Rafael Releases New Member of Spike Family - Spike NLOS

[500]

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)

WHo cares, still does not exist.

Because Metis-M is not a new system, but an upgrade to an existant configuration, Kornet, and new developements

Kornet is not man portable. Man portable systems are Javelin, Spike MR/LR, Metis-M, Milan etc. Javelin and Spike are clearly superior here.

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.

Spike LR has two modes: fire and forget and fire and update. Thats why its super flexible weapon. Thats why many armies around the world are buying it.

Tow is outdated as of now. Regardless they have not developed systems with superior capability.

Not at all. Its fully compareble with Kornet.

Western tank force was a joke until mid-late 80s

LOL, tell that to thousands of dead Arab tankers.

, besides, Soviet tanks already started to get thermal sights in late 80s.

2005

That is not correct. Fagot and Konkurs are different from Tow.

Not at all, same exactly category.

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.

Western developed better FCS so they did not need them.

I missed? I was talking about Kornet-D. And Refleks is semi-automatic with several firing modes btw.

No we talked about Refleks and Konkurs.

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 Tow-2B is an outdated missile in wire configuration and due to that, limited in range and warhead.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.

I already answered ur silly claims why u repeat them?

Kornet-D/Khrizantema/Ataka vs--- no counterpart

No one needs that.

And were on Russian army they use outdated missiles?

Everywhere.

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.

shoulda woulda coulda. So far 114L is clearly superior.

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.

Tamuz exists since 80-es and ur Hermes only in plans. What it makes inflexible?

 

[mnd]

WHo cares, still does not exist.

Exist, it exists. Since it is for different purposes and you know, why talk about it?

Kornet is not man portable. Man portable systems are Javelin, Spike MR/LR, Metis-M, Milan etc. Javelin and Spike are clearly superior here.

What? how is it not man portable? it is carried in infantry formations the same as the rest.

Spike LR has two modes: fire and forget and fire and update. Thats why its super flexible weapon. Thats why many armies around the world are buying it.

Fire & Forget is limited to only 2km by seeker. In that case it brings nothing new as compared to older systems and is a joke to compare it to Kornet. Update is only 4 km in portable version which is nothing useful unless sight is covered by terrain. Flexibility bettween these two options? one is poor, the other limited use, and it warrants the expense?

And all countries which bought it was because they have not access to other suppliers but to Western countries. And guess what? countries with access to both, Russia and West (Turkey, Greece, Nato members (!)) are buying Russian systems.

Not at all. Its fully compareble with Kornet.

So how, for example, it brings superior capabilities over, let´s say, Konkurs-M, to be comparable to Kornet? It does not match.

LOL, tell that to thousands of dead Arab tankers.

On what time they were fighting with modern, or comparable armament, to make conclusions?

2005

Thermal visors for targeting, Agava, started to be mounted in late 80s. Earlier, they´re capability was not that important in relation to armament of that time.

Not at all, same exactly category.

Tow is all new 152mm while Konkurs was made from existing systems until room for improvement limited. From a developemental perspective, it is not the same. But in capabilities they are comparable (shame).

Western developed better FCS so they did not need them.

West failed to develope this weapons because of lack of ability to create compact missiles. This weapons give Russian MBTs and later infantry vehicles the advantage to destroy targets out of their range which persists today.

Longer range is not matter of FCS but of projectile, from 4km distance they all become innefective due to inherent features.

No one needs that.

No one could develope that.

Everywhere.

If you now current state in detail, you can explain? If not, better not to speak.

shoulda woulda coulda. So far 114L is clearly superior.

Longbow with Hellfire gains new capabilities, but that is a matter of plattform. There are other features, as armor, payload, control which you should compare as well, and in that a Mi-28 with Ataka is more dangerous...

Tamuz exists since 80-es and ur Hermes only in plans. What it makes inflexible?

Cost and configuration only justify versions with long range based on vehicles (8-20km). Infantry versions are poor as said above. Tactically it has very poor versatility. Contrasts with Kornet which is fully effective on every intended plattform, infantry and mounted.

And Hermes is not in plans, it´s support plattforms are. It is a more comprehensive project.

 

[500]

Exist, it exists.

No it does not

What? how is it not man portable? it is carried in infantry formations the same as the rest.

Kornet missiles weights 29 kg, Spike ER - 13 kg. See the difference? Or u still believe they are same class??

Fire & Forget is limited to only 2km by seeker.

2.5 km. Which is more than Metis-M.

In that case it brings nothing new as compared to older systems

It brings 25% more range + CREW SAFETY.

Update is only 4 km in portable version which is nothing useful unless sight is covered by terrain. Flexibility bettween these two options? one is poor, the other limited use, and it warrants the expense?

Update brings
1) 2 times more range (compare to Metis-M).
2) Crew safety
3) Ability to strike consealed targets.

And all countries which bought it was because they have not access to other suppliers but to Western countries. And guess what? countries with access to both, Russia and West (Turkey, Greece, Nato members (!)) are buying Russian systems.

Everyone can buy Russian weapons today. Finland which traditionally bought Russian weapons bought Spike. Who bought Metis-M? - Only beggar isolated Syria.

So how, for example, it brings superior capabilities over, let´s say, Konkurs-M, to be comparable to Kornet? It does not match.

