Russian Army ATGM Thread

Would it be possible to integrate a millimeter wave radar seeker and an inertial navigation system on a modernized Metis-M while still retaining its 950mm armour penetration without adding too much weight? How much weight would a millimeter wave radar seeker and an inertial navigation system add to the Kornet or Metis-M?

Cyrus the great wrote:
Would it be possible to integrate a millimeter wave radar seeker on a modernized Metis-M while still retaining its 950mm armour penetration without adding too much weight? How much weight would a millimeter wave radar seeker add to the Kornet or Metis-M?

It's not needed for the Kornet, the laser beam-riding guidance is pretty damn great as it is, it's theoretically impossible to jam the guidance due to the fact that the coded-laser beam emitted is so weak (orders of magnitude weaker than a laser range finder's laser apparently) that it wont set off a AFV's PPS (passive protection system), and the guidance channels is on the backside of the missile, looking backwards at the launcher, while the propellant nozzles are set to the side of the missile, so the guidance channel will not be affected by the AFV's PPS laser dazzler, ECM suite even 'IF' (and that's a big if) it did trip the PPS.

As far as Metis-M goes, it's and unnecessary expense. Metis-M's biggest selling point is that it's the most 'cost-effective' ATGM in the world...it's several times cheaper than most ATGM's, while still maintaining high average penetration values (950 mm even in it's export version). Adding a MMW-seeker will end up either diminishing the size of the warhead (thus decreasing the penetration), and or reducing the amount of propellant, while simulatenously increasing costs and expense by a significant margin.

That's just a brief summary, someone like 'Werewolf', or 'GarryB' could do a better and more extensive, in-depth job explaining than I could.

Would it be possible to integrate a millimeter wave radar seeker and an inertial navigation system on a modernized Metis-M while still retaining its 950mm armour penetration without adding too much weight? How much weight would a millimeter wave radar seeker and an inertial navigation system add to the Kornet or Metis-M?

I would have to start by asking why?

The main selling point of Metis-M1 is that it is compact and small and light but very potent.

Probably the only upgrade I would apply to it would be to use a wireless direct link data link to replace the wire guidance. this would allow a significant increase in flight speed for the missile, and perhaps also an increase in range too... with perhaps a reduction in weight for the missile with no need to spool wire from the rear of the missile in flight.

Adding a MMW radar seeker would mean having to add MMW radar to the aiming post and serious hardware and software to translate MMW radar signals into something you can identify as a target... just like IR guidance means cold targets like tanks with their engines off early in the morning can't be locked, having MMW radar guidance means targets must have a distinct radar signature to engage.

In comparison the manual aiming of the Metis means anything you can see you can hit.

With Kornet the laser beam riding is ideal... it is cheap it is simple it is hard to detect and almost impossible to jam and it is accurate. With the current model using an autotracker it is practically a fire and forget system for the user. Being a large missile it would be better to use it from a vehicle platform, but a small unmanned platform could carry it too and it would be ideal for UCAV launch as there are no wires.

Very simply MMW radar guidance would make them very expensive and limit their ability to hit a range of targets without a manual guidance mode and the whole point of MMW radar guidance would be to make it fire and forget.

You can buy 20 Metis-M1s for the price of one Javelin Missile and each individual Metis missile is more powerful than Javelin. Similar range, better penetration, lighter and more mobile... would like to see three men carrying a Javelin launcher and 5 missiles...

GarryB wrote:

Would it be possible to integrate a millimeter wave radar seeker and an inertial navigation system on a modernized Metis-M while still retaining its 950mm armour penetration without adding too much weight? How much weight would a millimeter wave radar seeker and an inertial navigation system add to the Kornet or Metis-M?

I would have to start by asking why?

The main selling point of Metis-M1 is that it is compact and small and light but very potent.

Probably the only upgrade I would apply to it would be to use a wireless direct link data link to replace the wire guidance. this would allow a significant increase in flight speed for the missile, and perhaps also an increase in range too... with perhaps a reduction in weight for the missile with no need to spool wire from the rear of the missile in flight.

Adding a MMW radar seeker would mean having to add MMW radar to the aiming post and serious hardware and software to translate MMW radar signals into something you can identify as a target... just like IR guidance means cold targets like tanks with their engines off early in the morning can't be locked, having MMW radar guidance means targets must have a distinct radar signature to engage.

In comparison the manual aiming of the Metis means anything you can see you can hit.

With Kornet the laser beam riding is ideal... it is cheap it is simple it is hard to detect and almost impossible to jam and it is accurate. With the current model using an autotracker it is practically a fire and forget system for the user. Being a large missile it would be better to use it from a vehicle platform, but a small unmanned platform could carry it too and it would be ideal for UCAV launch as there are no wires.

Very simply MMW radar guidance would make them very expensive and limit their ability to hit a range of targets without a manual guidance mode and the whole point of MMW radar guidance would be to make it fire and forget.

