Jump to content


Photo

What Am I Missing Here?


  • Please log in to reply
99 replies to this topic

#1 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 10 November 2017 - 1429 PM

As far as I am aware, Russia has not pursued an image-seeking approach to anti tank missile design, let alone with fibre-optic man in the loop update. Why not?



#2 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,710 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 10 November 2017 - 1534 PM

Funding? Also don't they already have a lot of barrel launched laser guided stuff? The US still just uses TOW, albeit Javelin is a much more modern system.

#3 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 10 November 2017 - 1743 PM

Such seekers are pretty expensive and Russia's developers weren't exactly good in regard to imaging infrared sensors (and maybe still aren't).

 

IIR guidance in ATGMs is furthermore very susceptible to rapid multispectral smoke (and by today rapid = 0.8...2 seconds till the line of sight is broken!) and thus IMO overrated in the West.



#4 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,838 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 10 November 2017 - 1819 PM

Main reason is decision that it is better for platform to be more expensive and missile to be cheaper.

 

Such seekers are pretty expensive and Russia's developers weren't exactly good in regard to imaging infrared sensors (and maybe still aren't).

 

IIR guidance in ATGMs is furthermore very susceptible to rapid multispectral smoke (and by today rapid = 0.8...2 seconds till the line of sight is broken!) and thus IMO overrated in the West.

 

Igla, R-73 and few other say you missed a lot of things.



#5 Loopycrank

Loopycrank

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 10 November 2017 - 1820 PM

As far as I am aware, Russia has not pursued an image-seeking approach to anti tank missile design, let alone with fibre-optic man in the loop update. Why not?

 

From the Russians I have spoken to, they want such weapons and they want them very badly.  Something like the Israeli Spike family of weapons would be exactly what they're after.

 

However, the current Russian re-armament program is often stymied by the fact that Ukraine is not on friendly terms with them.  A large percentage of the old Soviet aerospace development and production infrastructure was in Ukraine.  A fair number of missile systems needed parts made in Ukraine.  Russian companies are in the process of reverse-engineering them so substitutes can be produced in Russia proper, but this takes time.  Many plans for modernization and re-armament are years behind, largely due to this.



#6 Loopycrank

Loopycrank

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 10 November 2017 - 1828 PM

Also, they have no money.



#7 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 10 November 2017 - 1837 PM

Main reason is decision that it is better for platform to be more expensive and missile to be cheaper.

 

Such seekers are pretty expensive and Russia's developers weren't exactly good in regard to imaging infrared sensors (and maybe still aren't).

 

IIR guidance in ATGMs is furthermore very susceptible to rapid multispectral smoke (and by today rapid = 0.8...2 seconds till the line of sight is broken!) and thus IMO overrated in the West.

 

Igla, R-73 and few other say you missed a lot of things.

 

 

"IIR" was no typo. I did intentionally not write merely "IR". The existence of one or another IIR sensor from Russia (such as IRST) doesn't suffice to prove that the Russian developers were good at it anyway.



#8 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 10 November 2017 - 2119 PM

Such seekers are pretty expensive and Russia's developers weren't exactly good in regard to imaging infrared sensors (and maybe still aren't).

 

IIR guidance in ATGMs is furthermore very susceptible to rapid multispectral smoke (and by today rapid = 0.8...2 seconds till the line of sight is broken!) and thus IMO overrated in the West.

 

I really liked your idea of a hypervelocity unjammable inertially guided missile/rocket that would be comparatively inexpensive and highly lethal.



#9 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,434 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 10 November 2017 - 2244 PM

Chris, you really are deeply indoctrinated. An imaging missile is going to be several times the cost of a SACLOS missile, thus reducing substantially the number of rounds you can afford as a parsimonious NATO military. Which meant they become important in being and are to be husbanded. Which in turns means you dont issue them to all and sundry.

Recent history tells us which is a better way. I would argue that Islamic State is a competent enemy that would kick the snot out of most of NATO. If it was not, NATO would not be hiding in al Tanf.

