Russian Army ATGM Thread

Cost is also a rather more significant factor than most experts give credit for.

As shown by Javelin in Afghanistan and Milan in the Falklands, quite often those very expensive missiles are used for things that they were not really intended for, like hitting MG nests and snipers, or taking out cars and other light vehicles.

For most of these threats the Russians already have a range of light disposable and reusable launchers firing relatively cheap unguided rockets. The current RPO rocket launcher called Varna is lighter than the older RPO yet has a more powerful warhead and longer range.

Out to 400-600m range these unguided and disposable weapons are the best choice mainly because when you fire them you don't have to carry them any further... but for targets from 400-2000m the Metis-M1 is accurate and powerful and relatively cheap. The RPG-32 will likely get a guided munition which might supplement the unguided rockets out to 600m or so without costing too much, but I think the Metis-M1 will continue to do a good job. At longer ranges the Kornet is more of a vehicle based system, which is actually good because the better optics and systems means it would be better able to engage targets at extended ranges and to carry sufficient reloads to be useful.

Have found some new information about the new Kornet.

First of all it seems to be called Kornet-EM... as in an upgraded (ie M) version of the Export model. The confusion probably came from Europe and their ATGMs with increased range models being called ER or extended range for the longer range models.

New information is here:

http://kbptula.ru/eng/kbp/news/news015.htm

But basically as I suspected the new system uses laser beam riding guidance which is relatively cheap and simple and pretty hard to defeat, with the guidance system using an auto target tracking system to improve guidance accuracy to a level where small aerial targets can also be engaged by the system.

Comes in two versions: One with armour piercing HEAT warheads that travels at 300m/s to a flight range of 8km, and on with a thermobaric warhead with a range of 10km and a 320m/s flight speed (just (at sea level) supersonic).

While not strictly fire and forget it greatly exceeds the flight speed and range of guided missiles like Spike and Javelin, and are much cheaper and also more difficult to defeat and can be fired on the move.

Supposed to be backwards compatible with the Kornet-E launcher and at 31-33kgs in the tubes they are about 12-20kgs lighter than the Shturm and Ataka missiles... the original Kornets being about 29kgs so they are only slightly heavier than the older missiles.

In addition to more powerful rocket motors I suspect the missiles will likely take advantage of improved flight profiles to extend missile flight range.

Have found some new information about the new Kornet.

First of all it seems to be called Kornet-EM... as in an upgraded (ie M) version of the Export model. The confusion probably came from Europe and their ATGMs with increased range models being called ER or extended range for the longer range models.

New information is here:

http://kbptula.ru/eng/kbp/news/news015.htm

Excellent finding. It seems this system is for export. I wonder what kind of modification will be for domestic use. I would more like to see 8 missiles in one station rotating 360° and with higher elevation up to +60°or +75°. With higher elevation and 360° rotation it could easier engage helicopters and UAVs. It could still have 2 FCS to enage two targets simultaneously. One fixed in station and one free to rotate.

I think this bring back idea of BMPT, where 4 ATAKA missiles could be replaced with 8 Kornet-EM missiles and with higher elevation up to +75° and modified FCS to work to that elevation, it could excellently do the job, about which KBP write and is at the same time protected with very strong armor.

The dual use surface to air and ATGM nature of the system will make dedicated anti armour units a bit more flexible and independent in that they can engage air targets themselves without needing air defence units.

It is also an added bonus in that the range of armoured vehicles in each weight brigade can have a family vehicle with this sort of system, perhaps with a small turret and method of reloading automatically similar to the BRDM-2 model vehicles that had fully retractable launchers, which made them difficult to distinguish from much less dangerous command variants of the system.

The vehicle depicted in the link above could be used in the light wheeled units while wheeled Kangaroo and tracked kurganets-25 plus a heavily armoured Armata version.

It is interesting that they want to have 8 ready to fire weapons... this is also shown with the BMP-2 upgrade with 4 ready to launch Kornets mounted on the outside of the turret ready to launch. I guess it makes sense to have as many as possible ready to fire missiles so they can be used urgently against several targets before requiring a reload.

I would add the comment that as Surface to Air Missiles these weapons are very slow in flight... though much faster than wire guided ATGMs which generally fly at 120-150m/s.

We were told about new model Kornets with fire and forget capability and also new model Krisantema missiles with fire and forget capability...

The original Krisantema uses dual laser beam riding guidance technology plus radio command guidance using a MMW radar to transmit the guidance commands.

Krisantema can either be directed to the target with the autotracker following the target optically and keeping a laser pointed at the target for the missile to ride down to impact, or the MMW radar can track the target and the missile and transmit flight course corrections to the missile via a radio signal till impact with the tracked target.

The old Krisantema has 1,250mm penetration and 6km range and a 450m/s flight speed and had a twin launcher that loaded automatically... but not very quickly.

I would suspect a new rocket motor and new warhead to bring the armour penetration to perhaps 1.4m to 1.6m and flight speed up to 500m/s and flight range to perhaps 12km should be achievable goals.

But why?

Krysantema is a similar physical size to Kornet and they could be operated from the same vehicle like the BRDM-2 had both AT-4 and AT-5 missiles.

