Jump to content


Photo

Javelins For Poland


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#21 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,552 posts

Posted 08 March 2020 - 1349 PM

Considering their Korean tank buy, Poland's commonality with allies extends beyond the west. They probably could have gotten Korean Raybolt ATGMs in a package if they wanted to hedge their bet on Spike.


  • 0

#22 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 689 posts

Posted 09 March 2020 - 1237 PM

Poland is set to buy AT vehicles, which may use a variant of the Spike as one of the options, but not any variant of the Javelin, so it's stupid to buy the Javelin and lose out on such compatibility.
 
Introducing incompatibility may be the goal of the seller in this instance.

Sure, but there is basically no way Poland will base its AT vehicles on the Javelin. It just does not have the range.
Has there been any word as to which version of Spike is intended for the AT vehicle? If there's an emphasise on range, then that would mean Spike-LR or Spike ER which have a minimum range of 200 and 400 meters respectively. So these really may not be interchangeable with infantry Spike weapons which would Spike-SR which has a minimum range of 50 meters but a max of 1,500 meters. Javelin has a minimum of 65-75 meters but a max of 4,000 meters. So long as the numbers I'm grabbing are correct, the Javelin has quite a range advantage over Spike-SR without sacrificing minimum range.
I don't have data on the Spike LR and ER minimum ranges as I have no access to a PC at the moment, nor will I have throughout the week.
First, are you sure this is up to date for the LR2 and ER2 versions and not the older ones?

Second, the AT vehicles are currently (still early stage so could change) envisioned as missile carriers, which some countries identify as artillery assets. Minimal range is hardly a factor here. And even in the unlikely event that it DOES become a factor, they'll probably give it significance at kilometers, not hundreds of meters.



I don't know about the Spike SR's level of commonality but generally all members of the Spike family have a high degree of commonality. Starting with electronic and software architecture to sensory package, datalinks, individual components like motors, batteries, and more.

So even if not 100% common, if Poland buys, say, Spike NLOS for the AT vehicles, and then Spike LR for the infantry, or even a more extreme case where it buys all variants, it will still have a very streamlined maintenance capability, relatively low parts pool, and will be able to reduce the number of suppliers and external supporters.

More importantly, the Spike has an extensive network of sources as well. The US can deliver Javelins quickly, yes, and it would be smart to keep some soldiers trained on them as well at any moment, but with close to 30 users, it's hard to imagine it getting stuck in an emergency.

Edited by Mighty_Zuk, 09 March 2020 - 1239 PM.

  • 0

#23 Burncycle360

Burncycle360

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,962 posts

Posted 09 March 2020 - 1429 PM

IMO, the option to use fire and forget or fiber optic guidance puts spike into a whole different category than Javelin, so I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison. 

While not the driving cost when looked as a whole, probably the most expensive individual component for a long time on the fire and forget ATGMs has been the sensor.  Today, on the hardware side of things, IIR sensors have never been cheaper, or smaller.   A decent 640 LWIR core used to cost silly amounts (on the order of ~$13,000) less than a decade ago and can now be found for on par or even less than Gen III NOD (<$3,000) whose prices have remained more or less stable, while being half the size and weight.  I bought my 320 core for UAV and handheld projects for significantly less than $2,000 with the breakout board / interface accessories.  

I think as a result of the proliferation of less expensive sensors I'd expect the fixed costs of ATGMs (both for the missiles and for the CLU) to start dropping, initially on the manufacturers end and then trickle down to the customer slowly -- the end result not just being less expensive medium to long range ATGMs, but likely even guided fire and forget munitions on the order of AT-4 or even LAW / BUR in the size and weight category, with the costs still remaining reasonable enough for widespread issuance at the squad / fireteam level.  We're inching closer already with Spike SR / Mini-Spike, and probing new possibilities this paradigm shift brings with concepts like Pike.

 


Edited by Burncycle360, 09 March 2020 - 1438 PM.

  • 0

#24 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,857 posts

Posted 10 March 2020 - 2013 PM

One benefit from Javelin's Command and Launch Unit is that it can be (and has been) used as a standalone surveillance device. Spike may also have this capability?


  • 0

#25 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 689 posts

Posted 11 March 2020 - 0203 AM

One benefit from Javelin's Command and Launch Unit is that it can be (and has been) used as a standalone surveillance device. Spike may also have this capability?


Yes. There is an onboard sight on the Spike CLU, the last known was an x8 magnification multichannel one. Not sure what model.
  • 0

#26 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,235 posts

Posted 04 April 2020 - 1239 PM

IMO, the option to use fire and forget or fiber optic guidance puts spike into a whole different category than Javelin, so I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison. 