#10 Loopycrank

Loopycrank

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 526 posts

Posted 11 November 2017 - 0118 AM

Funding? Also don't they already have a lot of barrel launched laser guided stuff? The US still just uses TOW, albeit Javelin is a much more modern system.

 

The Soviet/Russian GLATGMs are laser beam riding, not laser beam homing.

Laser beam homing missiles have a sensor in the front that looks for the reflected laser light from the target.  The launching vehicle, or some friendly infantry units, shine a laser designator on the target and the missile/bomb steers itself towards it.

Laser beam riding missiles have a sensor on the back of the missile.  The launch platform for the missile shines multiple coded laser beams at the target.  For sake of example, we'll say it's four beams.  Each beam covers a quadrant, and the sensor on the back of the missile can tell which quadrant it's in from the coded signal in each laser's quadrant.  The missile attempts to center itself relative to each of the four quadrants, which results in it flying more or less straight down the path of the laser.

Beam riding is much cheaper, but also more limited.  The sensor doesn't have to have any sort of angular resolution, it just needs to be able to detect the guidance beam and de-code it to determine which quadrant it's in.  The missile is limited to engaging targets that are in direct line of sight of the launching unit, there's no way to hand off the missile to a spotter.  Beam riding does have the advantage that it's pretty difficult to jam.


Edited by Loopycrank, 11 November 2017 - 0119 AM.


#11 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 11 November 2017 - 0449 AM

 

Such seekers are pretty expensive and Russia's developers weren't exactly good in regard to imaging infrared sensors (and maybe still aren't).

 

IIR guidance in ATGMs is furthermore very susceptible to rapid multispectral smoke (and by today rapid = 0.8...2 seconds till the line of sight is broken!) and thus IMO overrated in the West.

 

I really liked your idea of a hypervelocity unjammable inertially guided missile/rocket that would be comparatively inexpensive and highly lethal.

 

 

It's not my idea, of course. It's been researched since around 1980.

 



#12 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 11 November 2017 - 1343 PM

Simon we pretty much do issue image seeking missiles to all and sundry or at least those who would have had milans in the past and they're more portable so get carried on patrols etc. They end up being used on relatively insignificant targets a lot. I'm sure someone did the math somewhere along the way. A much cheaper supplemental missile with laser or cheaper imaging guidance or even the Carl Gustav M4 might be beneficial. Germany is plannimg to deploy such a missile.

#13 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 11 November 2017 - 1450 PM

Another strange omission is the US Army's apparent disinterest in deploying a modern hand held anti tank weapon along the lines of NLAW or Pzf3

#14 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 November 2017 - 1549 PM

Most problem is doctrine. ATGM should be affordable enough to be really widespread on units, not rare but neat toy, should be multipurpose for usage against infantry and buildings, AND be light enough while retaining sufficient range. Thus IIR is out due to failing multipurpose, cost and range and TV is failing due to cost and range.
And no, russians don't really "want it badly". Technology is there and was there for decades, with TV used firstly with vidicons, later with matrix in seekers since late 70s. "They don't have money" hardy argument too.

#15 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 11 November 2017 - 1851 PM

How do TV (CCD) and IIR fail on range Gargean? The longest range ATGW in current use use these guidance types and have to do so because they're non line of sight.

 

Also, unless I'm mistaken, the scale of issue of image seeking ATGW in western armies is not significantly less than their wire guided SACLOS predecessors.



#16 JW Collins

JW Collins

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,218 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut

Posted 11 November 2017 - 1912 PM

Another strange omission is the US Army's apparent disinterest in deploying a modern hand held anti tank weapon along the lines of NLAW or Pzf3

There was the FGM-172 "Predator" SRAW, a top-attack weapon that worked much like the NLAW but they stopped procuring it years ago from what I've read.



#17 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 11 November 2017 - 1927 PM

@Chris; He meant that AT weapons have to be light AND have good range.
 
