Cheap portable high-precision pocket infantry US infantry

69
Cheap portable high-precision pocket infantry US infantry


The US Army is conducting tests of the Griffin B missiles, which are to replace the more expensive Javelin ATGMs. In Afghanistan, troops located at remote outposts often use Javelin as their artillery when they are out of range of US 155-mm guns and far from air bases, and therefore the arrival of bombers and combat helicopters will take some time. Javelin does an excellent job with this job, but it’s not cheap ($ 75,000 for a rocket). Griffin is smaller, simpler and does not contain expensive armor-piercing warheads, therefore it is a cheaper alternative to Javelin.

Griffin B is a heavier air-to-ground missile. Griffin A. Griffin B weighs 20.5 kg and has a warhead in 5.9 kg. Thanks to its relatively large opening flaps, the missile’s range is 5600 meters. Griffin uses laser beam guidance, a GPS receiver and an inertial guidance system. Griffin B was tested on six launchers, capable of turning in the direction of the target and quickly firing missiles in the direction of nearby threats.



Javelin, introduced in 2002, weighs 22.3 kg (with a disposable tube and battery / cooling block of the sighting device), starts with an installation weighing 6.4 kg. The launcher contains a 4-x multiple day sight and 9-and multiple thermal imager for shooting at night. The rocket is equipped with a tandem warhead to overcome reactive armor and can hit the target directly or from above. The latter feature allows the 8.2 kg Javelin warhead to destroy any existing tank, including the American M1. The maximum range is 2500 meters. The most advanced homing system allows you to use the "shot and forget" mode. That is, as soon as the operator notices the target at the crosshair of the sighting device and launches the rocket, the computer and the homing head of the missile warhead memorize the target and automatically hold the rocket on it. Infantrymen like these missiles very much, as they can hide after the launch of the rocket.



The troops already have many other thermal imagers with which you can find targets for the Griffin, which are small guided missiles. Griffin will become the favorite infantry infantry artillery. Army field trials will determine how effective Griffin B is in combat. Meanwhile, the troops have well-proven Javelin.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

69 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sergh
    +10
    25 February 2012 09: 26
    Hmm, for $ 75,000, probably a whole report on the use will be forced to write, and even stick a splinter. Something too expensive, probably I won’t take it, I’ll wait until prices fall.
    1. +8
      25 February 2012 11: 53
      Yes yes I agree Sergh, and I generally wait for the Chinese counterpart. wassat
    2. -2
      April 26 2014 00: 57
      Writing reports, collecting shards and shells is the destiny of the Russian troops.
  2. Ion coaelung
    +1
    25 February 2012 10: 28
    It is not surprising that the Yavelins were used for other purposes ... They would still shoot from the cannon at the enemy’s sparrows :)
  3. +4
    25 February 2012 11: 00
    $ 75000 is not so much when compared with the price of the hit armored vehicles. It’s unprofitable to shoot at perfume, so they make a griffin.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1uUmdiSkU
    1. Igor
      -1
      25 February 2012 11: 13
      Professor, I heard that one shot with a long-range missile with a video camera costs $ 200 thousand on the Israeli Spike, is that true?
      1. +2
        25 February 2012 12: 06
        Quote: Igorek
        Professor, I heard that one shot with a long-range missile with a video camera costs $ 200 thousand on the Israeli Spike, is that true?

        I join the question!
        Really such an amount?

        And by the way, why does the Spike rocket have such a low speed? How does this affect his combat capabilities?
        1. +2
          25 February 2012 16: 22
          Light guide guided missile. The operator sees the target through the camera in the rocket. Therefore, the rocket flies slowly. But you can shoot it without first seeing the target. For example, because of the house, the forest. A rocket hits the top of an object.
          In automatic mode, after the target is captured, the light guide breaks down and the projectile itself monitors the target until the moment of impact.
        2. +3
          25 February 2012 17: 02
          The speed for Cornet, Spike and Javelin is about the same, about 300 m / s. Two kilometers in 7 seconds is not so slow. In the case of Spike, the slower (within reasonable limits) the better so the missile can be corrected when approaching the target or even the target can be "canceled" - "shot-corrected-forget".

          Regarding the cost of Spike, not so simple. In the USSR, usually the cost of the product did not include the costs of the NKR, the State Planning Commission planned, the ministry allocated money and the design bureau created the product. Further, the product went into production and the price is defined as materials and labor (roughly speaking). A couple of years ago I came across an article on the development of an RPG-7, I was very impressed with the number of research institutes and the people who worked to create this product. If you include all the costs of developing an RPG-7, then it would be worth its weight in gold. But this is history and today it doesn’t matter how much the development cost since there is an excellent result.
          In the West, the costs of the NKR are laid in the final cost of the product, the best example of this is F-22. And so Spike, (Javelin costs about $ 80000, Cornet $ 40000) On January 10 of the 2007 year, Spain announced that it was buying Spike and 2600 rockets from 260 rafael for $ 424.5 million of them. If we assume that the launcher costs like two missiles, then without taking into account simulators, training, etc. the cost of a shot will be about $ 130000.
          India bought 321 launchers, 8356 missiles and 15 simulators for a billion dollars, which makes the cost of a shot about $ 110000. Not a little, but Spike will be more advanced than Javelin in both firing range and homing system. In general, it is necessary to compare the cost of the ATGM with the cost of the tank, its maintenance and the cost of training the crew. And then $ 130000 won't seem like much. In 2006 and 2008, the IDF used Spikes against the fortified positions of the "freedom fighters" and even managed to lose one in Lebanon (they simply forgot). The MO quickly requested a cheap alternative and received mini Spikes.




          PU and 2 spike rockets 40 kg - quite a portable system. Cold start time 30 seconds, reload 15 seconds.
          1. +3
            25 February 2012 17: 08
            Quote: professor
            In general, it is necessary to compare the cost of anti-tank systems with the cost of the tank, its contents and the cost of training the crew. And then $ 130000 will not seem so much



            Then you need to consider how many times the tank will fire during its operation.

            By the way, Professor, can you congratulate you on changing your place of residence? When the first time the flags appeared the flag was Israeli
            1. eJik
              0
              26 February 2012 15: 04
              By the way, Professor, can you congratulate you on changing your place of residence? When the first time the flags appeared the flag was Israeli


              to the authorities went to Berlin
      2. +1
        25 February 2012 15: 58
        The price of one Spike rocket is about $ 100.000.
        We bought these in Poland.
        Shoot and forget mode

        Shooting at a firing range in Poland. There is a video
        http://www.wykop.pl/ramka/529289/zobacz-jak-pocisk-spike-uderza-w-cel-jeden-strz
        al-za-100-tysiecy-dolarow /
        1. +3
          25 February 2012 17: 23
          Spike has 5 modifications:
          Spike-SR - version with a short-range missile - about 200-800 meters. Designed for use by infantry (melee, in urban environments). Weight is 9 kg.
          Spike-MR - modification with a medium-range missile - in the range of 200-2500 meters. Used by infantry and special forces. Weight is 26 kg.
          Spike-LR - ATGM more long-range modifications, has a maximum range of 4000 meters. Used by infantry and for arming light combat vehicles. Weight is 26 kg.
          Spike-ER - heavy long-range option. Formerly known as NT-Dandy or NT-D. It has a maximum range of 8000 meters. The complex is available in versions for mobile combat systems and for helicopters. Weight is 33 kg.
          Spike NLOS “Tamuz” is an anti-tank missile with a radius of action of 25 kilometers and optoelectronic guidance, to hit targets that are out of line of sight, for which it can use external target designation. Weight is 71 kg.
          The only drawback of the SPIK anti-tank system is its high cost, since one shot costs an average of 250 thousand dollars,
          1. 0
            25 February 2012 17: 51
            How do you get the cost of a shot in $ 250000?
    2. Mr. Truth
      0
      25 February 2012 19: 33
      RPG can do the same.
      1. +1
        25 February 2012 20: 54
        it was very interesting to read your comments about anti-tank systems and their cost, but it seems to me that in your comparisons you have gone far from the meaning of the article. As I understood after reading it, all these ATGMs are used not for tanks and "cars", but for infantry, which is either in cover or at a considerable distance from the target, in this regard, I recall one report from the times of the second Chechen - during the assault on the village, a soldier was shown and next to it is a mountain of used "contests". It seems to me that they were used in order to hit the passage in houses through the window or any opening where the enemy was found. In connection with this and many articles on the use of RPG-7, I consider it necessary to supply to the RA (maso) both fragmentation ammunition for the "7", and the development of cheap "ATGM" with a fragmentation warhead with a long range
    3. +1
      25 February 2012 22: 16
      that's what a bottomless paper budget means !!! laughing and the Taliban see fighting heavily armored donkeys !! wassat and the question is backfill, but isn't this American miracle a warhead not cumulative? feel
  4. +10
    25 February 2012 11: 05
    US infantry pocket artillery
    decent pockets in the American infantryman 20 kilogram rocket intermeddle, tongue
  5. abyss 8
    -3
    25 February 2012 12: 11
    and what kind of "pocket" artillery does a Russian infantryman have? maybe experts will share their achievements or again: "ours is not worse, and in some respects even better" ... lol and do not forget - we have everything secret ...
    1. beard999
      +2
      25 February 2012 16: 53
      Quote: Abyss 8
      and what kind of "pocket" artillery does a Russian infantryman have?