You can buy 20 Metis-M1s for the price of one Javelin Missile and each individual Metis missile is more powerful than Javelin. Similar range, better penetration, lighter and more mobile... would like to see three men carrying a Javelin launcher and 5 missiles...

Don't forget the rest of the team. Stock Konkurs are still a viable alternative at a fraction of the cost.

well kornet is just bearly man-portable, you need pretty big guys ,bear-man , to tug around that thing.

magnumcromagnon wrote:It's not needed for the Kornet, the laser beam-riding guidance is pretty damn great as it is, it's theoretically impossible to jam the guidance due to the fact that the coded-laser beam emitted is so weak (orders of magnitude weaker than a laser range finder's laser apparently) that it wont set off a AFV's PPS (passive protection system), and the guidance channels is on the backside of the missile, looking backwards at the launcher, while the propellant nozzles are set to the side of the missile, so the guidance channel will not be affected by the AFV's PPS laser dazzler, ECM suite even 'IF' (and that's a big if) it did trip the PPS.

As far as Metis-M goes, it's and unnecessary expense. Metis-M's biggest selling point is that it's the most 'cost-effective' ATGM in the world...it's several times cheaper than most ATGM's, while still maintaining high average penetration values (950 mm even in it's export version). Adding a MMW-seeker will end up either diminishing the size of the warhead (thus decreasing the penetration), and or reducing the amount of propellant, while simulatenously increasing costs and expense by a significant margin.

That's just a brief summary, someone like 'Werewolf', or 'GarryB' could do a better and more extensive, in-depth job explaining than I could.

The Kornet-D -as it is- probably doesn't need any modifications. As you've already pointed out, it's virtually impossible to jam because its laser beam is 230 times weaker than a laser range finder and so won't set off warning systems.  I raised the question out of curiosity more than anything.

The Metis-M is an incredibly powerful, compact, light and portable system [and if upgraded] could remain in service for decades more; its wire guidance will snag over trees and power-lines and permits a very short range [2 km] - well within the engagement range of an MBT or IFV. If a MMW radar seeker is out of the question for reasons of cost, integrating the Kornet-D's guidance system onto the Metis-M and increasing its speed and range shouldn't be too expensive. If you could somehow increase the range and speed of the Metis-M to that of the earlier 9M133 Kornet while still retaining its portability credentials... you would have the best truly man portable ATGM in the world. Having the option to select between direct engagement [in which speed is maintained at 550ms] and lofted flight trajectory [in which speed is maintained at 270ms] would be incredible. The Kornet really isn't man portable and so an upgraded Metis-M could fill this role with ease.

Garry B wrote:I would have to start by asking why?

The main selling point of Metis-M1 is that it is compact and small and light but very potent.

Probably the only upgrade I would apply to it would be to use a wireless direct link data link to replace the wire guidance. this would allow a significant increase in flight speed for the missile, and perhaps also an increase in range too... with perhaps a reduction in weight for the missile with no need to spool wire from the rear of the missile in flight.

Adding a MMW radar seeker would mean having to add MMW radar to the aiming post and serious hardware and software to translate MMW radar signals into something you can identify as a target... just like IR guidance means cold targets like tanks with their engines off early in the morning can't be locked, having MMW radar guidance means targets must have a distinct radar signature to engage.

In comparison the manual aiming of the Metis means anything you can see you can hit.

With Kornet the laser beam riding is ideal... it is cheap it is simple it is hard to detect and almost impossible to jam and it is accurate. With the current model using an autotracker it is practically a fire and forget system for the user. Being a large missile it would be better to use it from a vehicle platform, but a small unmanned platform could carry it too and it would be ideal for UCAV launch as there are no wires.

Very simply MMW radar guidance would make them very expensive and limit their ability to hit a range of targets without a manual guidance mode and the whole point of MMW radar guidance would be to make it fire and forget.

You can buy 20 Metis-M1s for the price of one Javelin Missile and each individual Metis missile is more powerful than Javelin. Similar range, better penetration, lighter and more mobile... would like to see three men carrying a Javelin launcher and 5 missiles...

Integrating a MMW radar seeker and an inertial navigation system onto the Metis-M would make it more effective in the modern battlefield. 2 km is not enough and exposes your soldiers to unnecessary danger, which is precisely why I regard the similarly range Javelin as useless. I agree that adding a MMW radar by itself would be pointless for target acquisition, but if it's married to an inertial navigation system it would be incredibly effective; you could aim the missile at the direction of the target with the missile controlled by the inertial navigation system until the MMW seeker locks on for terminal guidance. There would no need for manual guidance and it would be truly fire and forget at long ranges. It would undoubtedly increase the cost by a significant margin, but shooting at MBTs from 2 km while having to maintain line of sight for the entire duration of the missile's flight would be far more costly in lives. In addition to the immeasurable value of human life itself, the financial costs of 'replacing' a trained soldier would be many times higher than upgrading the electronics on a missile.

