Russian Army ATGM Thread

victor1985 wrote:
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.

Im not sure if this will answer your questions..
But US defense Industry , i really think ,they design weapons ,based on their needs and probable wars..  Because US army will never be used against Russia in a conventional war ,and neither they have any plans to suicide and invade Russia or not even engage in a direct confrontation with Russia , then they have no need to create a new tank , the ones they have
will work for third world nations well.  All the show the americans do in Baltic states.. and ukraine ,what they seek is provoke Russia into attack either ukraine or their allies ,so that US can have excuse to pressure Europe into full economic blockade against Russia.

US military doctrine is achieve Air superiority first.. and after their enemy defenses destroyed and they have air superiority , invade with tanks with the backup of their airforce. ,why they don't develop much their Artillery forces and or missiles forces. because those are short range
weapons and they will never fight on equal terms.. ie. they will never do duels with artillery or tanks.. unless hey know is safe. ie.. like in IRAQ they fought at night with tanks , knowing IRAQUI army have no night vision. if the enemy have good air defenses ,then they will think twice sending their planes..   So i think US defense industry make their conventional weapons for fights in Middle east or Africa.. but not to fight CHina or India or Russia. because they will not do such a fight.. for fighting against Russia US wants to deploy an offensive missile wall (that they call "Anti ballistic Shield" )next to Russian borders that could be armed with nuclear warheads in no time.

Russia in the other hand needs to develop a Tank ,because contrary to US ,that do not share borders with enemies.. Russia have many enemies..at their borders. Ukraine ,baltic states and Poland. IF Mexico and Canada became for example close allies of Russia and Russia had military bases there.. and threatening them.. then they will need to invest a lot in land combat weapons ,including tanks and artillery .. just in case they face an armed insurrection ,that is supplied with weapons by Russia. All said.. US defense industry develop weapons , based on the conflicts
they expect to fight with conventional weapons. the only exception is weapons their defense industry is asked to develop for export..

As everyone has pointed out, COST is a big factor. Plus with the recent advances in EWS and ECMs i think a F&F missile might get knocked out of the sky or led off target rather easily. The Shrota (i might spell it wrong) is an active counter measure made to scramble weapons such as the Hellfire or the Javelin so to speak.

Plain old smoke dispersed with particulate metal fillings can sometime render such expensive technology useless. Whereas a SACLOS missile usually seals the deal. I cannot comment on how effective they actually are but thats what the manufacturers say.

I remember this one soldier in Novorossiya knocked out a tank in heavy fog with a Konkurs. How did he do that ? There was a lot of fog, you couldnt see what was what, the guy saw a flash in the distance and fired the Konkurs at the flash. No ID nothing. It hit a T64. This is from the Donetsk airport, if you want i can get you a source.

Russians have 9M123 Khrizantema which is a supersonic ATGM with 6KM range, 9K121 Vikhr with is a SALH which can be compared to the Hellfire but is entirely different. From wikipedia (. A series of non-imaging detectors face backwards from the missile toward the launch platform and guide the missile toward the centre of the laser beam (unlike semi-active laser seekers, which aim for a laser reflected off the target). This is much cheaper and also more resistant to countermeasures ) and the 9M120 Ataka (improvement of the Shturm) 6KM SACLOS [made famous by the BMP-T and Mi 28]. Russia even deploys ATGMs that can be fired from smoothbore guns of T72, 64, 90 tanks. This is just a few of the endless family of ATGMs used by Russia.

If you ask me, they have enough weapons that might not be analogous to what NATO offers but they follow a different approach.

Their solutions are often much more practical and result in similar performance in a package that can be deployed rapidly and widely.

A good example is the TOR and Tunguska/Pantsir SAMs... effectively the missiles are command guided, so they have no expensive sensors in the missiles... all the expensive stuff is in the launch platforms, so you can buy enormous numbers of missiles and actually use them in training without having to spend too much money. New missiles are cheap.

They had R-77 for some time and could easily have made those missiles ARH and also fire and forget, but that would have made each missile very expensive.

Even with weapons like Vikhr and Kornet the target tracking hardware is in the launch platform... the missiles just have a sensor that looks back at the launch platform to see where it is in the weak laser beam the launcher is pointing at the target... the missile senses its position in the beam and manouvers itself to the centre of the beam to hit the target.