      By the term "pocket artillery" we meant grenade launchers, for example - RPG-26, RPG-28, RPG-30, RMG. Moreover, they, unlike "Javelin", they can be issued to each motorized infantry.
      If we talk about guided (correctable) weapons, then such work, at least, is carried out on the basis of RPG-32 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xApaFzrrfU (watch and listen from about 4 min 20 sec.) .
    2. +2
      25 February 2012 17: 39
      Enough;) and more than, for example, I like RShG-1, RShG-2 and naturally RPO-M, a very interesting thing RMG http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeqaXp3Ed24&feature=g-like&context=G2921b73ALTz


      4QANAA and of course the Small Jet Flamethrower (MPO). The RPG-32 Hashim is interesting in terms of armor. Kornet-D is very interesting. From a simple tandem, thermobaric and fragmentation grenade (fragmentation !!! theme) for RPG-7, enough? There is such a magic thing, the price-quality ratio ... when I read about the replacement Javelin smiled ... Oh, I almost forgot KM-8 "Edge" is not quite "pocket") but very interesting news ....
    3. Nymp
      +1
      27 February 2012 13: 08
      What pride for americos bursting ??! Or denial at the instinct level! The development of the Russian model does not have to copy the American idea! There is something to answer with their pocket firecrackers be spock!
  6. 0
    25 February 2012 17: 15
    If I understood correctly, the main advantage of the "griffin" over its more effective in terms of armor-piercing predecessor is the relatively lower price and the ability of the shooter to scrape right after the shot ("fire-forget"). True, as far as I understand, the system is not the most convenient for carrying - but rather, it is suitable only for transporting fur. means (who carried 30 kg of "clumsy" iron with other calculations - I will understand) and it is not entirely clear how to counteract the active defense of tanks (the main calculation is to defeat the tower from above). Frankly speaking, our RPG-32 impressed me a little more. And mobility and versatility of charges and counteraction to active defense.
    Therefore, the ironies of Bendera and liberals are not entirely explainable, although they are quite understandable.
    1. +2
      25 February 2012 17: 58
      Please do not confuse, Griffin will not replace Javelin, but only add - it is not always the same to shoot a cannon at sparrows. Griffin is not designed to destroy tanks. Jelin has already implemented the "fire-forget" system. RPG-32 weapons of a completely different class, at least compare the firing range. Javelin 2500 m, Griffin 5600 m, RPG-32 700 m.
  7. +1
    25 February 2012 21: 29
    First you minus - then do you read? Well done.
    Where did I write that to replace? Written by "predecessor". Or is it not so?
    About armor-piercing - I agree. I misunderstood. (but I also made a reservation on this in my comment). Although, as for me - this is a clear minus for the "griffin".
    The range is different, I agree. And where are you on rough terrain, being an "infantryman", will you find and track the target at 5600 m? Have you tried it? Maybe in the desert or treeless mountains? And that's not a fact. Well, the sea may still be. From the yacht, if not seasick. And carrying a fool of 30 kg with the rest of the obligatory body kit is not a pleasant occupation. And the griffin is announced as the "favorite of the infantry." Somehow it's hard to believe.
    That is why I wrote that AS FOR ME - our RPG-32 is "more impressionable". Well, and also because I served in the army and "fought" in the field. And the fact that you have a different opinion - I'm not surprised at all. And I will not minus you for that :))))
    1. +1
      25 February 2012 21: 39
      ikrut,
      Quote: ikrut
      The range is different, I agree. And where are you on rough terrain, being an "infantryman", will you find and track the target at 5600 m? Have you tried it? Maybe in the desert or treeless mountains? And that's not a fact. Well, the sea may still be.

      but about the short-range UAV, we already forgot
      1. -2
        25 February 2012 23: 35
        It's about infantry weapons. At least this is how the new one is announced.
    2. -1
      25 February 2012 22: 14
      And where are you on rough terrain, being an "infantryman", will you find and track the target at 5600 m?

      UAVs of the "raven" type are already in service with these very "infantrymen" in non-children's quantities.
      http://topwar.ru/10397-tihaya-avaicionnaya-revolyuciya.html

      Yes, and carrying a fool in 30 kg with the rest of the required body kit is not a pleasant occupation.

      It’s true that you don’t run with him, although this is not 30, but 20 and judging by Afghanistan and Iraq, Javelin is already a favorite weapon. So for the fate of Grifin, I’m calm.

      RPG-32 was not tested in battle, and his range is not enough.
      PS
      I did not minus you as your comment on the topic.
      1. -1
        25 February 2012 23: 49
        Excuse me. This Bandera promoted. I already understood.
        20 weighs installation. But rockets must also be worn. And not one.
        For Afghanistan and Iraq, where they fight at cars and roadblocks, it’s also convenient. There, and the terrain is appropriate. Desert, no forest. Everything is in full view. I somehow correlated with our tasks-conditions. The question was - what do we have such and such ?.
        The UAV is probably an interesting thing. Although I have not tried it. Is that in the movie saw. I started it - I sat down at the computer - I looked where the enemy lay and there he set up this griffin.
        But as for me, ordinary artillery would have done it, if the war is network-centric. Why so many thousands to scorch a griffin? Threw the coordinates on a self-propelled gun - and sleep, rest. And cheap and cheerful. I think that the infantry can overload themselves with unusual functions - it can cost a lot. Anti-tank light weapons - you need, well, there - MANPADS, but at a distance of more than 2 km you need to fight no longer infantry. Purely IMHO.
        1. 0
          26 February 2012 02: 10
          Quote: ikrut
          Why so many thousands to scorch a griffin? Threw the coordinates on a self-propelled gun - and sleep, rest. And cheap and cheerful.
          - if you read the material on the "Feilin" outfits purchased from the French, there is such a feature - binoculars. It's like with a built-in microcomputer inside and with a GPS sensor. What you look at through these binoculars can be seen by all your partners, and the headquarters, and the crew of the same self-propelled gun. Moreover, the exact GPS coordinates of the observed object are displayed immediately.
          So why throw something away? He looked through the binoculars and lie down, rest. And could the Russian military-industrial complex itself never come up with such chips? Yes, and decided to be indignant - like why buy this felin, it is inferior in protection to Russian bulletproof vests. Yes, it’s not a matter of body armor - in all these pieces that really make life easier for a soldier - I indicated only one piece
      2. -1
        22 February 2014 17: 20
        About UAV "Raven" - is this really a topic? You can see the target. But how will Javelin see her? He needs a line of sight to launch. And then you can start skiing. And about target designation - "Raven" does not know how. Only "peep". And that is low and close. Everywhere now this toy (-in the literal sense of the word) is slipped in - look, what a wunderwaffe. Soon it will also carry "tamaghawks", apparently it will bear, judging by the excitement ... Yes
  8. Dust
    0
    25 February 2012 22: 41
    Well, that's something, but such weapons just do not pull on "pocket artillery" - and they themselves are not so small, and no pocket can withstand active use ...
  9. -1
    26 February 2012 02: 18
    RPG-32 and Javelin to compare is not entirely correct, more correct with Cornet-d ...
  10. vylvyn
    0
    26 February 2012 06: 06
    Here are the data on our Cornet.

    "Cornet" (GRAU Index - 9K135, according to the classification of the US Defense Ministry and NATO: AT-14 Spriggan) - anti-tank missile system developed by the Tula Instrument Design Bureau. It was developed on the basis of the Reflex tank guided weapon system, while retaining its basic layout solutions. Designed to destroy tanks and other armored targets, including those equipped with modern means of dynamic protection. Modification of anti-tank systems "Cornet-D" can affect air targets.
    The main difference from the previous ATGM "Bassoon", "Competition" and "Metis" - in the guidance system. If the ATGM control of the latter was carried out by wire, the ATGM “Cornet” is induced by a laser beam.

