Russian Army ATGM Thread

nemrod wrote:

George1 wrote:
both Khrizantema and Kornet are the most modern russian ground forces ATGM. I dont think that Kornet is for replacement

Normally, USSR each 10 years used to develop a new version of Anti Tank Missile. AT-3 Sagger -1963-, AT-5 Spandrel-1970-, AT-7 Saxhorn-1979-, AT-11-Middle of 80's-, and AT-14-end of 80's-. As Tanks's armor evolves, it is normal the anti-tanks missiles evolves too. I won't be surprised if Russia unveilles us a new anti-tank missile soon.

The AT-14 is nearly 25 years old. Isn't time for this wonderfull hardware to find a successor ?

^

No, because there is no tank on earth that can withstand a hit of this, the only further solutions for protection of tanks will be ERA and APS not more armor meaning the Kornet has not only alot of space for triple and quadroble Shaped charge to make 1200 to a 1600mm RHAe penetrator to counter ERA but also enough to redesign it to counter APS, by firing similiar decoy like RPG-30 does to counter APS.

Werewolf wrote:

nemrod wrote:

George1 wrote:
both Khrizantema and Kornet are the most modern russian ground forces ATGM. I dont think that Kornet is for replacement

Normally, USSR each 10 years used to develop a new version of Anti Tank Missile. AT-3 Sagger -1963-, AT-5 Spandrel-1970-, AT-7 Saxhorn-1979-, AT-11-Middle of 80's-, and AT-14-end of 80's-. As Tanks's armor evolves, it is normal the anti-tanks missiles evolves too. I won't be surprised if Russia unveilles us a new anti-tank missile soon.

The AT-14 is nearly 25 years old. Isn't time for this wonderfull hardware to find a successor ?

^

No, because there is no tank on earth that can withstand a hit of this, the only further solutions for protection of tanks will be ERA and APS not more armor meaning the Kornet has not only alot of space for triple and quadroble Shaped charge to make 1200 to a 1600mm RHAe penetrator to counter ERA but also enough to redesign it to counter APS, by firing similiar decoy like RPG-30 does to counter APS.

Don't forget the Kornet-EM is a greatly improved version with twice the range. 8.5km range HEAT missiles, and 10km range thermobaric missiles in the export variants even (domestic Kornet probably has greater range). Future Kornet's could increase the diameter of the missile to include greater amounts of propellant to increase the range further.

My question, who will replace the AT-14 Spriggan aka Kornet ?
The AT-15 Springer -aka Khrizantema-?

Neither will need replacement for a while yet.

They are both different strands of ATGM, the Kornet and Metis are infantry systems like Milan and HOT.

the western codenames would be AT-1, AT-3 as first generation ATGMs, with the replacements being AT-5 and AT-4 respectively, though the launcher for both the latter was unified so both missiles could be launched from the same launcher.

the next step was the Metis to replace the AT-4 as the light short range ATGM and the Kornet to replace the AT-5 as longer range ATGM.

Krisantema is a much bigger heavier weapon and evolved from the AT-2 command guided missile, then Shturm and then ATAKA, with the Krisantema evolving from the latter two.

The Metis is man portable and three men can carry a launcher and five missiles, where one man carries the launcher and a ready to fire missile and the other two men have two missiles each.

Light, cheap, portable, and effective to 2km

Kornet has missiles in the 30kg range, so is generally vehicle based, though it can be a light vehicle.

Krisantema on the other hand is more than 10kgs heavier in the 45kg range and like the kornet is not a wire dragger so is rather faster... over 400m/s.

The AT-14 is nearly 25 years old. Isn't time for this wonderfull hardware to find a successor ?

the Kornet-EM is brand new and increases effective range to 8.5km against armour and 10km against point target. Aiming and guidance has been greatly improved too... it is unlikely they will replace it any time soon.

I won't be surprised if Russia unveilles us a new anti-tank missile soon.

there is reportedly an ATGM version of Armata that has an open rear bay with packs of vertically launched missiles. The Russians have been working on fire and forget missiles with lock on after launch capabilities for stealth aircraft, certainly an ATGM with a MMW radar sensor and an IIR seeker chip in the nose could offer a low cost Brimstone like capability with inertial navigation getting the missile up into the air and flying a short distance and then diving on the area the target should be located... a MMW radar and IIR sensor should be able to detect a tank, work out where its engine is and therefore also its turret and hit it with a diving top attack warhead...

