Search results

Angle of incidence of 30 grad will give you nothing. If laser is designated at turret front, missile will hit turret front, just with 30 grad hit angle, if pointed at side, side with 30 grad hit angle, nowhere near 2 times advantage, rather none. More is achieved, only if you are in elevated...

Your lofted trajectory mode, gives only incidence of missile of 30 degrees :woot: , it is the same for Refleks trajectory. Lahat warhead is simply not enought against modern armour. Not to mention countermeasures resistance, or target alert from 5km by laser designator... No, this is direct...

Figures for Refleks/Invar were provided, probability of neutralisation of most modern tanks, >50%, from front. 1-2 missiles max to neutralise most modern tank, from 5 km. This is effectiveness. Lahat, only good against old tanks with weaker armour and or no warning systems. Exactly the same...

Advantages of Refleks/Invar: - More powerfull warhead, >50% of success to neutralise modern tank from front, Lahat, weaker 700mm, 2 or 3 against frontal engagement are needed. Lahat and Refleks, have same loafted trajectory: Lahat will only warn the tank from 5km with it's laser designator...

You are not familiarised with this subject, so I'll show. In these beam riding missiles, you only need to visually maintain sight on target, then laser beam is directed with a special algorithm to reach target with a certain trajectory, depending on mode chosen. Laser beam is directed at...

KOMBAT (and Invar-M) are superior in performance, both in higher penetration, 900-850mm of RHA after ERA against 700mm of weaker LAHAT warhead. Probability of neutralisation (probability of hit, probability of penetrating armour) of KOMBAT and Invar-M against frontal armour of tank as M1A2 is...

Kombat is analogous in capabilities to Russian Invar-M (developement of Refleks). It is fully compatible, uses the same guidance system, but missile itself is rather different and it is not really based on Refleks or Invar. Characteristics are very similar to the latter as said, tandem warhead...

Lofted trajectory does not mean top attack, as there is no way to assure that it will hit at effective point. It is only marketing BS. With that logic, refleks, Kornet, etc can be categorised as top attack as well, as they all have similar modes, so I do not see anything special. Funny thing is...

There is absolutely nothing of value in that babble, as you do not understand the subject, for ex, confuse systems, terms. So there is nothing to respond to that.

This is only your missundertsanding, of marketing terms. These missiles follow a loafted trajectory, in LAHAT, Refleks, etc there are several firing modes, to avoid obstacles or hit different targets, etc. In such cases missile does not follow a direct trajectory. But this cannot be considered...

There is no top attack mode, unless you have a different undertsanding of the term. There is not any gain in range, missile range is limited by tank ability, sensors, laser designator. Fire from enclosed positions, target must be designated externally, tank by itself cannot perform anything...

These are only part of the APS system, they affect flare collimators, disrupting guidance of missiles like TOW, etc. They have nothing to do with laser-guided missiles which are detected by laser warning sensors, and disrupted by automatic action of aerosol cloud. You are confusing the whole...

LAHAT is not proper anti-tank munition for several reasons: - It's warhead is weaker as compared to tank munitions, requiring 2-3 missiles to neutralise a modern tank. - It's guidance method, also is not suitable for tank warfare. It has a semi-active laser seeker, which is easy to be...

Well then we are talking about two different uses here. As Iron Dome is deployed to intercept casual rocket launches (being themselves, launches against city, of no military use, but terror impact), but it cannot perform other role than that so, like I think I said earlier, this system is good...

There can be effective way to deal with (having in account cost difference, and system capability). And this is your source, and comparison ?

Do not know on what level your example does relate to this, but missiles with seeker are always inherently costlier, and this fact is reflected in Iron Dome where the smallest cost figures are about 50000$ per missile... Nobody else takes that expense to deal against cheap and unsophisticated...

Still no comparsion. Tor missile is several times cheaper, more in line to deal with relatively cheap munitions. Also it can shoot any kind of target, manned aircraft, cruise missiles which are much more costly, while Iron Dome has only one use, and not ideally, because of huge cost difference...

In addition to another factors, Tor is much more effective to exploit, resources wise. For Iron Dome it costs 50000$ atleast, to intercept a single inexpensive and unsophisticated artillery rocket. Tor battery already includes support and loading vehicles, though their number can be increased...

Explotation of Tor is far cheaper and effective, as it uses inexpensive command guided missiles, as contrary to Iron Dome's which cost atleast 50000$ each, due to use of radar seeker for each missile, which is much more expensive. Iron Dome has 60 missiles among 3 launchers. Battery of Tor has...

Wrong, currently Tor is available in several vehicles (tracked, wheeled, towed) and in different battery configurations which reflects in different roles, stand alone operation or battery to protect areas, etc. You did not understood. I speciffically mentioned batteries (not deployed...