Russian Army ATGM Thread

GarryB wrote:

I did weapon intelligence in the British army from 1998 And I was taught and briefed on NATO designation etc and Soviet and Russian systems it was Saxhorn, and we were told metis was in service with VDV and special forces. And it was intended to replace fagot as it was deemed to be outdated for current armour mainly MBT. But of course Russia wasn't in a great State Bank in mid 1990's so I would imagine procurement was slow, and combining that with huge Soviet stocks then this would also slow up procurement of new systems.

The problem there is that western intel is not perfect and often they got things very very wrong simply because they always assumed the Soviets were basically the same as them.

They are not.

.

Actually Ur wrong. We never compared or saw them anything like us. They did slate various pieces of equipment and actually praised others. But also understood the economic impact on Russia after the break up of the Soviet Union. The Russians were way ahead of us in terms of air defence, amphibious warfare, thermobaric weapons especially hand held was a big worry, even BM-21 and totcka was deemed a dangerous threat especially the sheer number of BM-21 and us having no way to fully neutralise that threat. They saw the economic woes that Russia had at the time as a god send and chance for us to have some breathing space and a head start. They knew Russia was in no fit state for all out war and procurement and maintenance of such vast equipment numbers to unsustainable. They saw there intelligence network was now the biggest threat and selling of dangerous effective weapons to anyone as the biggest threat. I remember reading a report about intelligence services stop the sale of RPO to RIRA for around a few thousand £. Worried not just that sort of weapon being sold on black market but the fact Russians (most likely a corrupt officer sold on to criminal gangs, Mafia etc) were selling it cheaply.

I also remember the time we did war games and a major from USA Intel came and he played Russian commander for the exercise and he won he clearly knew the capabilities and best way to use them. Our Lt col was not happy hahaha I was laughing inside

@ d-taddei 2

The pictures you posted are very old promotional pictures.

Believe me, I like the Metis very much and would like it to be service. Unfortunately, the Russian Defense Ministry has not purchased it.

You and poster Hole are claiming that it is in widespread service with the VDV, please go ahead and show me a picture of those guys with a Metis. I would love to be proven wrong.

TheArmenian wrote:@ d-taddei 2

The pictures you posted are very old promotional pictures.

Believe me, I like the Metis very much and would like it to be service. Unfortunately, the Russian Defense Ministry has not purchased it.

You and poster Hole are claiming that it is in widespread service with the VDV, please go ahead and show me a picture  of those guys with a Metis. I would love to be proven wrong.

First off I doubt British and USA intelligence got it wrong.

Secondly why would Russia design a system such as metis and not use it. It's far better than fagot which is outdated. Or do you think they have removed it from service and decided to just use fagot instead. I do believe that many fagot are still in service most likely down sheer amount of ammo but I believe metis and metis m are in service as well. Fagot with its max 600 penetration compared to metis m 900+ and the system being better across the board that Russia snubbed it?

And in that link I provided in an article by KBP instrument design bureau it stated
"the Metis-M1 anti-tank missile system was adopted by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation." this was quoted as coming from the minister of defence.

And this taken direct from the ministry of Russian defence webpage, which shows its in service with Russian armed forces.

" Artillery formations of the Caspian Flotilla marine troops conducted a battery exercise with combat firing at the Adanak and Scorpion ranges in Dagestan.

More than 100 servicemen and about 40 military hardware, including self-propelled artillery weapons Nona, 100-mm antitank guns Rapira, antitank missile complexes Metis and Fagot, were involved in the exercise.

Besides, marines practised defence tasks on interdiction to landing forces of simulated enemy marine forces. "

https://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/country/more.htm?id=12142075@egNews

Actually Ur wrong. We never compared or saw them anything like us. They did slate various pieces of equipment and actually praised others.

Obviously I never had any military access to intel, but most of the publicly available information were based on open intel reports or intelligence.

Obviously such information was coloured by the provider... for instance many many years ago a firearm expert called Hogg published an article about the Stechkin machine pistol, which became the standard western description of the weapon... it was big and heavy and unwieldy its rate of fire was too high and its ammo too weak and all machine pistols are obsolete so it is really junk and the only reason they had a few token models was because of nostalgia for broom handle Mausers which were particularly popular in Russia before WWI.

That article/paragraph was repeated in every military magazine and weapons book published afterwards.

In the mid 1990s in Combat and Survival magazine a guy finally got the chance to test one and he thought it was fantastic. He said it is big and heavy.... but not as big and heavy as a 45 calibre colt pistol and it held 20 rounds of 9mm instead of 7 rounds of 45... The 9mm round it fired was not a hot loaded high energy round but it made the same 9mm hole that western pistol ammo did and three holes would do more damage than one .45 in hole would. He said that like any fully auto weapon the key is controlled bursts and in that way it is very similar to a very small SMG. It explained why Soviet teams kept using it... though not all departments had money for new gear, even those that did kept using some because its features were unique.

I realise the publicly released stuff was part of the propaganda war but pretty much anything negative was considered true and anything positive was Soviet Propaganda and there was always inuendo over anything proven to be good... AKs were reliable but not accurate and were basically copies of a German gun etc etc

I also remember the time we did war games and a major from USA Intel came and he played Russian commander for the exercise and he won he clearly knew the capabilities and best way to use them. Our Lt col was not happy hahaha I was laughing inside

Well then he is an idiot... such things should be about learning and improving for the real thing and not about winning and ego... it is like those Soldier of fortune magazine reports about logistics units in the US army that had women in them that did an A1 job... till the testing officer got suspicous at how easily some of the smaller women in the unit seemed to be handling large heavy boxes of ammo and equipment and he tried it himself only to find they were empty because none of the women in the unit could pick up full ones let alone carry them.

From not knowing it existed to being told by western sources that it was the cheap replacement for the Fagot... and now the suggestion that it might not have been so widely deployed as I thought... I don't care about being wrong, I just want the truth.

Even if the Metis was selected to replace all Fagot systems it could not replace the vehicle launched systems... which is BMP-1/2 and BRDM-2 mounts.

I recently came across a description of the Fagot and Konkurs on the BRDM-2 chassis where the loadout was described as either 15 Konkurs rockets (effectively HOT or TOW equivalents) or a mix of 10 Konkurs missiles and 10 smaller Fagot missiles. Now in a built up area an extra 5 missiles would be useful and the 2.5km range of Fagot is still rather good as many targets probably wouldn't be visible from much further away.