    The 9M133 missile is equipped with a tandem cumulative warhead, with the main warhead located behind the rocket engine to provide the necessary focal length during the formation of the cumulative jet. For the same purpose, the solid-propellant rocket engine housing is made of an annular shape with a hollow central channel for a high-speed jet to pass through it.
    In addition to a cumulative warhead, it is possible to equip missiles with a thermobaric warhead (9M133F) to destroy various engineering structures and firing points.
    The 9P163M-1 missile launcher is mounted on a tripod machine and includes a sight capable of operating in optical and infrared modes, an optical laser device and missile guidance and control system equipment. In addition to the infantry installation "Cornet" is included in the BMP-3 weapon system.
    The flight path of the rocket is a spiral.

    Maximum firing range:
    In the afternoon - 5500 m
    At night - 3500 m
    Minimum firing range: 100 m
    Maximum target flank speed: 70 km / h
    Control system: semi-automatic, by laser beam
    Rocket Caliber: 152 mm
    Missile length: 1200 mm
    Maximum wing span: 460 mm
    Weight:
    Transport and launch container with missile: 29 kg
    Rocket: 26 kg
    Warhead weight: 7 kg
    Combat units:
    Tandem Cumulative:
    Weight BB: 4,6 kg
    Penetration: 1000-1200 mm of homogeneous armor per DZ (at a 90 ° meeting angle)
    Penetration of concrete monolith: not less than 3000 mm
    Thermobaric
    Propulsion Type: RDTT
    Thermal Sight 1PN-79 "Metis-2":
    Weight: 11 kg
    Target detection / firing range at night: up to 4500 m
    Target Recognition Range: 2500 m
    Staff battle calculation: 2 people
    Portable weight 9P163M-1 (on a tripod): 26 kg
    Transfer time from traveling to combat: less than 1 min.
    The mass of the built-in PU 9P163M-2 Quartet: 60 kg (according to other sources - 48)
    Ready to start, after target detection: 1 - 2 s
    Combat rate of fire: 2 - 3 rounds / min
    PU reload time: 30 s
    Guidance angles PU 9P163M-1 / 9P163M-2:
    Horizontal: 360/180 °
    Vertical: 5 ° to + 20 ° / 10 ° to + 15 °
    Temperature range for combat use:
    "Cornet" from 50 ° to + 50 ° C
    "Cornet-E" from 20 ° to + 60 ° C
    Altitude of combat use above sea level: up to 4500 m
    RMSE 0,3 m [3]

    Cornet-E is an export modification of the Cornet complex.
    Kornet-D - an upgraded version of the Kornet complex (firing range - 10 km, armor penetration up to 1300 mm)
    Cornet-EM - export version of the complex Cornet-D
    Kornet-T - self-propelled launcher - 9P162 combat vehicle based on the BMP-3 chassis ("699 object").

    As of August 2009, 35 Kornet ATGMs were sold
    Russia - about 750 ATGM “Cornet”, as of 2009
    Azerbaijan - about 100 9M133 units delivered from Russia between 2009 and 2010
    Algeria - delivered 216 ATGMs for BMP-2M from 2007 to 2009 for a total of $ 50 million. According to other sources, about 3000 9M133 units were delivered from Russia between 2006 and 2010.
    Greece - 196 PU 9P196 "Cornet-E" was in service with the Ground Forces, as of 2010. Delivery was carried out in two stages, under a contract concluded with Rosoboronexport in 2001 for 278 anti-tank systems.
    India - more than 250 9P196 Kornet-E launchers and about 3000 9M133 launchers were delivered from Russia between 2003 and 2006.
    Jordan - 200 launchers and 2000 9M133 units delivered from Russia between 2009 and 2010.
    Cote d'Ivoire - a certain amount of ATGM “Cornet-E”, as of 2010
    Libya - number and status unknown
    Peru - 244 ATGMs and 24 PU “Kornet-E”, as of 2010 a contract was concluded in 2008 for the amount of 23 million dollars.
    Syria - 1000 ATGMs, as of 2010. The supply contract was executed in the 90s in the amount of 65 million dollars.
    Turkey - 80 ATGM "Cornet-E" was in service with the Ground Forces, as of 2010, including up to 800 missiles - delivered in 2009 under a contract concluded with Rosoboronexport in 2008. contract worth $ 70 million
    Eritrea - 80 9M133 units delivered from Russia in 2005, the total amount of the contract - $ 170 thousand

    Hezbollah - this organization was reported to have a Kornet-E ATGM.

    Kornet-E ATGM (export version) participated in the hostilities between the Israeli army and the Hezbollah group in southern Lebanon in 2006. Several launchers and unused rockets were captured by the Israeli army. He got to Lebanese fighters, possibly from Syria, where he was officially placed.
    The Israeli Armed Forces admitted defeat in this conflict by enemy fire (all types of impact) 46 Merkava tanks. In 24 cases, the armor was pierced, in 3 of these cases the ammunition detonated. Irretrievable losses from missiles of all types, including Kornet-E, amounted to only 3 tanks (one each of Merkava-2, Merkava-3 and Merkava-4).
    Several Kornet ATGMs fell into the Israeli National Institute for the Study of Ammunition of the Engineering Forces of the Israel Defense Forces.
    According to the Israeli authorities, on April 7, 2011, during the shelling of an Israeli school bus, Hamas militants used the Kornet ATGM, which led to a diplomatic scandal between Israel and Russia

    According to Wikipedia.
  11. vylvyn
    -2
    26 February 2012 06: 31
    FGM-148 Dzhevlin (eng. FGM-148 Javelin, ['dvln] - Dart) - American man-portable anti-tank missile system (ATGM). Designed to destroy armored vehicles, protected objects (such as a bunker, bunker, bunker) and low-flying low-speed targets (helicopters, UAVs). It is the first serial ATGM of the third generation. Developed since 1986 by Javelin Joint Venture (Louisville, Texas). Adopted by the U.S. Army in 1996. Successfully applied in Iraq. It is delivered for export.

    Javelin ATGM was developed to replace the M47 Dragon anti-tank missile, which has been in service with the United States since 1975. Field tests of the new ATGM were launched in July 1993. Since 1994, the manufacture of the installation batch of Javelin was started.
    It was originally planned to deliver up to 6 ATGMs to the US Army and Marine Corps within 74 years, but subsequently delivery volumes were adjusted downward and for a longer period - 000 missiles over 33 years. It was also estimated that export supplies could reach 000–11 ATGMs. The cost of one anti-tank missile reaches 40 thousand US dollars, which is 000-70% higher than the price expected when taking Javelin into service.

    The rocket of the Javelin complex is equipped with an infrared homing head (IR seeker), which implements the principle of "shot-forget", that is, homing. The rocket is made with spread wings according to the classic aerodynamic design. It is capable of attacking targets directly and from above, which, combined with a powerful tandem cumulative warhead, makes it easy to hit all modern tanks. The "soft start" system allows you to shoot from indoors.

    Destruction of the target is achieved by the combined action of a short cumulative jet of large diameter, breaking through the barrier in front of the target, and the action of powder gases from the main explosive charge and the main engine. Such a mechanism of action is necessary for effective destruction of the tank in thin armor of the roof (since the armor is thinner there, there is very little material for the secondary fragmentation field, and the only possible defeat by explosive action). Breaking through the tank’s armor or the wall of the shelter in front of the enemy, the projectile creates a hole of sufficient size to destroy manpower with a wave of overpressure of several atmospheres. Such a method of action allows you to effectively use low-speed ammunition against lightly armored vehicles (a conventional cumulative ammunition will simply make a small hole in the armored personnel carrier of an armored personnel carrier or infantry fighting vehicle, causing damage with only one jet, "Javelin" will destroy the crew with a wide wave of excess pressure gases) and manpower, but against the frontal the armor of modern tanks is ineffective. Even if the jet manages to make a hole in the armor, then, due to the small length of the jet, the secondary fragments will have significantly lower speed and damage, and the powder gases will lose their initial pressure in the time required to penetrate the armor

    Guidance missiles is possible in adverse weather conditions, with increased smoke and in the dark, which provides a huge advantage over those complexes of the 2nd generation, which do not include a thermal imaging sight. The missile guidance system eliminates any active target illumination, which can lead to the triggering of the SDR with the subsequent installation of a smoke curtain. The defeat is made in the least protected part of the tank - the roof, while the residual stream due to the caliber warhead will have a powerful armor effect.
    The missile is completely immune to the currently existing active defense complexes that do not control the upper hemisphere of the BTT.
    It is impossible to counteract a missile by any means of optoelectronic suppression, since its guidance system does not receive a modulated signal at all, but is aimed at a source of infrared radiation in the far part of the spectrum (i.e., strongly heating ESRs are additional factors for increasing the target's thermal contrast).