TOW-2B advantages over Kornet:
1) top attack
2) lack of emission.

On what time they were fighting with modern, or comparable armament, to make conclusions?

Always. Arabs got T-62 tanks and SA-6 systems before Warsaw pact countries for example.

Thermal visors for targeting, Agava, started to be mounted in late 80s. Earlier, they´re capability was not that important in relation to armament of that time.

Agava was used only on couple experimental tanks thats all. First time thermal sights were fielded by Russia only in 2005.

Tow is all new 152mm while Konkurs was made from existing systems until room for improvement limited. From a developemental perspective, it is not the same. But in capabilities they are comparable (shame).

TOW and Fagot appeared in same time. TOW was clearly superior.

West failed to develope this weapons because of lack of ability to create compact missiles. This weapons give Russian MBTs and later infantry vehicles the advantage to destroy targets out of their range which persists today.

Longer range is not matter of FCS but of projectile, from 4km distance they all become innefective due to inherent features.

Not at all.

No one could develope that.

No one is bying that.

If you now current state in detail, you can explain? If not, better not to speak.

For example during the invasion of Russian army in Georgia and during the war in Chechnya, they used just Konkurs and even some Fagots.

Longbow with Hellfire gains new capabilities, but that is a matter of plattform.

Yup, platform which Russia does not have.

Cost and configuration only justify versions with long range based on vehicles (8-20km). Infantry versions are poor as said above. Tactically it has very poor versatility. Contrasts with Kornet which is fully effective on every intended plattform, infantry and mounted.

LOL why infantry needs 25 km missile? Its excellent suplementary to Spike MR/LR/ER.

And Hermes is not in plans, it´s support plattforms are. It is a more comprehensive project.

Its in plans and not clear if it will be finished ever. And its not carried by infantry either.

 

[mnd]

No it does not

It passed tests already. KBP finished work on it a decade already. No system is in developement stage for that long unless it is conceptual, which Hermes is not. The issue is to find a place for it in the army, but to have it, it is available...

Kornet missiles weights 29 kg, Spike ER - 13 kg. See the difference? Or u still believe they are same class??

Kornet can be carried and operated by two persons which logistically is the same in infantry formations.

If you want something lighter there are plenty of Metis-M in stocks equally capable to Spike in capability.

2.5 km. Which is more than Metis-M.

Wow, are these improvements proper of "next generation" system? Marginally better than an old 70s-base improved system. Warhead is not better at all.

It brings CREW SAFETY.

If you have long range engagement systems in your formations you do not neet to fight closer at enemy position. If you have none, then you expose more crew members.

Update brings
1) 2 times more range (compare to Metis-M).
2) Crew safety
3) Ability to strike consealed targets.

With update the system weights 27kg, now you contradict yourself and compare to much lighter (and older) Metis? Nice play.

Everyone can buy Russian weapons today. Finland which traditionally bought Russian weapons bought Spike. Who bought Metis-M? - Only beggar isolated Syria.

Clearly not everybody, and arms market is heavily politised. When was Finland traditional russian arms purchaser in post soviet relations?

Nobody objectively bought Spike. Meanwhile, KBP (Kornet producer, among others) is world number 1 seller/producer. Guess why.

TOW-2B advantages over Kornet:
1) top attack
2) lack of emission.

1) TOW-2B´s range and warhead are limited by wire configuration.
2) Due to that warhead is weaker and warrants top attack which does not compense it.
3) Unlike laser beam guided systems, TOW-2B is subject to optical disturbances by active systems (Shtora-1). Kornet´s laser beam does not irradiate (it is merely for guidance) hence it is not subject of jamming systems.

Always. Arabs got T-62 tanks and SA-6 systems before Warsaw pact countries for example.

In what time frame these were used to be considered modern? Warsaw pact countries served as soviet troops barracks, so is not an objective comparison.

Agava was used only on couple experimental tanks thats all. First time thermal sights were fielded by Russia only in 2005.

On serial T-80U´s since late 80s.

TOW and Fagot appeared in same time. TOW was clearly superior.

From developement perspective they were different. It´s Konkurs version lived along Tow in the 70s, and that indeed was superior despite Tow being a newer bigger plattform.

Not at all.

You can go and search western (american) attempts and how they all failed.

For example during the invasion of Russian army in Georgia and during the war in Chechnya, they used just Konkurs and even some Fagots.

Old versions expired and since late 80s all missiles are new regardless of old plattform (Fagot is not a missile, but a launcher). Konkurs-M and improved Fagot are modern and available in high numbers.

Yup, platform which Russia does not have.

The west lacks many systems which Russia operates.

LOL why infantry needs 25 km missile? Its excellent suplementary to Spike MR/LR/ER.

You misunderstood. Infantry needs an effective system to fulfill their role. Infantry Spikes are far from that as I explained.

And its not carried by infantry either.

Because it does not need to? It has a semi-active seeker to be complemented by location systems to be effective and fulfill long range roles. Why infantry would want that?

If you for example adopt an active seeker on Kornet, range decreases to 2.5km from 5.5 and there is no change but a smaller warhead. Would that be a new generation compared to current system?

 

[500]

It passed tests already. KBP finished work on it a decade already.

In your fantasies.

Kornet can be carried and operated by two persons which logistically is the same in infantry formations.