I just don't know how much weight penalty an inertial navigation system and a MMW radar would incur in kg terms, but I hope that it wouldn't be too much. To increase their safety and effectiveness, ATGM teams could incorporate the use of small, tactical UAVs in their missions. The Israelis have demonstrated the benefits of using the Skylite B in ATGM missions; it allows for long range reconnaissance [42 km] for hours on end ', continuously track moving targets in real-time' and providing targeting coordinates to units in the field. The complementary C4I Tycoon system allows teams to share information and allocate targets.

Skylite B tactial UAV: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/98194/-skylite-b-uav-shortens-spike-missiles-firing-loop.html

Tycoon system. Source: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=77e_1200074741

Rmf wrote:well kornet is just bearly man-portable, you need pretty big guys ,bear-man , to tug around that thing.

Exactly. An upgraded Metis-M would do nicely in this regard. Imagine a truly man portable missile with an option for lofted trajectory, a fire and forget ability and a range of 5500m. It would be expensive, sure... but the cost differential would be in your favour. Taking out an 8 million dollar tank would financially sap the enemy more.

Anyone seen video that Houthi fighters released claiming they destroyed Saudi M1A2 with 9M113 Konkurs?

Militarov wrote:Anyone seen video that Houthi fighters released claiming they destroyed Saudi M1A2 with 9M113 Konkurs?

Their claim was immidiatley proven with them providing nice roasty footage of it.

Werewolf wrote:

Militarov wrote:Anyone seen video that Houthi fighters released claiming they destroyed Saudi M1A2 with 9M113 Konkurs?

Their claim was immidiatley proven  with them providing nice roasty footage of it.

Yeah, i would have posted it here but cant still post links . Someone should post it, its interesting for the topic, proves the point.

Sorry if this has been posted already on another thread...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2GR-g9777k
... but lordy me, that was beautiful. (Not the crew getting fried mind you, but that ammo rack!)
Houthis with Fagot(!) against a Saudi M1 (not sure if M1A2) were the death dealers.

well kornet is just bearly man-portable, you need pretty big guys ,bear-man , to tug around that thing.

Kornet is not light, but then 30mm grenade launchers and their ammo are not light either and the Russian army is fully mechanised.

All their IFVs pretty much carry ATGMs and they have dedicated missile vehicles like Kristantema and Tigr with Kornet, so the man portable models don't need to move that much. The man portable models would likely be positioned near a base as base security, while in combat the ATGM formations are generally part of the motor rifle units and have platforms to move them around the battlefield fairly quickly and easily.

The Metis-M is an incredibly powerful, compact, light and portable system [and if upgraded] could remain in service for decades more; its wire guidance will snag over trees and power-lines and permits a very short range [2 km] - well within the engagement range of an MBT or IFV.

the wire is released from the missile as it moves... with the launcher stationary there is no chance of "snagging" the wire... that would only happen with wire guided missiles fired from aircraft like TOW and HOT.

Konkurs is wire guided and has a range of about 4.5km.

Apart from limiting flight speed wire guidance is a good cheap method of guidance.

integrating the Kornet-D's guidance system onto the Metis-M and increasing its speed and range shouldn't be too expensive. If you could somehow increase the range and speed of the Metis-M to that of the earlier 9M133 Kornet while still retaining its portability credentials... you would have the best truly man portable ATGM in the world.

Metis is not supposed to be Kornet. What is wrong with having a small light portable ATGMs system like Metis? Adapting it to become a Kornet will increase weight and cost... it would be cheaper to just use Kornet.

Having the option to select between direct engagement [in which speed is maintained at 550ms] and lofted flight trajectory [in which speed is maintained at 270ms] would be incredible. The Kornet really isn't man portable and so an upgraded Metis-M could fill this role with ease.

You mean you want to turn Metis into Javelin?

Turn a cheap mass produced effective ATGM into an expensive piece of crap... why bother?

Integrating a MMW radar seeker and an inertial navigation system onto the Metis-M would make it more effective in the modern battlefield. 2 km is not enough and exposes your soldiers to unnecessary danger, which is precisely why I regard the similarly range Javelin as useless. I agree that adding a MMW radar by itself would be pointless for target acquisition, but if it's married to an inertial navigation system it would be incredibly effective; you could aim the missile at the direction of the target with the missile controlled by the inertial navigation system until the MMW seeker locks on for terminal guidance. There would no need for manual guidance and it would be truly fire and forget at long ranges. It would undoubtedly increase the cost by a significant margin, but shooting at MBTs from 2 km while having to maintain line of sight for the entire duration of the missile's flight would be far more costly in lives. In addition to the immeasurable value of human life itself, the financial costs of 'replacing' a trained soldier would be many times higher than upgrading the electronics on a missile.