A tank should have the communications and battle management resources to engage such targets from reasonable distances.

remember a vehicle launched system wont have the limitations the javelin has, like weight restrictions that limit range and warhead size.

If they can reduce the costs of the seeker to make it cheap enough to use in large numbers it would be a very useful addition to the inventory.

It would also be a useful helicopter launched weapon.

Of course the ultimate heavy ATGM for helicopters will be HERMES.

GarryB wrote:

The AT-14 is nearly 25 years old. Isn't time for this wonderfull hardware to find a successor ?

the Kornet-EM is brand new and increases effective range to 8.5km against armour and 10km against point target. Aiming and guidance has been greatly improved too... it is unlikely they will replace it any time soon.

Garry, it's well known that both Kornet/EM as well as Pantsir-S1 are made by KBP Tula, wasn't there talk that Kornet-EM had even greater performance when it was integrated with Pantsir-S1's command post? What was the exact details of the performance parameters of such integration of systems?

Garry, it's well known that both Kornet/EM as well as Pantsir-S1 are made by KBP Tula,

KBP are also making HERMES...

wasn't there talk that Kornet-EM had even greater performance when it was integrated with Pantsir-S1's command post? What was the exact details of the performance parameters of such integration of systems?

I believe the improvements were against small targets like UAVs that would be hard to spot and track with Kornet-EM sighting system on its own, but the sensors fitted to Pantsir-S1 include CM and MM wave radar and long range IR sights that allow all weather day night detection and tracking with very high precision.

I don't know if the effective range was increased, but the range of targets was increased dramatically.

the same thing happens with MANPADS when a management system and sensors are added like Barnaul as small targets at the edge of the performance envelope of a MANPAD might not be heard or seen by the operator yet it is within the performance of the missile to reach it. Turrets like Gibka allow sensors to help the operator use the full range of the system.

I should point out that Metis-M1 and Kornet EM are excellent missiles that are effective and affordable and will be deployed in large numbers creating an effective shield for armour and infantry alike.

As mentioned above future growth potential for Kornet might include an increase in calibre to increase penetration (HEAT warheads benefit from width... Krisantema is a case in point).

I believe the improvements were against small targets like UAVs that would be hard to spot and track with Kornet-EM sighting system on its own, but the sensors fitted to Pantsir-S1 include CM and MM wave radar and long range IR sights that allow all weather day night detection and tracking with very high precision.

Mainly because all current russian AD systems that have an optical channel are all fitted with Okhotnik Image Processor that can autotrack/lockon targets and additional Radar painting and tracking makes it alot easier to point LBR weapons at smaller vehicles.

I've seen a video on yt about Panzir that it tracked target up to almost 20-30km optically, not sure what target it was maybe some of practise UAV's that are used constantly for AD.

And I've seen video of Pantsir ignoring small UAV camera like it's a fly. For a second it was catching it's movements in by optical sensors and it started to ignore it. They didn't get a lock on. It was that popular weapon show now with a fat bearded guy.

Thx all for your posts.
I edited my original message, in fact I mean Tank's protection instead of Tank's armor. For example, as you guess, I mean Tank's arena protection, or Trophy. Against AT-14, it seems these protections are not enough nowadays. But in the next future they will be more effectives. Then, it would be usefull, if AT-14, at least evolves.
In anyway, as usual for example Israelis again, and again are swaggering claiming their so-called Trophy -no more another shit - disabled 15 Kornet. I don't know why they didn'nt claim Trophy 4 disabled 150 Kornet, or 1.500 Kornet, and why not 1.500.000 Kornet. The problem, Wikipedia belongs Israelis defense propaganda minister.
At least their Trophy triumphed against Kornet in Wikipedia, they triumphed but Hamas is still in power, they triumphed but the Israelis were not able to penetrate more than 300 meters. They triumphed, but Israelis leaders at the first days of their Gaza offensives asked to Egypt's mediation for ceasefire. Well let's them fantasize again. Wikipedia is becoming a true shit.


I ask you, instead of anti tank missiles, minigun-20 mm at least-, or for example 40 mm chain gun isn't better than anti tanks ? Why for example a gatling canon of 30 mm, with 3.000 m/s as muzle velocity isn't enough ? 50 mm gatling cannon ?
Because the tanks' protections will evolve in the next future, and maybe the AT-14, or AT-15 won't be enough in the next decade. What do you think ?
You know better than me.