But on the BMP-2 and then retrofitted to what then became the BMP-1 the launcher was a dual launcher too so could use Konkurs or Fagot... but it would not make sense to use Metis in any of those situations.

The normal infantry carried Fagot system would be carried in the back of an MTLB most likely most of the time but for dedicated anti tank they had the BRDM-2... which has been largely replaced by the MTLB based Shturm/Ataka system... which is likely now in the process of being replaced by the very similar looking Krisantema on the same vehicle but of course with a radar antenna added.

I would think the Metis would make sense for special forces... VDV and Spetsnaz and Naval Spetsnaz.

The new model of Metis... the Metis-M2 or is it 3 has a range of 3km and I suspect it is a cross between Kornet/Bulat and Metis with no trailing wire so it can fly much faster and would become a much more sensible replacement for Fagot on obsolete vehicle and man portable mounts

KBP used to have a news page where they listed when their gear was introduced by the Russian military but I can't seem to find it... Russian military procurement is a very strange thing... the Makarov has been replaced several times yet you still see it everywhere... and things I have seen advertised for sale for decades were not in service in numbers... the Mi-28 and Ka-52 were good examples of that for a long time and they showed drones at airshows and displays all of the 90s and 2000s but it was only after 2008 that they actually started funding them and taking them beyond plastic mockups....

There is a balance between using cheap older missiles and missiles that are just too old... the Sagger and Swatter don't come in protective tubes and the Fagot and Konkurs are still very capable systems with upgraded components I would assume... a comparison between the two generations is significant improvements in terms of accuracy and cost and weights, so while they all could be upgraded to be useful the fagot and konkurs are better protected from the elements.

A comparison of Fagot and Metis is that metis is lighter and cheaper but has better range and the standardised mounts on BMPs are designed for it and not for metis. Both are wire guided and have similar flight speed and penetration most likely and both are in a protective tube...

I would believe they still use Fagot and Konkurs, but the new vehicle upgrades are basically eliminating the Konkurs and Fagot launcher for either Ataka or Kornet... so with the phasing out of such systems that might be what the new model Metis is for.... 3km range with the same laser beam riding guidance as Kornet.... so for Boomerang IFV crews with a 57mm high velocity gun and four Kornet-EM missiles and 8 Bulat short range missiles, perhaps the troops in the back will get a portable missile launcher that can fire the new 3km range manportable Metis-M2 or 3, but also launch any remaining Bulat or Kornet missiles too as a dis-mountable system...

I know you are asking why Metis-M2/3 if there is Bulat, but Bulat is for use against lighter targets that are moving so IFVs or drones so you don't need to waste Kornets which are needed for heavy targets. Metis-M2/3 is for heavy targets too... but out to 3km or so, while Bulat might reach 5-6km, and of course Kornet-EM reaches armoured targets at 8.5km.

First off I doubt British and USA intelligence got it wrong.

To be fair would not be the first time... most western sources would tell you that the Russians used 37mm gun mounted cannons for anti tank warfare during WWII, but the guns themselves were low velocity large HE rounds that were more often used against enemy bombers...

Secondly why would Russia design a system such as metis and not use it. It's far better than fagot which is outdated.

But Fagot is not outdated... with a thermal sight it is every bit as capable as Milan with a thermal sight... and it has better range than Metis... the first models of which are more comparable with Dragon III... would you replace Milan with Dragon? Dragon is lighter than Milan and more portable... and terrible. (not suggesting Metis is terrible but weight is not really an issue in a fully mechanised force but range is...)

I do believe that many fagot are still in service most likely down sheer amount of ammo but I believe metis and metis m are in service as well. Fagot with its max 600 penetration compared to metis m 900+ and the system being better across the board that Russia snubbed it?

But with the 1980s models compared side by side the Metis had a penetration very similar to Fagot... about 500mm, but a much shorter range. In the 1990s when the improved Metis with a 1,5km range and better penetration came into view there was no money for large scale replacement.

The Metis was not a cheap for export design... it was a simplify and reduce weight experiment intended for mobile warfare without vehicle support... more Spetsnaz than VDV (who have vehicles with Fagot/Konkurs launchers too). Because it was a very simple and very light weapon it is successful on the export market and a lot of its features found their way into other missiles, but I don't know that it was designed explicitly to replace fagot or even if it did.

More than 100 servicemen and about 40 military hardware, including self-propelled artillery weapons Nona, 100-mm antitank guns Rapira, antitank missile complexes Metis and Fagot, were involved in the exercise.

Nona is a VDV vehicle and use with marines means it could be old Naval Spetsnaz stocks of Metis and marines stocks of fagot were being used...

Metis is cheap and although the early models were short ranged the newer models have improved... but Fagot has a serious range advantage over Metis and is portable enough and is used as a vehicle weapon option together with Konkurs.

This needs more investigation I think..

As I said I dont believe it's in widespread use and most likely only being used by VDV spetznaz marines etc metis m has better penetration than even the most modern fagot. I didn't say fagot was useless it's still capable of taking out ifv apc etc bunkers and buildings also a good use for it as those don't move and fagot is cheaper to use against such targets. I think the older metis will most likely be phased out by metis m. Russia has been updating it's forces pretty good over the last decade so I wouldn't be surprised if it's brought more of metis m in. Fagot really isn't great at taking out modern MBT and although kornet is around it's more expensive than metis m.

Hopefully more information will come forward

As I said I dont believe it's in widespread use and most likely only being used by VDV spetznaz marines etc metis m has better penetration than even the most modern fagot.

But doesn't that immediately counter the western intel view that the cheap Metis replaced the Fagot in service in the Soviet Union and now Russia?

If Metis is only used by special forces because of its limited range, doesn't that make the claim that it didn't replace the Fagot in Soviet and Russian service an accurate statement too?

I think for most troops range is more important than penetration... I mean the idea for these things is to attack the sides or rear of tanks by using obstacles like minefields and natural barriers like bridges they can or cannot cross so that you can engage them from distance from the side or rear?

I didn't say fagot was useless it's still capable of taking out ifv apc etc bunkers and buildings also a good use for it as those don't move and fagot is cheaper to use against such targets.

On paper that sounds like perfect logic, but in practise they would need to carry both to have the option... I have never heard of a metis mount on any BRDM-2 or BMP but they do have Fagot and Konkurs mounts, so I suspect the problem will be solved with whichever weapon they have to hand... I also suspect the Fagot would actually be more expensive than the Metis... but that would be what they had.