You are missing the point... even if you have inertial guidance to get the missile near the target how do you tell the missile which radar return is the target?

It might get a strong MMW radar return signal from that M1A2 main battle tank, but that wall of the barn beside that tank might also appear to be a target... from your launch position how do you tell what the missile can see? How to identify the radar image of the tank or tanks in view and how do you tell the missile to engage the tank targets instead of the other flat targets that also return radar signals like that concrete slab that is a driveway or that civilian car parked on the side of the road?

With metis you look through the optics using thermal sights if you need to and identify the target before you fire but looking through optics or IR sensors wont tell you what a MMW radar sensor will see.

On Krisantema there is a radar and EO sights... you pretty much find the target and the MMW radar sends flight commands to the missile... more SARH than ARH... much cheaper and much more accurate.

Exactly. An upgraded Metis-M would do nicely in this regard. Imagine a truly man portable missile with an option for lofted trajectory, a fire and forget ability and a range of 5500m. It would be expensive, sure... but the cost differential would be in your favour. Taking out an 8 million dollar tank would financially sap the enemy more.

The problem with imagination is there are no limits.

Metis has a range of 2km because it weighs 13kgs (the missile that is). If you want a 5km range then you need a missile double that weight... which makes it a Kornet weight missile... so why not just use a Kornet?

The reality is that in a non guerilla war there wont be Milan and Metis teams wandering around the front line dealing to MBTs all over the place. they might be delivered by helo to an ambush point, but the vast majority of the time they will be part of a defensive structure that includes long range missiles and very short range rockets and everything in between.

In an urban environment a tank wont see an ATGM team 2km away... from a raised position the ATGM team might fire at an open boulevard 1km away or less and they might hit an enemy tank out in the open or they might not... the tank wont see the launch and wont know they are under attack till the missile impacts. In the noise and smoke and chaos of combat the tank crew are not going to turn the turret and fire a HE shell at the ATGM team before their missile even hits... that is hollywood BS.

GarryB wrote:

The problem with imagination is there are no limits.

Metis has a range of 2km because it weighs 13kgs (the missile that is). If you want a 5km range then you need a missile double that weight... which makes it a Kornet weight missile... so why not just use a Kornet?

The reality is that in a non guerilla war there wont be Milan and Metis teams wandering around the front line dealing to MBTs all over the place. they might be delivered by helo to an ambush point, but the vast majority of the time they will be part of a defensive structure that includes long range missiles and very short range rockets and everything in between.

In an urban environment a tank wont see an ATGM team 2km away... from a raised position the ATGM team might fire at an open boulevard 1km away or less and they might hit an enemy tank out in the open or they might not... the tank wont see the launch and wont know they are under attack till the missile impacts. In the noise and smoke and chaos of combat the tank crew are not going to turn the turret and fire a HE shell at the ATGM team before their missile even hits... that is hollywood BS.

See Yemeni ambushes for dramatization. Heavy armored units, standing at range, being fired upon not even noticing what hit them. Same for Merkava's the Trophy will track the close contact, and probable path, the turret turning is semi-automatic. On the commander's BMS there's a point which appears, which is the arc of fire. The sequence, targeting, PID and fire is entirely human and takes from 3sec to never is the TC doesn't PID a target. Well Israelis have one advantage they don't actually care what they fire at so there...

Garry B:

After reading your detailed post and thinking it all over, you are right... a modification entailing the incorporation of a MMW radar seeker on the Metis-M would be incredibly expensive and ineffective. I say this with sincerity - thank you for educating me and disabusing me of my ignorance on the matter.

Gary B wrote:Metis has a range of 2km because it weighs 13kgs (the missile that is). If you want a 5km range then you need a missile double that weight... which makes it a Kornet weight missile... so why not just use a Kornet?

I just love the portability,, layout and low profile of the Metis-M. In my opinion it has the best profile of any ATGM today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the Metis-M have a range of at least 4km without increasing weight just like the 9M113 Konkurs? The 9M113 Konkurs missile weighs only 14kg [and like you mentioned] has a max range of 4.5 km.  I realise that the Konkurs has a slightly weaker warhead, but the existence of light, long range missiles like the 9M113 Konkurs and Spike-LR would seem to suggest that you can increase range without increasing weight. The Spike-LR actually weighs a little less than the Metis-M.


With regard to Kornet-D, does its guidance system really achieve the fire and forget function? So when you aim at the target, the operator and guidance sight on the launcher doesn't then need to maintain sight of the target during flight, right? The missile's onboard auto-tracker apparently helps the Kornet-D to achieve fire and forget.

Cyrus the great wrote:Garry B:

After reading your detailed post and thinking it all over, you are right... a modification entailing the incorporation of a MMW radar seeker on the Metis-M would be incredibly expensive and ineffective. I say this with sincerity - thank you for educating me and disabusing me of my ignorance on the matter.

