Rafael Releases New Member of Spike Family - Spike NLOS

[nightcrawler]

Well everything is clear to me now; after users here had provided pics of operational Hermes

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.

I think I told 500 that beam riding such as Kornet only requires 1/240th of incident laser power & they are very prone to jamming simply because the brain of missile is facing rearwards towards the person controlling it & not to the target.
The Vikhr is a laser beam riding missile, which means it has a sensor in its tail looking back at the launch platform for its entire flight. Because the laser senser is looking directly at the laser emitter then the power of the emitter can be four orders of magnitiude less powerful than a laser designed to mark targets. (4 orders of magnitude is 10,000 times less powerful). Engaging a target at 8km range a laser target marker would have to reflect back to the launch aircraft... a range of 16km. A dark nonreflective target might not be able to be locked by such a system. For Vikhr this is not a problem. Also with the missile sensor looking back at the launch aircraft it is not effected by jammers or dazzlers.
The other missile widely available is the Shturm/Ataka system which uses a radio command guidance system.


Regarding 500 claim that beam riding missile is jammable via purposed LWS
see here: Why LWS is not effective in detecting laser beam riding ATGM? - Tanknet

so you see in case of a very low power laser designators(as are used in Metis/Kornet); without increasing sensitivity of countermeasures to detect them you can't know what is going to hit tank...but this increases false alarms; especially as you often put...in desert scenarios.

Regarding other your repetitive account on cost...i haven't got the answer to this yet:

In other words, it (kornet) does not contain complex and expensive electronic and mechanical components, whereas the onboard equipment of the ATGW-3/LR system incorporates the infrared homing head with the matrix PCC photodetector distinguished by high complexity and cost of manufacture which, in its turn, greatly influences the cost of the missile itself. Preliminary assessment shows that the cost of the Kornet-LR missile is three to four times lower than that of the ATGW-3/LR missile, i.e., at the same expenditures the Kornet-LR system can engage three to four times more targets than the ATGW-3/LR system.

...or if you really want to save soldiers life at ANY cost; why don't give each soldier multi-million ironman suit; sure west is good at electronics (remember you said that)

 

[500]

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.

We were talking about Hermes which is very different from Hermes-A. So Hermes does not exist beyond 3D models, while smaller Hermes-A reached plastic launcher for exhibistion stage.

Here Indian NAG test:
Indian army NAG Anti-Tank guided missile test firing from NAMICA - YouTube

Here Turkish Utmas test:
UMTAS Anti-Tank ve Cirit Fuzesi Atis Testleri-ROKETSAN- (HD 720p) - YouTube

Where is Hermes? They planned tests in 2010 and now they claim that 3rd generaton missiles are not necessary.

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.

Metis-M is completelly new missile with old guidance method. Thats why it has range close to Javelin but it lacks survavavbility and top attack.

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.

Good, so u admit that Metis-M and Kornet dont have lofted trajectory. As for bastion and Refleks, you are wrong. They dont have lofted trajectory ether. They simply fly at nigher altitute for main course and before reaching the target they level down. They attack horisontally just like all rest.

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

Nonsense. both have tandem warhead. Metis-M has declared 900 mm penetration.

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.

Blue is Metis-M attacking horisontally. It has little chance to penetrate M1A2 thick front armor with its 900 mm warhead.
Red is Spike with lofted trajectory. It will penetrate Abrams with ease.

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).

Nonsense. Chances to see a missile are scanty. Unless commander looks out of his turret.

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.

Kornet triggets systems and I already provided u a proof. And if operator wont see the target he wont be able to hit it.

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

Spike MR/LR are analoges of Metis-M, but far superior.

Analog of Kornet is TOW-2B. They are about equal.

Spike-ER is analogue or Kornet-D but far superior.

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

If ur weapons are good why u sell them so cheap? Increase prices and improve waves of ur workers and engineers. But seems u know that if u increase prices no one will buy them.

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.

Even US bought some Mi-8 helicopters. So spear me of excuses.

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.

I am talking about typical Europe (Germany). In 95% of cases u wont be able to see beyond 5 km. because of terrain. And in many additional cases u wont be able to see because of weather dust smoke etc. Thats why Kornet-D is just PR stunt.

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.

Of course they are modern. They are specially designed for it.

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.

All beam riders have weak laser. In order to guide sensor in back of the missile should detect the beam. But if sensor in back of the missile can detect then sensor on tank also will be able to see it. I provided u a link.

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

Because it was unreliable. Even most elite Soviet troops in East Europe did not have T-64 till 1976.

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

No serial tank was equiped with it. Its total junk.

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

Abrams tanks?

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?

Gun launcher missiles were developed because of inferior FCS and inferior rounds. The engagements beyond 3 km are very rare, so no one bothered. In Lebanon we destroyed Syrian tanks beyond 5 km with gun too. Currently we have Lahat tank launched missile but we dont use it cos there is no need.

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.

Better buy more expensive and more effective missile than risk lives of soldiers.