Spike SR is a most interesting weapon, often overlooked. It needs no launcher, weighs as much as a Panzerfaust 3, can do IIR-guided direct attack  over 1,800 m and needs no launcher. Should be fine for BMP plinking on open fields.
ERYX is impressive in its range class, too. Short time of flight makes me wonder if the SACLOS vulnerability to IR jammers matters at all in this case, weight similar to Panzerfaust 3 but much better warhead and accuracy.
 
------------------------
Generally, I suppose one should draw a line between MBT-ish threats on the one side and BMP/BTR threats on the other (the usual BMP and BTR, not the super-uncommon heavy ones).
 
BMP-2 don't require a bigger warhead than 50-76 mm, depending on warhead tech, impact location, impact angle and whatever is outside of the BMP-2's main armour plate there.
Light munitions of less than 3 kg can be developed to be effective against a moving BMP-2 at ~500 metres. That's something that we're missing.
 
You need heavier munitions than infantry could carry all the time for anti-MBT work.
I suppose infantry should have short range anti-MBT munitions in its vehicles (Pzf3IT-600, for example).
Long-range anti-MBT work is either about delusions or about heavy vehicle-mounted weapons and munitions. Ideally long rod penetrators by 120-125 (soon maybe 130 mm) calibre or CKEM-ish.
Portable ATGMs of all kinds can be defeated all-too often by competent, alert and well-equipped crews (neither Turks nor Saudis are a proper benchmark). Especially the rapid multispectral obscuration is most impressive - and cheap!
 
GALIX was good

(sorry for the obnoxious narrator)
 
but this one looks even better:

 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cu7daHh7-PA
 
So the gaps that I see are
 
(1) ultralight anti-BMP munition with 400-600 m effective range (3 kg and predicted line of sight autopilot), carried by every infantry fire team in all combat situations
(2) anti-tank HVMs with long rod penetrator and inertial navigation autopilot for predicted point of impact flight, mounted on vehicles
 
Instead, there are lots of 5+ km ATGM systems; missiles for ranges at which detection and identification of targets is most unlikely unless you want to fight in Russia, Ukraine or Arabian deserts.
There are also way too many WW2 bazooka-inspired 'dumb' "anti-tank" weapons and munitions with horrible inaccuracy and marginal effective ranges.
The modern Carl Gustavs are fine, but they're man-portable infantry guns, not anti-MBT weapons.

Another strange omission is the US Army's apparent disinterest in deploying a modern hand held anti tank weapon along the lines of NLAW or Pzf3

There was the FGM-172 "Predator" SRAW, a top-attack weapon that worked much like the NLAW but they stopped procuring it years ago from what I've read.


Those were few, reworked into HE munitions and by now I suppose many if not most were expended.

Edited by lastdingo, 11 November 2017 - 1931 PM.


#18 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,178 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 November 2017 - 0606 AM

How do TV (CCD) and IIR fail on range Gargean? The longest range ATGW in current use use these guidance types and have to do so because they're non line of sight.
 
Also, unless I'm mistaken, the scale of issue of image seeking ATGW in western armies is not significantly less than their wire guided SACLOS predecessors.

They failing range due to both LOBL and weight points. Jav have so limited range mostly due to IIR head needing LOBL. Can be neglected with LOAL capability like in Spike, but full seeker in any case would eat a lot of weight that otherwise would be used for range keeping.

#19 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 12 November 2017 - 0640 AM

Seeker also tends to be in front of shaped charge, reducing the penetration by acting as layers of a whipple shield.



#20 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,434 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 12 November 2017 - 0825 AM

Chris, you really are a fossil. The scale of issue in Western armies is dismally poor in reality because everything is on paper. The shortfalls in actual ready rounds is generally glossed over thanks to the lack of combat usage. 

 

The new reality is that guided missiles are useful for shooting everything up from pickups to personnel and that you need as many as you can scrounge out of legacy stocks. They are also having to be issued on a much wider scale to defend against SVBIEDs which will continue to be a major problem going forward because it's not just Jihadis who are willing to martyr themselves. 

 

The Russian beam-riders are really cheap. Yes, you can deploy screening smoke but only if you notice them incoming. And they are supersonic so they arrive before any audio cues.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users