Gary B wrote:Metis has a range of 2km because it weighs 13kgs (the missile that is). If you want a 5km range then you need a missile double that weight... which makes it a Kornet weight missile... so why not just use a Kornet?

I just love the portability,, layout and low profile of the Metis-M. In my opinion it has the best profile of any ATGM today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the Metis-M have a range of at least 4km without increasing weight just like the 9M113 Konkurs? The 9M113 Konkurs missile weighs only 14kg [and like you mentioned] has a max range of 4.5 km.  I realise that the Konkurs has a slightly weaker warhead, but the existence of light, long range missiles like the 9M113 Konkurs and Spike-LR would seem to suggest that you can increase range without increasing weight. The Spike-LR actually weighs a little less than the Metis-M.


With regard to Kornet-D, does its guidance system really achieve the fire and forget function? So when you aim at the target, the operator and guidance sight on the launcher doesn't then need to maintain sight of the target during flight, right? The missile's onboard auto-tracker apparently helps the Kornet-D to achieve fire and forget.

Fire and Forget on KornetD is apparently done by automated target tracking of device itself, so its not real fire and forget but more like "operators fire and forget", you tag the target, you fire and you go for a smoke. Kornet D on other hand has two channels he can fire two in salvo and guide them same way due to basically double launcher existing on that platform. Those can be two different targets or same target.

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:Garry B:

After reading your detailed post and thinking it all over, you are right... a modification entailing the incorporation of a MMW radar seeker on the Metis-M would be incredibly expensive and ineffective. I say this with sincerity - thank you for educating me and disabusing me of my ignorance on the matter.

Gary B wrote:Metis has a range of 2km because it weighs 13kgs (the missile that is). If you want a 5km range then you need a missile double that weight... which makes it a Kornet weight missile... so why not just use a Kornet?

I just love the portability,, layout and low profile of the Metis-M. In my opinion it has the best profile of any ATGM today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the Metis-M have a range of at least 4km without increasing weight just like the 9M113 Konkurs? The 9M113 Konkurs missile weighs only 14kg [and like you mentioned] has a max range of 4.5 km.  I realise that the Konkurs has a slightly weaker warhead, but the existence of light, long range missiles like the 9M113 Konkurs and Spike-LR would seem to suggest that you can increase range without increasing weight. The Spike-LR actually weighs a little less than the Metis-M.


With regard to Kornet-D, does its guidance system really achieve the fire and forget function? So when you aim at the target, the operator and guidance sight on the launcher doesn't then need to maintain sight of the target during flight, right? The missile's onboard auto-tracker apparently helps the Kornet-D to achieve fire and forget.

Fire and Forget on KornetD is apparently done by automated target tracking of device itself, so its not real fire and forget but more like "operators fire and forget", you tag the target, you fire and you go for a smoke. Kornet D on other hand has two channels he can fire two in salvo and guide them same way due to basically double launcher existing on that platform. Those can be two different targets or same target.

It's the best 'kind' of 'fire-and-forget', because it's nearly impossible to jam with ECM....in comparison the other forms of 'fire-and-forget' can be jammed fairly easily and cheaply.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Militarov wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:Garry B:

After reading your detailed post and thinking it all over, you are right... a modification entailing the incorporation of a MMW radar seeker on the Metis-M would be incredibly expensive and ineffective. I say this with sincerity - thank you for educating me and disabusing me of my ignorance on the matter.

Gary B wrote:Metis has a range of 2km because it weighs 13kgs (the missile that is). If you want a 5km range then you need a missile double that weight... which makes it a Kornet weight missile... so why not just use a Kornet?

I just love the portability,, layout and low profile of the Metis-M. In my opinion it has the best profile of any ATGM today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the Metis-M have a range of at least 4km without increasing weight just like the 9M113 Konkurs? The 9M113 Konkurs missile weighs only 14kg [and like you mentioned] has a max range of 4.5 km.  I realise that the Konkurs has a slightly weaker warhead, but the existence of light, long range missiles like the 9M113 Konkurs and Spike-LR would seem to suggest that you can increase range without increasing weight. The Spike-LR actually weighs a little less than the Metis-M.


With regard to Kornet-D, does its guidance system really achieve the fire and forget function? So when you aim at the target, the operator and guidance sight on the launcher doesn't then need to maintain sight of the target during flight, right? The missile's onboard auto-tracker apparently helps the Kornet-D to achieve fire and forget.

Fire and Forget on KornetD is apparently done by automated target tracking of device itself, so its not real fire and forget but more like "operators fire and forget", you tag the target, you fire and you go for a smoke. Kornet D on other hand has two channels he can fire two in salvo and guide them same way due to basically double launcher existing on that platform. Those can be two different targets or same target.

It's the best 'kind' of 'fire-and-forget', because it's nearly impossible to jam with ECM....in comparison the other forms of 'fire-and-forget' can be jammed fairly easily and cheaply.