    Criticism of the complex

    The complex can only fire at targets in direct line of sight, which casts doubt on its advantages over the 2nd generation ATGM (Metis-M, Cornet) at distances of more than 1000 meters. At distances up to 500 meters, a similar problem arises - it is more rational to use lighter and cheaper hand grenade launchers. But at the same time, it must be borne in mind that at such a distance hand grenade launchers can only hit lightly armored targets. To destroy modern tanks, a heavy grenade is required, with a range of about 200 meters, in addition, most of them have problems with the defeat of modern tanks in the frontal projection, which makes their use extremely difficult. The complex operator has no way to correct the flight of the rocket after launch (when the target is in poor contrast with the terrain, the rocket may go astray).
    The cost of one rocket is about $ 80, the cost of the launcher is about $ 000, which is about twice as much as the cost of ATGMs of the past generation of the Cornet type. Such a large cost of the complex is explained by the use of infrared seeker with large diameter lenses.
    The infrared seeker of the Javelin complex requires cooling before switching on, which, in combination with the time to capture the target, adds 25-30 seconds to the time the rocket is ready for launch.
    Some experts note the low efficiency of such systems: getting a Javelin rocket into a tank from above does not always lead to its failure (only side screens, MTOs are affected), which is caused by low accuracy.

    TTX

    Caliber rockets - 127 mm
    Warhead tandem cumulative
    Penetration behind dynamic protection - 700 mm
    Missile Guidance System - Homing with the help of IR GOS
    ATGM length, mm: 1081
    ATGM length in TPK, mm: 1198
    Guidance block weight, kg: 6.36
    Anti-tank mass, kg: 11.80
    Mass ATGM in TPK, kg: 15.90
    The mass of the warhead, kg: 8.44
    Mass of the combat complex, kg: 22.25
    Firing Range, m: 50-2500
    Maximum speed ATGM, m / s: 290

    "Cornet" (GRAU Index - 9K135, according to the classification of the US Defense Ministry and NATO: AT-14 Spriggan) - anti-tank missile system developed by the Tula Instrument Design Bureau. It was developed on the basis of the Reflex tank guided weapon system, while retaining its basic layout solutions. Designed to destroy tanks and other armored targets, including those equipped with modern means of dynamic protection. Modification of anti-tank systems "Cornet-D" can affect air targets.
    The main difference from the previous ATGM "Bassoon", "Competition" and "Metis" - in the guidance system. If the ATGM control of the latter was carried out by wire, the ATGM “Cornet” is induced by a laser beam.
    The 9M133 missile is equipped with a tandem cumulative warhead, with the main warhead located behind the rocket engine to provide the necessary focal length during the formation of the cumulative jet. For the same purpose, the solid-propellant rocket engine housing is made of an annular shape with a hollow central channel for a high-speed jet to pass through it.
    In addition to a cumulative warhead, it is possible to equip missiles with a thermobaric warhead (9M133F) to destroy various engineering structures and firing points.
    In addition to the infantry installation "Cornet" is included in the BMP-3 weapon system.

    The flight path of the rocket is a spiral.
    Maximum firing range:
    In the afternoon - 5500 m
    At night - 3500 m
    Minimum firing range: 100 m
    Maximum target flank speed: 70 km / h
    Control system: semi-automatic, by laser beam
    Rocket Caliber: 152 mm
    Missile length: 1200 mm
    Maximum wing span: 460 mm
    Weight:
    Transport and launch container with missile: 29 kg
    Rocket: 26 kg
    Warhead weight: 7 kg
    Combat units:
    Tandem Cumulative:
    Weight BB: 4,6 kg
    Penetration: 1000-1200 mm of homogeneous armor per DZ (at a 90 ° meeting angle)
    Penetration of concrete monolith: not less than 3000 mm
    Thermobaric
    Propulsion Type: RDTT
    Thermal Sight 1PN-79 "Metis-2":
    Weight: 11 kg
    Target detection / firing range at night: up to 4500 m
    Target Recognition Range: 2500 m
    Staff battle calculation: 2 people
    Portable weight 9P163M-1 (on a tripod): 26 kg
    Transfer time from traveling to combat: less than 1 min.
    The mass of the built-in PU 9P163M-2 Quartet: 60 kg (according to other sources - 48)
    Ready to start, after target detection: 1 - 2 s
    Combat rate of fire: 2 - 3 rounds / min
    PU reload time: 30 s
    Guidance angles PU 9P163M-1 / 9P163M-2:
    Horizontal: 360/180 °
    Vertical: 5 ° to + 20 ° / 10 ° to + 15 °
    Temperature range for combat use:
    "Cornet" from 50 ° to + 50 ° C
    "Cornet-E" from 20 ° to + 60 ° C
    Altitude of combat use above sea level: up to 4500 m

    Combat application

    Kornet-E ATGM participated in the hostilities between the Israeli army and the Hezbollah group in southern Lebanon in 2006. He got to Lebanese fighters, possibly from Syria, where he was officially placed.
    The Israeli Armed Forces admitted defeat in this conflict by enemy fire (all types of impact) 46 Merkava tanks. In 24 cases, the armor was pierced, in 3 of these cases the ammunition detonated.

    Now we can talk on the subject in detail.
    1. -2
      26 February 2012 10: 55
      I will repeat my comment from another branch:
      Javelin differs from Cornet by an entire generation. And this is not only "fire-forget" at the javelin and "automatic aiming at the target at the Cornet" in which the operator must constantly keep the target in the sight, for this purpose, rotating handles are made on the Kornet's launcher. And God forbid him to be distracted and miss the goal ...
      Further, the secrecy of the application: Javelin has no exposure to the target, so tankers have nowhere to know that they are being fired. At Cornet, the guidance goes along the laser beam (the warning system in the tank about the radiation perfectly detects it).
      Well, IHMO and most importantly, a rocket at Cornet flies along the line of sight and hits on the forehead, at Javelin it makes a slide and hits on the roof.

      I don’t believe in fairy tales about the range of Kornet’s defeat in 10 km. Of course, he can fly to such a distance, only how to bring him? The bourgeois on missiles of this range have a homing head, or at least a television camera. That is, as the rocket approaches the target, the probability of hitting it increases, while Cornet's vice versa.

      The photo clearly shows a black nitrogen cylinder for cooling the thermal imager and two rotating handles to hold the rocket on target.
      1. +1
        26 February 2012 19: 48
        Dear professor, the thermal homing head is not unique and the electronics, for example, for the "Verba" MANPADS, have a cooler head ... and personally, I have great doubts about the javelin. Let me explain, "Some experts note the low efficiency of such systems: hitting a Javelin rocket into a tank from above does not always lead to its incapacitation (only side screens, MTO are affected), which is caused by low accuracy." do you know why? with this method of destruction "by the action of a short cumulative jet of large diameter, breaking through the obstacle in front of the target, and by the action of powder gases from the main charge of the explosive and the propulsion engine" to hit from above, the charge must be detonated exactly in a certain area, which is not easy to achieve .... I note not I doubt the javelin's ability to hit tanks and stationary objects 8,5 kilograms of explosives is no joke, I doubt the declared characteristics ... so the price-effectiveness ratio is not in favor of the javelin ...
        1. +1
          26 February 2012 20: 47
          thermal homing head Vestch is not unique and electronics, for example, for MANPADS "Verba", the head is more abrupt

          There is no question of the uniqueness of the GOS Javelina, in 2002 it was unique, now there is better. Why compare the GOS ATGM and MANPADS? Sorry, this is not entirely correct.

          hit of a Javelin rocket in a tank from above does not always lead to its incapacitation (only side screens, MTO are affected)

          Are side screens on top of the tank? If MTO is struck, then the crew was lucky, they survived. And where are the tanks that Javin got into and quietly drove on? wassat

          the action of powder gases from the main explosive charge

          Where did you come from POWDER gases during the explosion of the main explosive charge?

          to strike from above, the charge must be detonated precisely in a certain area, which is not easy to achieve

          And for defeat in a forehead it is not necessary to do this? And as far as I remember, the fuse is there, the contact one and in parallel to it to fire in the forehead or in the roof.

          IHMO does not doubt the declared characteristics of javelin (no one has denied them since 2002), as well as I have no doubt that Cornet will break through a meter of homogeneous armor for dynamic protection. Cornet's only problem is pointing, but if he gets into it, I doubt that any tank can stand him.

          so the price-effectiveness ratio is not in favor of the javelin ...

          The experience of combat use suggests otherwise.
          1. 0
            26 February 2012 20: 54
            Quote: professor
            The experience of combat use suggests otherwise.

            when you throw an article about the combat use of Javelin?

            And then there was such a film - Helicopter Battles (or something like that)

            so there in Basra when the Americans ran into the T-55, so screams for help just didn’t reach the Pentogon. And they called the Aircraft Carrier .. and the helicopters demanded --- but they didn’t call something that was not a Khotan.