I think the older metis will most likely be phased out by metis m.

I would suspect special forces have used up the old missiles in training because it was probably always only ever meant for special forces and was never made in numbers to equip all the ground forces. Ironically I would think it would be both cheaper and much quicker to produce but I suspect the lack of range counted against it.

Russia has been updating it's forces pretty good over the last decade so I wouldn't be surprised if it's brought more of metis m in. Fagot really isn't great at taking out modern MBT and although kornet is around it's more expensive than metis m.

Well to be fair, while the ground forces AT units wont likely have had Metis as an option... being BMP and BRDM-2 mobile they would have had Konkurs missiles there too so even in the mid 1980s they could reach to 4km and get 800mm of penetration which was in fact actually better performance than the US was getting from TOW at the time which was closer to 500mm than they like to admit.

I remember articles in Combat and Survival talking about 1m penetration performance from Milan so it wasn't just the Americans being loose with the truth...

The Milan used a standoff probe on its nose to improve penetration... Metis and Kornet use a rear mounted warhead and a front mounted precursor charge for the same effect...

GarryB wrote:

As I said I dont believe it's in widespread use and most likely only being used by VDV spetznaz marines etc metis m has better penetration than even the most modern fagot.

But doesn't that immediately counter the western intel view that the cheap Metis replaced the Fagot in service in the Soviet Union and now Russia?

If Metis is only used by special forces because of its limited range, doesn't that make the claim that it didn't replace the Fagot in Soviet and Russian service an accurate statement too?

I think for most troops range is more important than penetration... I mean the idea for these things is to attack the sides or rear of tanks by using obstacles like minefields and natural barriers like bridges they can or cannot cross so that you can engage them from distance from the side or rear?

I didn't say fagot was useless it's still capable of taking out ifv apc etc bunkers and buildings also a good use for it as those don't move and fagot is cheaper to use against such targets.

On paper that sounds like perfect logic, but in practise they would need to carry both to have the option... I have never heard of a metis mount on any BRDM-2 or BMP but they do have Fagot and Konkurs mounts, so I suspect the problem will be solved with whichever weapon they have to hand... I also suspect the Fagot would actually be more expensive than the Metis... but that would be what they had.

I think the older metis will most likely be phased out by metis m.

I would suspect special forces have used up the old missiles in training because it was probably always only ever meant for special forces and was never made in numbers to equip all the ground forces. Ironically I would think it would be both cheaper and much quicker to produce but I suspect the lack of range counted against it.

Russia has been updating it's forces pretty good over the last decade so I wouldn't be surprised if it's brought more of metis m in. Fagot really isn't great at taking out modern MBT and although kornet is around it's more expensive than metis m.

Well to be fair, while the ground forces AT units wont likely have had Metis as an option... being BMP and BRDM-2 mobile they would have had Konkurs missiles there too so even in the mid 1980s they could reach to 4km and get 800mm of penetration which was in fact actually better performance than the US was getting from TOW at the time which was closer to 500mm than they like to admit.

I remember articles in Combat and Survival talking about 1m penetration performance from Milan so it wasn't just the Americans being loose with the truth...

The Milan used a standoff probe on its nose to improve penetration... Metis and Kornet use a rear mounted warhead and a front mounted precursor charge for the same effect...

No it doesn't counteract it. Because of the dire state of armed forces and economic issues in 1998-99 up take of such systems was slow right across Russia for years. Intel stated metis was to replace fagot but VDV spetznaz marines etc would obviously get those first before forces sitting in the east etc. And in the late 90's Soviet stocks still on abundance slow it wasn't priority at the time to out roll on mass

GarryB wrote:
Thanks for the info... so you were in the Navy yes?

You weren't naval infantry were you?

Seems silly we have both been on this forum for so long and I never asked you before.

Yeah Navy, Northern Fleet

Not Naval Infantry (was offered it a couple times, probably should have accepted). Coastal forces/troops. So basically the navy's land-based personnel for coastal artillery, radio bases, supply bases, naval airforce bases - it all falls under the mandate of this sub-branch.

Heaviest thing we had was an RPK. No ATGMs unfortunately

No it doesn't counteract it. Because of the dire state of armed forces and economic issues in 1998-99 up take of such systems was slow right across Russia for years. Intel stated metis was to replace fagot but VDV spetznaz marines etc would obviously get those first before forces sitting in the east etc. And in the late 90's Soviet stocks still on abundance slow it wasn't priority at the time to out roll on mass

But Metis could have been produced all during the 1980s in large numbers because money was being spent then.

If the plan was to go with Metis over fagot then at least since 2008 when they started spending money on the military it would have been cheaper to eliminate the more expensive fagot and replace its production with the cheaper, if shorter ranged Metis... but they clearly have not.

The only logical reason for that is that it was never intended as a fagot replacement... the first Metis missiles are smaller lighter calibre weapons and there has been no effort put in to making the Metis launcher compatible with the fagot or Konkurs launcher either...

Heaviest thing we had was an RPK. No ATGMs unfortunately

I always had a soft spot for the RPK... as a shooter I like the longer barrels for their improved performance with the same ammo... just extra weight to carry around of course but still...

I remember reading in the late 1990s a website by a guy named Valary Shilin... or something like that who had a guns forum site and it included testing new 5.45mm ammo... one of which was armour piercing which when fired from an RPK-74 created a 3 shot group with centres 18mm apart at 300m... amazing.

BTW thanks to both of you for sharing you professional experience, I do appreciate it...

GarryB wrote:

No it doesn't counteract it. Because of the dire state of armed forces and economic issues in 1998-99 up take of such systems was slow right across Russia for years. Intel stated metis was to replace fagot but VDV spetznaz marines etc would obviously get those first before forces sitting in the east etc. And in the late 90's Soviet stocks still on abundance slow it wasn't priority at the time to out roll on mass

But Metis could have been produced all during the 1980s in large numbers because money was being spent then.

If the plan was to go with Metis over fagot then at least since 2008 when they started spending money on the military it would have been cheaper to eliminate the more expensive fagot and replace its production with the cheaper, if shorter ranged Metis... but they clearly have not.

The only logical reason for that is that it was never intended as a fagot replacement... the first Metis missiles are smaller lighter calibre weapons and there has been no effort put in to making the Metis launcher compatible with the fagot or Konkurs launcher either...