The point would be that Krisantema is a faster and potentially more powerful missile, but also more expensive. With a more sophisticated MMW radar (as being developed for modern Russian Attack helos) multiple guided missiles could be fired at one time with MMW radar active seekers. In fact a dual MMW radar and IR seeker could be used to determine tanks with running engines and distinguish burning tanks from stationary tanks releasing smoke.

Each family of vehicle could have MMW radar and optics to fire both the Kornet and Krisantema, with the Kornet fire and forget for the gunner in practical terms while Krisantema in the radar guided version could actually be fire and forget against heavy armour and light aircraft, though more expensive per shot.

ie a cheap but still guided round that is accurate and powerful, plus a fully fire and forget round that could have a steep climb and lock on after launch steep diving attack option to improve kill probability against the most powerful of tanks.

With relatively small missiles the final vehicle could carry 16-24 missiles in well armoured fairly well disguised vehicles... unlike Hermes and Pantsir-S1 equipped vehicles which will be able to operate on the front line or as separate units in ambush and recon missions.

http://www.lenta.ru/news/2011/08/01/iskander/

In 2010 Russian MoD buy 18 man portable and 13 self propelled Kornet ATGMs and they plan to buy 180 man portable 360 self propelled Kornet ATGMs.

Sounds like a tiny order to me.
According to its wiki page the Konkurs was ordered in its modernised for in 2008 by India and they bought 15,000 missiles.

I would expect the range extension from 5.5km to 10km will require new launchers... or at the very least new optics to allow targets at 10km to be detected let alone tracked.
The new system also includes an autotracker which was not present in the original AFAIK.

At 4kgs heavier for the missile my guess that it would be vehicle only is clearly wrong, but the new version will also need a new launcher which might be heavier too.

The question remains, is this system cheap enough to replace all existing systems in this class.

Metis-M1 is certainly likely to be cheap enough to replace the AT-4 completely with comparable range and significant increase in armour penetrator performance.

The Kornet however seems to not be in a position to replace the longer ranged Konkurs, unless production figures are low because BMP-3 uses a tube launched missile while the BMP-2 upgrade uses Kornet... maybe the self propelled Kornet platforms are BMP-2 upgrades. Or are they BMP-3 based Kornet carriers as dedicated launchers.

The new missile will further enhance the performance of the upgraded BMP-2s of course giving them even longer reach plus fire on the move capability and limited air defence capability.

The real question is what is the time frame for these projected purchases...

180 man portable sets is OK for this year, and 360 vehicle mounted systems is good for this year but if they mean till 2020 then it is not really many at all.

Would also mention that now that the new Kornet system uses autotracking it brings it into the same guidance family as the SOSNA-R, and the Vikhr-M and the tank gun fired missiles like Reflex (T-80 and T-90), Svir (T-72), Sheksna (T-62), Bastion (T-55) and Arkan (BMP-3). (note the T-64s missile was radio command guided and therefore is more like the Shturm/Ataka and TOR SAM missiles.)







Just looking at this flight envelope drawing the missile can clearly be launched vertically and slow moving targets can be engaged at fairly high altitudes.

That would make the system a very useful anti UAV or UCAV weapon as the missiles are relatively cheap.



For those not familiar with such drawings the circles in the middle and the arc to the right near the centre are dead zones... inside those areas targets of the speed listed cannot be engaged. So inside the small red circle a target traveling 180km/h (50m/s) would be safe... but the small size of the circle means it had better be manouverable to keep inside that circle. The blue circle is 100m/s which of course is 360km/h and the green line is 250m/s which is 900km/h, which is pretty fast at low level.

I think they talk in article about numbers of launchers, not missiles. For every launcher they have to buy more missiles.

I agree, that army need more man portable Kornet launchers with standard 5,5 km range missiles for infantry units.

About self propelled variant I hope they talk about specialized vehicle and not modernized BMPs, BMDs, etc. I hope they will modernize those vehicles with new FCS based on EO ball like Sphere-02 or similar for using new 10 km range missiles and to give capabilities to use them 360° horizontally and with higher elevation up to at least 60° to get capabilities, which they show in diagram.

I wonder how many Khrizantema ATGMs Russian MoD buy up to 2010 and how many they ordered for 2011 and next years. If they will buy around 500 Kornet SP based on BMP-3 chassis and around 500 Khrizanthemas, than they will have quite capable anti-tank component of ground forces, specially if they will be integrated with C4ISR and work with UAVs.

GarryB wrote:






Just looking at this flight envelope drawing the missile can clearly be launched vertically and slow moving targets can be engaged at fairly high altitudes.

That would make the system a very useful anti UAV or UCAV weapon as the missiles are relatively cheap.



For those not familiar with such drawings the circles in the middle and the arc to the right near the centre are dead zones... inside those areas targets of the speed listed cannot be engaged. So inside the small red circle a target traveling 180km/h (50m/s) would be safe... but the small size of the circle means it had better be manouverable to keep inside that circle. The blue circle is 100m/s which of course is 360km/h and the green line is 250m/s which is 900km/h, which is pretty fast at low level.

Question??
According to your explanation a Predator UCAV flying at 8km at 75m/s (max values) will fall under the blue curve..right? So because its speed is less than 100m/s upgraded Kornet WILL shoot it down?

I think they talk in article about numbers of launchers, not missiles. For every launcher they have to buy more missiles.