What i would appreciate about Kornet and Russian ATGMs of current generation is if they developed Top attack capability, i dont mind beam riding guidance or anything, however having Top attack as an option would greatly increase their capabilities. And making it top attack is not that much of an issue even small countries like Serbia have been working on it (private companies tho).

Militarov wrote:What i would appreciate about Kornet and Russian ATGMs of current generation is if they developed Top attack capability, i dont mind beam riding guidance or anything, however having Top attack as an option would greatly increase their capabilities. And making it top attack is not that much of an issue even small countries like Serbia have been working on it (private companies tho).

A top attack capability would be incredible. How insane would it be for a last generation ATGM like the Metis-M to be able to destroy tanks with ease? No tank could survive a 950mm penetration behind ERA on top of the turret, let alone 1300-1400mm in the case of the Kornet-D. Kornet-D with top-attack capability = absolute pulverization.

Cyrus the great wrote:

Militarov wrote:What i would appreciate about Kornet and Russian ATGMs of current generation is if they developed Top attack capability, i dont mind beam riding guidance or anything, however having Top attack as an option would greatly increase their capabilities. And making it top attack is not that much of an issue even small countries like Serbia have been working on it (private companies tho).

A top attack capability would be incredible. How insane would it be for a last generation ATGM like the Metis-M to be able to destroy tanks with ease? No tank could survive a 950mm penetration behind ERA on top of the turret, let alone 1300-1400mm in the case of the Kornet-D. Kornet-D with top-attack capability = absolute pulverization.  

Best part is that top attack should be switchable off and on depending on target, also that way they would be able to reduce size of the warhead abit too due to target envelope. Also what can be done, but from what i have seen electronic module in Kornet is quite bulky so its not an option atm till they deal with miniaturisation of electromechanical components, is that you can use dual guidance lets say keeping current beam riding and adding Infrared homing, Electro Optical or make modular warheads where seeker/guidance is applied on top of the warhead on the spot depending on situation. There is a million and 1 way to improve Russian ATGMs and it should be done its not THAT expencive.

Militarov wrote:
Best part is that top attack should be switchable off and on depending on target, also that way they would be able to reduce size of the warhead abit too due to target envelope. Also what can be done, but from what i have seen electronic module in Kornet is quite bulky so its not an option atm till they deal with miniaturisation of electromechanical components, is that you can use dual guidance lets say keeping current beam riding and adding Infrared homing, Electro Optical or make modular warheads where seeker/guidance is applied on top of the warhead on the spot depending on situation. There is a million and 1 way to improve Russian ATGMs and it should be done its not THAT expencive.

Those modifications would certainly make Russian ATGMs more versatile in their deployment. I agree that the Kornet is too heavy but I don't know if miniaturization of electro-mechanical components would actually result in a great deal of weight savings. This is why I think a modernization of the Metis-M would be best. The Spike-LR missile uses dual guidance, weighs only 13 kg, has a top-attack capability and has a max range of 4km. Those capabilities can certainly be achieved in the Metis-M, even if only for a variant in limited use by special forces and commandos. Dual guidance is the way to go in that it mitigates some of the inherent weaknesses of one mode of guidance.

Cyrus the great wrote:A top attack capability would be incredible. How insane would it be for a last generation ATGM like the Metis-M to be able to destroy tanks with ease? No tank could survive a 950mm penetration behind ERA on top of the turret, let alone 1300-1400mm in the case of the Kornet-D. Kornet-D with top-attack capability = absolute pulverization.  

A "Top-Attack" capability would do nothing good for the Kornet with its current warhead of 1200-1400mm RHAe penetration value. Those values are armor penetration, the top side of tanks has literally no armor, just enough to keep the missiles body and pressure of the HE part of the shaped charge outside of the tank, meaning it will not matter if you have a Top Attack Bazooka of WW2 with its 275mm RHAe or a Kornet-D with 1400mm RHAe, the penetrator will be formed will pierce the roof armor which is less than 40-70mm and with very little spalling enter the crew compartment, do little damage in a very narrow cone of shrapnels/spalling and the penetrator itself. If there is no one in this narrowed cone of spalling or in the way of the penetrator itself it will do much less damage than a Kornet-D penetrating frontal armor of any MBT and it will do so with ease. If you would use a Kornet-D as a Top attack weapon the only thing you would achieve with its powerful penetrator is to penetrate top armor, entire hull and 2 meters of ground beneath the tank. Good thing if you want to kill groundhoges, but complete resource waste for much lower effect than a frontal penetration.

The best thing i could think off as an cheap upgrade for Kornet is making it equal to Vikhr by adding proximity fuze to have better capability to engage infantry formations with HE-Frag warheads instead of searching Obstacles to slam the missile against to set it off. The problem with that is that the missile hits a wall or a car and the wall/car absorbs quite big junk of the fragments so weakening its maximal potential lethality.
There are different technologies how to make a proximity fuze, an expensive way with precision laser around the warhead, a very cheap one like a laser rangefinder measures distance, provides it to missile and missile measures its own speed and explodes when it reaches the distance, very easy method with good accuracy.