            And do not find fault with the side screens, there are none on the roof, unlike DZ

            And the powder gases came from Wikipedia and the spear's powder engine
          2. +1
            26 February 2012 22: 16
            I wrote that if ours create homing heads for MANPADS, then for a tank they can undoubtedly ... but they don’t;) And about low efficiency, read at least a wiki or
            There are a lot of legends and conjectures about amerovsky javelin, especially about the "fire and forget".
            Actual military operations in Iraq showed very low (close to zero) effectiveness in combat conditions.
            As it turned out, it took about 1-2x minutes to cool the GOS matrix and during this time the target simply left, and after launch the capture was broken when the target was maneuvered and there were interference on the battlefield in the form of: burning objects, smoke or dust, rain ...

            those. the device cannot be effectively used in battle, which is offset by propaganda and advertising ...
            drol_links
            2011-08-19 18:40 (UTC)
            > Actual fighting in Iraq showed very low

            Real combat operations showed quite adequate effectiveness of Javelin - RPGs smoke on the sidelines against its background. Although there were, of course, problems. And they are working on them. Javelin is already ~ 15 (!) Years old. The rockets alone have changed four models. "
            1. +1
              26 February 2012 22: 42
              I wrote that if ours create homing heads for MANPADS, then for the tank they can undoubtedly ... but they don’t;)

              GOS MANPADS and a thermal imager, as they say in Odessa, are "two big differences" and, by the way, Russia buys thermal imaging matrices from France. We already have our own developments, I hope they will soon be launched into a series.

              read at least wiki

              Dismiss the wiki to read. Is there anything more serious?

              You better look at how many countries (at least 12) "cheated" and bought the "advertised" ATGM. They bought a pig in a poke and did not test it against the background of burning objects, smoke or dust, rain? And now, out of shame, they are silent about its ineffectiveness?

              ... Javelin is already ~ 15 (!) Years old. Missiles alone, four models changed

              What is this for? iPhone, too, 4 models have changed, but this does not mean that it is bad.

              1. +2
                27 February 2012 00: 40
                Quote: professor
                You better look at how many countries (at least 12) "cheated" and bought the "advertised" ATGM. They bought a pig in a poke and did not test it against the background of burning objects, smoke or dust, rain? And now, out of shame, they are silent about its ineffectiveness?



                Why should they say that?
                Australia: 92 PU [2]
                Bahrain: 13 PU [3]
                United Kingdom: some [4] [5]
                India: some [6]
                Ireland: some [7]
                Jordan: 162 PU [8]
                Lithuania: 40 PU [9]
                New Zealand: 24 PU [10]
                Norway: 100 PU [11]
                UAE: some [12]
                Oman: 30 PU [13]
                US 950 PU for 2010 year [14].
                Republic of China: 360 PU [15] [16]
                France: 76 PU [17]
                Czech Republic: 3 PU [18]


                Half American henchmen, the other half bought for a change (Czechs probably decided to be bitten off from Slovakia)
                Separate are China and India --- the Chinese for copying, the Indians for the diversification of weapons.

                And so, in principle, it’s funny to say something, especially about the saturation of infantry with anti-tank weapons.

                But don’t go to grandma Javelin cooler than RPG 7 and M-44 (or whatever the USA has for the bazooka)
  12. +1
    26 February 2012 10: 37
    "The IR seeker of the Javelin complex requires cooling before turning on, which, combined with the time to lock the target, adds 25-30 seconds to the time the rocket is prepared for launch." a lot of time if the tankers spot it - a priority target ...
    1. +1
      26 February 2012 10: 48
      "Javelin" requires cooling before turning on, which, combined with the time to lock the target, adds 25-30 seconds to the preparation time of the missile for launch. "

      This is an instant compared to the preparation time for firing an anti-tank gun. wassat

      if tankers spotted, the priority goal ...

      That's exactly the "if". At a distance of 2000 meters, it is very, very difficult to detect this from a tank.




      And please do not talk about the UAV of the tank battalion, since only those who have Javelii da Spike have such gizmos. wink
      1. +3
        26 February 2012 14: 17
        And what about the cameras that the thermal imagers don’t put on tanks? Well, are they such that they distinguish human heat for several km?
        How strange is it that a tank sees an infantryman with a portable gadget, but a tank with its mounts does not see an infantryman?
        or is it a joke against the T-55 from Mazambique?
        1. matvey.z
          +3
          26 February 2012 17: 46
          Quote: Kars
          And what about the cameras that the thermal imagers don’t put on tanks? Well, are they such that they distinguish human heat for several km?

          They stand, but:
          person T body = 37 ° C
          IR radiation from 760nm to 1-2mm long.
          The range of IR radiation is divided into areas: near (750nm-2.500nm), medium (2.500nm - 50.000nm) and far (50.000nm-2.000.000nm).
          The maximum infrared radiation of the human body is at 9300nm.
          Power of thermal radiation palm 0,1W (total)
          Human volume 01, m3, surface area 1m2, Human thermal radiation power up to = 140W

          (thermal sensitivity of the skin 0,0001 W / cm2)


          Tank, engine power (ODE) 1103 kW (1500 hp), for gas turbine gas temperature on blades 1193 ° C (M-1), after GTU blades = up to 890 ° C, Thermal radiation approx. 400 kW
          APU = 22 kW (30 l / s), T of mixture combustion up to 2000 ° C, T exhaust up to 600 ° C; thermal radiation of such ICE = 6,3 kW

          RESPECTIVELY:
          The IR sensor of the tank detects a person, the detection range (T okr av.20 ° C (object weightfrom 50kg): up to 12 -16м (under ideal conditions)
          The PTRK infrared sensor detects a tank up to 4000m (sometimes they write up to 6000m).
          + poor sensitivity of IR sensors to sensitive to the long-wave portion of the IR spectrum
          1. 0
            26 February 2012 20: 13
            Quote: matvey.z
            up to 12 -16m (under ideal conditions

            Of course, I’m wildly apologizing, but 12-16 meters is somehow not very, I’m certainly not a great specialist in thermal imagers / televisions, but I don’t have a portable device with 350
            In this regard, it is necessary to search for cheaper devices. As them can be used television (TV) sight. It consists of a television camera mounted on a weapon and shot with it and a head-mounted TV display mounted on a shooter's helmet. Modern CCD CCD cameras have sensitivity ranging from 3x10-3 to 2x10-5 lux, which corresponds to the capabilities of the image intensifier [23]. Such cameras can work around the clock due to its automatically adjustable over a wide range of sensitivity. The signal from the TV camera is transmitted to the TV display using a miniature radio relay communication line. The appearance of the shooter equipped with such a system is shown in the 15 photo. An aiming scale and a sighting mark are formed in the electronic channel of the TV camera. They are observed along with the image of the target and the terrain on the TV display. It is enough for the shooter to give the weapon a position in which the sighting mark coincides with the target - and you can open fire. This gives the same advantages as the use of the complex laser target designator + night vision goggles, but when working in passive mode. In addition, the range is now limited not by the capabilities of the glasses, but by the TV system and reaches 400 - 600 m. The TV channel can effectively suppress light interference. Remote image transmission is acceptable. But the main thing is that it is possible to shoot from the shelter - only the hands of the shooter holding the weapon remain unprotected. The cost of such a complex does not exceed $ 1000 - 1500, i.e. approaching the cost of night vision goggles. An example of such a TV sight is the F2000IW model of Pilkington (Great Britain) [24], as well as the Argus-21 [25] device with a range of detection of a human body shape on a starry night 350 m at a field of view of 8 - 100


            And this is portable .. a cheap kit --- for a tank worth several million dollars, I think they will not regret it
            1. +4
              26 February 2012 20: 33
              Or such
              Cooled thermal imagers and multisensor monitoring systems (human detection up to 16 km). ThermmoVision 2000 / 3000 MS FLIR Systems
              1. matvey.z
                -1
                26 February 2012 22: 27
                That's right, but ThermoVision 2000/3000 MS FLIR Systems
                surveillance systems used at HOSPITAL objects

                as a rule, they are located on the upper facade of the assignment and "look" downward, covering the empty space with a panorama

                http://www.flir.com/cs/emea/ru/view/?id=42131
                DISCOVER up to 12,5 km, RECORD from 4,5 km, IDENTIFICATION up to 2,3 km.
                We talked about something else. IR detector on the tank (Combat use against the ATGM operator)
                1) Location height
                2) Interference (IR) from the tank itself
                3) Moving Carrier (Tank Rides)
                4) Rough terrain.
                5) The object (enemy soldier) DOESN’T GO to its full height in the theater of operations, but (as a rule) crawl, dash, using shelters
                6) The battlefield, as a rule, many different sources of infrared radiation: weather, sun, fires, explosions, infrared traps, animals (dogs) + various spurious interference (the enemy is destroyed, killed, but the dynamics of reducing the rectal temperature of the corpse at ambient temperature medium + 18 ° C, taking into account the development of subcutaneous fat and muscle, the rate of temperature decrease in degrees 0,55 ° C / hour, with 1x three hours).