That is a good point. The other issue is that they are working on at least one new missile called Baikal and the Krisantema is also being worked on too so they will have options in this regard... especially when we consider they also have gun tube launched missiles for their MBTs and APCs. They also have the Hermes long range missiles too.

I agree, that army need more man portable Kornet launchers with standard 5,5 km range missiles for infantry units.

The new missile that has been revealed is the Kornet-EM. The Kornet-E is for export and the Kornet-EM is an upgraded version of the export version. With the European ATGMs the Trigat and the Trigat ER are two separate missiles, with the former being lighter and smaller and for man portable use or light helo use while the larger ER or extended range model is for vehicles and attack helos use.

Perhaps this new Kornet is not just an extended range version of the missile... perhaps it is the latest version of the missile so the domestic model Kornet is going to go out of production and the new Kornet-M model will replace it as the standard missile for both man portable and vehicle based system.

The existing launchers would need an upgrade of course, but it would expand the performance of existing and new systems and mean that fewer missile types would need to be made.

The added missile weight of 4 kgs is minimal really and lets face it even though they are man portable the sheer weight of the tripod and optics etc for the Kornet means some sort of vehicle is needed to achieve any decent level of mobility anyway even if it is dismounted for use.

BTW autotrackers have an enormous influence on performance in combat... greatly improving guidance accuracy as return fire does not effect the autotracker like it would a human operator.

About self propelled variant I hope they talk about specialized vehicle and not modernized BMPs, BMDs, etc. I hope they will modernize those vehicles with new FCS based on EO ball like Sphere-02 or similar for using new 10 km range missiles and to give capabilities to use them 360° horizontally and with higher elevation up to at least 60° to get capabilities, which they show in diagram.

Good idea.

Elevation would be important... it is interesting that Kornet-M could hit helicopters at 10km with the HE warhead version, which is even better performance than Igla-S, though the latter is truly fire and forget.

Personally I would like to see the EO ball plus MMW radar as used on the Krisantema so that both missiles could be options for the vehicle. Having one vehicle for Kornet and one for Krisantema is a bit of a waste. The point is that they are complimentary in that both use laser beam riding guidance. The Krisantema can also use MMW radar based command guidance, so in a sense both would be excellent weapons for Mi-28N and Ka-52 along with the heavier and larger Hermes.

I wonder how many Khrizantema ATGMs Russian MoD buy up to 2010 and how many they ordered for 2011 and next years. If they will buy around 500 Kornet SP based on BMP-3 chassis and around 500 Khrizanthemas, than they will have quite capable anti-tank component of ground forces, specially if they will be integrated with C4ISR and work with UAVs.

The main problem of course will be that in 2015 they will want Kurganets-25 and Kangaroo based systems, so money spent now on systems based on vehicles like BMP-3 might be better spent elsewhere.

I personally think as part of the new AK-200 program they might introduce some new 5.45mm ammo that is perhaps more powerful and more accurate and I think perhaps they might spend more money on new ammo rather than new vehicles between now and 2015, though buying some would make sense just to get the companies working and making products.

Question??
According to your explanation a Predator UCAV flying at 8km at 75m/s (max values) will fall under the blue curve..right? So because its speed is less than 100m/s upgraded Kornet WILL shoot it down?

The problem is the width of the envelope at that height. The Kornet would need to be directly under the flight path of the UAV and fire at exactly the right time.

...of course driving the Kornet-EM vehicle to the top of a hill 3,000m above sea level and 8,000m is only 5,000m up and looking at the curve you can engage targets 8km away in any direction, which means the ability to hit UAVs within a circle 16km across.

Mounting the missile in your own small UAV will only improve its performance even further...

It would be an excellent weapon for a UAV because it has good range and comes in anti armour and HE versions and there is no wire being dragged behind the missile.

At 34kgs it is relatively small and compact and being supersonic they will not hear it coming.

The problem is the width of the envelope at that height. The Kornet would need to be directly under the flight path of the UAV and fire at exactly the right time.

GarryB i sincerely don't see this problem of engagement footprint in the chart produced by KBP for Kornet-EM - which, we must always remeber, is an export version of the same weapon for Russian Army ,almost surely with parametrical capabilities much higher-


http://kbptula.ru/eng/kbp/news/news015.htm

An MQ-1 Predator cruise at around 130 Km/h or about 36 m/s ;therefore MQ-1,the most common UAV in western Air Forces today,would fall amply within the wider function in the graph (50 m/s is 180 Km/h,significantly higher than the cruise speed of Predator).
A weapon with capabilities like Kornet-EM, above all in its not-export model,would truly be a game changer for any Army capable to induce it in any significant number and virtually capable to render obsolete entire categories of weapons now at the center of well established CAP/SEAD/OCA tactics.
The same precious assets used now for the vital reconnaisance/target designation tasks (foundamental in net-working warfare) could be engaged and easily neutralized by pratically any segment of Ground Force's branchs,disnounted infantry, mechanized brigades, scout squads , anti-tanks teams or vehicles and not only the AD assets assigned at theirs protection.
An MQ-1 passing above an hill could be engaged, virtually without any EW countermeasure possible,and very easily destroyed in a matter of seconds, by a Kornet-EM's tripod hided among the trees and remotely controlled by an operator(therefore with zero IR signature !) capable to collimate autonomously the beam to the MQ-1 , all of that from a range greater than that of a missile like Hellfire and with a time for a fire solution significantly lower than it.