Werewolf wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:A top attack capability would be incredible. How insane would it be for a last generation ATGM like the Metis-M to be able to destroy tanks with ease? No tank could survive a 950mm penetration behind ERA on top of the turret, let alone 1300-1400mm in the case of the Kornet-D. Kornet-D with top-attack capability = absolute pulverization.  

A "Top-Attack" capability would do nothing good for the Kornet with its current warhead of 1200-1400mm RHAe penetration value. Those values are armor penetration, the top side of tanks has literally no armor, just enough to keep the missiles body and pressure of the HE part of the shaped charge outside of the tank, meaning it will not matter if you have a Top Attack Bazooka of WW2 with its 275mm RHAe or a Kornet-D with 1400mm RHAe, the penetrator will be formed will pierce the roof armor which is less than 40-70mm and with very little spalling enter the crew compartment, do little damage in a very narrow cone of shrapnels/spalling and the penetrator itself. If there is no one in this narrowed cone of spalling or in the way of the penetrator itself it will do much less damage than a Kornet-D penetrating frontal armor of any MBT and it will do so with ease. If you would use a Kornet-D as a Top attack weapon the only thing you would achieve with its powerful penetrator is to penetrate top armor, entire hull and 2 meters of ground beneath the tank. Good thing if you want to kill groundhoges, but complete resource waste for much lower effect than a frontal penetration.

The best thing i could think off as an cheap upgrade for Kornet is making it equal to Vikhr by adding proximity fuze to have better capability to engage infantry formations with HE-Frag warheads instead of searching Obstacles to slam the missile against to set it off. The problem with that is that the missile hits a wall or a car and the wall/car absorbs quite big junk of the fragments so weakening its maximal potential lethality.
There are different technologies how to make a proximity fuze, an expensive way with precision laser around the warhead, a very cheap one like a laser rangefinder measures distance, provides it to missile and missile measures its own speed and explodes when it reaches the distance, very easy method with good accuracy.

You can notice that i said "reduce warhead size", coz with top attack capabilities Kornet would be huge overkill, so reducing warhead size in terms of explosive charge would bring more space to put dual seeker for an example or reduce its cost, weight... Meanwhile as you said proximity fuse would be good idea for TB warheads especially so they get useful in open field too to strike digouts.

After reading your detailed post and thinking it all over, you are right... a modification entailing the incorporation of a MMW radar seeker on the Metis-M would be incredibly expensive and ineffective. I say this with sincerity - thank you for educating me and disabusing me of my ignorance on the matter.

If MMW radar technology improves and becomes cheaper and lighter perhaps some time in the future it might become an option... and we are all hear to learn new stuff...

I just love the portability,, layout and low profile of the Metis-M. In my opinion it has the best profile of any ATGM today. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't the Metis-M have a range of at least 4km without increasing weight just like the 9M113 Konkurs?

I suspect it would be possible, but without speeding up the missile I don't think I would want to remain in one position long enough for my missile to reach 4km. My priority would be to fire... get a kill and then move to a new position and fire again at a new target.

If I fire from the window of a building... anyone who can see the front of the building will see me. If I withdraw back into the room my field of fire is greatly narrowed but also the angles I can be seen from is also greatly reduced. Out at 2km away I should still be able to see perhaps 500m or more on either side of the target, which is more than the target will move in the time it takes my missile to hit him. but the number of enemy positions that can see me are greatly reduced making me rather safer from return fire.

The 9M113 Konkurs missile weighs only 14kg [and like you mentioned] has a max range of 4.5 km. I realise that the Konkurs has a slightly weaker warhead, but the existence of light, long range missiles like the 9M113 Konkurs and Spike-LR would seem to suggest that you can increase range without increasing weight. The Spike-LR actually weighs a little less than the Metis-M.

The original Metis (NATO AT-7) only had a range of 1.5km, while the Metis-M1 (AT-13) has a range of 2km... it might come as a shock but Metis entered service in the early 1980s and pretty much took over from the AT-4 as short range man portable ATGM, so it replaced the AT-4 and the AT-3.

To be honest I don't think it needs more range... if you use it properly it already performs the required role... and if Konkurs can kill an Abrams then Metis should be able to do it too.

With regard to Kornet-D, does its guidance system really achieve the fire and forget function? So when you aim at the target, the operator and guidance sight on the launcher doesn't then need to maintain sight of the target during flight, right? The missile's onboard auto-tracker apparently helps the Kornet-D to achieve fire and forget.

The new models have upgraded launchers and are pretty much like the Vikhr/Ka-50/Su-25TM combination where the crew selects the target and the missile is launched and the autotracker follows the target to impact with no further input from the operator.