While not the driving cost when looked as a whole, probably the most expensive individual component for a long time on the fire and forget ATGMs has been the sensor.  Today, on the hardware side of things, IIR sensors have never been cheaper, or smaller.   A decent 640 LWIR core used to cost silly amounts (on the order of ~$13,000) less than a decade ago and can now be found for on par or even less than Gen III NOD (<$3,000) whose prices have remained more or less stable, while being half the size and weight.  I bought my 320 core for UAV and handheld projects for significantly less than $2,000 with the breakout board / interface accessories.  

I think as a result of the proliferation of less expensive sensors I'd expect the fixed costs of ATGMs (both for the missiles and for the CLU) to start dropping, initially on the manufacturers end and then trickle down to the customer slowly -- the end result not just being less expensive medium to long range ATGMs, but likely even guided fire and forget munitions on the order of AT-4 or even LAW / BUR in the size and weight category, with the costs still remaining reasonable enough for widespread issuance at the squad / fireteam level.  We're inching closer already with Spike SR / Mini-Spike, and probing new possibilities this paradigm shift brings with concepts like Pike.

 

I like to see a navalized version of these small missiles that can be quickly fitted to smaller warships along with 25-35mm RWS and MG. This would allow them to have a wee bit more punch for little additional weight or fittings.


  • 0

#27 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 689 posts

Posted 04 April 2020 - 1610 PM

 

IMO, the option to use fire and forget or fiber optic guidance puts spike into a whole different category than Javelin, so I don't think it's an apples to apples comparison. 

While not the driving cost when looked as a whole, probably the most expensive individual component for a long time on the fire and forget ATGMs has been the sensor.  Today, on the hardware side of things, IIR sensors have never been cheaper, or smaller.   A decent 640 LWIR core used to cost silly amounts (on the order of ~$13,000) less than a decade ago and can now be found for on par or even less than Gen III NOD (<$3,000) whose prices have remained more or less stable, while being half the size and weight.  I bought my 320 core for UAV and handheld projects for significantly less than $2,000 with the breakout board / interface accessories.  

I think as a result of the proliferation of less expensive sensors I'd expect the fixed costs of ATGMs (both for the missiles and for the CLU) to start dropping, initially on the manufacturers end and then trickle down to the customer slowly -- the end result not just being less expensive medium to long range ATGMs, but likely even guided fire and forget munitions on the order of AT-4 or even LAW / BUR in the size and weight category, with the costs still remaining reasonable enough for widespread issuance at the squad / fireteam level.  We're inching closer already with Spike SR / Mini-Spike, and probing new possibilities this paradigm shift brings with concepts like Pike.

 

I like to see a navalized version of these small missiles that can be quickly fitted to smaller warships along with 25-35mm RWS and MG. This would allow them to have a wee bit more punch for little additional weight or fittings.

 

That's not really worthwhile when these smaller missiles can only reach in the region of a kilometer, and small vessels that would carry ATGMs are big enough to carry 25 or 30mm RWS that can tear through naval targets at a higher rate and with greater punch than an ATGM, not to mention for only a fraction of the cost. 

That's why the Spike variants that were navalized are the Spike ER and NLOS:

https://www.rafael.c...AL-SPIKE-ER.pdf

https://www.rafael.c...-SPIKE-NLOS.pdf


  • 0

#28 Sardaukar

Sardaukar

    Cynical Finnish Elk Eating Ilk

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,734 posts

Posted 05 April 2020 - 0205 AM

Finland uses Spike ER for coastal defence in archipelago.


  • 0

#29 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 689 posts

Posted 05 April 2020 - 0732 AM

Yep, in narrow areas, ATGMs are generally a great and cheap anti-ship weapon, and very useful even against large ships.

It does bring me back to the USMC revision. They want to equip themselves with an enormous amount of anti-ship missiles, going with even anti-ship Tomahawks likely in addition to the shorter ranged but more advanced NSM, and augmented by some non-dedicated anti-ship capabilities for the medium range via cannon artillery and MLRS. 

But now they want to remove not only the tanks but also heavy weapon elements from the infantry battalions, including ATGMs and mortars. I think not having the anti-armor capability and pocket artillery is a bad decision, especially in light of the massive reduction of infantry-supporting cannon artillery and massive increase of strategic fires.

Maybe keeping ATGMs as an extra anti-ship weapon would be useful, when faced with swarms the air support can't immediately deal with.


  • 0