Just today the news have sadly reminded to us how even the most outdated RPG in the hands of not regular troops can cause enormous damages if an opportunity for a fire solution is offered against "sensible" air targets, image what would happen with a system virtually present anywhere capable ,even in its export version, to be remotely controlled ,to auto track its target ,equiped with a proximity sensor ,with a "punch" immensely greater and over 20 times the engagement range....

GarryB i sincerely don't see this problem of engagement footprint in the chart produced by KBP for Kornet-EM - which, we must always remeber, is an export version of the same weapon for Russian Army ,almost surely with parametrical capabilities much higher-

I would suspect that they might have started resuming the practice of reduced performance export models, which, if it is the case then a range for the Kornet-M could perhaps be 12km with a lofted flight trajectory. This could use the same missiles as exported but with a more sophisticated guidance using a lofted flight profile.

This would involve the auto tracker, having determined the range to the target with a laser range finder automatically tracking the target but instead of directing the laser beam the missile rides to the target at the target or perhaps 5m above the target to make it fly clear of any ground obstructions on the way to the target could direct the beam to 45 degrees so the missile gains a lot of height. The velocity and drag etc of the missile is known so the climbing missile will fly more efficiently in the thinner colder air which should extend range while also directing the laser beam away from the tracked target so it will be unaware it is being attacked.
When the missile has travelled closer to the target the beam can be lowered on to the target and the missile will dive down onto the target.

The extra height will have two advantages... extending the flight range of the missile, and also not alerting the target to the attack by having a laser beam pointed at it for the entire engagement period. An added advantage will be that the missile coming in at 45 degrees or so will reduce the effectiveness of sloped armour because sloped armour is designed to increase the amount of armour that needs to be penetrated from a horizontal hit. A hit from a steep angle however will reduce that angle... for instance the hull area around the driver on an Abrams looks to be about 45 degrees and with a direct shot from a gun would require the projectile to penetrate about 20-30 percent more armour than if the armour was vertical. A missile coming in from long range at an angle of 45 degrees however will have no extra armour to penetrate.

This would mean that one type of missile could be made for domestic and export use. Of course there might be other changes like exotic charge liners to improve penetration that you might not want on an export missile, so in the end you might want to make separate missiles.

An MQ-1 Predator cruise at around 130 Km/h or about 36 m/s ;therefore MQ-1,the most common UAV in w... <snip>

Very true, agree with your comments, though I hate the term game changer.
A cheap light missile that can engage UAVs would be quite a development and this seems to qualify. The fact that it can also be used against armour makes it even more flexible, and its ability to hit relatively fast moving low flying targets further enhances its value on the modern battlefield. Even if UAVs start flying above the flight envelope of this system it will make them less useful and more expensive... you need a high quality camera to clearly see targets 10km distant... in some urban environments with smog that is not possible, so forcing UAVs to operate that high limits their performance in that if they can't see 10km because of a lack of zoom capability then it wont see anything including things directly beneath it at 10km altitude.

The missile is not fire and forget in the traditional sense, but with the auto tracker and beam riding guidance it should be very accurate. (note the CEP for the Vikhr which used laser beam riding guidance with an optical auto tracker was 80cm at 8km.)

Just today the news have sadly reminded to us how even the most outdated RPG in the hands of not regular troops can cause enormous damages if an opportunity for a fire solution is offered against "sensible" air targets, image what would happen with a system virtually present anywhere capable ,even in its export version, to be remotely controlled ,to auto track its target ,equiped with a proximity sensor ,with a "punch" immensely greater and over 20 times the engagement range....

The fact that this model of Kornet is designed to engage relatively fast moving targets means the threat to helos is significant. ATGMs offer standoff distance and precision.
The US has led the cause for extreme restrictions on MANPADS, I rather suspect they will want this sort of systems seriously restricted in use for fairly obvious reasons... having to look for threats up to 10km from your convoy route that could deliver a HE payload large enough to take out armoured trucks would make their operations around the various places impossible. How quickly will those Apaches arrive to an attack on a convoy and how long will they stay in the air on arrival...

I wonder why new missile is slower than standard one. The max. speed of new missile is 320 m/s, while max. speed for standard missile is 550 m/s. If standard missile need 10 s to reach target on 5,5 km distance, new missile will need more than half minute to reach target on 10 km distance. I hope domestic missiles will have the same speed 550 m/s as standard missiles to reduce flight time and with that time for counter reactions.

Maybe Russians don't want to have too quick export missile if it falls in wrong hands. In that case escorting air defense systems could have enough time to shot missile down before reaching target. The only problem of Kornet comparing to Spike or Javelin is, that Kornet is still way faster and fly low, while Javelin and Spike fly even slower and high, so they are easier for escorting air defense to shot down. Systems like Tor-M2 or Pantsir or Strelets with Igla-S missiles will only increase their value in protecting ground forces. Shilka and Tunguska could also do that job with modernized FCS. On the other hand West is reducing and abandoning their air defense units.