                After all, the goal must not only be noticed, but also identified, and determined that it is precisely the enemy.
                Only then shoot. And then you will "wet" all the gophers or spend the BZ on the corpses.
                In the field, this value is obtained, according to tests.
                But the tank, as a source of infrared radiation, is undeniably an accessible object.
                1. +3
                  26 February 2012 22: 57
                  For starters, I do not care optical, infrared, thermonuclear China.

                  The fact is that the tank is much more .. stationary .. the object, as well as higher, is more commercially armed and so on than the infantryman and is equipped with devices that detect a person not in 20 from the tank --- do you want to prove the opposite?
                  Quote: matvey.z
                  Location height

                  Higher than the infantryman, and what is the height? And what is the detection radius with 2,3 m? I hope not 16-18 m?
                  Quote: matvey.z
                  2) Interference (IR) from the tank itself

                  So we will not look towards the engine compartment, and there is cooling.
                  Quote: matvey.z
                  3) Moving Carrier (Tank Rides)

                  Let’s dwell on what the problem is --- tanks .. are traveling in groups .. one is watching others go and so on.
                  Quote: matvey.z
                  5) The object (enemy soldier) DOESN’T GO to its full height in the theater of operations, but (as a rule) crawl, dash, using shelters


                  Is it in 16 (8) km from the target? Could it be that?
                  Quote: matvey.z
                  6) The battlefield, as a rule, many different sources of infrared radiation: weather, sun, fires, explosions, infrared traps, animals (dogs) + various spurious interference (the enemy is destroyed, killed, but the dynamics of reducing the rectal temperature of the corpse at ambient temperature medium + 18 ° C, taking into account the development of subcutaneous fat and muscle, the rate of temperature decrease in degrees 0,55 ° C / hour, with 1x three hours).

                  how to tolerate better than nothing.
                  Quote: matvey.z
                  After all, the goal must not only be noticed, but also identified, and determined that it is precisely the enemy.

                  But this doesn’t matter at all ---- it happens, and so .. from the West .. only the enemy can come, and it is better to plant the OFS to a suspicious object than to get a rocket ready (and before the tribunal if you still need to survive)
                  Quote: matvey.z
                  And then you will "wet" all the gophers or spend the BZ on the corpses

                  But the living and the tank in 5 millions of dollars a whole.

                  And in general, I’ve just brought a device from Google ---- do you think that they don’t do specialized tanks?

                  As the professor says, bring evidence that the tank thermal imager
                  for example --- PTT-2 thermal imaging sighting system has the ability to equip a person with a maximum distance of 20 m
                  1. matvey.z
                    -1
                    27 February 2012 03: 32
                    I gave only my opinion.
                    If really interesting, I can ask relatives.
                    But it will take time, because they are in Ukraine, Odessa.
                    Will he agree with the opinion of the colonel (MILITARY ACADEMY OF ARMORED FORCES) and the lieutenant colonel (LenVoKu)?
                    Both retired and both had combat experience outside the USSR.
                    That's what I found on thermal imagers, for small arms:
                    night thermal imaging sight “Argus-31”, made on the basis of an uncooled microbolometer array and operating in the 8 - 12 μm spectral range, has a recognition range of a person's height figure up to 100 m (when installing a lens with a focal length f '= 25 mm) and up to 750 m (for a lens with f' = 93 mm) at an angle of field of view 18x140 and 4019'x3014 ', respectively
                    Shahin Thermal Sight - Uncooled
                    Detection range of an object of the “human” type, m not less than 500
                    Recognition range of an object of type "man", m to 400
                    Two-spectral survey and sighting system “Veko” for automatic weapons, it consists of a low-level TV channel for the spectral region 0,6 - 0,9 μm and an uncooled thermal imaging channel for the spectrum region 8 - 14 μm. The detection range of a human growth figure in normalized conditions is 500 m recognition in the same conditions - 300 m

                    ON TANKS (ATGM)
                    ATGM HJ-9 ("Hong Jian" -9, NATO classification - "Red Arrow-9")
                    ATGM is equipped with a thermal imaging sight, operating in the range of 8-12 microns and providing target detection (TANK) at ranges up to 4 km and their identification at ranges up to 2.5-3 km.

                    BEST ONE ASK:
                    SE NPK "Photopribor" 18000, Cherkasy, st. B. Vishnevetsky, 85
                    Тел:+380 (472) 36-03-08

                    Tank thermal imaging sighting systems "Buran-Matis", "Buran-Catherine"

                    Range by stages of target search (TANK), at Т 2 ° К (DIFFERENCE OF TEMPERATURE OF THE OBJECT AND THE ENVIRONMENT), km:
                    — detection, CPL 7 12
                    — recognition, CPL 4 5
                    — identification, UPZ 2,5 2,5
                    — identification in complex 2,0 2,0
                    weather conditions, UPZ

                    It can be roughly estimated as follows: a tank detects (in bad weather conditions, a battle) at a distance of 2000 m.
                    Thermal radiation of the tank approx. 400 kW (kW)
                    Human thermal radiation = 140 W
                    400000 W / 2000 m = 140W / L
                    L = 1,4 m
                    This calculation is APPROXIMATE, tk. the dependence is not linear (drop in intensity).
                    But something like this in about meters and it turns out for a thermal imaging sight TANKOVO to detect a person.
                    1. +2
                      27 February 2012 04: 17
                      Quote: matvey.z
                      Detection range of an object of the “human” type, m not less than 500
                      Recognition range of an object of type "man", m to 400


                      Progress on the face compared to
                      Quote: matvey.z
                      The IR sensor of the tank detects a person, the detection range (T okr av.20 ° C (object weightfrom 50kg): up to 12 -16м (under ideal conditions



                      but it’s just strange that the sight of small arms recognizes a person from a distance in 20 --- TWENTY-odd times than the sight of a tank.

                      I brought a household appliance that finds a person beyond 16 km
                      Quote: matvey.z
                      Range by stages of target search (TANK), at Т 2 ° К (DIFFERENCE OF TEMPERATURE OF THE OBJECT AND THE ENVIRONMENT), km:

                      Is it a tank with the engine on or off?

                      And here is a portable
                      The high-resolution IR510 portable infrared camera allows you to receive high-quality infrared images, provides a greater detection distance compared to other cameras due to 2-fold magnification, excellent optics and automatic adjustment of contrast and brightness.

                      Detector Microbolometric uncooled matrix of 320x240 elements.
                      Spectral range of 8-14 microns.
                      Sensitivity Better than 0,1 ° C.
                      The frame rate is 50-60 Hz.
                      1200 person detection distance m.
                      Optics Standard: 100 mm / F1,0. Optional: 20mm / F0,7; 40mm / F0,8; 80mm / F1,0; 120mm / F1,1; 150mm / F1,2.
                      Focus Range From 40 cm to infinity.
                      Optical field of view 8 ° x 6 °.
                      Spatial resolution 0,5 mrad.
                      Electronic zoom x2, x4.
                      Video output PAL, NTSC.
                      Visualization Viewfinder, the ability to connect an external display.
                      Power source 7.2 B lithium battery, external power.
                      Power Consumption Less Than 6 Watts
                      Operating time More than 2 hours of continuous operation from a standard battery.
                      External control Optional RS-232.
                      Operating temperature -10 ° С - + 50 ° С (from -40 ° С option).
                      Storage temperature -40 ° С - + 60 ° С.
                      Protection IP54 (dust e - and waterproof enclosure).
                      Dimensions 143х82х83mm.
                      Weight Less than 2 kg.
                      But you learn from friends,

                      But the professor’s silence is more suspicious - he just knows how people are visible through the Merkava thermal imager. But he was obviously offended by me after I brought a document about the range of the tank firing at targets in non-direct visibility.
                      1. matvey.z
                        -2
                        27 February 2012 04: 40
                        Quote: Kars
                        Progress on the face compared to

                        What is the point of scumbling?
                        You don’t even read what is written.
                        The answer is given by me and above.
                        Well, it's stupid to COMPARE a TV-sight of a hand weapon designed for human identification and a tank thermal imaging sight.
                        The ideal characteristics of the manufacturer and the real conditions of the battle.