BTW thanks to both of you for sharing you professional experience, I do appreciate it...

Kornet was defacto replacement for konkurs but due to cost and not everything is going to be a modern MBT konkurs was kept. Metis was originally used by vdv etc but they improve the range issue with Metis m up to 2km. And the reason I believe and others was it didn't see wide spread use for a variety of reasons
1) sheer amount of fagot left in stock
2) economic woes
3) other priorities such as aircraft, AD systems, navy etc
4) they wanted to improve it further

On the last point they are still improving it to Metis M2 3km range. As you know over the decades Russia will sometimes procure small amount for testing and don't purchase huge amounts in til it is satisfied with it. Look how long it took to adopt BMPT while others were using it. My personal opinion is fagot will fade out and I admit it's taken longer than was originally expected as reasons above. Konkurs will be around for another decade or more to be honest when Metis came out in West it didn't raise many eyebrows sure it had on paper an impressive punch but short range. And we knew (another point for slow take up) we weren't going to be going head to head with Russia anytime soon. They were more worried about IRA, other Terror groups getting this equipment. Russia at that point they only threat they saw was it's intelligence network, geo politics/foreign policy, and it's influence over ex Soviet countries. To which the west's aim was to lose the Russian influence in those countries although they knew it would be very hard thing to do. And to be honest fast forward now only really Georgia and Ukraine have become hostile towards Russia and that was fairly recent in the grand scheme of things. Ultimately they want Afghan to explode over to those regions causing a problem for Russia in its back garden. I visited Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan including gorno badahkshan area a few years ago. it's not been the safest place for foreigners, due to extremists and Isis idealism brainwashing radicals. I remember reading road incident in Tajikistan where the driver ploughed into cyclists from various foreign countries and killed a few.

I have a YouTube channel dtads tads and over 7,000 of my travels on FB of my adventures abroad. Been kinda quiet over last few years as was living in Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda for sometime. Still got many places I want to visit.

Kornet was defacto replacement for konkurs but due to cost and not everything is going to be a modern MBT konkurs was kept.

Kornet didn't enter service till the late 1990s and can't really be compared to Metis in that regard.

During the 90s and 00s there wasn't a lot of money but then there wasn't a huge need to replace them either... it is not like they (Fagot and Konkurs) were expensive... the most expensive components were the thermal sights and they were part of the launcher or not, rather than in the head of the consumable like with Javelin. For the Russian Army having upgraded Konkurs and Fagots was fine... a light target at less than 2.5km and you used a Fagot, and out to 4.5km you used Konkurs. Their BRDM-2s in their anti tank battalions changed to Shturm/Atakas after the 80s, so really to be honest there was no urgent need for replacement.

Kornet is better than shturm or ataka but those missiles were not exactly cheap anyway... they were available in enormous numbers though...

With the other vehicle mounted systems using the modified Fagot/Konkurs launcher there was not really a reason to add a small lighter cheaper missile... Fagot and Konkurs could kill tanks as close as 80m so an RPG filled that gap...

The new vehicle upgrades of the old model vehicles have Kornet and Bulat.... it will be interesting to see if BMPT gets Kornet or Krisantema... and the brand new vehicles also seem to be getting Kornet and Bulat... and I suspect that means that the longer ranged model of the Metis family might remain special forces only because Bulat might be more portable but unable to take on MBTs from the front.

Metis was originally used by vdv etc but they improve the range issue with Metis m up to 2km. And the reason I believe and others was it didn't see wide spread use for a variety of reasons

It wasn't just the lack of range on the first model... the warhead was similar in performance to the old model Fagot too.

With the modification of Metis to 950mm penetration and 2km missile range I actually don't think it would be that much smaller and lighter than Fagot any more, and it certainly couldn't be launched from vehicle mounts either.

1) sheer amount of fagot left in stock
2) economic woes
3) other priorities such as aircraft, AD systems, navy etc
4) they wanted to improve it further

Number 1 very much so... especially when the performance of the Metis during most of that first decade was not better than Fagot anyway (similar pen and shorter range). Regarding economic woes, if it was better it was also cheaper so if for some strange reason they lost all their stocks of fagot and they needed to completely restock they probably could have gone with Metis but it wasn't better and they had existing stocks of a missile that did the job.

Regarding 4, they had the tool for the job and it was in production and cheap enough to have as many as they needed... there was no real reason for change.

On the last point they are still improving it to Metis M2 3km range.

Indeed but the opportunity has passed... the joint Fagot/Konkurs launchers on vehicles (BMP and BRDM-2) are being replaced and it appears by a Kornet/Bulat combination which is actually smarter than the old mount. The old mount had one missile and could take either the large or the small missile. The value of the small missile was in ATGM vehicles like the BRDM-2 where more missile could be carried if you loaded the smaller missiles too. For the BMPs perhaps you could carry an extra 2-3 missiles if you mixed the smaller missiles with the big ones. With the Kornet launcher you can carry twice as many small Bulat missiles for each Kornet missile... I rather suspect with some modification that the new 57mm gun turret with four external Kornet launchers and one retractable Bulat launcher with 8 missiles that you could replace those 8 Bulat missiles with 4 more Kornet missile tubes and teh same could be done on the Tigr with the two Kornet quad launchers... ie four Kornets or 8 Bulats.

If that is the case then the Metis basically becomes a man portable only missile, though the man portable version should be a single missile launcher and should also therefore be able to load and launch Bulat and Kornet depending on the mobility requirements and the targets likely to be encountered.

In some third world countries the best armour you might come up against could be a T-55 with sandbags on it... so you could carry a lot more Bulat missiles than Kornet ones.

As you know over the decades Russia will sometimes procure small amount for testing and don't purchase huge amounts in til it is satisfied with it. Look how long it took to adopt BMPT while others were using it.

The BMPT is a tricky one... with the Armata family of MBT level protected vehicles the IFV in the armata family with the troop section filled with extra ammo or fuel and the BMPT concept becomes a little redundant. Conversely a BMPT type vehicle would be a handy convoy escort or security vehicle or for use in situations where the enemy doesn't have armour and only infantry in which case a BMPT would be amazing as a firepower vehicle...

In theory an IFV or BMP is designed to fight everything but defend itself from tanks while nearby friendly tanks deal with the enemy tanks. It is designed to do that with onboard weapons and troops. The purpose of the BMPT is to do the same but without the troops simply because the conditions make exposed troops too vulnerable to enemy fire.