The extra height will have two advantages... extending the flight range of the missile, and also not alerting the target to the attack by having a laser beam pointed at it for the entire engagement period.

Already today Kornet,used by a proficient operator, don't offer to its target any chance of warning to be illuminated fro two reasons:

1) Laser beam riding weapons,even those of the first generation, employ a laser signal about 100 times less powerful than the minimum employed by laser range finders which modern laser warning receiver are designed to track (a Kornet-E employ a laser beam 230 times less powerful ! ).

https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/bitstream/1826/1047/1/thesis_v1.pdf

The motivation for that is that for this type of missile guidance is not necessary for the seeker to receive a dispersed component of the reradiating beam coming fromthe from the target at several km of distance but only a signal for measure the difformity angle from the actual vector and that,virtually,render also physically impossible to employ any type of "soft countermeasures" against a similar weapon (that is the reason for which KBP declare Kornet a weapon "jam-free").


2)Already today a proficient operator mantain the laser beam above the target before collimate at the last seconds of the flight . That has the purpose not only to avoid any physical obstruction,fixed or momentary, interposed between the fire point and the intended target,but also to eventually change the aim point to another target at the last moment or coordinate two Kornet-E shooted from different positions to hit pratically at the same moment (to overcome some type active defence systems)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1sPHnsWX3w

The advanced automatic guidance added to Kornet-EM (without any significant increase of the cost) would simply render tasks now requiring a training for absolutely out of the average for the typical Army's operator of international buyer of similar weapons an elementary routine and,like previously explained, the fire position would be totally undetectable for TV contrast and IR tracking systems; that element alone would open infinite possibilities for aimed ambushs,tactical choke points, traps nad false-traps.
A pair of scout vehicles on an insulated road could have only the purpose to attract and destroy the UAVs present in the area from fire points placed in much forward positions, a pair of elusive snipers could be a simply a bait to lure an armoured squad or some CAS attack helicopter/aircraft in the area to be attacked from a close hill or from the 4th floor of a building 1,5 km far etc...etc... all of that with systems remotely controlled.

The US has led the cause for extreme restrictions on MANPADS, I rather suspect they will want this sort of systems seriously restricted in use for fairly obvious reasons... having to look for threats up to 10km from your convoy route that could deliver a HE payload large enough to take out armoured trucks would make their operations around the various places impossible.

I agree perfectly with you. We all remember what impact obtained 14.... fourteen.....launchers of Kornet-E in the hands of Hezbollah five years ago and the reaction of foreign minister of Israel with Russia about the possible penetration of those.... 14 launchers... from a batch provided to Syria in 1998 .

"The only problem of Kornet comparing to Spike or Javelin is, that Kornet is still way faster and fly low, while Javelin and Spike fly even slower and high, so they are easier for escorting air defense to shot down."

No Medo, the only problem is that Spike and Javelin leave the operator well within the engagement range of enemy MBT's HE-Frag gun ammunitions,HE guided missiles equiped on IFV, APC, infantry mortars and ....the same ATGM (with thermobaric warhead) of enemy anti-tanks squads.
FGM-148 "Javelin" ,at example,is a system designed to substitute M-47 "Dragon", which leave the operator within the engagement range of Tank mounted machine guns,and was mainly conceived for urban warfare (it was designed for an eventual Baghdad's battle in mind),ambush tactics in choke point and similaria ,while the standard ATGM of USA Army remain BGM-71 TOW just for the crucial range parameter.
(read,in particualr F-4 section and the note linked)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-94/appf.htm

Attempt therefore to use weapons like FGM-148 or Spike-MR ,designed for specific roles -urban warfare,ambush from low LOS positions ,choke point control etc..- for CONOPS or tactical tasks of weapons in totally different categories would only conduct to operators squads of those weapons reduced litterally to mincemeat from large stand-off range by pratically 90 % of modern brigade level weaponry without any chance of counterfire.

Picture of new Kornet-EM in time of testings.

No Medo, the only problem is that Spike and Javelin leave the operator well within the engagement range of enemy MBT's HE-Frag gun ammunitions,HE guided missiles equiped on IFV, APC, infantry mortars and ....the same ATGM (with thermobaric warhead) of enemy anti-tanks squads.
FGM-148 "Javelin" ,at example,is a system designed to substitute M-47 "Dragon", which leave the operator within the engagement range of Tank mounted machine guns,and was mainly conceived for urban warfare (it was designed for an eventual Baghdad's battle in mind),ambush tactics in choke point and similaria ,while the standard ATGM of USA Army remain BGM-71 TOW just for the crucial range parameter.
(read,in particualr F-4 section and the note linked)

[quote]

Javelin or Spike high profile of flying make them easier for artillery radars to detect them and locate ATGM teams and then systems like TOS could effectively deal with them. But I'm talking about the point of view of escorting air defense. Kornet fly fast and low, so air defense have short time to react and they could very difficultly engage Kornet missiles not shooting in backs of their own tanks and infantry, which is in front of them. Contrary low and high flying Javelin and Spike give air defense more time to react and could easily fire on them because they fire in higher elevation and will not hit their own infantry and tanks in back. Also active protecting systems on tanks, like Iron Feast or Arena could easier deal with slow ATGM than with faster ATGMs.