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

Spike ER is far more versatile and far more powerful than Kornet.

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

Of course I will prefer NLOS missile in the battle than Hermes 3d Model.

cheers

 

[Project 627]

We were talking about Hermes which is very different from Hermes-A. So Hermes does not exist beyond 3D models, while smaller Hermes-A reached plastic launcher for exhibistion stage.

Here Indian NAG test:
Indian army NAG Anti-Tank guided missile test firing from NAMICA - YouTube

Here Turkish Utmas test:
UMTAS Anti-Tank ve Cirit Fuzesi Atis Testleri-ROKETSAN- (HD 720p) - YouTube

Where is Hermes? They planned tests in 2010 and now they claim that 3rd generaton missiles are not necessary.


Metis-M is completelly new missile with old guidance method. Thats why it has range close to Javelin but it lacks survavavbility and top attack.


Good, so u admit that Metis-M and Kornet dont have lofted trajectory. As for bastion and Refleks, you are wrong. They dont have lofted trajectory ether. They simply fly at nigher altitute for main course and before reaching the target they level down. They attack horisontally just like all rest.


Nonsense. both have tandem warhead. Metis-M has declared 900 mm penetration.

Blue is Metis-M attacking horisontally. It has little chance to penetrate M1A2 thick front armor with its 900 mm warhead.
Red is Spike with lofted trajectory. It will penetrate Abrams with ease.


Nonsense. Chances to see a missile are scanty. Unless commander looks out of his turret.


Kornet triggets systems and I already provided u a proof. And if operator wont see the target he wont be able to hit it.


Spike MR/LR are analoges of Metis-M, but far superior.

Analog of Kornet is TOW-2B. They are about equal.

Spike-ER is analogue or Kornet-D but far superior.


If ur weapons are good why u sell them so cheap? Increase prices and improve waves of ur workers and engineers. But seems u know that if u increase prices no one will buy them.


Even US bought some Mi-8 helicopters. So spear me of excuses.


I am talking about typical Europe (Germany). In 95% of cases u wont be able to see beyond 5 km. because of terrain. And in many additional cases u wont be able to see because of weather dust smoke etc. Thats why Kornet-D is just PR stunt.


Of course they are modern. They are specially designed for it.


All beam riders have weak laser. In order to guide sensor in back of the missile should detect the beam. But if sensor in back of the missile can detect then sensor on tank also will be able to see it. I provided u a link.


Because it was unreliable. Even most elite Soviet troops in East Europe did not have T-64 till 1976.


No serial tank was equiped with it. Its total junk.


Abrams tanks?


Gun launcher missiles were developed because of inferior FCS and inferior rounds. The engagements beyond 3 km are very rare, so no one bothered. In Lebanon we destroyed Syrian tanks beyond 5 km with gun too. Currently we have Lahat tank launched missile but we dont use it cos there is no need.


Better buy more expensive and more effective missile than risk lives of soldiers.


Spike ER is far more versatile and far more powerful than Kornet.


Of course I will prefer NLOS missile in the battle than Hermes 3d Model.

cheers

Ohh I see, 500 whats a video of hermes tests too prove it exist, well don't worry like the PAK FA you will see it someday, in the mean time 500, is hoping that the Hermes does not exist because 500 knows that the second Hermes is confirmed it will put every Isreal/US/NATO anti-tank missile into the joke category.

 

[mnd]

We were talking about Hermes which is very different from Hermes-A. So Hermes does not exist beyond 3D models, while smaller Hermes-A reached plastic launcher for exhibistion stage.

There is no significant difference. All variants all unified, except that some have a booster attached. Pic

Where is Hermes? They planned tests in 2010 and now they claim that 3rd generaton missiles are not necessary.

First, Hermes is not 3rd gen as you imply, it has a semi-active seeker. Target is designated at long range and seeker aquires target when close. 3rd gen in the West is active seeker, and in Russia, laser guidance, semi automatic or automatic.

Metis-M is completelly new missile with old guidance method. Thats why it has range close to Javelin but it lacks survavavbility and top attack.

Metis-M is considered as modernised old gen and is configurated as such. A new system with laser guidance would outclass Javelin by far. Javelin is all new to replace Dragon, which was rubbish and was not modernised.

Good, so u admit that Metis-M and Kornet dont have lofted trajectory. As for bastion and Refleks, you are wrong. They dont have lofted trajectory ether. They simply fly at nigher altitute for main course and before reaching the target they level down. They attack horisontally just like all rest.

Lofted trajectory is nothing special. It is useful to avoid obstacles (trees, etc). Bastion and Refleks can be fired upwards, and then guided to target. Hit always from top is not necessary, as with that range you choose where to hit.

Nonsense. both have tandem warhead. Metis-M has declared 900 mm penetration.

Even with tandem warhead there is always a reduction in power due to ERA effect, and penetration is somewhat lower. You can see by trials that Spike figures were given without ERA consideration.