                        Thermal radiation of the tank approx. 400 kW (kW) / 2000 m (real tank target identification
                        Human thermal radiation = 0,140 kW / L m (real target identification person)
            2. matvey.z
              -1
              26 February 2012 22: 32
              So this complex is optical, not IR sensors
              After all, they asked:Well, such that the heat of a person is distinguished over several kilometers?,
              Quote: Kars
              detecting a human growth in a starry night

              In the starry!
              And in the rain, snow, on a dark night?
              And as a device
              Quote: Kars
              Pilkington F2000IW (
              , "bind" to the automated control system to destroy the ATGM operator?
              About the range I wrote below
              1. +1
                27 February 2012 10: 23
                SW matvey.z, thanks for the interesting information, however you are wasting your time for two reasons.
                1. As I already said, before considering the performance characteristics of thermal imagers, it is necessary to consider the physical possibility of detecting an object with a thermal imager. A tank with an engine in 1200 l / s produces 895200 joules per second, the average statistical person emits 14 ± 10 joules per second with a pulse in 180 beats per minute. That is, in 64 thousands of times less. Even if you do not take into account that the engine power is 1500 l / s (1100000 joules), and the pulse of a lying person will be only a third of 180 beats per minute, then the difference in the energy produced goes 1 to 64000. We take into account the efficiency of the object (let it be 50% for evaluation) and extract the cubic root for the transition from spherically distributed energy to the detection distance. In total, the detection range of the tank is at least 32 times less than that of a full-length naked person, regardless of the thermal imager. I repeat: 32 times! Hopefully no need to explain what this means.

                2. Your opponent is not susceptible to incoming information.
                1. +1
                  27 February 2012 12: 09
                  Professor why give such complex formulas --- just write that Merkava 4 at night can detect a person beyond 18 meters away and that’s all
                  Quote: matvey.z
                  Well, it's stupid to COMPARE a TV-sight of a hand weapon designed for human identification and a tank thermal imaging sight

                  It is clear to compare the two-kilogram battery-powered device with a tank sight.

                  And just wondering what you mean by identification? I understand the tank can be identified and recognized by its silhouette, but how can this be done in person?
                  Quote: matvey.z
                  The ideal characteristics of the manufacturer and the real conditions of the battle.


                  Vryatli you understand it if you write this
                  Quote: matvey.z
                  The battlefield, as a rule, has many different sources of infrared radiation: weather, sun, fires, explosions, infrared traps


                  At night and the sun, right? and such
                  Quote: matvey.z
                  In the starry!
                  And in the rain, snow, on a dark night?

                  But what about the fires?
                  Quote: professor
                  Your opponent is not susceptible to incoming information.

                  While some speculation is being told, halfway with physics ---- and trying to prove that despite the availability of household appliances capable of detecting a person from a distance of 1200 m without cooling and with a very small matrix, it is impossible to do this
                2. matvey.z
                  -2
                  27 February 2012 12: 13
                  You are welcome .
                  1. Partly for good reason.
                  I want to note that the arguments that you have in paragraph 1 I also cited.

                  Add:
                  For calculations, it is necessary to use not a sphere, but a half sphere; in a rough approximation, you can take a plane.
                  I took the efficiency (of the tank), for gtu = 43%, respectively, thermal radiation.
                  The thermal power of a person is calculated 140 W, the surface area is 1 m3,

                  Quote: professor
                  detection range of the tank at least 32 times less than standing to the full growth of a naked person regardless of the thermal imager

                  Not less, but MORE, probably? The tank will be visible "further", respectively, the detection range - "more".
                  It is impossible to equate optical identification with thermal imaging.
                  The ratio of the surface area of ​​the tank and man, with thermal radiation, are not comparable.
                  2. I agree, the opponent is not susceptible.
                  1. +1
                    27 February 2012 12: 22
                    Not less, but MORE, probably? The tank will be visible "further", respectively, the detection range - "more".

                    I agree, that is exactly what I had in mind. Physics however. If a person (excuse me naked laughing ) it doesn’t matter which thermal imager will notice for 1 meters, the same thermal imager will notice for at least 32 meters (Accordingly, the tank will be seen for 3200 meters while a person is only at a distance of 100 meters), and therefore a fighter with ATGM will not leave a chance for a tanker.

                    If we take into account the hemisphere, the real efficiency of the diesel engine and the ambush person, then this difference will grow by an order of magnitude.
                    1. 0
                      27 February 2012 12: 32
                      Professor you ignore the question? What is it?

                      Merkava 4 can uncover a person at night from a maximum distance of 18 m? As your colleague asserts?
                      Quote: matvey.z
                      The IR sensor of the tank detects a person, the detection range (T okr av.20 ° C (object weightfrom 50kg): up to 12 -16м (under ideal conditions)
                  2. +1
                    27 February 2012 12: 30
                    Quote: matvey.z
                    2. I agree, the opponent is not susceptible.


                    Yes, and you are not susceptible, it is a fact.
                    In my opinion, it is clear to everyone that the tank is more noticeable than a person, but why do you conclude that the devices installed on the tank cannot detect a person from a distance of more than 3-5 km if the household portable device on batteries weighing 2 kg does without cooling the matrix with 1200 meters .
                    I will even flatter you and say that the tank will notice this device at a much greater distance
  13. +1
    26 February 2012 11: 24
    there’s still a lot of time and this is ONE shot compared to the anti-tank gun, I’m not against the Javelin ATGM, the homing head just bothers me, and I doubt its accuracy at 2000 distance, for example, in Central Asia in the summer ... the thermal contrast is greatly reduced ...
  14. -1
    26 February 2012 11: 42
    and I doubt its accuracy at 2000 distance, for example, in the conditions of Central Asia in the summer ... the thermal contrast is greatly reduced ...

    The Americans successfully use Javelins in Iraq and Afghanistan, why not the conditions of "Central Asia"? wink
    I do not have a video from javelin, but here is such a contrast in the desert and not only in the spike:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2goq_pr25E
  15. gor
    gor
    +2
    26 February 2012 12: 02
    yes, in tests this griffin and in my opinion the author himself doesn’t know what for. Against the infantry, if anyone remembers they have a folding knife, they have a sort of electric airplane with guidance and a grenade screwed to it with tape)))))))))))))))
    1. +1
      26 February 2012 14: 40
      gor,
      Quote: gor
      Yes, on trials this griffin and in my opinion the author himself does not know what for it is needed

      keywords, Griffin is introduced to replace Jewelin when working on non-armored targets in order to reduce the cost, there are no fundamental differences, the type of warhead has been changed, the weight is reduced by reducing the range IMHO-TARGET IS NOT REACHED-all the same, shooting "at sheds with packs of bucks" with the same weight, a range of about 4000m is an order of magnitude more effective, and by the same amount cheaper, shorter than with fat
      1. -2
        26 February 2012 15: 06
        reduced weight by reducing range

        Range increased more than two due to improved aerodynamics, a fundamentally improved guidance system including guidance on GPS coordinates, and most importantly cost.

        Easel grenade launchers with the same weight, range of about 4000m more effective

        Tell me what kind of KVO does such an "effective" device for 4000 m?
        1. 0
          26 February 2012 15: 29
          Professor,
          You are a professor, distracted from the original theme, the KVO thermobaric 30mm grenade is successfully covered by a 5-meter radius of continuous defeat when operating on infantry. Another question, did you hold anything in your hands, except for a computer mouse, this is not about the high performance characteristics of Griffin , but about its cost, or in your opinion, everything that is not done in Russia is a priori good? "And the most important thing is the cost" -aha, instead of $ 75000, $ 35000 is ah ... I'm saving, for the infantry, PS thanks to your comments, professor, the thought creeps in that the words Jesuit and Jew have the same origin, you really know how to turn the initial meaning of any discussion, and always in one direction
  16. -1
    26 February 2012 15: 43
    1. And yet, what is the QUO? Grifin warhead contains 5.9 kg of explosives for your information.
    2. In addition to the mouse ... plenty of running around with a gun for the rest of his life. Now I run only in Saucony sneakers and solely for personal pleasure and keeping fit.
    3. Not everything that “is not done well in Russia a priori,” but in this case Russia has lagged behind by a whole generation and it is difficult to argue with that. It is necessary at least urgently to catch up with the bourgeoisie, and not to shout that everything is the way and we will throw our hats over them.
    1. 0
      26 February 2012 15: 50
      Griffin B weighs 20.5 kg and has a warhead in 5.9 kg
      Quote: professor
      Grifin warhead contains 5.9 kg of explosives for your information.