+
----
-I wonder why new missile is slower than standard one. The max. speed of new missile is 320 m/s, while max. speed for standard missile is 550 m/s. If standard missile need 10 s to reach target on 5,5 km distance, new missile will need more than half minute to reach target on 10 km distance. I hope domestic missiles will have the same speed 550 m/s as standard missiles to reduce flight time and with that time for counter reactions.

I rather suspect that the new missile would have an average speed of 320km/h, so a small increase in power for the rocket motor with a 550m/s average speed over 5km and 320m/s average speed over 10km.
My guess of course, but they doubled the range and increased the armour penetration by up to 200mm, and only increased the missile weight by about 4kgs.

The only problem of Kornet comparing to Spike or Javelin is, that Kornet is still way faster and fly low, while Javelin and Spike fly even slower and high, so they are easier for escorting air defense to shot down. Systems like Tor-M2 or Pantsir or Strelets with Igla-S missiles will only increase their value in protecting ground forces. Shilka and Tunguska could also do that job with modernized FCS. On the other hand West is reducing and abandoning their air defense units.

Are there any western air defence systems that operate with armoured forces that can detect and track and engage a target as small as Kornet?

Certainly the Russian systems have been tested against such threats.

Already today Kornet,used by a proficient operator, don't offer to its target any chance of warning to be illuminated fro two reasons:

Yes, I already knew that, but laser light is not like normal light and even in low radiated levels there is a potential that the target might realise they are being attacked. Extra range means extra time and when attacking someone the last thing you want to do is give them a warning and plenty of time to react.
The power of the laser beam riding weapons is very low and having laser sensors that can detect that level of emission would actually be a pain in the backside, because every vehicle has a laser rangefinder and laser splash or reflections from laser rangefinders are more likely to set of laser warning sensors if they are set to detect the low power beams of beam riding missiles.

2)Already today a proficient operator mantain the laser beam above the target before collimate at the last seconds of the flight .

The Vikhr system uses an automatic system to fly the missile about 10m above the line of sight to avoid stuff on the ground like bushes etc. It would not surprise me if the Kornet already did the same. With the autotracker on the new Kornet you couldn't do it manually, but the system could be altered to do it if it doesn't already do it.

The ballistics of the missile would be known so it could work out the approximate range the missile has travelled at a specific time so it could work out when to drop the beam onto the target when the missile is within 500m or so.

Contrary low and high flying Javelin and Spike give air defense more time to react and could easily fire on them because they fire in higher elevation and will not hit their own infantry and tanks in back. Also active protecting systems on tanks, like Iron Feast or Arena could easier deal with slow ATGM than with faster ATGMs.

Quite true. The Malyutka (AT-3) is a slow wire guided ATGM that was used as a drone target for testing Igla MANPADS. They removed the warhad and fitted a flare dispensor in its place to try to distract the SAM.

Of 9 AT-3s fired 5 were shot down with standard Igla missiles. The other 4 got very close but Igla doesn't have a proximity fuse to engage small targets so if it doesn't make contact then it doesn't get a kill.

The result was the Igla-S with a proximity fuse. Kornet also has a proximity fuse for aerial targets so it could possibly be used to defend Russian Armoured units from Javelins and Spikes...

The Vikhr system uses an automatic system to fly the missile about 10m above the line of sight to avoid stuff on the ground like bushes etc. It would not surprise me if the Kornet already did the same.

GarryB please see the video i have pointed previously from minute 7:51

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1sPHnsWX3w

it clearly show like point the laser beam above the target for collimation at the very last moments of the engagement is a capability that even the export version, Kornet-E, possess from day one.

Of 9 AT-3s fired 5 were shot down with standard Igla missiles. The other 4 got very close but Igla doesn't have a proximity fuse to engage small targets so if it doesn't make contact then it doesn't get a kill.

The result was the Igla-S with a proximity fuse. Kornet also has a proximity fuse for aerial targets so it could possibly be used to defend Russian Armoured units from Javelins and Spikes...

True, but as i have pointed out (with precise reference to the same FGM-148 operative manual) the problem is not with what weapon you can counter an attack with Javelin or Spike -simply because in a full scale war that could almost exclusively happen only in ambushs and choke point attcks - but in which way the squads equiped with similar weapons could avoid to be litterally massacrated ,without any chance of retaliation, by pratically any segment of opposing ground forces from some kilometers outside theirs maximum engagement range.
Not a modern MBT (at least someone equiped with HE-Frag rounds,or even worse,an Ainet remote-detonation system) but even only an IFV,like BMP-3 ,could engage safely from large stand-off range a similar squad with pratically any of its main weapons : from the 2A72 autocannon to Arkan guided missile to its HE-Frag rounds
Observe from minute 4:35 of this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjJzvwPLb84

i truly wouldn't never be an FGM-148 or Spike-MR operator forced ,in a full scale war, in any tactical situation except an ambush on an urban combat,to confront a proficient enemy equiped even only with export versions of those weapons...it would be the most stupid and useless way to die in a war.

Are there any western air defence systems that operate with armoured forces that can detect and track and engage a target as small as Kornet?