My personal opinion is fagot will fade out and I admit it's taken longer than was originally expected as reasons above. Konkurs will be around for another decade or more to be honest when Metis came out in West it didn't raise many eyebrows sure it had on paper an impressive punch but short range.

I think vehicle upgrades to replace the faggot/konkurs launchers with Kornet and Bulat launchers will render them obsolete rather quickly... I suspect Metis-M2/3 (the new 3km range one) will replace old metis fairly quickly, but as long as the launcher it not too huge that the dismountable launcher for armoured vehicles that will likely be intended for Bulat and Kornet... which are both laser beam riding... could also be made compatible with the new Metis missile.

Some brand new technology that makes tiny riflescopes able to have thermal cameras and GLONASS and wifi and laser range finders and target markers etc etc could lead to a launcher for Bulat and Metis and Kornet (over shorter distances) that might not be hugely different from the new RPO-M launcher... from the shoulder with Bulat... and on a tripod for new Metis and Kornet out to perhaps 4-5km (because of the thermal sights and systems in the reduced size launcher) while the vehicle mounted systems can engage targets to 10km for the HE equipped Kornet-EM and 8.5km for the anti armour model.

To which the west's aim was to lose the Russian influence in those countries although they knew it would be very hard thing to do.

What a short sighted thing to do... an isolated Russia is rather more likely to sell to anyone in desperation... everyone has to live... still it has resulted in a much stronger Russia and much more capable weapons...

And to be honest fast forward now only really Georgia and Ukraine have become hostile towards Russia and that was fairly recent in the grand scheme of things.

Yeah the irony is amusing... when they turn to the west for handouts being good little anti Russian poodles they say... no. But that it is Russias fault...

Ultimately they want Afghan to explode over to those regions causing a problem for Russia in its back garden. I visited Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan including gorno badahkshan area a few years ago. it's not been the safest place for foreigners, due to extremists and Isis idealism brainwashing radicals. I remember reading road incident in Tajikistan where the driver ploughed into cyclists from various foreign countries and killed a few.

Yeah... promote radicalism... that normally works so well... wasn't there a story of two women from europe... Scandinavia I think, that got run off the road in one of those places and decapitated on video... I am sure it is western intels finest hour...

I will never understand the west... they think helping head choppers in Syria and other places is a good counter to Russian influence.... as an independent observer on the other side of the planet (well not that independent living the western dream... right...) and I think what are you guys doing... you attack and sabotage and undermine democracy all around the world... you claim it is because Russia is a threat and Russia is dangerous... looks more like the west is the criminal actor to me... when they were poor you didn't even ignore them... Clinton used Yeltsen like a puppet and robbed the place mercilessly for a decade... I actually don't understand why they don't hate our guts... thanks to Trump they are coming around though.

I have a YouTube channel dtads tads and over 7,000 of my travels on FB of my adventures abroad. Been kinda quiet over last few years as was living in Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda for sometime. Still got many places I want to visit.

Did enjoy the weapon vid with the RPG... scary... would rather do that sort of thing in China or Russia on a proper army base...

@garryb I wasn't comparing kornet and metis lol. I said kornet was defacto a replacement for konkurs but as stated various reasons as why not fully replaced.

I think metis and metis m sort came along at the wrong time. Sure metis was good for VDV spetznaz marines etc but range an issue. And when metis m came along Russia didn't have huge amounts to spend on Armed Forces and still had loads of fagot in storage and had no plans of any conflicts of any kind. Chechnya they had enough weapons in storage to deal with this regional internal war.
So now bulat, and kornet came along and Russia has the money now I doubt even metis m2 will see much service maybe still with only VDV spetznaz marines as long as it remains fairly man portable. And although metis m saw some export success still not massive and that's probably down to cost vs fagot and konkurs, Russia also wanting to clear older stock, and then there is also the fact if a country is using fagot and konkurs already to save on training costs most likely stuck with what they know, and you also have the other factors of ex Soviet countries selling off excess stock of fagot and konkurs to other countries and other countries making copies, you also have an increase of homegrown designs of ATGW which reduces the market for such missiles, metis m type missiles most countries with a decent arms industry can make something similar. Kornet is a different case all together

GarryB wrote:Kornet is better than shturm or ataka but those missiles were not exactly cheap anyway... they were available in enormous numbers though...

There are no helicopter mounted missile in the world that can hit targets out to 20 kms after locking on before launch with its own seeker head. Even NLOS does need UAV or third party for last minute targetting or correction etc.

Probably makes sense to design a helicopter mounted Kornet that can hit target out to 20 kms after locking on before launch with its own seeker head.

Sujoy wrote:

GarryB wrote:Kornet is better than shturm or ataka but those missiles were not exactly cheap anyway... they were available in enormous numbers though...

There are no helicopter mounted missile in the world that can hit targets out to 20 kms after locking on before launch with its own seeker head. Even NLOS does need UAV or third party for last minute targetting or correction etc.

Probably makes sense to design a helicopter mounted Kornet that can hit target out to 20 kms after locking on before launch with its own seeker head.

Russian Hermes missile can.. And can be launched from heli and has range of 20km+ although it's not fully in-service yet. But u could say it's almost there

Requiring a missile detects its target before it is launched and then demanding it can hit very distant targets is making things very difficult for yourself...

A standard missile like a Sagger or Fagot or Konkurs never detects its target... it just flys on a controlled flight trajectory till it runs in to its target. The fact that it never detects its target means camouflage doesn't work, and that it can be launched against anything at all... including a window of a building.... it makes it much more flexible.

As mentioned Hermes is such a weapon, though with its range of guidance options I am not sure it would have a target lock before launch or not.

The new project 715 or whatever it is called that is launched from a Havoc or Hokum with an IIR seeker and a datalink and a range of over 25km doesn't have a target lock at launch either, but that is probably a good thing... most tanks on a real battlefield will be moving from cover to cover, so the idea that the missile could get a lock from 25km away and maintain that solid lock all the way to the target is rather unlikely anyway.

A target will have no idea it is under attack when the missiles launched at it come from more than 20km away... the rocket motor would have burned out so the IR signature would be minimal, and it would likely be coming in at a fairly steep ballistic angle...