I've already explained there is by far simplier method to deal with APS systems by simply using RPG-30 decoys on Kornet with three decoys symmetrical alined on the warhead which are fired at 60-80m from tanks and set off the APS while the Missile hits the tank almost instant after APS reaction.

The thing is that until western forces adopt a force wide APS there is no point in developing countermeasures for systems that are not in wide spread service and may never enter wide spread service.

GarryB wrote:The thing is that until western forces adopt a force wide APS there is no point in developing countermeasures for systems that are not in wide spread service and may never enter wide spread service.

The suggestion was for future, instead of building always more complex, more powerful, more expensive ATGM's, simple solutions are the best choice, but yes you are right i doubt that western forces will come up with widely fielded APS systems in next 20-30 years.

Werewolf wrote:

GarryB wrote:The thing is that until western forces adopt a force wide APS there is no point in developing countermeasures for systems that are not in wide spread service and may never enter wide spread service.

The suggestion was for future, instead of building always more complex, more powerful, more expensive ATGM's, simple solutions are the best choice, but yes you are right i doubt that western forces will come up with widely fielded APS systems in next 20-30 years.

Indeed, nowadays US budget -crisis economic situation- for R&D gave priority to US air Force, after US Navy, and only the last US Army. It would be usefull to see if Israeli's R&D will do in next future, as Israel is no more a mere US military basis in Middle East, and most of the Israeli Budget has been comming from US. What will do the Trophy 4 in the next years, or in the next decade ?

Yes but waiting us make that APS would not mean russia in case of war must fast regain distance in weapons production? Isnt more easy to make today the changes that if you made far away in future would be too late? Except the fact that tomorow others weapons would be utile.

Werewolf wrote:

GarryB wrote:The thing is that until western forces adopt a force wide APS there is no point in developing countermeasures for systems that are not in wide spread service and may never enter wide spread service.

The suggestion was for future, instead of building always more complex, more powerful, more expensive ATGM's, simple solutions are the best choice, but yes you are right i doubt that western forces will come up with widely fielded APS systems in next 20-30 years.

that shows that usa army doesnt have in his doctrine battles between groups of armed men whit tanks. Seems that they put all on navy, aircraft, and tomahawk like missiles. And for lost troops they are going to more and more UAVs.

Werewolf wrote:
The suggestion was for future, instead of building always more complex, more powerful, more expensive ATGM's, simple solutions are the best choice, but yes you are right i doubt that western forces will come up with widely fielded APS systems in next 20-30 years.

some enterprising soldier could even use medium sized hobbyist drones, fit an EFP warhead below it, and fly above the APS protected vehicle, well above its APS' max engagement distance. and maybe if the programmers for the APS were real lousy, a drone with normal bomb could be flown to the turret top, free from worry about getting swatted by the APS because its not as fast as most munitions and it doesnt look like one.

AT Missile System “Khrisantema-S” to Work Up Practices at Russia Arms Expo

Minister of Industry and Trade of Russia Denis Manturov at the international military exhibition IDEX-2015 in Abu Dhabi presented the latest Russian anti-missile system “Khrisantema-S”; during the exhibition Russia Arms Expo 2015 in September the complex will work up combat firing, was reported in a press release of Industry and Trade Ministry on Tuesday.

“Khrisantema-S” performs a wide spectrum of combat functions for both armored targets, and for light armored vehicles and low-flying targets. We are keen to promote the capabilities of this machine. Here it is unfortunately not possible to conduct live fire, but everyone will be able to study it in action in the Nizhny Tagil exhibition Russia Arms Expo 2015,” the head of the Russian delegation at the Abu Dhabi exhibition Manturov said.

He noted that interest in the presentation of “Khrisantema-S” on the IDEX-2015 has been expressed by the Arab side. At the exhibition it was also presented the full-scale specimen of combat vehicle for unit commander.

The suggestion was for future, instead of building always more complex, more powerful, more expensive ATGM's, simple solutions are the best choice, but yes you are right i doubt that western forces will come up with widely fielded APS systems in next 20-30 years.

You misunderstand my point.

You can't counter something that doesn't exist yet.

To counter something you need to know how it works and then based on how it works work out some weakness that you can take advantage of to make the system ineffective.

For instance does it use radar detection. How long does it take to reset between engaging targets. how many targets can it engage at once or is it multi target capable?

There is no point in creating a jammer if you don't even know if it uses radar or what radar frequencies it uses.

And there is no point developing countermeasures for a system that is not in service...