You are really hilarious. The crew of two persons can carry only one Kornet missile together with launch unit. Same crew can carry 3 Spike MR/LR missiles and launch unit. Three times more. See the difference? Or still not?

If you want something lighter there are plenty of Metis-M in stocks equally capable to Spike in capability.

Metis-M is nowhere close to Spike. Thats why except beggar isolated Syria no one buys it.

Wow, are these improvements proper of "next generation" system? Marginally better than an old 70s-base improved system. Warhead is not better at all.

1) Metis-M is not "improvement" but completelly new missile made in 90-es.
2) Spike MR offers 25% more range, fire and forget capability and top attack.
3) Spike LR offers 2 times more range, fire forget-fire update capabilities and top attack.

If you have long range engagement systems in your formations you do not neet to fight closer at enemy position. If you have none, then you expose more crew members.

according to ur logic we dont need grenade launchers, just large missiles. Every weapon has its niche:

1) Grenade launchers up to 500 m.
2) Man portable missiles up to 2000-2500 m (Spike LR has range of 4000 m though). Some 15 kg missile with tube.
3) Heavy anti tank missiles up to 4-6 km. Some 30 kg with tube.

With update the system weights 27kg, now you contradict yourself and compare to much lighter (and older) Metis? Nice play.

27 kg its weight with launch unit. Metis-M with launch unit weighst 25.1 kg.

Clearly not everybody, and arms market is heavily politised. When was Finland traditional russian arms purchaser in post soviet relations?

Post USSR weapons are not good thats why Finland switched to West.

Nobody objectively bought Spike. Meanwhile, KBP (Kornet producer, among others) is world number 1 seller/producer. Guess why.

Yeah 15 countries who bought Spike are not objectively. While 10 countries who bought Kornet are objective. Wee, we are number one!

Anyway, Kornet is nice missile. But its in different cathegory with Spike. Metis-M is in same cathegoy and Spike here is pure win.

1) TOW-2B´s range and warhead are limited by wire configuration.
2) Due to that warhead is weaker and warrants top attack which does not compense it.
3) Unlike laser beam guided systems, TOW-2B is subject to optical disturbances by active systems (Shtora-1). Kornet´s laser beam does not irradiate (it is merely for guidance) hence it is not subject of jamming systems.

1) Tow has double top attack missile. No tank in the world can survive it. Kornet is front attack and modern tanks can survive it.
2) Range of TOW Aero is 4.5 km. Its more than enough for SACLOS class missiles.
3) Kornet emites laser, it can be detected by laser warning systems of the tank. TOW does not emit anything.

In what time frame these were used to be considered modern? Warsaw pact countries served as soviet troops barracks, so is not an objective comparison.

yeah Wasraw pact is nothing now. By the way in 1973 Soviet troops in Europe had only T-55 and T-62.

On serial T-80U´s since late 80s.

No.

From developement perspective they were different. It´s Konkurs version lived along Tow in the 70s, and that indeed was superior despite Tow being a newer bigger plattform.

No Konkurs had weaker warhead. Especially after introduction of TOW-2.

You can go and search western (american) attempts and how they all failed.

Challenger in Iraq destroyed tank from 5 km.

Old versions expired and since late 80s all missiles are new regardless of old plattform (Fagot is not a missile, but a launcher). Konkurs-M and improved Fagot are modern and available in high numbers.

In your dreams.

The west lacks many systems which Russia operates.

So u admit that Longbow os superior.

You misunderstood. Infantry needs an effective system to fulfill their role. Infantry Spikes are far from that as I explained.

Spike LR is best portable anti tank missile by a large margin. Metis-M is not evem close to it.

Because it does not need to?

You are really hilarious: Tamuz cant be carried by infantry = its inflexible! Hermes cant be carried by infantry = thats fine it does not need to.

How u manage to push so much ognorance in one post?

 

[Project 627]

1) anti tank version of Kornet-D has range of 8 km same as Spike ER.
2) The chance to see the target from 8 km in LOS is virtually zero, since it will be covered by ground, smoke, dust, fog etc etc.. So this range is just PR stunt.
3) Spike is top attack. The chance to survive 1200 m front attack for modern tank are fair. Chance to survive 1000 mm top are zero.


Hellfire is fire and forget radar guided. It can hit tanks in any weather and smoke conditions. Vickr is SACLOS missile. It needs to be guided till impact, its very vulnerable to weather and smoke.

HAHA First you said Spike is "Clearly superior" to Kornet-D, but I proved that Kornet-D was superior in range, and armor penetration, then you started backtracking saying that Kornet-D was not in the same class What happend to Spike being superior.

The only PR stunt here is the overrated spike, which failed miserably at the trials in India because it could not take the Heat. Unlike Kornet which works fine in any whether.

 

[500]

HAHA First you said Spike is "Clearly superior" to Kornet-D, but I proved that Kornet-D was superior in range, and armor penetration, then you started backtracking saying that Kornet-D was not in the same class What happend to Spike being superior.

Let me clarify for u:

1) Spike MR/LR is in same class with Metis-M. Spike is clearly superior here.
2) Spike ER is in same class with Kornet and Kornet-D. Spike again is clearly superior here.
3) Spike NLOS aka Tamuz is in same class with Hermes. Hermes does not exist yet.