Kornet, Shturm, and Ataka and indeed Krisantema all use command guidance... either radio command guidance or laser beam riding guidance... so it would be interesting to see how far they could fly to hit a target when fired from higher altitudes. Normally they are launched from helicopters flying close to the ground but a UCAV flying at very high altitudes... say 12km up... with a good ballistics model and control algorythm you might get a 5km range Shturm or a 6km range Ataka or Khrisantema to fly twice its normal range... while HE equipped Kornet-EM already reaches 10km so doubling that to 20km might be possible if the laser is modified to increase its power so it can be seen from extended ranges.

It would actually be rather interesting to fit them with proper wings and use them effectively as glide weapons... their normal fins steer the missiles but it is their rocket propulsion keep them in the air... so gliding wings could greatly increase range and flight performance... radio command and laser beam riding offer cheap and simple guidance options to keep the costs very low... new lower energy rocket propellent that burns much longer could dramatically improve range and performance too while likely making the missile cheaper to make too.

With wings much smaller and lighter missiles could be used over much greater distances... remember with a glide kit a standard aircraft bomb can glide for 40-60km when released at high altitude... so adding wings to these much lighter missiles should also have a dramatic effect on range too.

A winged Metis-M1 missile with the wire guidance replaced with a laser beam riding guidance for example...

d_taddei2 wrote:Russian Hermes missile can.. And can be launched from heli and has range of 20km+ although it's not fully in-service yet.  But u could say it's almost there

Thanks. Israeli (and possibly US) Apache helos is now equipped with SPIKE NLOS ATGM with a range of 32 km , this gives a huge advantage as it can strike at targets out of range of VSHORAD and MANPADS.

GarryB wrote:The new project 715 or whatever it is called that is launched from a Havoc or Hokum with an IIR seeker and a datalink and a range of over 25km doesn't have a target lock at launch either, but that is probably a good thing... most tanks on a real battlefield will be moving from cover to cover, so the idea that the missile could get a lock from 25km away and maintain that solid lock all the way to the target is rather unlikely anyway.

Fighter jets face the same issue when they are targeting the fighter jet of an adversary. The fighter jet being targeted is constantly changing its position. Yet several air to air missiles have lock in at launch and lock in after launch.

Moreover, such a helicopter fired ATGM can be used against artillery units as well that are more or less fixed.

Israeli Apache helos are now being equipped with SPIKE NLOS ATGM with a range of 32 km

GarryB wrote:Kornet, Shturm, and Ataka and indeed Krisantema all use command guidance... either radio command guidance or laser beam riding guidance... so it would be interesting to see how far they could fly to hit a target when fired from higher altitudes. Normally they are launched from helicopters flying close to the ground but a UCAV flying at very high altitudes... say 12km up... with a good ballistics model and control algorythm you might get a 5km range Shturm or a 6km range Ataka or Khrisantema to fly twice its normal range... while HE equipped Kornet-EM already reaches 10km so doubling that to 20km might be possible if the laser is modified to increase its power so it can be seen from extended ranges.

Upgraded Ka 52 will get a missile that has a 100 km plus range. But then that's more of a cruise missile than an ATGM.

Thanks. Israeli (and possibly US) Apache helos is now equipped with SPIKE NLOS ATGM with a range of 32 km , this gives a huge advantage as it can strike at targets out of range of VSHORAD and MANPADS.

Is that any advantage at all?

Is it hypersonic... because if it is not then Igla-S can shoot those missiles down... as can Pine and TOR and Pantsir and probably even Kornet with the HE warhead and 10km range and of course the small 9M96 missile can shoot down that helicopter as well...

The question you have to ask is how will those Apache helicopters detect enemy armour at 32km?

And if you say a drone or ground forces marking targets... well any helicopter behind cover could do that from far shorter distances... the Hokum carries drones that can be used to find targets that can then be attacked non line of sight by other weapons like article 715 or Hermes... hell non line of sight targets can be hit with 152mm guided artillery shells...

Fighter jets face the same issue when they are targeting the fighter jet of an adversary. The fighter jet being targeted is constantly changing its position. Yet several air to air missiles have lock in at launch and lock in after launch.

I don't know of any air to air missiles that have both long range and the ability to lock on before launch.

Any fighter will detect enemy fighters well beyond any ability to reach them with a missile, and few aircraft still use SARH missiles... the exception is the R-27ER, which operates on an inertial guidance datalink so it is launched at the target towards a particular intercept point just like ARH missiles... when they both reach that location they both start looking for the target... for the SARH missile the launch aircraft starts marking the target with a thin radar beam and the missile detects and guides on to that.... with ARH the missile itself starts to scan for the target and when it gets a lock it homes in on it itself...

If the target makes some move or change of speed that will mean the missile wont be able to find it the launch aircraft in both cases will make calculations based on missile and target paths and change the missiles destination so that they intercept again... if the target keeps changing the launch aircraft will likely select a median intercept point and wait till it is closer before finalising it... most long range BVR shots fail because the target changes path too often and the missile burns up energy changing course and runs out of energy/range.

Moreover, such a helicopter fired ATGM can be used against artillery units as well that are more or less fixed.

Most Russian artillery operate within an air defence umbrella that can shoot down such missiles...

And modern and upgraded Russian artillery can act independently... for instance an upgraded 2S3 will be given target data and based on its own position and orientation gun elevation and angles and propellent charge size is calculated... all they have to do is fire and then they can move. The network will allow for all the vehicles to be operating independently so despite being all over the place all the rounds will land together at the same time, but the vehicles might not be within 500m of each other...

Besides how long will those Apaches be operating within range of Russian artillery...

Israeli Apache helos are now being equipped with SPIKE NLOS ATGM with a range of 32 km

The ranges I have seen quoted are 25km, and as the first 8km it uses fibre optic cable and the rest of the way a two way radio command guidance I suspect it does not fly very fast... less than 200m/s which makes it a fairly easy target for air defences and indeed gives plenty of time for smoke screens to be set up to render it useless...

Upgraded Ka 52 will get a missile that has a 100 km plus range. But then that's more of a cruise missile than an ATGM.

At 70kgs weight does the Spike NLOS still count as an ATGM?

Sujoy wrote:Thanks. Israeli (and possibly US) Apache helos is now equipped with SPIKE NLOS ATGM with a range of 32 km , this gives a huge advantage as it can strike at targets out of range of VSHORAD and MANPADS.

US Army's future concept for helicopters operations foresee two platforms ,now named FARA and FLRAA, will be equiped with the LRPM - Long Range Precision Munition - and ALE - Air Launched Effect - (practically an air launched mini drone).