As of Metis-M, it is 950mm after reactive armor, you can see in the designer´s video (go to 2:40)

Blue is Metis-M attacking horisontally. It has little chance to penetrate M1A2 thick front armor with its 900 mm warhead.
Red is Spike with lofted trajectory. It will penetrate Abrams with ease.

With Spike´s smaller warhead there are fewer places where it is effective, and why do you compare an Abrams with no protection?

In modern tanks top protection is more than decent.

More powerfull 950mm Metis warhead has more possibility even from the front against Abrams like target:

Not to talk from the sides. Spike´s penetration is limited due to warhead, and destruction probability limited by upper engagement.

Nonsense. Chances to see a missile are scanty. Unless commander looks out of his turret.

Kornet triggets systems and I already provided u a proof. And if operator wont see the target he wont be able to hit it.

Cameras have a nice field of view, and are thermal. Slow and high flying Spike and Javelin are easy to spot, and to react.

There was much improvement on Kornet´s guidance (laser), and compared to older systems, is nothing similar, and that was tested.

Spike MR/LR are analoges of Metis-M, but far superior.

Not really, see above.

Analog of Kornet is TOW-2B. They are about equal.

Nothing equal but smaller warhead, range and higher vulnerability on Tow´s side. A generation older.

Spike-ER is analogue or Kornet-D but far superior.

Only in mountainous areas, where Kornet is not present. The rest is the opposite.

If ur weapons are good why u sell them so cheap? Increase prices and improve waves of ur workers and engineers. But seems u know that if u increase prices no one will buy them.

Prices are fair, compensate work costs, and product is less complex and better designed. They are not inflated as Western. Increase prices, and no one will buy nothing.

Even US bought some Mi-8 helicopters. So spear me of excuses.

US bought only in 2011 when sanctions on Rosoboronexport where lifted, despite heavy political pressure and Sikorsky lobbysm. Do you think that was simple? They could not buy much even if they wanted to.

I am talking about typical Europe (Germany). In 95% of cases u wont be able to see beyond 5 km. because of terrain. And in many additional cases u wont be able to see because of weather dust smoke etc. Thats why Kornet-D is just PR stunt.

You cannot judge by isolated examples. Compare Poland, or Russian planicies, etc. In many scenarios it will be exploited.

Of course they are modern. They are specially designed for it.

But configuration is outdated.

Because it was unreliable. Even most elite Soviet troops in East Europe did not have T-64 till 1976.

It was different doctrine. Soviet armies in Eastern Europe were overkill. When there was need it appeared.

No serial tank was equiped with it. Its total junk.

They were produced until 90s when they got expensive (assembled by hand) and waited for more modern ones.

Abrams tanks?

In the 70s and mid 80s they were more than enought. Tow II, as contrary, with monoblock warhead had serious issues with ERA until more modern variants were deployed much later.

Gun launcher missiles were developed because of inferior FCS and inferior rounds. The engagements beyond 3 km are very rare, so no one bothered. In Lebanon we destroyed Syrian tanks beyond 5 km with gun too. Currently we have Lahat tank launched missile but we dont use it cos there is no need.

Engagement beyond 3-4km is rare because projectile looses speed considerably and power and accuracy are not effective against intended targets. Whatever stories with obsolete tanks are irrelevant.

If you want to stay with Soviet designations, Lahat is not a gun launched anti-tank missile.

Better buy more expensive and more effective missile than risk lives of soldiers.

Better equip your army efficiently, and not expensive systems of specific use which will not see wide use due to cost.

Spike ER is far more versatile and far more powerful than Kornet.

Neither powerfull nor versatile as explained.

Of course I will prefer NLOS missile in the battle than Hermes 3d Model.

Spike is not that efficient if you want long range capability (very slow, search targets manually, vulnerable to be shot down). In paper it would have much more sense to buy Hermes. And it is not 3d, if you want, you can order it to production at any moment.

 

[500]

There is no significant difference. All variants all unified, except that some have a booster attached. Pic

Cool, they made also a plastic missile

First, Hermes is not 3rd gen as you imply, it has a semi-active seeker. Target is designated at long range and seeker aquires target when close. 3rd gen in the West is active seeker, and in Russia, laser guidance, semi automatic or automatic.

No one knows what the hell is that since it does not exists.

Metis-M is considered as modernised old gen and is configurated as such. A new system with laser guidance would outclass Javelin by far. Javelin is all new to replace Dragon, which was rubbish and was not modernised.

I repeat: Metis is completelly new missile with old guidance.

Lofted trajectory is nothing special. It is useful to avoid obstacles (trees, etc). Bastion and Refleks can be fired upwards, and then guided to target. Hit always from top is not necessary, as with that range you choose where to hit.

No u cant. All Russian missiles hit horisontally.

Even with tandem warhead there is always a reduction in power due to ERA effect, and penetration is somewhat lower. You can see by trials that Spike figures were given without ERA consideration.

Spike is tandem therefor mediting behind era is not necessary, its clear.

As of Metis-M, it is 950mm after reactive armor, you can see in the designer´s video (go to 2:40)
U can see in this link penetraton 900-950 mm without mention of "behind ERA".

