-4/-5 in the medium and long range role, now the Metis-M1 has replaced the AT-4 and the Kornet is the long range missile.
The point is that the unguided short range weapons are the big numbers weapons that are everywhere in large numbers.
The medium range missile is also widely deployed to infantry, while the long range is generally used at a higher level and is not so widely deployed.
Inside 600m with unguided rockets... further than that and small arms are not a huge threat so shoot and scoot is less useful... and when the target is a group of enemy in a bunker or building then you can't use the fire and forget mode of Javelin anyway... that only works with vehicles with engines turned on.
Metis-M1 can be ready to fire from the march.1. It has reduced workload for the operator.
Javelin is only fire and forget against vehicle targets with lockable IR signatures... which equates to only a very small fraction of battlefield targets.2. Survivability of the operator increased (due to fire and forget).
How? Javelin and Spike cannot receive target data from other sources and guide itself to a target based on that data.3. Self-guidance immensely improves it's performance perspectives in network-centric environment (especially so for Spike ATGM, for example).
A Metis-M1 operator could receive the same target data... locate the target and fire rather faster than an operator of Javelin as there is no lock time.
Metis-M1 also has a reduced signature launch capability.4. Soft-launch feature for such missiles as FGM-148 allows safe operation in confined spaces (buildings), as well as reduction of the launch signature (although those advantages may also be true for ERYX)
Range limitation is seeker acquisition range and has nothing to do with flight profile. The lofted trajectory along with its low flight speed actually makes it vulnerable to enemy fire.5. Optional top-attack profile, which not only allows top attack (well, duh Smile ) , but also, due to higher trajectory, introduces improved kinematic efficiency, that means, a bit longer range and/or higher impact speed.
Kornet EM uses ACLOS and should be able to follow high speed targets including aircraft... and lofted Javelins...6. Vastly improved accuracy against moving targets. In A-stan, Javelin was shown to reliably target motorcycles and technical trucks even on high speed. Even a highly trained SACLOS missile operator would have serious difficulty to achieve the same performance.
So there you have it, folks Smile Now, a question. Could all those features be successfully mimmicked in SACLOS missiles to the same extent as FF ones? If you can't find an answer, there you have the rationale for FF missile usage. russia
METIS-M1 pretty much covers all those features at a price that would allow you to buy 100 missiles for the cost of one Javelin.
The costs listed were for the US army which was buying Javelin missiles... 175K is the missile price... add quarter of a million for the launcher too!Also, a bit about the cost. Something about 175000 US dollars per missile was mentioned. Although I don't know for sure, that Javelin contract would also seem to include spare parts, operator training, storage and maintenance expenses throughout the system's operational history. I mean, of course, Javelin is expensive, but not THAT expensive.