The only PR stunt here is the overrated spike, which failed miserably at the trials in India because it could not take the Heat. Unlike Kornet which works fine in any whether.

Spike works perfectly in Negev desert. Most probably this report was just campaign of Javelin's lobby. Indians still consider buying Spike. But they dont consider buying Metis-M.

 

[mnd]

In your fantasies.

You say no, and that´s it, without arguments? And I bet your knowledge on that is very limited anyways.

Metis-M is nowhere close to Spike. Thats why except beggar isolated Syria no one buys it.

Syria bought it because it already operated the old system and since the new is made on the same base, (uses the same plattform) it is an easy way to upgrade your current arsenal.

1) Metis-M is not "improvement" but completelly new missile made in 90-es.

Metis-M is made on the same base, it uses the same launcher and the new missiles are a modification of the same old ones.

2) Spike MR offers 25% more range, fire and forget capability and top attack.

Spike MR is seeker homing guided and it´s not top attack, but the same as Metis and the rest. Warhead is about the same. The improvement over modernised old gen systems in capability (range, destruction) is marginall, being the only feature the fire & forget ability, while infrared seekers at the same time are more vulnerable to optical jammers. Overall it is is complication and cost.

3) Spike LR offers 2 times more range, fire forget-fire update capabilities and top attack.

Let´s stay consistent (you are not).
- Update guidance is not fire & forget but manual, and that is performed with launch unit, hence it´s not comparable to Metis then, but to Kornet, to whom it is inferior in that configuration.
- Spike LR version has a smaller warhead due TV camera. Compared to Metis-M, it is much weaker system (700mm vs 1000mm), no top attack advantage but same as the rest.

In these 2 roles on which it has to be "flexible" it is poor on both.

according to ur logic we dont need grenade launchers, just large missiles. Every weapon has its niche:

1) Grenade launchers up to 500 m.
2) Man portable missiles up to 2000-2500 m (Spike LR has range of 4000 m though). Some 15 kg missile with tube.
3) Heavy anti tank missiles up to 4-6 km. Some 30 kg with tube.

LR with TV guidance is not man portable and weights 27 kg. By power and range, it does not qualify along "heavy" Kornet systems.

Every weapon has to be effective on it´s niche, which Spike is not, atleast in infantry formations.

Post USSR weapons are not good thats why Finland switched to West.

Their decisions are highly politised. Same as Egypt was.

About soviet weapons being not good, it just happens that Russia alone has a 23% of the world market share. Weapons on soviet base are the most proliferated in the world.

Yeah 15 countries who bought Spike are not objectively. While 10 countries who bought Kornet are objective. Wee, we are number one!

KBP produces more Kornet missiles than the rest of the world combined.

And how many of that 15 countries, have access to Russian production?.

Anyway, Kornet is nice missile. But its in different cathegory with Spike. Metis-M is in same cathegoy and Spike here is pure win.

Spike MR against Metis-M is scarcely better. Spike LR against Kornet is weaker, and completely inferior to Metis-M in portable configuration. Spike ER against Kornet-D, less versatile (update guidance vs automatic, stationary vs fire on move, missile variety, infantry, anti-air).

1) Tow has double top attack missile. No tank in the world can survive it. Kornet is front attack and modern tanks can survive it.
2) Range of TOW Aero is 4.5 km. Its more than enough for SACLOS class missiles.
3) Kornet emites laser, it can be detected by laser warning systems of the tank. TOW does not emit anything

.
- Tow is top attack because warhead cannot be bigger with increased range, hence inferior in power. Only effective against old tanks, probability of destroying modern is very limited. Kornet can choose were to hit from 5km, and it is way more powerfull.
- Kornet laser is not a rangefinder and it does not irradiate, it cannot active any warning. Kornet´s missile laser guidance is not susceptible of passive infrared countermeasures, unlike Tow guidance method.

yeah Wasraw pact is nothing now. By the way in 1973 Soviet troops in Europe had only T-55 and T-62.

Composition of troops changed several times in accordance to requirements. And that by itself did not really mattered when you have a tank force of 60000+ by your alone.

No.

Serial T-80U (project 180A modernisation) were equipped with Agava thermals. Anyway it proves than they had the capability, and was only matter of need.

No Konkurs had weaker warhead. Especially after introduction of TOW-2.

Konkurs was smaller and older in composition but it still met requirements. More powerfull Tow-2 versions (tandem) appeared in line with Konkurs-M modernisation.

Challenger in Iraq destroyed tank from 5 km.

What, Chinese T-55?

So u admit that Longbow os superior.

Many weapons can have special features but are not necessary more effective on battlefield.

Spike LR is best portable anti tank missile by a large margin. Metis-M is not evem close to it.

With a much weaker 700mm warhead and marginal range improvement it is the opposite.

You are really hilarious: Tamuz cant be carried by infantry = its inflexible! Hermes cant be carried by infantry = thats fine it does not need to.

Spike family needs to be effective in all intended missions to be called flexible. It´s not, so failure. Hermes is effective on it´s intended missions.

 

[500]

You say no, and that´s it, without arguments? And I bet your knowledge on that is very limited anyways.

Show any pic of Hermes. ALl you have s 3D models.