Because the laser sensor is looking directly at the laser source the laser can be vastly less powerful than a laser target marker for a semi active laser homing missile like hellfire which has to travel all the way to the target and back to the missile seeker... for an 8km range shot that is 16km the laser beam has to travel and depending on the surface of the target... shiny or dull it might not detect the target at max range. In comparison the Vikhr just needs to see back to the launch platform... 10km at the very most and it is the laser it is looking at, not a reflection.

For the target even their own laser range finders reflecting off nearby things like trees or shrubs will generate a laser signal about as strong as the kornet and Vikhr guidance systems so any laser warning system will be useless... to be effective the target tank needs to pop smoke and move immediately, so at the start of an engagement it would make sense to get a UAV to fly over and start pointing a ranging laser at all the enemy vehicles it can find... this will give precise range and direction which together with its own known coordinates would allow the UAV to make all the enemy vehicles on a map and send that data back to HQ, but any vehicle with a laser warning system will start popping smoke and moving... keep doing that all day and they will run out of smoke grenades pretty quick... or they might get cagey and stop popping smoke... in which case you fire a Kornet and blow a vehicle up... then they will start popping smoke again... and when they stop... well you get the tactic... of course the smoke needs to block thermal imagers and IR lasers... if it doesn't the missiles will just fly right through and hit the target anyway....

If the missile is the Krisantema then they could be launched in laser beam riding mode and if the target pops smoke can revert to SARH mode with the MMW radar on the helo.

In fact the Krisantema is being accepted for use on the Shturm-Ataka ground vehicle without radar, so there is potential for the cooperation of a few ground vehicles and a few helos where the helos mark targets for the ground vehicles to fire at....

GarryB wrote:Their solutions are often much more practical and result in similar performance in a package that can be deployed rapidly and widely.

That is exactly what i had in mind. The fact that 2 Kornet EMs with the said auto-guidance mode can be put on a 4x4 Tigr that can engage 2 targets simultaneously gives their forces unmatched mobility. Tigr has a top speed of 140kmph, Kornet EM has a range of about 10kms, it makes for the perfect shoot and scoot weapon. You pop out of a street, and shoot. Then run to cover and repeat till your 16 missiles run out. All this, with 1 Tigr. Imagine an operational group.

I dont think the Krisantema will give the target time to pop smoke (unless we are talking about after it makes the first strike), its really fast and deadly effective. I imagine one of the launch vehicles slowly moving out towards approaching forces, the launcher pops up, and BAM, the target is blown up already. And the launch vehicle relocates. Apart from damaging the vehicles, this will shoot the morale to shit. Rinse and repeat.

I havent seen any humvee based hellfire systems being deployed by NATO, I have seen the TOW though. I might be simply misinformed, but what is the general consensus on such weapon systems ?

The best part is that such weapons are so effective in standalone scenarios, with just 1 unit deployed. If we take a combined scenario with such systems working together, the possibilities are endless.

I havent seen any humvee based hellfire systems being deployed by NATO, I have seen the TOW though. I might be simply misinformed, but what is the general consensus on such weapon systems ?

In a direct comparison the TOW looks to be the US equivalent of Kornet, yet its wire guidance means the launch platform must remain stationary during guidance to prevent the wires being snagged and broken during the engagement. More importantly most wire draggers fly at fairly low speeds... usually less than 200m/s while the Kornet travels almost twice the distance at twice the speed. ( TOW = 4km and old model Kornet = 5.5km, while new model Kornet-EM can kill tanks at 8km).

You can buy a Raspberry Pi for 30 bucks and that little board will have enough processing power to do things like track a target in real time and correct the course of the missile in parallel.

Designing it to military specs and giving it multiple redundancies, extra sturdiness and resistance to shock, and EM shielding will raise the cost but not by a lot.[/quote]

See the cost of the product comes from the production cost, testing cost (During R&D crazy amounts of cash goes into testing), margin, and a ton of other stuff like transpiration cost, training etc. You can make one from the Pi, no doubt but making the thing battlefield capable is a whole different story. Just imagine, making your own Pi, then making it suitable for what you want it to do, sensor cost, i mean its one thing to make a technology demonstrator or prototype but making a serial production model of anything for that matter is a different story altogether. People's salaries, improvements over time, the list is endless.

Sensors are a whole pandora's box themselves, its really not that easy.

Unfortunatley it is not cheap from the mentioned reasons above i have to add that this is still the MIC and is no conspiracy theory, but MIC are money hungry d***'s like all private companies and since they do have strong lobbies they get their money anyways.

Questions:
- Could AT-14 "Kornet" upgrade, jam this jammer laser ?
- Could AT-16 "Krisantena" overcome this jammer ?