The concept, as i said other times, aim at render another time relevant the US Army's helicopters against advanced enemies with advanced air defense systems putting to the center third-party target detection and missile guidance to allow attacks from beyond line of sight.

The US Army tests with the Spike-NLOS and Orion-600 were conducted simply for validate the described concept of operation and not for system's integration in the ongoing programs because obviously the Spike-NLOS is way too slow and easy to intercept both by air defences and active protection systems, guidance channel of its over the horizon man-in-the-loop allow only a single missile to be guided at times and is way too easy to distrupt also for low performance ground based EW systems .

Sincerely i find this whole US Army's helicopter future concept of operation and system's requirements totally inconsistent and delusionary for the times of its introduction in service (it will fail horribly even against today capabilities of typical domestic AD complement of mechanized forces leaving aside those of future ones) and ostensibly, like 99% of US's military programs if ever realized, capable at maximum to produce results only against largely inferior enemies equiped with at maxixmum very few relatively modern systems.

In the future battlefield both sides will extensively employ UAVs for third party target detection and missile guidance with the difference that helicopters in flight would be dozen of times easier to detect and discern for radar optical and acoustical based sensors in comparison with ground vehicles among hundreds that can also cover and camouflage itself and them will not have at theirs defence incredibly efficient AD systems neither 57 mm guns purposely designed to destroy both UAVs and missiles, neither MANPADS, neither specialized EW vehicles with enormous energy output potential , neither aerosol dispensers , neither active protection systems ,neither radar/IR absorbing camonets neithers obstancles behind which cover etc...

Those helicopters in the future battlefield against an advanced opponent will be totally uncapable to defended themselves and even worse trapped in a battle ridiculously lopsided in favour of the adversary.

The last mention i leave to the integration of Р-74М missile in modernized domestic helicopters, idea is that when low altitude radars , optical/acoustic sensors or UAVs detect the incoming helicopters (or also long range surveillance enemy UAVs) another option ,if AD systems are not at level, will be that they will be intercepted from a blind side by a squadron of helicopters with a apart of theirs weapons consisting of Р-74М.

Mindstorm wrote:Sincerely i find this whole US Army's helicopter future concept of operation and system's requirements totally inconsistent and delusionary for the times of its introduction in service (it will fail horribly even against today capabilities of typical domestic AD complement of mechanized forces leaving aside those of future ones) and ostensibly, like 99% of US's military programs if ever realized, capable at maximum to produce results only against largely inferior enemies equiped with at maxixmum very few relatively modern systems.

But Russia is also arming upgraded Ka 52 with a missile that has a 100 km range, isn't it? Though it won't be a ATGM

Mindstorm wrote:The last mention i leave to the integration of Р-74М missile in modernized domestic helicopters, idea is that when low altitude radars , optical/acoustic sensors or UAVs detect the incoming helicopters (or also long range surveillance enemy UAVs) another option ,if AD systems are not at level, will be that they will be intercepted from a blind side by a squadron of helicopters with a apart of theirs weapons consisting of Р-74М.

So you are saying that the K-74M will be used to target air defence units? There are some ongoing talks that India wants to purchase the K-74M to replace the R-73. But in all likelihood the K-74M will be integrated with the Su 30MKI not any attack helicopter
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXISIeEJCAo

But Russia is also arming upgraded Ka 52 with a missile that has a 100 km range, isn't it? Though it won't be a ATGM

HATO relies of fighter planes for air defence... do you think Chaparral or Stinger would be used to bring these missiles down and even if they do how many have they got in service.... and how many will be left over to engage the aircraft they carry them to intercept in the first place...

GarryB wrote:

But Russia is also arming upgraded Ka 52 with a missile that has a 100 km range, isn't it? Though it won't be a ATGM

HATO relies of fighter planes for air defence... do you think Chaparral or Stinger would be used to bring these missiles down and even if they do how many have they got in service.... and how many will be left over to engage the aircraft they carry them to intercept in the first place...

Modern fighters/helicopters have RWR and any AD system working alone will be spotted posing no threat. The issues of NATO AD is that they don't really have an IADS.

The number of command posts and early warning radars is too low and they also have nothing to intercept the kh-31/58. They rely more on AWACS.

Almost any kh-31/58 launched will destroy its target and the AWACS will be destroyed quickly probably on the ground by mini drones.

Russian AD system will be turned off and used as slaves by command posts which will listen to tge many surveillance radars they have. NATO fighters can know where those radars are but not where the tor, pantsir, S-400 are.

Isos wrote:Modern fighters/helicopters have RWR and any AD system working alone will be spotted posing no threat. The issues of NATO AD is that they don't really have an IADS.

NATO obviously has an IADS called the NATO Integrated Air and Missile Defence (NATO IAMD). Technologically far more advanced than anything that China has. https://iamd-coe.org/about-us/iamd/

Isos wrote:The number of command posts and early warning radars is too low and they also have nothing to intercept the kh-31/58. They rely more on AWACS.

No. US alone has the largest number of airborne early warning radars.

Whether Kh-31/58 can be intercepted or not depends on the total number of such missiles fired. If they overwhelm NATO's AD system then yes they cannot be intercepted.

Similarly, a volley of AGM-88 HARM fired towards Russian AD systems and certainly Chinese AD systems can also overwhelm it.

Sujoy wrote:But Russia is also arming upgraded Ka 52 with a missile that has a 100 km range, isn't it? Though it won't be a ATGM

You do not hit with today technology a MBT, even less a modern one, at 100 km of distance unless you can provide a stable reconnaissance platform providing locally third part target recognition and missile's guidance and that generally mean a unsophisticated enemy totally uncapable to destroy or incapacitate the ISR platform or to distrupt the missile guidance update or, terminally, its homing systems.

This without taking into account soft-kill and hard-kill active protection systems that will be present on board almost any armoured vehicle and for the most advanced ones working synergically in a networked way and, ultimately the necessity to defeat new armor composition with new generation of dynamic protection.

A similar purpose could be possible ostensibly not before a 25-30 years period ,with a significant miniaturization of propulsions capable to sustain hypersonic speed and introduction of new generation of very wide FOV sensors for homing purposes and fully authonomous, affordable, AI neural networks for missile guidance; but none know how defensive systems will evolve by then above all with the introduction of direct energy systems.


