Except it does not work
It does not replace current systems because it has no need to. It is being developed as part of a more integrated system, radars, from heliicopters, longe range (100km)
Metis-M has range of 2 km.
Spike LR has range of 4 km and can attack without staying in LOS, top attack and consealed targets. Trully a step backwards
Because Metis-M is not a new system, but an upgrade to an existant configuration, Kornet, and new developements adopted by the army bring way superior capabilities as compared to earlier systems, unlike Javelin or Spike which due to little improvement, complexity and cost have not been adopted in large scale.
2 variants of force upgrade
1- Shift to new systems with much longer range (to 6km) and significantly more powerful, with semi automatic and eventually fully automatic laser guidance.
2- Shift to Missiles with active seekers by an fire & forget principle whose upgrade potential is limited (range up to 2km, warhead size)
First justifies a full replacement. Second not and indeed old systems were not replaced in the West.
Spike LR is not fire & forget, but directed in flight through a TV camera. That´s not active seeker. Cost, complexity and little improvement in capability does not justify it´s large scale production and adoption, except for use in very specific environments (very irregular terrain), which makes it an unflexible weapon.
Besides now one is scrapping TOWa now.
Tow is outdated as of now. Regardless they have not developed systems with superior capability.
It was very serious issue. For example not a single Soviet tank had thermal sight, while Americans mass produce them since end of 70-es.
Western tank force was a joke until mid-late 80s, besides, Soviet tanks already started to get thermal sights in late 80s.
Nonsense. Lets compare US and Soviet missiles:
------------- US ------------ USSR
1970-es --- TOW ---------- Fagot ------- TOW clearly superrior
1980-es - ITOW/TOW 2 ---- Konkurs ------ TOW clearly superrior
That is not correct. Fagot and Konkurs are different from Tow. Konkurs belonged to the same family as Fagot and was produced on more less the same time as the first Tow. Tow was developed around 152mm diameter since the start due to inferior engineering ability. Konkurs was more compact and lighter developed on earlier Fagot base, and had longer range despite this (4km)
These missiles were not direct counterparts (Konkurs having an older base) but were comparable in capability despite that. Says much of American ability.
More capable Tow 2 variants appeared only at mid-late 80s and in line with that there were soviet improved versions, (Tandem warheads, etc, Konkurs-M). But there is a difference, they were all made from existing missile dimensions, which were much more limited as compared to the big 152mm diameter of Tow, but were more capable despite that. So who builds better missiles?
If you follow developement history you´ll see that Western missiles were more archaic than soviet and they were limited in potential, for example, they failed to develope compact missile components to fit into 120mm gun caliber while soviets had already numerous missiles of 100mm (Kan) and 125mm (Kobra, Invar, etc) since the 70s.
Kobra and Refleks are manual.
I missed? I was talking about Kornet-D. And Refleks is semi-automatic with several firing modes btw.
Lets compare:
portable systems:
Javelin/Spike vs Metis ---- West clearly superrior
Metis-M (version you should compare at that time) is only improvement over an existing base, not new designed system. Regardless, improvement of capability of Javelin and Spike over those are very limited. Same or even smaller range and limited warhead size.
They cannot be compared in capability to Kornet, indeed, they are akward.
Kornet vs--- no counterpart.
vehicle systems:
TOW-2B vs Kornet ---- Equal (since 90%+ of Russian army still has Konkurs then West is super superrior)
First, Kornet is infantry based in origin. There is no counterpart to that. Tow-2B is an outdated missile in wire configuration and due to that, limited in range and warhead. Nothing to compare.
In addition, Tow is more vulnerable to optical jamming (as Shtora-1) as compared to laser beam guided missiles.
Kornet-D/Khrizantema/Ataka vs--- no counterpart
And were on Russian army they use outdated missiles?. Infantry uses improved versions (Metis-M, Konkurs-M) since late 80s with Tandem warheads which are eventually being replaced by Kornet, used in large numbers already.
Vehicle based systems are supersonic Ataka or Khrizantema versions with long range (6-8km). Infantry support vehicles use Bastion complex with tandem warhead Arkan fired from 100mm tube (6km). MBTs use Refleks system. In addition several Vehicle based Kornets are purchased. American arsenal is more outdated with wire guided missiles being they´re base.
helicopter systems:
AGM-114L vs Ataka --- west clearly superrior
It is not an A vs B comparison and B superior because of guidance. Ataka is indeed a more powerfull missile than Hellfire. But helicopters using it haven´t a radar station, so it doesn´t make any sense to adopt Hermes if you can not exploit it´s capability. But future Mi-28NM and Ka-52 with radar location will be equipped with it.
It is comparison of plattforms, not missiles. If you want to compare despite that, Ataka is superior in performance.
NLOS systems:
Tamuz vs (still in development)
Tamuz has a very specific role and that makes it inflexible, made to be effective in irregular terrain. Hermes is not comparable, because it is made for different roles, operates along radar location in helicopters, and in versions with 100km range as long range weapon. Tamuz is completely different role and inflexible if you compare.
They try to develope Germes anti tank missile for a decade but fail.