ÊÁÏ, ÏÐÎÒÈÂÎÒÀÍÊÎÂÛÉ ÐÀÊÅÒÍÛÉ ÊÎÌÏËÅÊÑ "ÌÅÒÈÑ-M1"

Frontal armor of modern tanks can withstand that.

With Spike´s smaller warhead there are fewer places where it is effective, and why do you compare an Abrams with no protection?

Abrams is our main consern today. Any other tank in the world also will be penetrated with ease by Spike.

In modern tanks top protection is more than decent.

Only tank in the world with decent top protection is Merkava Mk4. But even it is not enough against 700+ mm tandem warhead.

More powerfull 950mm Metis warhead has more possibility even from the front against Abrams like target:

No it does not I already explained why.

Cameras have a nice field of view, and are thermal. Slow and high flying Spike and Javelin are easy to spot, and to react.

High flying on contrary is harder to detect.

There was much improvement on Kornet´s guidance (laser), and compared to older systems, is nothing similar, and that was tested.

Kornet is regular laser beam ride missile. Nothing special about it.

Nothing equal but smaller warhead, range and higher vulnerability on Tow´s side. A generation older.

I repeat TOW advantages over Kornet:
1) double top attack warhead = guarantee tank destruction .
2) lack of emission = cant be detected by laser warning sensors.

Only in mountainous areas, where Kornet is not present. The rest is the opposite.

I repeat: typical European terrain.

Prices are fair, compensate work costs, and product is less complex and better designed. They are not inflated as Western. Increase prices, and no one will buy nothing.

West sells its systems with high prices.

US bought only in 2011 when sanctions on Rosoboronexport where lifted, despite heavy political pressure and Sikorsky lobbysm. Do you think that was simple? They could not buy much even if they wanted to.

Even US bought.
As u noticed urself Greece bought. So if poor Greece can buy then any other western country could buy for sure. No need to invent excuses.

You cannot judge by isolated examples. Compare Poland, or Russian planicies, etc. In many scenarios it will be exploited.

Its not isolated its typical Europe.

But configuration is outdated.

Top attack is modern concept.

It was different doctrine. Soviet armies in Eastern Europe were overkill. When there was need it appeared.

T-55 and T-62 were overkill?

They were produced until 90s when they got expensive (assembled by hand) and waited for more modern ones.

No serial tank.

In the 70s and mid 80s they were more than enought. Tow II, as contrary, with monoblock warhead had serious issues with ERA until more modern variants were deployed much later.

After introduction of Abrams they became not enough. Tandem Tows were issued in 1986.

Engagement beyond 3-4km is rare because projectile looses speed considerably and power and accuracy are not effective against intended targets. Whatever stories with obsolete tanks are irrelevant.

They are rare because of terrain.

If you want to stay with Soviet designations, Lahat is not a gun launched anti-tank missile.

What it is then?

Better equip your army efficiently, and not expensive systems of specific use which will not see wide use due to cost.

All the world choses fire and forget man portable missiles today. Even poor countries. No one wants to risk their soldiers.

Neither powerfull nor versatile as explained.

Due to top attack its FAR more powerful than Kornet.
Due to guidance its FAR more versatile:
1) can attack consealed by terrain targets.
2) it can attack with from consealed position.
3) it can atack with extreme precission even at max distance.

Kornet-D in 99% of cases wil be limited to 5 km and less range.

Spike is not that efficient if you want long range capability (very slow, search targets manually, vulnerable to be shot down). In paper it would have much more sense to buy Hermes. And it is not 3d, if you want, you can order it to production at any moment.

Spike has homing warhead. Everything u need to to is put cross on target and push lock button. After that it will guide automatically.

 

[mnd]

No one knows what the hell is that since it does not exists.

Can look in KBP´s site.

I repeat: Metis is completelly new missile with old guidance.

Old system, improved, with completely new missile from old composition. OK?

No u cant. All Russian missiles hit horisontally.

At that distance they choose were to hit horizontally.

Spike is tandem therefor mediting behind era is not necessary, its clear.

Against ERA, is a diffrent game even with tandem, it has still some effect. With Heavy ERA penetration is decreased in the order of 50mm whichis considerable. That´s why in many missiles penetration is stated when after ERA.

U can see in this link penetraton 900-950 mm without mention of "behind ERA".

ÊÁÏ, ÏÐÎÒÈÂÎÒÀÍÊÎÂÛÉ ÐÀÊÅÒÍÛÉ ÊÎÌÏËÅÊÑ "ÌÅÒÈÑ-M1"

Frontal armor of modern tanks can withstand that.

You do not read the article entirely?
"оснащена новой БЧ, обеспечивающей бронепробиваемость за динамической защитой 950 мм."

Said clearly: With new warhead with penetration of 950mm behind ERA.

You read figures in general, penetration from 900 to 950mm, which is with 9М131 or with
9М131М missile.

Abrams is our main consern today. Any other tank in the world also will be penetrated with ease by Spike.