Syria bought it because it already operated the old system and since the new is made on the same base, (uses the same plattform) it is an easy way to upgrade your current arsenal.

Only emphasises that no one wants Metis-M.

Metis-M is made on the same base, it uses the same launcher and the new missiles are a modification of the same old ones.

Metis-M has two times heavier missile than Metis. You still think its just a modification?

Spike MR is seeker homing guided and it´s not top attack, but the same as Metis and the rest. Warhead is about the same.

Yeah, watch from 1:40
Gill anti-tank High (Dutch army) - YouTube

The improvement over modernised old gen systems in capability (range, destruction) is marginall, being the only feature the fire & forget ability,

Marginal imrpovement: 25% range and fire and forget

while infrared seekers at the same time are more vulnerable to optical jammers.

Nonsense. There is no any jamers which jam thermal seekers. On the other hand there are jammers which jam tracers of SACLOS missiles.

Let´s stay consistent (you are not).
- Update guidance is not fire & forget but manual, and that is performed with launch unit, hence it´s not comparable to Metis then, but to Kornet, to whom it is inferior in that configuration.

Metis is manual. But it has small range. Update capability alows u to fore from cover - i.e. 100% safe. Kornet is different class, its two times heavier than Spike MR/LR.

- Spike LR version has a smaller warhead due TV camera. Compared to Metis-M, it is much weaker system (700mm vs 1000mm), no top attack advantage but same as the rest.

Its top attack.

LR with TV guidance is not man portable and weights 27 kg. By power and range, it does not qualify along "heavy" Kornet systems.

I already answered u but you repeat that nonsense: Spike LR weights exactly same as MR:

13.5 kg for missile + 13 kg for launch unit. 26.5 kg total. Metis-M with launch unit weights 25.1 kg.

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/3/923.pdf

When Spike MR/LR is operated by crew of 2 men, 1 guy carries launcher unit + missile (26.5 kg) and another guy carries two missiles (27 kg). Same exactly goes with Metis-M: 25.1 kg for launch unit with missile and 27/6 kg for two missiles.

Hope its clear now and u wont repeat nonsense anymore.

Every weapon has to be effective on it´s niche, which Spike is not, atleast in infantry formations.

Once again. Spike LR and Metis-M weight about the same and are in same class.

However:

-Spike LR has two times more range.
-Spike LR allows attack from consealed position.
-Spike LR allows attacking consealed targers.
-Spike LR has top attack capability.
-Spike LR has fire and forget mode.

Spike is absolutelly superior.

Their decisions are highly politised. Same as Egypt was.

Losers excuse

About soviet weapons being not good, it just happens that Russia alone has a 23% of the world market share. Weapons on soviet base are the most proliferated in the world.

Russia sells weapons two times cheaper than wester counterparts.

And how many of that 15 countries, have access to Russian production?.

All of them.

Spike ER against Kornet-D, less versatile (update guidance vs automatic, stationary vs fire on move, missile variety, infantry, anti-air).

1) Kornet-D is LOS weapon. Average LOS range in Europe is 2-3 km. In most of cases the weather conditions wont allow u to see at ranges beyond 5 km even when terrain allows that. Thats why in overwhelming majority of scenarios Spike ER will have a huge range advantage over Kornet-D. As I said 8 km is PR stunt nothing more.
2) Spike ER can attack from consealed position. Kornet-D should stay on LOS with the target, being vulnerable to fire.
3) Spike ER has top attack and much better accuracy due TV/IR guidance.

- Tow is top attack because warhead cannot be bigger with increased range, hence inferior in power. Only effective against old tanks, probability of destroying modern is very limited.

No tank i the world can withstannd 152mm top attack warhead. And TOW has two of those.

- Kornet laser is not a rangefinder and it does not irradiate, it cannot active any warning.

Laser that does not irradiate. You are really genius.

Composition of troops changed several times in accordance to requirements. And that by itself did not really mattered when you have a tank force of 60000+ by your alone.

First T-64 appeared in East Europe only in 1976.

Serial T-80U (project 180A modernisation) were equipped with Agava thermals. Anyway it proves than they had the capability, and was only matter of need.

There is no such thing as project 180A. Stop hallucinating. First serial tanks with thermals Russia got only in 2005.

Konkurs was smaller and older in composition but it still met requirements. More powerfull Tow-2 versions (tandem) appeared in line with Konkurs-M modernisation.

TOW-2 appered in the beginning of 80-es and it was far superrior than Konkurs.

What, Chinese T-55?

Something like that I suppose.

Many weapons can have special features but are not necessary more effective on battlefield.

Russia is developing mm radars but in ain.

Spike family needs to be effective in all intended missions to be called flexible. It´s not, so failure. Hermes is effective on it´s intended missions.

Spike family is far superior than all Russian counterparts.

 

[mnd]

Show any pic of Hermes. ALl you have s 3D models.

Here you go

Link

Minute search.

Only emphasises that no one wants Metis-M.

Because Metis-M is based on old 2nd gen plattform and it is nice as an upgrade to your current arsenal when you operate it in large numbers. Those who are not in that situation buy new systems.

Metis-M has two times heavier missile than Metis. You still think its just a modification?

It is made in the same dimensions as the older one (same launcher) and regarldess of how technology advanced, upgrade potential is limited by old base. All improvement is made in the same missile frame as the old one.