Thx for your future responses.

Kornet is Laser Beam Rider, it is jam proof already. The Laser Beam Riding guidance has its guidance reciever on the backside of the Missile, facing towards its launching plattform, meaning it can not be fooled by softkill Shtora and alike.

Khrizantema is both MMW guided aswell Command guided it is also jam proof against Softkill APS which are based on optical jamming like Shtora or AN/VLQ-6.

I am not aware of any ATGM's that russia uses that could be jammed by such softkill systems.

Vann7 wrote:
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.

what makes you think people are any safer outside AFVs?

Vann7 wrote:
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.

not every drone can be controlled - if it was really 'hacked' and not just crashed albeit saved from a horrible one by its landing system unfortunately, then a simple patch to the comm. security system would suffice to keep the next drones out of enemy tampering.

Vann7 wrote:
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.

except that very capable stuff like the Kornet-E costs a really pretty penny. as in hundreds of thousands of dollars for a system, and are heavily regulated because they are very capable. no way it will proliferate like an RPG. and no it cant cut through the T-14, most likely.

Vann7 wrote:
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.

problem though is that current anti-armor weapons have horrible behind (modern) armor effects, shaped charge warheads even worse than apfsds.
doubly so, now that measures against fire and fuel blowing up are being used- you're going to need a handful of shots just to make sure you mission kill the tank reliably.

That missile is Milan.

There is an IR flare in its tail so when you look through the sight for the weapon you can see the position of the missile. More importantly inside the sight the gionometer can also see the flare from the Milan missile in its field of view and it compares the location of the missile with the location of the crosshairs and calculates the flight correction needed to get the missile down into the line of sight and keep it there till impact.

What this jammer does is confuse the gionometer into thinking the flash on the top of the turret is the flare on the missile so it sees the missile is too high and so it commands the missile to descend and keeps commanding the missile to descend because it seems to be staying up high on the turret.... the missile of course is likely aimed at the centre of mass of the tank so it will plunge into the ground guided by its own control system.

Ways to defeat it include a coded flare that means a modern sighting system will ignore any jamming signals.

Beam riding missiles like Vikhr, Kornet, Krisantema, etc don't even look at the target so the jammer would be ineffective.

The Shtora system used rather more powerful illuminators, so defeating jamming with coded flares or later LEDs simply wasn't effective... Shtora lamps were so bright it was like trying to look for a burning match in from of a searchlight beam. The missile control system would lose sight of the missile and not know where to guide it.

BTW that wasn't a laser jammer... a real laser jammer would detect the optics of the ATGM launcher and burn them out with an intensely bright flash... then it would likely have detected the camera filming the test and damaged that too...

what makes you think people are any safer outside AFVs?

Put people in a box if enemy weapons can easily penetrate then it is like walking in a bunched up group... you are just asking the enemy to fire HE rounds at you... or if one person steps on a mine you get more than one casualty...

except that very capable stuff like the Kornet-E costs a really pretty penny. as in hundreds of thousands of dollars for a system, and are heavily regulated because they are very capable.

Kornet is likely cheaper than Javelin... an optical sensor that can see a laser beam is cheap and simple with modern technology... for less than $50 you can get a 10 megapixel camera... you wouldn't need anything like that powerful for the job...

problem though is that current anti-armor weapons have horrible behind (modern) armor effects, shaped charge warheads even worse than apfsds.

If they don't hit fuel or ammo they are not devastating at all. Obviously they will kill or injure anyone they pass through, but other wise if they don't hit you they likely wont injure you at all.

Why do you think so many walk away from Abrams tanks when hit? Separating fuel and ammo from the crew compartment makes the vehicle much safer... but not totally safe of course.

GarryB wrote:
Put people in a box if enemy weapons can easily penetrate then it is like walking in a bunched up group... you are just asking the enemy to fire HE rounds at you... or if one person steps on a mine you get more than one casualty...

i can only think of urban and jungle environments as places where fighting on foot is advantageous than on a vehicle. and btw most AFVs are vulnerable to HE shells- doesnt stop them from going out there and kicking ass. best example would be in desert storm where the much hated (here) bradley massacred T-72s(altho they are just terribad ersatzes, mostly T-72s in name).

GarryB wrote:
Kornet is likely cheaper than Javelin... an optical sensor that can see a laser beam is cheap and simple with modern technology... for less than $50 you can get a 10 megapixel camera... you wouldn't need anything like that powerful for the job...

true, but its not about cost. flooding the market with very capable atgms that eat your backbone tank isnt very smart.