Other tanks are far different from Abrams.

Only tank in the world with decent top protection is Merkava Mk4. But even it is not enough against 700+ mm tandem warhead.

Good from sides, not from top:

700 mm is rather weak against modern tanks, as of destruction probability.

No it does not I already explained why.

Frontal engagement does not mean from 0 degrees. Western tanks, Abrams, Leopard are voluminous and I showed a drawing. It is valid for anything except frontal turret of most modern western tanks.

High flying on contrary is harder to detect.

It is slow and spends 1.5-2 times more time flying than the rest.

Kornet is regular laser beam ride missile. Nothing special about it.

Except it is unjammable.

I repeat TOW advantages over Kornet:
1) double top attack warhead = guarantee tank destruction .
2) lack of emission = cant be detected by laser warning sensors.

Kornet advantages over TOW:
1) 1200mm warhead = guarantee tank destruction.
2) Longer range.
3) Cannot be jamed by optical countermeasures. Low power laser beam not detected by warming sensors.

I repeat: typical European terrain.

And Europe is small and homogeneous... Given that you specified Europe, specify where. I am pretty convinced it is fully effective where it is deployed.

West sells its systems with high prices.

Western systems buy mostly other Western countries.

Even US bought.
As u noticed urself Greece bought. So if poor Greece can buy then any other western country could buy for sure. No need to invent excuses.

Political situation in Turkey and even Greece is different from rest of Nato or western countries.

And rich countries like China (using your logic, OK, let´s be serious) India (world´s biggest importer) with access to all suppliers, buy majority of armament from Russia.

T-55 and T-62 were overkill?

From 60s to 1975 they were

No serial tank.

Serial T-80U of 1992 batch production were last ones. Production of thermals was available for order.

After introduction of Abrams they became not enough. Tandem Tows were issued in 1986.

First versions of Abrams were not serious, same as Leopard II. In 1986 soviet tanks were further improved beyond TOW effectiveness.

What it is then?

By soviet denomination it is not an gun launched anti-tank missile, which substitutes a gun round. It is a multiplattform multirole missile which can be launched from gun.
In what it differs? mainly in doctrine, and composition.

In short, Lahat does not compare to Refleks (Invar) in role and caracteristics (power), but to Arkan missile.

All the world choses fire and forget man portable missiles today. Even poor countries. No one wants to risk their soldiers.

Not all. But all want to have an effective army.

Due to top attack its FAR more powerful than Kornet.
Due to guidance its FAR more versatile:
1) can attack consealed by terrain targets.
2) it can attack with from consealed position.
3) it can atack with extreme precission even at max distance.

- 950mm vs 1200mm penetration.
- No mobile when fires.
- No missile diversity.
- No ability to fire several missiles at same time.
- Manual guidance vs automatic.
- Slow flight.
- Vulnerable to optical countermeasures.
- Much more expensive and complex.

Spike has homing warhead. Everything u need to to is put cross on target and push lock button. After that it will guide automatically.

It is guided manually through a TV cam and spends time searching because of no target information prior to launch. Slow missile and much flight time, vulnerable. Not an ideal long range system.

Hermes target is designated by a locator prior to launch and it flies at supersonic speed directly to the target.

 

[nightcrawler]

I think Russian understanding for fire-forget as pointed out earlier is different:
“Fire and forget:” Engineers unveil new missile system | Video | RIA Novosti

for top attack this is going to happen...or just with bullets

 

[500]

Can look in KBP´s site.

I cant see any data on guidance. I dont see any proof that any tests were ever conducte. All I see is plastic launcher and 3d model.

Old system, improved, with completely new missile from old composition. OK?

Thats why it has fair range but poor guidance.

At that distance they choose were to hit horizontally.

No u cant. Mabe very experienced guy at test range can chose, but no chance in real combat situation.

Against ERA, is a diffrent game even with tandem, it has still some effect. With Heavy ERA penetration is decreased in the order of 50mm whichis considerable. That´s why in many missiles penetration is stated when after ERA.

Not at all.

You do not read the article entirely?
"оснащена новой БЧ, обеспечивающей бронепробиваемость за динамической защитой 950 мм." Said clearly: With new warhead with penetration of 950mm behind ERA.

Missile data it says penetration 900-950 mm. As u can see, "behind ERA" is often neglected.

Other tanks are far different from Abrams.

Only Merkava Mk4 has decent top protection but even it cant stand 700 mm tandem.

Good from sides, not from top:

Ur pics dont show.

700 mm is rather weak against modern tanks, as of destruction probability.

Last time: 700 mm is enogh to penetrate any rood of any tank twise. on the other hand 900 mm is not enough for most of modern tanks from front. Spike win.

It is slow and spends 1.5-2 times more time flying than the rest.

does not matter when fire forget or from consealed position.

Except it is unjammable.

sensor notices laser. tank puts smoke and u wont be able to see it anymore. Thats all.

Kornet advantages over TOW:
1) 1200mm warhead = guarantee tank destruction.