Western ground forces air defense systems are mostly based on Stinger MANPAD like US Avanger, German Ozelot or Dutch Fennek SWP, British Stormer HVM with Starstreak MANPAD and French Aspic with Mistral MANPAD. I think stinger and Mistral are capable to lock on small targets as Javelin or Spike, while Starstreak is SACLOS missile. After financial and debt crisis and defense budget cuts, air defense units will also go through reductions. Kornet could be a problem for MANPADs, because it fly low and MANPADs have some limitations with its low or negative elevation, because missile could fall from the launcher tube, because tube must be open, that IR homing head in missile could see and lock on target. SACLOS air defense missiles and AA guns don't have those problems.

In my personal opinion the best defense against ATGMs like Spike and Javelin and also low flying Kornets are AA guns with modern radar and EO FCS. They could not only shot down ATGM, but immediately after that they could fire on ATGM crew and inside 2 km range rain of 30 mm gun rounds could be very deadly and this is one of the rules for BMPT. Even in urban battlefield Javelin need visual contact with target to lock missile on it and in that case rapid fire from AA guns could be still deadly for ATGM team.

it clearly show like point the laser beam above the target for collimation at the very last moments of the engagement is a capability that even the export version, Kornet-E, possess from day one.

First of all let me say I don't speak or read Russian.

Second point to keep in mind the portion of the video you are highlighting is an animation rather than an actual missile launch.

Of the many launches shown none seem to me to have the missile fly any great distance above the line of sight.

Now as I have already said the Vikhr ATGM is known to do this with the same guidance method, so I am not saying it can't or it doesn't do this.

What I am saying is that it might be an option for launches but it doesn't do this all the time.

The critical initial information it would need to do this would be the range to the target. Once it knows this information then it will know how long it will take the missile to get to this range and also therefore when to drop the laser beam the missile is riding down to the line of sight.

i truly wouldn't never be an FGM-148 or Spike-MR operator forced ,in a full scale war, in any tactical situation except an ambush on an urban combat,to confront a proficient enemy equiped even only with export versions of those weapons...it would be the most stupid and useless way to die in a war.

I disagree.
A weapon is only as good as the tactics employed.

If the Javelin is useless because its range is only 2.5km then Metis-M1 is also useless because its range is 2km. The RPG... whether it is 7 or 29 or a disposable 27 or 28 is not useless either.
Very simply unless the battlefield is a flat open and empty desert there will always be opportunities to attack enemy forces in conventional and unconventional situations.

Many people look at Javelin as some sort of super weapon simply because it is fire and forget.
In reality it is a gold plated replacement for Dragon.
In those terms it is a huge step up... partially because Dragon was rubbish.

But even a state of the art high tech military force will not be able to control the ground in a 1,000m radius of all its forces let alone 2.5 times that.

Once the attacker has opened fire and revealed its position then it comes under attack, but in the case of Spike and Javelin they can leave as soon as they fire their weapons which minimises the risk they take.

Ambush 101 is to find a position with a good view of the enemy, but with covered escape routes.

Personally I am not really interested in comparing Russian systems with American systems in conventional war contexts simply because if Russian forces ever have to deal with American forces with Javelin then the odd tank being lost or the odd Javelin team being taken out is not really relevant as the final decision will be at the strategic nuke level... and everyone loses.

It is far more likely to look at these systems in terms of what a guerilla could do with them in an insurgency, or what US forces use them for in an insurgency.

Currently British forces using Javelin have been using them for their precision to hit point targets at long range. Return fire in such cases is non existent so they could just as easily be using Milan or indeed Metis-M1 because operationally the expensive fire and forget capability doesn't matter when you are firing at enemy sniper positions or machine gun nests, or a Toyota.

They could probably save a fortune by buying the HE warhead equipped METIS-M1 systems.

Considering most of the targets they use Javelin on at the moment are not armoured vehicles they will likely be firing the Javelins in manual mode anyway.

Of course politics will prohibit them from making a sensible economic choice.

I think stinger and Mistral are capable to lock on small targets as Javelin or Spike, while Starstreak is SACLOS missile.

In my personal opinion the best defense against ATGMs like Spike and Javelin and also low flying Kornets are AA guns with modern radar and EO FCS. They could not only shot down ATGM, but immediately after that they could fire on ATGM crew and inside 2 km range rain of 30 mm gun rounds could be very deadly and this is one of the rules for BMPT. Even in urban battlefield Javelin need visual contact with target to lock missile on it and in that case rapid fire from AA guns could be still deadly for ATGM team.

The problem with these systems... and the Igla for that matter is that they need preparation before they can be fired... the seekers need to be cooled which takes a few seconds.
You are not going to get much warning of an ATGM attack so I think shooting them down with anything other than fully automatic systems like APS will always be problematic.
I also think using APS is a more efficient way of dealing with such threats.

It would probably be better to focus on IR camouflage plus of course IR and optical jamming for Javelin and Spike, as well as smoke and active countermeasures like ARENA too.

BTW

With modern thermal sights and fire control systems the Kliver turret suddenly seems very interesting with 4 ready to launch Kornet missiles and a 2A72 30mm cannon it could be used against air and ground targets, yet it is small and light enough to be mounted in all sorts of armoured vehicles.

The problem with these systems... and the Igla for that matter is that they need preparation before they can be fired... the seekers need to be cooled which takes a few seconds.
You are not going to get much warning of an ATGM attack so I think shooting them down with anything other than fully automatic systems like APS will always be problematic.
I also think using APS is a more efficient way of dealing with such threats.