As explained previously the concept of operation of Ка-52M with изделие 305 is totally different and mostly linked to a new typology of air assault operation where the Army helicopter component , capitalising the notorius weakness of OTAN in low altitude and medium, short range and point defence air defence coverage, provide the standoff firepower ,mostly against fixed installations or theirs scarcely mobile AD systems to open the "corridor" for the ВДВ forces for taking out or conquer key OTAN installations with a speed significantly greater and risk of losses much lower than what allowed with the old operations.

Sujoy wrote:So you are saying that the K-74M will be used to target air defence units?

Not ,maybe i was not clear enough.

It mean that when a FARA helicopter group, if not destroyed before, will manage to close at low altitude at 40-50 km from a domestic mechanized formation devoid of the most modern air defense and EW systems, necessary to destroy them, theirs radar, acoustic, electromagnetic or IR signature will be detected by domestic UAVs or ground sensors placed around or above the terrain formations used as coverage by the attacking FARA.

Ка-52M and Ми-28НМ, with a part of theirs armaments consisting of P-74M, will be at this point guided with theirs radar turned off by ground based networked command (so to be completely not interceptable by FARA sensors) toward the FARA position (that by that time probably would have delivered the ALE toward the supposed position of the mechanized formation) possibly around the FOV of theirs sensors.

Those Ка-52M and Ми-28НМ will deliver the first salvo of P-74Ms through passive optronic channel and only at this point turn-on the radar to continue the engagement; those FARA would be totally defenceless also in that scenario.

Obviously all of that is attentively avoided by part of the US military industrial complex's employers never present to theirs customers when involved in multi billions dollar programs like FARA and FLRAA.......

Modern fighters/helicopters have RWR and any AD system working alone will be spotted posing no threat. The issues of NATO AD is that they don't really have an IADS.

I was talking about how flawed the idea of large slow ATGMs that the US is talking about introducing would be, because against a Russian unit such slow low flying missiles would be very similar to a modern drone which Russian Army units would be able to defeat... we have seen that they have a range of weapons that can be used against drones like TOR, Pantsir, Pine, Kornet, Igla-S and Verba, as well as Tunguska... not to mention APS systems on armoured vehicles and aerosol systems like vehicles that create enormous smoke screens down to SHTORA type systems for individual vehicles.

Sujoy effectively responded by saying ...but Russia is making similar weapons in the form of Hermes and that new 25+ km range system for their attack helos and presumably armed drones as well.

To which I responded that HATO air defences are based on aircraft and don't move around with ground units like Russian Army IADS does.

HATO fighters and helicopters don't seem to be capable of engaging enemy ATGMs... even long range models and the ground forces are armed with Chapparal and Stinger which are not ideally suited to shoot down very high speed long range missiles like Hermes.

Russian AD system will be turned off and used as slaves by command posts which will listen to tge many surveillance radars they have. NATO fighters can know where those radars are but not where the tor, pantsir, S-400 are.

They will all be turned on but not all emitting radar waves... optical sensors IIR sensors and radar sets listening for emissions, with one vehicle in each vehicle battery could be scanning with radar... ARM missiles fired at them will be intercepted... they are designed to defend themselves from ARMs so missiles like 25km range Spike NLOS will be much easier and simpler targets. Optical dazzlers and jammers could also be used.

NATO obviously has an IADS called the NATO Integrated Air and Missile Defence (NATO IAMD). Technologically far more advanced than anything that China has. https://iamd-coe.org/about-us/iamd/

It is all aircraft based... their ground forces have no independent air defence capacity or system and rely on air power to protect them... obviously a problem if the airforce is busy protecting its own assets like airfields and SAM sites and command centres etc etc.

No. US alone has the largest number of airborne early warning radars.

AWACS will not be operating within 400km of the front line or they will be constantly under direct attack from S-300V4 and S-400... and from 600km or more away from the front line there is no way they will be tracking a Ka-52 launching a Hermes missile being fired at Abrams tanks 30km away and giving them information on how to evade the missile or direct F-16s to intercept the missile while it is on its way.

In comparison an Apache firing a Spike NLOS at a T-90AM tank will likely be detected by a nearby BUK unit operating with the Tank force... the BUK will engage the Apache and the TOR system operating with the T-90AM will shoot down any Spikes that are launched.

Whether Kh-31/58 can be intercepted or not depends on the total number of such missiles fired. If they overwhelm NATO's AD system then yes they cannot be intercepted.

We are not talking about that level... we are going down to small unit level... ATGMs being fired at targets more than 15km away and less than 100km...

Similarly, a volley of AGM-88 HARM fired towards Russian AD systems and certainly Chinese AD systems can also overwhelm it.

The problem there would be that a managed IADS is much better able to deal with a mass attack than a non IADS group... not sure about the Chinese, but the Russian system would look to engage the aircraft carrying the HARMS and shooting them down before they launched their attack... easier to shoot down 20 planes than 80 missiles...

Mindstorm wrote:This without taking into account soft-kill and hard-kill active protection systems that will be present on board almost any armoured vehicle and for the most advanced ones working synergically in a networked way and, ultimately the necessity to defeat new armor composition with new generation of dynamic protection.

Those soft kill, hard kill measures were designed to neutralize ATGMs. Not sure if they will work against a cruise missile. For instance an APS on board a MBT won't be able to destroy an incoming cruise missile.

Mindstorm wrote:As explained previously the concept of operation of Ка-52M with изделие 305 is totally different and mostly linked to a new typology of air assault operation where the Army helicopter component , capitalising the notorius weakness of OTAN in low altitude and medium, short range and point defence air defence coverage, provide the standoff firepower ,mostly against fixed installations or theirs scarcely mobile AD systems to open the "corridor" for the ВДВ forces for taking out or conquer key OTAN installations with a speed significantly greater and risk of losses much lower than what allowed with the old operations.

Ka 52 will fire Item 305 missile from a range in excess of 100 kms. In other words, this is an improvement, in terms of range, over current tactics where (in India's case) Mi 35 armed with Strum Ataka ATGM that can be fired from 10kms away. https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/indian-air-force-to-get-strum-ataka-anti-tank-missile-from-russia/446178

So it's plausible that Russian Army will rely more extensively on cruise missile fired from helos instead of ATGMs. But we will have to wait and see if any next gen helicopter fired ATGMs are developed in Russia and what kind of specs they will have.

But then Hermes is being developed for the Ka 52.

Hermes A already has a range of 30 kms and Hermes K will have a range of 100 kms. But they probably can't be fired from Non Line of Sight (NLOS). They will probably need guidance from UAVs