Nope. Some modern tanks can stand it. TOW wins here.

2) Longer range.

Thats true. But in overwhelming majority of cases 4500 km is more than enough for LOS system.

3) Cannot be jamed by optical countermeasures. Low power laser beam not detected by warming sensors.

Put smoke and wave hand. Codded wire guidance of TOW can be jammed and cant be detected. TOW wins.

And Europe is small and homogeneous... Given that you specified Europe, specify where. I am pretty convinced it is fully effective where it is deployed.

I told u typical landscape in Germany.

Western systems buy mostly other Western countries.
Political situation in Turkey and even Greece is different from rest of Nato or western countries.

We got ur point: Those who but Russian weapons are because its cool and those who dont buy because of politics Excuses for losers.

And rich countries like China (using your logic, OK, let´s be serious) India (world´s biggest importer) with access to all suppliers, buy majority of armament from Russia.

India wants 3rd gen.

From 60s to 1975 they were

U could see that "overkill" in 1967 and 1973.

Serial T-80U of 1992 batch production were last ones. Production of thermals was available for order.

no

First versions of Abrams were not serious, same as Leopard II. In 1986 soviet tanks were further improved beyond TOW effectiveness.

They were serious and in 1986 soviets still used old Konkurs.

By soviet denomination it is not an gun launched anti-tank missile, which substitutes a gun round. It is a multiplattform multirole missile which can be launched from gun.
In what it differs? mainly in doctrine, and composition.

In short, Lahat does not compare to Refleks (Invar) in role and caracteristics (power), but to Arkan missile.

Gun launched but not gun launched.

Not all. But all want to have an effective army.

awesome finally u admit that spike is superior. Why it took so long?

- 950mm vs 1200mm penetration.

1000 mm. Top attack. Spike wins.

- No mobile when fires.

U seriously believe that u can drive while targeting missile at 5+ km? And what u achieve by driving that beside attracting enemy attention? Silly PR stunt.

- No missile diversity.

Who needs that?

- No ability to fire several missiles at same time.

Sure u can if u have two operators.

- Manual guidance vs automatic.

In both systems u need to find a target and push lock. But Spike allows u to select target when u approach close and hense that allows much better selection. Pure win for the Spike.

- Slow flight.

Irrelevant. U fire it from safe closed position. Kornet is fired from exposed position. Spike wins.

- Vulnerable to optical countermeasures.

On contrary. We discussed it with TOWS. Spike wins.

- Much more expensive and complex.

Much more effective.

It is guided manually through a TV cam and spends time searching because of no target information prior to launch. Slow missile and much flight time, vulnerable. Not an ideal long range system.

Hermes target is designated by a locator prior to launch and it flies at supersonic speed directly to the target.

Hermes does not exists.

---------- Post added 08-26-2011 at 12:01 AM ---------- Previous post was 08-25-2011 at 11:58 PM ----------

I think Russian understanding for fire-forget as pointed out earlier is different:
“Fire and forget:” Engineers unveil new missile system | Video | RIA Novosti

for top attack this is going to happen...or just with bullets

You seriously plan to bring pansyrs for each spike?

Trophy is much cheaper and effective anti missile sollution. Cheers.

 

[nightcrawler]

You seriously plan to bring pansyrs for each spike?

Trophy is much cheaper and effective anti missile sollution. Cheers.

No; each Pantsir can take out several Spikes

get the picture

 

[Project 627]

Trophy is much cheaper and effective anti missile sollution. Cheers.

Not really because each Pantsir could take out the 10 Spikes per-minute, plus at far grader range something like 20Km.

 

[500]

No; each Pantsir can take out several Spikes

get the picture

Your idea is absilutelly unrealisting. How it wil lknow what to shoot? Will it shoot every mortar round? What if i fire RPG into the air? will it shoot it down as well? Plus its very complicated target, chances to hit it are low.

 

[mnd]

I cant see any data on guidance. I dont see any proof that any tests were ever conducte. All I see is plastic launcher and 3d model.

Look here. Tests were conducted as officials stated. Army evaluation tests are not shown, but demonstrations if anything.

Thats why it has fair range but poor guidance.

Guidance I agree, but performance is good.

No u cant. Mabe very experienced guy at test range can chose, but no chance in real combat situation.

Guidance is semi-automatic and it is very easy. Even fresh conscripts hit all targets at first try.

Not at all.

Even if effect is relatively small, it is considerable, especially if warhead penetrates armor with it´s last forces.

Missile data it says penetration 900-950 mm. As u can see, "behind ERA" is often neglected.

You have no coherence?. Figure is for system, which can launch two missiles. One is 900mm, the other is 950mm as said in the page. So 900mm minimum, 950mm maximum (depending on missile). KBP always gives penetration as after ERA.
METIS-M1

Ur pics dont show.

Surface of soviet tanks much smaller + more armored part + Heavy ERA. Merkava is by far not the best.

Last time: 700 mm is enogh to penetrate any rood of any tank twise. on the other hand 900 mm is not enough for most of modern tanks from front. Spike win.