Yeah, watch from 1:40
Gill anti-tank High (Dutch army) - YouTube

That´s loafted trajectory, and many Saclos missiles have this mode, which may or may not be top attack. Capability to attack top turret is provided by midcourse update.

Marginal imrpovement: 25% range and fire and forget

Now I realised that I overestimated Spike. First, all versions have small warhead except the heavier ones (ER), as was to expect. Spike for infantry is underpowered as compared to Metis-M.

Nonsense. There is no any jamers which jam thermal seekers. On the other hand there are jammers which jam tracers of SACLOS missiles.

They are vulnerable to aerosol blockers which are part of modern tank protetcion in line with older systems. Among all, Kornet is the most resistant.

I already answered u but you repeat that nonsense: Spike LR weights exactly same as MR:

13.5 kg for missile + 13 kg for launch unit. 26.5 kg total. Metis-M with launch unit weights 25.1 kg.

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/3/923.pdf

How are you comparing? In the shorter range you have Metis-M and LR and in the longer Kornet and the same LR (that´s the role you assigned to infantry Spike). In the second weight does not play a role for that functions. Both are fired stationary, but Spike is outclassed by Kornet in that task. In the short range, Spike has range and it´s features, but it´s power is significantly lower (700mm) so we cannot talk of superiority at all.

When Spike MR/LR is operated by crew of 2 men, 1 guy carries launcher unit + missile (26.5 kg) and another guy carries two missiles (27 kg). Same exactly goes with Metis-M: 25.1 kg for launch unit with missile and 27/6 kg for two missiles.

Hope its clear now and u wont repeat nonsense anymore.

If you use LR in short range, it´s in line with Metis. If you use LR for longer range in the same role as Kornet, as you claim, configuration is the same, both stationary with plattforms, but Spike is not comparable in performance.

Once again. Spike LR and Metis-M weight about the same and are in same class.However:
-Spike LR has top attack capability.
-Spike LR has fire and forget mode.

Spike is absolutelly superior.

Fixed for you.

If you use LR in Metis role, there´s no superiority overall as I explained above. If you use it in longer range, it is inferior to Kornet for that role.

Russia sells weapons two times cheaper than wester counterparts.

More cost-effective than western counterparts.

All of them.

More like none. But those who have access to both (Greece, Turkey) bought Kornet instead of Spike versions.

1) Kornet-D is LOS weapon. Average LOS range in Europe is 2-3 km. In most of cases the weather conditions wont allow u to see at ranges beyond 5 km even when terrain allows that. Thats why in overwhelming majority of scenarios Spike ER will have a huge range advantage over Kornet-D. As I said 8 km is PR stunt nothing more.
2) Spike ER can attack from consealed position. Kornet-D should stay on LOS with the target, being vulnerable to fire.
3) Spike ER has top attack and much better accuracy due TV/IR guidance.

There are different scenarios and how you exploit terrain in your favour. Many engagements will happen out of target´s range even if not in max range. Kornet is more effective due to being more powerfull, automatic, and mobile. Spike is totally inferior and will only have it´s place when terrain is very irregular, which is less common. Indeed, it is not versatile.

No tank i the world can withstannd 152mm top attack warhead. And TOW has two of those.

It is an error to relate volume to power especially in western missiles. Tow achieved longer range at load cost and top attack does not compensate that smaller warhead. Probability of destruction of modern tanks is much lower than any Kornet version.

Laser that does not irradiate. You are really genius.

Laser used to guide ATGMs is hundreds of times less powerfull than that of a rangefinder, function only is to direct the missile. Laser radiation is neglible in comparison and it is not detected by passive systems.

First T-64 appeared in East Europe only in 1976.
When there is a need, they are deployed. And many advanced systems were not supplied to other countries.

There is no such thing as project 180A. Stop hallucinating. First serial tanks with thermals Russia got only in 2005.

I messed up . Agava thermals entered production in late 80s early 90s. Matter of need.

TOW-2 appered in the beginning of 80-es and it was far superrior than Konkurs.

Effectiveness was not that different, but advanced soviet versions appeared later as well in line of more advanced Tow.

Something like that I suppose.

How is it relevant then?

Russia is developing mm radars but in ain.

Mi-28 with radar is already in trials in India, and there are more interesting things, as an Aesa radar for Ka-52.

Spike family is far superior than all Russian counterparts.

Long range? it is the opposite. Short range? improvement is so small, and price so big...

 

[Project 627]

Let me clarify for u:

1) Spike MR/LR is in same class with Metis-M. Spike is clearly superior here.
2) Spike ER is in same class with Kornet and Kornet-D. Spike again is clearly superior here.
3) Spike NLOS aka Tamuz is in same class with Hermes. Hermes does not exist yet.


Spike works perfectly in Negev desert. Most probably this report was just campaign of Javelin's lobby. Indians still consider buying Spike. But they dont consider buying Metis-M.

Hermes does not existthe weapon not only exists, but it started state tests in 2010.

missiles.ru ::

BTW, Spike did fail in test, heres a link

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_india-s-next-big-buy-is-a-missile-from-us_1295087

 

[500]

Here you go

Link

Minute search.

First of all thats Hermes-A 15-20 km range air launched version. Secondly its just plastic tubes for exposition. Missile itself does not exit.