You still have to keep the launcher pointed at the target, but no further guidance commands are needed and the operator does not need to keep the crosshairs on the target.

Fire and Forget on KornetD is apparently done by a...

Yes...

[qutoe]
It's the best 'kind' of 'fire-and-forget', because it's nearly impossible to jam with ECM....in comparison the other forms of 'fire-and-forget' can be jammed fairly easily and cheaply.[/quote]

And this is critical... replacing Kornets laser beam riding guidance with IIR makes each missile very very expensive, but because of the cost the IIR seeker in the missile, which will only be used once wont be a top of the line model they will be expensive but not that high performance... lots of videos of Javelin destroying targets... but rarely footage of the banks of hair dryers used to heat the target so the Javelin can actually get a lock. Without that lock, they are just command guided like Metis... but the are no cheaper.

In fact one of the cheapest defences from Javelin would be a light sheet of polished aluminium held by struts above the vehicle you are protecting... from the front the thin sheet would be invisible to the operator who would see the clear IR signature of the vehicle with its engine running, but when the Javelin is launched it will climb up and look down for its target and see the sky reflected in the sheet of al... no target, no lock... wasted expensive missile.

What i would appreciate about Kornet and Russian ATGMs of current generation is if they developed Top attack capability, i dont mind beam riding guidance or anything, however having Top attack as an option would greatly increase their capabilities. And making it top attack is not that much of an issue even small countries like Serbia have been working on it (private companies tho).

Top attack is tricky to get reliable, but offers the best solution for defeating enemy tanks.

Best part is that top attack should be switchable off and on depending on target, also that way they would be able to reduce size of the warhead abit too due to target envelope. Also what can be done, but from what i have seen electronic module in Kornet is quite bulky so its not an option atm till they deal with miniaturisation of electromechanical components, is that you can use dual guidance lets say keeping current beam riding and adding Infrared homing, Electro Optical or make modular warheads where seeker/guidance is applied on top of the warhead on the spot depending on situation. There is a million and 1 way to improve Russian ATGMs and it should be done its not THAT expencive.

The problem is that the current models are a good compromise in terms of performance range and cost. Adding terminal guidance will make the performance better in some situations, but it will add the ability of the enemy to defeat the missiles more easily, and greatly increase the cost of the systems.

Just look at Javelin again.... in many situations it can't be used in fire and forget mode simply because the target is a concrete wall, or the vehicle has its engine turned off... or the target is a room in a building, or a large mound of sandbags.

Remember despite being called ATGMs the vast majority are actually used against snipers and MGs and enemy firing points and even light aircraft.

Adding and IR seeker and I would add an IR dazzler and all that money you spent on improving your missile makes them more expensive but not more effective... you have effectively defeated yourself. Less missiles in the field because they are more expensive.

Beware gold plating...

Top attack is tricky to get reliable, but offers the best solution for defeating enemy tanks.

Well, nothing is always reliable, actually in Yugoslavian army brochures i says that 25% of all types of ammunition in war fails in some way.

The problem is that the current models are a good compromise in terms of performance range and cost. Adding terminal guidance will make the performance better in some situations, but it will add the ability of the enemy to defeat the missiles more easily, and greatly increase the cost of the systems.

Thats why my idea of having appliable modular guidance sensors on top of the warhead depending on target, launcher itself can be made to work with 2 types of guidance is not much of a fuss. Now imagine making 10.000 warheads for certain ATGM, and you make 2-3 types of seekers making naturally the most expencive and least used one to be built in some amount of 1-2k. That would be both fairly economical and would increase general performance of ATGMs. I am again saying this is just an idea, and if Russians do not make it, someone else will, there are alot smarter people than both me and you sitting somewhere in Darpa, Rheinmetall, Samsung, Rafale...

Just look at Javelin again.... in many situations it can't be used in fire and forget mode simply because the target is a concrete wall, or the vehicle has its engine turned off... or the target is a room in a building, or a large mound of sandbags.

I agree there with you, but ill say that Americans very often evade using disposable AT weapons aganist such targets coz they are scared of casualties. Matador AT even has switch mode that optimises fuse for use aganist walls, sandbags and fortifications. So they very often end up using Javelin on 900m range aganist non armored, and non fortified targets. There is video of them in Afganistan using Javelin aganist 3-5 Talibans on nearby hill and they had plenty of HMGs and grenade launchers around on vehicles.

Remember despite being called ATGMs the vast majority are actually used against snipers and MGs and enemy firing points and even light aircraft.

Well aware of that.

Adding and IR seeker and I would add an IR dazzler and all that money you spent on improving your missile makes them more expensive but not more effective... you have effectively defeated yourself.  Less missiles in the field because they are more expensive.

Beware gold plating...

Hey, if high enough numbers are being produced and if you make it simple enough it doesnt have to be very expencive. Americans tend to build things very complicated and overpriced, so dont judge instantly by looking at Javelin.