1st Spike is not top attack with active seeker with moving targets, but fires directly in semi automatic mode as Javelin. Then it is 700mm vs 950mm (with 2000m missile) against moving targets.

does not matter when fire forget or from consealed position.

Spike and Javelin are not top attack-fire & forget against moving targets. Only Spike is top attack when using TV guidance. Then missile is spotted from longer range.

sensor notices laser. tank puts smoke and u wont be able to see it anymore. Thats all.

Sensor does not notice as stated by KBP.

Nope. Some modern tanks can stand it. TOW wins here.

Only in 50% of frontal projection for western tanks. And Tow will not always hit in desired place.

Thats true. But in overwhelming majority of cases 4500 km is more than enough for LOS system.

4500km is not ideal range.

Put smoke and wave hand. Codded wire guidance of TOW can be jammed and cant be detected. TOW wins.

But optical guidance will see nothing.

I told u typical landscape in Germany.

In most cases is useful. You can also exploit terrain and deploy on elevated areas in less regular terrain.

We got ur point: Those who but Russian weapons are because its cool and those who dont buy because of politics Excuses for losers.

Then US is a loser because it lost in world´s biggest importer (India), and with China, Syria, Iran, no export at all?

Even South Korea is preferring cooperation with Russia.

India wants 3rd gen.

If you compare ATGM´s in specific, KBP is the largest exporter in the world. If you compare in general, Russia has the biggest share in India.

U could see that "overkill" in 1967 and 1973.

I saw neither soviet troops nor modern tanks there.

no

T-80UM

They were serious and in 1986 soviets still used old Konkurs.

In 1980 Fagot was modernised with more powerfull warhad and 2500m range. More than enought Improved version Konkurs-M was developed at end of 80s.

Gun launched but not gun launched.

Lahat is weak compared to a gun projectile and to Invar. Arkan is similar.

awesome finally u admit that spike is superior. Why it took so long?

Spike is superior compared to 2nd gen missiles it is supposed to replace (Dragon, etc). But it is not necessary superior in performance to modernised systems (Metis-M).

1000 mm. Top attack. Spike wins.

Then 1000mm vs 1300mm and those are not the only factors.

U seriously believe that u can drive while targeting missile at 5+ km? And what u achieve by driving that beside attracting enemy attention? Silly PR stunt.

You do not target missile, computer does.

Same logic applies to Spike and Javelin. What do you achieve running away besides attracting enemy attention?

Being stationary for a vehicle is not good at all.

Who needs that?

When you see attack helicopters, UAVs, builduings or infantry, it is important.

Sure u can if u have two operators.

Not enought displays or personnel? + missiles and their targets are not coordinated by computer as in Kornet.

In both systems u need to find a target and push lock. But Spike allows u to select target when u approach close and hense that allows much better selection. Pure win for the Spike.

Targets are aquired by system in Kornet, and guided automatically. Operator only selects.

Spike is launched with no prior location, and operator controlling it needs to spend time flying searching for targets. Missile is more detectable and vulnerable.

Irrelevant. U fire it from safe closed position. Kornet is fired from exposed position. Spike wins.

Kornet is out of engagement range + it is mobile.

If you attempt to use Spike in same range as Kornet and with clear sight, vehicle is a stationary target.

On contrary. We discussed it with TOWS. Spike wins.

It is the same vulnerable to aerosol thermal blocker the same as Tow. Long range versions spending much flight time are prone to be shot down by Manpads.

Much more effective.

Clearly not, neither versatile.

Hermes does not exists.

You can order Hermes the same as you can order Spike.

You seriously plan to bring pansyrs for each spike?

Not necessary Pantsirs, Iglas

Note charecteristics of targets, and speed and range of Spike.

Trophy is much cheaper and effective anti missile sollution. Cheers.

Much more expensive and effectiveness against modern missiles is dubious as discussed earlier

 

[mnd]

Your idea is absilutelly unrealisting. How it wil lknow what to shoot? Will it shoot every mortar round? What if i fire RPG into the air? will it shoot it down as well? Plus its very complicated target, chances to hit it are low.

System perfectly knows which targets are dangerous and are coming in your direction.

RPG in air no because direction is nowhere. Actually top flying ATGM´s are slow and have a simple trajectory. No challenge.

 

[500]

Look here. Tests were conducted as officials stated. Army evaluation tests are not shown, but demonstrations if anything.

3D models. Even 3d models are very poorly made.

Guidance I agree, but performance is good.

With bad guidance performance cant be good. Thats why no one buys that except beggas Syria.

Guidance is semi-automatic and it is very easy. Even fresh conscripts hit all targets at first try.

If you seriously believe that in combat situation u will target specific spot of mobile target then you are really nuts.

KBP always gives penetration as after ERA.

So u just confirm that its not necessary to repeat "after ERA" all the time. For tandem warhead its obvious.

Surface of soviet tanks much smaller + more armored part + Heavy ERA. Merkava is by far not the best.