Because Metis-M is based on old 2nd gen plattform and it is nice as an upgrade to your current arsenal when you operate it in large numbers. Those who are not in that situation buy new systems.

It is made in the same dimensions as the older one (same launcher) and regarldess of how technology advanced, upgrade potential is limited by old base. All improvement is made in the same missile frame as the old one.

WHy you talk about thing that you have no clue about? You enjoy to be exposed as ignorant?

Metis-M: 13.8 kg, 980 mm length, 130 mm diameter
Metis: 6.3 kg, 740 mm length, 94 mm diameter.

Its completely new missile. Only with old guidance method. But u were proving here that this old method is super fine

That´s loafted trajectory, and many Saclos missiles have this mode, which may or may not be top attack. Capability to attack top turret is provided by midcourse update.

Kornet and Metis-M dont have anything close to it.

Now I realised that I overestimated Spike. First, all versions have small warhead except the heavier ones (ER), as was to expect. Spike for infantry is underpowered as compared to Metis-M.

Metis-M has 900 mm penetration and direct attack. Most of modern tanks can survive it frontally.
Spike LR/MR has top (call it lofted whatever) atack 700 mm+. No single tank in the world can survive it.

They are vulnerable to aerosol blockers which are part of modern tank protetcion in line with older systems. Among all, Kornet is the most resistant.

How can you know when to put aerosol, when it does not emit anything? Unlike Kornet which does emit? And Kornet is also resistant to aerosols.

How are you comparing? In the shorter range you have Metis-M and LR and in the longer Kornet and the same LR (that´s the role you assigned to infantry Spike). In the second weight does not play a role for that functions. Both are fired stationary, but Spike is outclassed by Kornet in that task. In the short range, Spike has range and it´s features, but it´s power is significantly lower (700mm) so we cannot talk of superiority at all.

If you use LR in short range, it´s in line with Metis. If you use LR for longer range in the same role as Kornet, as you claim, configuration is the same, both stationary with plattforms, but Spike is not comparable in performance.

Gosh you are rally slow understanding. Class is determined by weight of the missile. Spike LR weights like Metis-M but has double range.

More cost-effective than western counterparts.

You pay little wages to your engineers and workers and u are proud about that?

More like none. But those who have access to both (Greece, Turkey) bought Kornet instead of Spike versions.

All countries have access to both.

There are different scenarios and how you exploit terrain in your favour. Many engagements will happen out of target´s range even if not in max range. Kornet is more effective due to being more powerfull, automatic, and mobile. Spike is totally inferior and will only have it´s place when terrain is very irregular, which is less common. Indeed, it is not versatile.

I repeat again: average LOS range in Europe is 2-3 km. Only in 5% of cases terrain allows u to see beyond the 5 km. Than means in 95% of cases Kornet-D wont be able to use its range while Spike ER will be.

And also Spike ER is much more safe thanks to ability to fire from consealed position and much more lethal thanks to top attack.

It is an error to relate volume to power especially in western missiles. Tow achieved longer range at load cost and top attack does not compensate that smaller warhead. Probability of destruction of modern tanks is much lower than any Kornet version.

Its much higher. No tank in the world can survive 152-mm top attack EFP.

Laser used to guide ATGMs is hundreds of times less powerfull than that of a rangefinder, function only is to direct the missile. Laser radiation is neglible in comparison and it is not detected by passive systems.

If missile detects this laser then sensors also will be able to detect it. For example Merkavas LWS:

http://www.elbitsystems-us.com/sites/default/files/LWS.pdf

High power “range finder” (BR) type threats:
Low Power “beam rider” type threats:

First T-64 appeared in East Europe only in 1976.
When there is a need, they are deployed. And many advanced systems were not supplied to other countries.

Your Arab allies needed them and did not get. because they were very unrelaible then.

I messed up . Agava thermals entered production in late 80s early 90s. Matter of need.

Yep first serial tanks with thermals only in 2005.

Effectiveness was not that different, but advanced soviet versions appeared later as well in line of more advanced Tow.

Very different.

How is it relevant then?

Cannons can be effetive at long ranges.

Mi-28 with radar is already in trials in India, and there are more interesting things, as an Aesa radar for Ka-52.

Trials trials. Americans have hundreds of Longbows with radar guided missiles. U only trials.

Long range? it is the opposite. Short range? improvement is so small, and price so big...

Spike MR/LR superrior to Metis-M.
Spike ER superrior to Kornet, Kornet-D.
Spike NLOS exists, Hermes exists only as on pic.

Cheers

 

[500]

Hermes does not existthe weapon not only exists, but it started state tests in 2010.

They planned to start tests in 2010 for Hermes-A. But seems things did not work out, they they made up PR stunt called Kornet-D instead. Claiming that homing systems "are unneccessary"

BTW, Spike did fail in test, heres a link

India’s next big buy is a missile from US - India - DNA

Indians still consider to buy a Spike. Just media war noting else. Notise that article is 2 years old but deal for javelins is not signed yet.

 

[Project 627]

They planned to start tests in 2010 for Hermes-A. But seems things did not work out, they they made up PR stunt called Kornet-D instead. Claiming that homing systems "are unneccessary"


Indians still consider to buy a Spike. Just media war noting else. Notise that article is 2 years old but deal for javelins is not signed yet.