GarryB wrote:

The suggestion was for future, instead of building always more complex, more powerful, more expensive ATGM's, simple solutions are the best choice, but yes you are right i doubt that western forces will come up with widely fielded APS systems in next 20-30 years.

You misunderstand my point.

You can't counter something that doesn't exist yet.

To counter something you need to know how it works and then based on how it works work out some weakness that you can take advantage of to make the system ineffective.

For instance does it use radar detection. How long does it take to reset between engaging targets. how many targets can it engage at once or is it multi target capable?

There is no point in creating a jammer if you don't even know if it uses radar or what radar frequencies it uses.

And there is no point developing countermeasures for a system that is not in service...

you can simulate how things would evolve in the enemy army based on long time observation of doctrine. In this you will know on which arms the enemy is focusing, you can yourself find the improves he search and find within years after the improves he make a solution to that improves. That would means you know exacly what he does. Lets ti k like this : you have a tank and enemy have a tank; you make a improve and you can SUPPOSE that the enemy one day will find that improve too; so you take advantage of your advance and find even a countermeasure to that improve;in this even the enemy find too that improve you will still have advantage.

But what if you are wrong... or worse if you are right and introduce a system that renders his APS useless... but he hasn't spent a cent to put it in service and he waits till you have your countermeasure in service and then puts into service an APS with a completely different design against which your countermeasure is useless...

Building a countermeasure before there is even a problem is stupid because if the enemy finds out about it they can learn about your countermeasure and design a system your countermeasure is useless against... they might even find a way of using your countermeasure against you...

the whole purpose of a counter measure is a measure that counters something that the enemy has that is limiting your forces ability to do something the way they want to do it.

If you make a bullet proof tank the obvious solution is to use heavier armour ammo that will penetrate the new armour, but armour is heavy and limits performance so you don't make your armour so heavy you can't move... you make it heavy enough to be effective and then you add things like ERA or NERA and APS systems to make the armour even more effective without adding too much weight.

If the enemy have a main tank gun that can penetrate 800mm of armour at 1,500m there is no need to make your armour 5 metres thick just because at some stage he might develop the capability to defeat that sort of armour.

If he hasn't got that sort of capability there are lots of other things you can spend your money on to improve than to improve your capability to defeat a defense system he does not have.

The point was that he would take the best option to evolve a weapon. Knowing this you might spent your money in strange methods of defence which he think you probably not use.
Also think that best solution he take is one against you actually existing models. So for sure he will adopte those. Its like you and him havingcars that race. You know for sure that you have more speed and because the track is linear he will sure try to improve speed (meaning he would try for sure one of this things: losing weight, add powerfull engine and fuel etc). Depending on time he spent making new weapons you can make yourself an idea upon his advance in tehnic. More simple: you know the solution is to loose weight; if he didnt yet maked a plane means that he doesnt know to make new materials.
Remember physics are a one way thinking. Mean like he doesnt have to make different solutions cause those logic are best for improve performance.
Agree you dont need to make a 5 meter long armour. But that means you too must stop thinking make armour big and oriented yourself to anything else.

What I am trying to get across is that in the battle of measure and countermeasure there is no point spending money developing a countermeasure that defeats a system your opponents don't adopt.

There is no point compromising the design of your anti armour weapons to penetrate defences that don't exist.

If the US adopted a new super material that will stop all penetrators that can penetrate up to 1.5m of armour then the focus of Russian designers who design anti armour equipment/weapons will be to defeat this new super material. The first thing they will do is try to get samples and learn a lot more about it, and then based on what they learn they will try to find ways of defeating it or bypassing it.

It might only be used in frontal armour structures because it is 500mm thick, which means diving top attack or turning side attack become things to look in to.

It might be that it is proof against current materials, but reacts with other materials violently so putting a core of material in your penetrator of a new material might reduce the effectiveness of this new armour.

The whole point is measure and counter measure... the new material might be too expensive to put in service so it is never fielded so the countermeasures might never be fielded either.

the point is that until the US adopts an APS that trying to defeat any APS makes little sense.

Israel and the Ukraine have their own APS systems... develop countermeasures to them instead of wasting time and money trying to defeat vapourware.