This ERA does not work against tandem. 700 mm tandem is super overkill.

1st Spike is not top attack with active seeker with moving targets, but fires directly in semi automatic mode as Javelin. Then it is 700mm vs 950mm (with 2000m missile) against moving targets.

It does attack I can show u videos.

Sensor does not notice as stated by KBP.

Sensor on missile can see Kornets laser but sensor on tank cant? MAGIC? Merkava sensors works against beam ride. I showed u link.

Only in 50% of frontal projection for western tanks. And Tow will not always hit in desired place.

TOW has double warhead attacking top. No tank in the workd can survive. Last time I repeat that.

4500km is not ideal range.

Cases with LOS view beyond 4.5 km are extremelly rare. Thats why US did not bother to make.

But optical guidance will see nothing.

In order to guide Kornet u should also see the target. Difference is that Kornets gudance emits laser and can be detected by sensors, while guidance of TOW does not emit and cant be detected.

In most cases is useful. You can also exploit terrain and deploy on elevated areas in less regular terrain.

Its useful only in 5% of cases in ideal weather and no smoke. In real battle conditions it will be useful in less han 1% of cases.

Then US is a loser because it lost in world´s biggest importer (India), and with China, Syria, Iran, no export at all?

US exports much more weapons than Russia despite higher prices.

Even South Korea is preferring cooperation with Russia.

That only proves that everyone who wants to buy Russian weapons can easily do so. Even South Korea wth American bases in it.

If you compare ATGM´s in specific, KBP is the largest exporter in the world. If you compare in general, Russia has the biggest share in India.

India currently is chosing between Spike and Javelin as man portable missile. It does not even consider Metis-M.

I saw neither soviet troops nor modern tanks there.

They used T-55 and T-62 which u called "overkill". And these tanks failed miserably against western counterparts.

URL="http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product4413.html"]T-80UM[/URL]

T-80UM is not serial tank is experimental built after the fall of USSR. Stop arguing with obvious, thats pathetic.

In 1980 Fagot was modernised with more powerfull warhad and 2500m range. More than enought Improved version Konkurs-M was developed at end of 80s.

1992. And not mass produced.

Lahat is weak compared to a gun projectile and to Invar. Arkan is similar.

Lahat has lofted attack and bigger range. It wins.

Spike is superior compared to 2nd gen missiles it is supposed to replace (Dragon, etc). But it is not necessary superior in performance to modernised systems (Metis-M).

So u still insist on ur ignorance. No one buys ur Metis-M.

Then 1000mm vs 1300mm and those are not the only factors.

Top attack 1000mm >>>>>>>>>>> front attack 1200 mm.

You do not target missile, computer does.

While driving its very easy to lose LOS and stabilization. At very long ranges chanse to lose LOS is almost 100%.

Same logic applies to Spike and Javelin. What do you achieve running away besides attracting enemy attention?

U should ot drive anywhere. Just mask down.

Being stationary for a vehicle is not good at all.

Fine if its not in LOS.

When you see attack helicopters, UAVs, builduings or infantry, it is important.

Helicopter can survive anti tank warhead? LOL. Superior accuracy of Spike is much more important.

Not enought displays or personnel? + missiles and their targets are not coordinated by computer as in Kornet.

Displays are cheap. And u can attack different targets simultaneously. Unlike Kornet.

Targets are aquired by system in Kornet, and guided automatically. Operator only selects.

From ranges over 5 km u can see only one pixel. Useless thing. Spike allows u to come closer see well and sellect the desired target.

Spike is launched with no prior location, and operator controlling it needs to spend time flying searching for targets. Missile is more detectable and vulnerable.

Not at all.

Kornet is out of engagement range + it is mobile.

Light armored vehicle in LOS is vulnerable. Spike will kill it easily

If you attempt to use Spike in same range as Kornet and with clear sight, vehicle is a stationary target.

Its in covered position. Super safe.

It is the same vulnerable to aerosol thermal blocker the same as Tow. Long range versions spending much flight time are prone to be shot down by Manpads.

I repeat. In order to guide Kornet u should see the target. If target masks itself by smoke u wont be able to guide it. Difference of Kornet from Spike and TOW is that Kornet emites and herefore can be detected by sensors. Spike and TOW dont emit and cant be detected by sensors.

You can order Hermes the same as you can order Spike.

No u cant. It does not exists.

Not necessary Pantsirs, Iglas

U are really funny of u think that u can shot down tinny fast and low flying target with Igla.

Much more expensive and effectiveness against modern missiles is dubious as discussed earlier

More expensive than Pantsyr? Ur dobious effectiveness based only on your dobious fantasies.

 

[500]

System perfectly knows which targets are dangerous and are coming in your direction.

RPG in air no because direction is nowhere. Actually top flying ATGM´s are slow and have a simple trajectory. No challenge.

RPG in air and mortar have similar ballistic trajectory as Spike. How on earth u are going to sellect them? Pantsyr is very losy system by the way. TOR for poor.