It would probably be better to focus on IR camouflage plus of course IR and optical jamming for Javelin and Spike, as well as smoke and active countermeasures like ARENA too.

Of course camouflage and active and passive protection is very important in this day, actually it is a must.

Talking about air defense, it is important to know few points. If you are in war, air defense is active 24/7 from first to the last day. What means you are not moving your systems down like in a parade, but they are always up and ready. Attack could happened any time from anywhere. SAM and AAA systems will always have at least one radar on, data links on, system will work and missiles will be ready to fire anytime. When attack happened you have just few seconds to react, lock target and launch missiles or gun. Half a minute, how much Javelin or Spike need to fly for 2 km range is quite a lot of time for air defense. MANPADS are different, because you don't have your missile all the time on your shoulder ready to fire, but SP systems are in always ready, specially when you are in environment, where such kind of attacks could happened any time from anywhere. When armor unit is in such environment, radars are looking 360° and all eyes and sights will be looking in all directions, so when ATGM is launched, there will be a warning.

Of course Javelin and Spike as well as Kornet are good ATGMs, but ATGMs are part of helicopter armament and they are also on a list of air defense targets.

Certainly with vehicles like Pantsir-S1 able to engage up to 4 targets at one time unless the ambush is combined a significant air attack missiles like Javelin and Spike will be very vulnerable with their low flight speeds and high flight profiles in fire and forget modes.

With the improved visibility from Russian armoured vehicles with thermal sights and panoramic sights such surprise attacks will also become more difficult, but at the end of the day even on the steepest flight angle the Javelin is not a diving top attack missile.

The charts and diagrams and test fires I have seen show at most a 45 degree angle of attack which makes me think that if ARENA can't stop it then a small modification of the system would allow it to stop it.

The original design of ARENA was to launch the intercepting munition up in the air to detonate and fire intercepting fragments down into the ground so as not to put at risk accompanying infantry units. It would not take much modification to make it fire fragments straight up as well as straight down and increase the angles the sensors operate at to hit top attack weapons too.
The munitions are already lofted high enough to intercept Bill 2 type weapons that fly about a metre or so above the tank and detonate their warheads down onto the tanks roof.

The charts and diagrams and test fires I have seen show at most a 45 degree angle of attack which makes me think that if ARENA can't stop it then a small modification of the system would allow it to stop it.

The original design of ARENA was to launch the intercepting munition up in the air to detonate and fire intercepting fragments down into the ground so as not to put at risk accompanying infantry units. It would not take much modification to make it fire fragments straight up as well as straight down and increase the angles the sensors operate at to hit top attack weapons too.
The munitions are already lofted high enough to intercept Bill 2 type weapons that fly about a metre or so above the tank and detonate their warheads down onto the tanks roof.

Arena and Iron Fist are good active protection systems and maybe they need a small modification or maybe not, to deal with top attack ATGMs. Their base is radar, which cover 360° around tank. If tank is also equipped with RWS with 12,7 mm machine gun, than radar and RWS ballistic computer and FCS could be also connected, so tank could defend itself in higher elevations with fire of its 12,7 mm machine gun. If machine gun doesn't hit the missile, than Arena or Iron fist could still defend tank with its warheads.

Not all diving top attack weapons are as slow as Spike and Javelin.

Most laser guided artillery shells for example travel much faster and would be a very difficult target for your average 50 cal HMG.

Something similar to a claymore mine is probably the most effective hard kill system, but soft kill systems should not be ignored.

The thermal sight in the Javelin and the optical sensor in Spike are not high tech expensive models, they are relatively low quality cheap models.

The Russians have already deployed dazzling lasers to defeat optics, and they have already shown anti sniper hardware that detects the direction and trajectory and calibre of weapons fire.

It wouldn't take too much to incorporate a weapon sensor that uses sound and heat to detect incoming threats and assess them as being Javelins or sniper fire and sharing that info with the unit so the source of the sniper or missile fire can be shelled rapidly and that the target of the fire can be warned. Certainly something like a DIRCMs system could defeat the seeker on Spike or Javelin in their fire and forget modes.

GarryB wrote:Not all diving top attack weapons are as slow as Spike and Javelin.

Most laser guided artillery shells for example travel much faster and would be a very difficult target for your average 50 cal HMG.

Something similar to a claymore mine is probably the most effective hard kill system, but soft kill systems should not be ignored.

The thermal sight in the Javelin and the optical sensor in Spike are not high tech expensive models, they are relatively low quality cheap models.

The Russians have already deployed dazzling lasers to defeat optics, and they have already shown anti sniper hardware that detects the direction and trajectory and calibre of weapons fire.

It wouldn't take too much to incorporate a weapon sensor that uses sound and heat to detect incoming threats and assess them as being Javelins or sniper fire and sharing that info with the unit so the source of the sniper or missile fire can be shelled rapidly and that the target of the fire can be warned. Certainly something like a DIRCMs system could defeat the seeker on Spike or Javelin in their fire and forget modes.

Agree. How is Shtora IR jammer effective against Javelin or Spike IIR homing heads? Could it blind them as IR locator in SACLOS ATGMs?