GarryB wrote:
If they don't hit fuel or ammo they are not devastating at all. Obviously they will kill or injure anyone they pass through, but other wise if they don't hit you they likely wont injure you at all.

Why do you think so many walk away from Abrams tanks when hit? Separating fuel and ammo from the crew compartment makes the vehicle much safer... but not totally safe of course.

whoops, what i meant by horrible is that its terribad- shitty has much nicer ring to it.

Belarusian company "Peleng" (Minsk) won the contract for the supply of thermal sights for the "Chrysantema-S". It replaces sights that were previously sourced from the Ukrainian company "Fotoprilad"

http://www.militaryparitet.com/ttp/data/ic_ttp/7973/

So Kornet-D1 is supersonic ?

http://tass.ru/en/opinions/793596

The self-propelled anti-tank rocket system Kornet-D1 carries supersonic anti-tank rockets. It can attack surface and air targets 5.5 kilometers away and pierce armour more than one metre thick.

No. it is not.
It is subsonic and can hit target at >8km range.
The guy who wrote this report was drunk...

KBP Instrument Design Bureau: Experiemetal Anti tank system 1993-2001
In the Tula Instrument Design Bureau in the mid-1990s, it was designed small portable third-generation ATGM "autonomy" with an infrared homing system type IIR (Imagine Infra-Red), also considering options with radar homing. This complex is actually an analogue of the US portable ATGM Javelin. In 1993 he was first given information on a range of "autonomy"

The complex of "autonomy" combines the best features of anti-tank grenade grenade with unmanageable - simplicity of design, high noise immunity, the implementation of the principle of "fire - forget" and guided anti-tank missile complexes - high probability of hitting, powerful warhead. The complex provides the defeat of tanks like a direct hit, and on top of the bay through the use of various types of combat units. The control system has a missile autopilot angular stabilization with high gas-jet control surfaces interacting with a supersonic flow booster engine. The complex of "autonomy" has been tested, but has not been brought to the level of mass production.

SPECIFICATIONS

Condition of listing in 1993, in 2001 was in development.

Warhead (option 1):
- Type tandem hollow
- Weight 5.2
Warhead (option 2):
- The type of the "shock core"
- Weight 8.5
Warhead (option 3):
- The type of high-explosive fragmentation
- Weight 8.5
Method of destruction:
- Options 1 and 3 direct hit
- Option 2 above on span

The control system and autonomous radar seeker or infrared seeker
Controls gas-jet rudders
Blank range, m 350
The average speed of the supersonic flight

The length of the assembled missile, mm:
- Option 1 1000-1050
- Option 2 and March 1250
Max. body diameter, 152 mm
Start Weight:
- Option 1 October
- Option 2 and March 15
Engine type SRM
The length of the WPK (option 1), 1100 mm
Mass of complex combat situation, kg:
- Option 1 14.5
- Option 2 and 3 19.5

Source - http://nevskii-bastion.ru/

Russia study IIR top attack

JohninMK wrote:Not sure if this is allowed here, if not can a mod please delete this post?

Some photos at Fortrus of two Kornets fired by IS claimed to be destroying two Abrams in Iraq. No after photo to prove it.

http://fortruss.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/kornet-vs-abrams.html

If any ATGM hits side armor of any tank without intereference of APS the tank is pierced from one to the other side, no need for confirmation there is just no armor to withstand even old ATGM's and for sure not a Kronet.

JohninMK wrote:Not sure if this is allowed here, if not can a mod please delete this post?

Some photos at Fortrus of two Kornets fired by IS claimed to be destroying two Abrams in Iraq. No after photo to prove it.

http://fortruss.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/kornet-vs-abrams.html

Iraqi army had Kornet in their inventory?

George1 wrote:

JohninMK wrote:Not sure if this is allowed here, if not can a mod please delete this post?

Some photos at Fortrus of two Kornets fired by IS claimed to be destroying two Abrams in Iraq. No after photo to prove it.

http://fortruss.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/kornet-vs-abrams.html

Iraqi army had Kornet in their inventory?

I doubt that.

JohninMK wrote:Not sure if this is allowed here, if not can a mod please delete this post?

Some photos at Fortrus of two Kornets fired by IS claimed to be destroying two Abrams in Iraq. No after photo to prove it.

http://fortruss.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/kornet-vs-abrams.html

It ok war is normal. look like kornet!

M1 bad day



Both side luv kornet