Self-propelled anti-tank systems "Kornet-E" will take part in a military parade on May 9 in Moscow

As the factory newspaper of "Arzamas Engineering Works" (part of "Military-Industrial Company" group of "Russian Machines") "Arzamas Machine Builder" in its issue of March 20, 2015 in the article "A critical challenge", this company has shipped the address of JSC "Instrument Design Bureau" (KBP Tula), five armored cars "Tiger-M" for the subsequent installation of the anti-tank (multifunction) guided missile complex "Kornet-E". Converted into a self-propelled anti-tank systems "Cornet-D" machines will take part in the Victory Parade on May 9, 2015 in Moscow. As it can be appreciated, the five made combat vehicles SPTRK "Kornet-E" are the first for the Russian Defense Ministry, and after the parade, these five cars will be given for the test program.

ATGM "Kornet-E" KBP design was first shown in 2011 and is a deep modernization of the "Cornet", using the upgraded missiles with increased range shooting - 9M133M-2 (tandem shaped-charge warhead, and range up to 8000 m) and 3-9M133FM (thermobaric warhead, and range up to 10,000 m).

In an embodiment, the placement on the armored car "Tiger-M" complex "Kornet-E" is equipped with two retractable quadruply launchers. Opportunity to engage aerial targets makes it possible to declare complex as "multifunctional" (as you can tell, this feature is designed primarily to attack helicopters and UAVs).

The export version of the complex "Kornet-E" is "Kornet-EM", which is the first customer in 2014 became Bahrain.

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/1238564.html

How would be that the militars that carry the ATGMs carry them in a simple cart? How is easier to carry: on shoulder or in a cart?
Also for safe of crew remote controled ATGM on tripod can be used. This would add eficiency to wired (and precise) ATGMs. More than that if the enemy see where you are when you fire a normal agtm can shoot at you then capture your device. At my kind of device the enemy would come to capture the agtm but from far you can defend them. More if you tie the agtm whit a rope you can retract the agtm to your location after shoot.

victor1985 wrote:How would be that the militars that carry the ATGMs carry them in a simple cart? How is easier to carry: on shoulder or in a cart?
Also for safe of crew remote controled ATGM on tripod can be used. This would add eficiency to wired (and precise) ATGMs. More than that if the enemy see where you are when you fire a normal agtm can shoot at you then capture your device. At my kind of device the enemy would come to capture the agtm but from far you can defend them. More if you tie the agtm whit a rope you can retract the agtm to your location after shoot.

im pretty sure all these measures are implemented already in some form or another- weapons designer people are pretty clever at what they do as do soldiers too . that being said, i think with advent of drones the infantry atgm team would be rendered obsolete. just have all them missiles in the back of a pickup in pods- have the drones guide em to the targets they spotted.

collegeboy16 wrote:

victor1985 wrote:How would be that the militars that carry the ATGMs carry them in a simple cart? How is easier to carry: on shoulder or in a cart?
Also for safe of crew remote controled ATGM on tripod can be used. This would add eficiency to wired (and precise) ATGMs. More than that if the enemy see where you are when you fire a normal agtm can shoot at you then capture your device. At my kind of device the enemy would come to capture the agtm but from far you can defend them. More if you tie the agtm whit a rope you can retract the agtm to your location after shoot.

im pretty sure all these measures are implemented already in some form or another- weapons designer people are pretty clever at what they do as do soldiers too .  that being said, i think with advent of drones the infantry atgm team would be rendered obsolete. just have all them missiles in the back of a pickup in pods- have the drones guide em to the targets they spotted.

I think more in the other direction.. that with the progress of *multipurpose* anti tank weapons.. and counter electronics jamming, and mobile anti air defenses , that to achieve air superiority will be next to impossible to achieve ,and people will be forced to fight on foot like in WW2 ,and Artillery as backup.. in modern warfare.

i have seen for example several reports of the pentagon made public about how the rebels have managed to neutralize the drones they provide to Kiev. Drones needs radio communications to be controlled.. and if IRAN is any indication ,they proof that counter electronic can jam even the most advanced stealth Drones that the US airforce have.

Kornet-E will be truly amazing for example , with up to 10km range ,it can be used against Tanks ,against soldiers ,against hellicopers ,against drones or against low flying planes.. all in one.. that bitch will be mass produced in the millions and sell like hotcakes..because basically you become a one man army . every jeep in the army can carry one or two.. and with 1300mm armor penetration ,after ERA ,it will cut like butter any modern tank no matter the zone it hit.

So tanks could become secondary in future wars.. and become more need for breaking fortified
positions mostly and not needed after all.. but you also have something about price.. it might be more cost effective to use a tank sabot shell ,than a $30,000 dollars missile. In that case a combination of T-72s escorted by Armata tanks in the rear to shield with its active defenses the tanks will do wonders.