I have a link here below where KBP says that test started in 2010, care to provide me a link
where it says that it didn't happen.

МАК может подключиться к расследованию инцидента с Ан-2 в Туве // АвиаПорт.Дайджест

 

[mnd]

First of all thats Hermes-A 15-20 km range air launched version. Secondly its just plastic tubes for exposition. Missile itself does not exit.

Composition differs little apart from having a booster attached. You said that it does not exist beyond 3D concepts, you was wrong. Said it not entered tests, it did.

WHy you talk about thing that you have no clue about? You enjoy to be exposed as ignorant?

Metis-M: 13.8 kg, 980 mm length, 130 mm diameter
Metis: 6.3 kg, 740 mm length, 94 mm diameter.

Its completely new missile. Only with old guidance method. But u were proving here that this old method is super fine

There is a difference. Metis-M was not developed as a new system as Javelin or Spike, but from an existant base as continous modernisation. Was modified to meet requirements, and it is as same, as it can still launch old missiles. It preserves old wire configuration which limits range and load.

I never said that outdated wire configuration was fine, all the opposite.

Kornet and Metis-M dont have anything close to it.

Several systems, Bastion, Refleks, vehicle based Kornet, have several firing modes, loafted trajectory among them, to avoid obstacles. Though that´s not featured in infantry ATGMs I believe.

LR/MR has top (call it lofted whatever) atack 700 mm+. No single tank in the world can survive itMetis-M has 900 mm penetration and direct attack. Most of modern tanks can survive it frontally.
Spike .

LR/MR is 700mm+ without ERA, less with it. Metis-M is featured with 950mm after ERA. Difference is big.

lofted means that it will not necessary hit in vulnerable turret parts, but in front hull, frontal top turret, etc as seeker alone without corrections does not distinguish. And modern turrets are well protected by heavy ERA besides that.
Overall, there are more vulnerable parts a 950mm+ can penetrate, than 700mm.

How can you know when to put aerosol, when it does not emit anything? Unlike Kornet which does emit? And Kornet is also resistant to aerosols.

A missile can be easily seen optically (more with thermal sights which proliferate today). Javelin, Spike are slow and use lofted trajectories thus they are very easy to spot as compared to other systems. Countermeasures can be set manually and seekers are vulnerable to that (an aerosol cloud). Kornet does not trigger passive systems, and the missile is guided by looking at the laser beam, not the target, so clouds are much less likely to disrupt it.

Gosh you are rally slow understanding. Class is determined by weight of the missile. Spike LR weights like Metis-M but has double range.

So they have not real analog to Kornet, to meet similar functions (infantry carried).

You pay little wages to your engineers and workers and u are proud about that?

Not necessary. There are several factors: Lower salaries + cheaper material + structure + centralisation, etc. Western prices are inflated.

All countries have access to both.

Not in practice. Apart from politics, for example, Rosoboronexport was directly under sanctions by US, and it prevented those countries even theorically of doing buisness. Lobbism, politicalization, etc.

I repeat again: average LOS range in Europe is 2-3 km. Only in 5% of cases terrain allows u to see beyond the 5 km. Than means in 95% of cases Kornet-D wont be able to use its range while Spike ER will be.

Depends on what part of Europe, and how do you exploit it. With Spike there is no role unless you are fighting in like mountainous areas.

Its much higher. No tank in the world can survive 152-mm top attack EFP.

If those 152mm were something modern as a Kornet, yes, I´d believed it. If those 152mm are from an old Tow with small warhead limited by wire, then no.

If missile detects this laser then sensors also will be able to detect it. For example Merkavas LWS:

http://www.elbitsystems-us.com/sites/default/files/LWS.pdf

High power “range finder” (BR) type threats:
Low Power “beam rider” type threats:

There´s a big difference. There was continous research, and the beam rider of new generation Kornet-like missiles, is much weaker (hundred of times) than even the ones used in older systems, and was stated by KBP as new jam inmunity feature.

So that advertisement of yours, nice for old weapons, not for new.

Your Arab allies needed them and did not get. because they were very unrelaible then.

If you refer to T-64 specifically, there was a ban and it was not exported in the whole history.

Yep first serial tanks with thermals only in 2005.

Agava was in production in late 80s late 90s, not issue of capability.

Very different.

Given armored targets they were intended to counter, effectiveness in combat was close.

Cannons can be effetive at long ranges.

I explained how gun launched missiles were developed, then you imply a gun can be equally effective in range and power (!) and give an example of an obsolete target in a much later time frame?

Trials trials. Americans have hundreds of Longbows with radar guided missiles. U only trials.

When there is need... there it appears. It is erroneous to relate ability to need.

Spike MR/LR superrior to Metis-M.
Spike ER superrior to Kornet, Kornet-D.
Spike NLOS exists, Hermes exists only as on pic.

In what, cost? that is way bigger. Would the supposed capabilities of Spike, and performance, justify the cost to replace Metis-M, or just buy Spike instead of Metis, in a hipotetical user? NO.

Is Spike ER versatile enought, and powerfull, to compare to Kornet? NO

Theorically, would it make sense to aquire NLOS, or Hermes? Clearly Hermes.

Cheers