      This is not at all meaningful for your information that Grifin contains 5.9 kg of explosives.
    2. -1
      26 February 2012 15: 59
      your Griffin has a cumulative warhead and for "pocket artillery", all the more cheap, it does not pull clearly, but you can shove the KVO yourself you know where, but they don't run with a machine gun, but fight, and if you add a couple of Family Guy to add a couple of family members, you yourself will die , without the help of the enemy, even in sneakers
      1. 0
        26 February 2012 16: 56
        Rude and you are not bad at it, but with argumentation and hardware it is weak.
        And so What is the CEP of such an "effective" device at 4000 m?

        your griffin has a cumulative warhead

        Cumulative warhead? Seriously? laughing

        And in what direction did the troll professor lead the discussion? wassat Or am I not discussing Griffin and his brother Javelin, their performance characteristics and the reason for developing the first?
  17. FROST
    +1
    26 February 2012 15: 51
    And what about the cameras that the thermal imagers don’t put on tanks? Well, are they such that they distinguish human heat for several km?
    How strange is it that a tank sees an infantryman with a portable gadget, but a tank with its mounts does not see an infantryman?
    or is it a joke against the T-55 from Mazambique?


    Firstly, it is a little more difficult to see a person, secondly, it is much more difficult to identify a person according to the principle of friend-foe-civilian, thirdly, the experience of using anti-tank systems of previous generations has shown its effectiveness and secrecy, not to mention the spike and javelin. The ability to carry out such a sniper and covert "spit" from any gateway, trench or shelter from a long distance, with fully autonomous missile guidance, brings the means of fighting tanks to a qualitatively new level.
    1. -1
      26 February 2012 16: 06
      I recommend that you read the article of the Professor

      http://topwar.ru/11470-armiya-ssha-zakupaet-sotni-novyh-teplovizorov.html

      as I understand it, Americans buy thermal imagers to detect sheds.

      but what about friend or foe - a civilian in a war is not even funny --- simulate a tanker’s reaction when he sees a silhouette of a man tinkering with something like a pipe?
      you can see on YouTube a video with actions on this occasion of the Apache helicopter pilot some time ago it was a hit of the season
      Quote: FROST
      The ability to carry out such a sniper and stealthy "spit" from any gateway, trench or shelter from a long distance

      since in a guerrilla war, if the Taliban or Iraqis have enough money to collect javelins,
    2. -4
      26 February 2012 16: 06
      FROST,
      Guys, no one doubts that Javelin and Griffin are excellent anti-tank systems, but this troll professor took everyone away to read the meaning of the article more carefully
  18. FROST
    +1
    26 February 2012 16: 47
    but what about friend or foe - a civilian in a war is not even funny --- simulate a tanker’s reaction when he sees a silhouette of a man tinkering with something like a pipe?


    And you still calmly distinguish a pipe for 2 km?
    And if only a head with a pipe from a trench for 2 km sticks out? The all-seeing tank will instantly calculate the support post and kill it immediately?)

    since in a guerrilla war, if the Taliban or Iraqis have enough money to collect javelins,


    If the tanks were in full amazement with the infantry, not only from the ATGM, but simply from the RPGs, do you still think that if you endow it with an order of magnitude more powerful weapons, will the effectiveness of counteracting the tanks remain the same?
    1. -1
      26 February 2012 17: 16
      About the "duel" of thermal imagers of a tank and ATGM I can add:
      1. In the daytime, the thermal imager is useless;
      2. A tank with an engine of 1200 l / s produces 895200 joules per second, the average person emits 14 ± 10 joules per second with a pulse of 180 beats per minute. That is, in 64 thousands of times less. Feel the difference!!!http://jp.physoc.org/content/524/2/603.full.pdf
      1. matvey.z
        +2
        27 February 2012 13: 16
        Quote: professor
        1. In the daytime, the thermal imager is useless;

        It depends on the ambient temperature and the object!
        Thermal seeker missiles work perfectly day and night and the problem of "leaving" in the sun is solved.
    2. 0
      26 February 2012 18: 01
      Pomnitsa, valiant American tankers during a storm in the Desert discovered an Iraqi tank with disconnected engines on the heads of tankers sticking out of hatches - or was it such a joke? And it was already 20 years ago
      Quote: FROST
      The all-seeing tank will instantly calculate the support post and kill it immediately?)

      Why, why, are there hedgehogs, patrols, etc., or are we considering a single T-55 in a field surrounded by civilians, whose death will lead to a terrible diplomatic Shkandal?
      Quote: FROST
      If the tanks were in full amazement with the infantry, not only from the ATGM, but simply from the RPGs, do you still think that if you endow it with an order of magnitude more powerful weapons, will the effectiveness of counteracting the tanks remain the same?



      Well, I wouldn’t say that in all, how much has Abrash killed for Iraq’s occupation of 9 years?
      And will you save up money? Here the professor mentioned about some moments of careless relations with Spike, so you can be sure that for every ATGM firing there will be at least 5 lost, dropped, destroyed at distant approaches and so on - if it’s not very scary with the 7 RPG, but as it says on Javelin in 80 000 dead US presidents
      Quote: FROST
      all the same, the effectiveness of counteraction to tanks will remain the same?

      Well, why increase, again I repeat if there is enough money to adequately saturate the infantry with these means.

      And by the way, about the effectiveness .. simple .. RPG, by the way, it also depends on the quality and dose of hash or heroin used by the anti-tanker (it’s not always related to the martyrs of Islam, so there is enough anticipation of the gurus)
      Quote: professor
      .Tank with an engine in 1200 l / s produces 895200 joules per second, the average statistical person emits 14 ± 10 joules per second with a pulse in 180 beats per minute. That is, in 64 thousands of times less. Feel the difference!!!

      You want to argue that a modern thermal imager cannot detect a person with an average body temperature of 2 degrees Celsius 5 at night, away from 36-7 km, yes or not, maybe or not?
      Quote: professor
      1. In the daytime, the thermal imager is useless;

      As I understand it, in addition to the thermal imager, does the tank and its support have no means of observation?


      And returning to the cost of PTRS

      Quote: professor
      $ 75000 is not so much when compared with the price of the hit armored vehicles.


      And why in comparison with armored vehicles? Maybe in price it is necessary to compare with the KAZ combat unit and the dynamic protection unit? and then just one shot = one tank not subject to restoration.
      1. FROST
        0
        27 February 2012 14: 53
        Yes, for some reason, there are hedgehogs BRDM, patrols, etc., or mv consider a single T-55 in the field surrounded by civilians


        Anyway, IMHO, one person with a pipe, the more so who can only briefly pop out of the trench, shelter, hill, building window from a distance of a couple of kilometers, it is much more difficult to detect, identify and immediately suppress, a tank.

        Well, I wouldn’t say that in all, how much has Abrash killed for Iraq’s occupation of 9 years?


        And this is largely characterized by the skills of soldiers of the warring parties. Terrible, a slightly different example?

        so you can be sure that for every ATGM firing there will be at least 5 lost, dropped, destroyed on distant approaches


        Only your IMHO.

        Well, why increase, again I repeat if there is enough money to adequately saturate the infantry with these means.


        How much does a tank cost? About 5 million? 20 javelins 1,6 million? Given the conditional equality of other conditions and types of troops of the warring parties, being in my right mind, I would put money on 20 calculations of such ATGMs rather than on one tank despite the fact that at least one of them is enough to launch and more than justify the price of all .
        And then, to counter such tiny and inconspicuous goals as the spike or javelin operator, who can hide anywhere, you need a very qualified and trained tank crew (which is rather rare than often), constant, close and smooth interaction with other sentinels, instant response to a potential threat with the need to shoot any cats, dogs, gophers, birds, bonfires, corpses and a huge number of other similar thermal targets (the initiative is already lost). Also in the heat of a real battle, all this will make it an order of magnitude more complicated, a huge amount of interference, stress, dispersion of attention. And the ATGM operator only needs to lean out, look into the scope, combine the reticle and press the shutter. All. Neither special qualifications nor complex preparations are needed for this.
        Therefore, we conventionally have an object T (tank) and an object P (ATGM). Object T to hit object P, you need a qualified crew and conditionally one shot. Object P, to hit object T, you just need one shot. For both objects to shoot, you need to detect another object. Detecting object T is easier than object P.
        And now attention, a question. What is the most likely outcome of the battle between object T and 20 objects P?
        You consider it economically inexpedient to contrast these ATGM tanks, I think the opposite. A different degree of common sense makes you make different forecasts and choose different directions. Without conclusions on the basis of military use, this is only yours and mine, IMHO, based only on forecasting, as well as the disputes of the designers of battleships and submarines at one time, which de jure reasoned common sense, and de facto only the experience of war. Tank IMHO, ceased to be one of the key shock and offensive forces in the army.
        1. +1
          27 February 2012 16: 07
          quote = FROST] All the same, IMHO, one person with a pipe, the more so who can only briefly pop out of the trench, shelter, hill, building window from a distance of a couple of kilometers, it is much more difficult to detect, identify and immediately suppress, a tank. [/ quote]

          And I never said that war is a pound of raisins.

          It’s already not saying that leaning out of the shelter, he can easily spot, identify, identify a friend of someone else’s tank --- the tank is either standing or not in the field [quote = FROST] And this is largely characterized by the skills of soldiers of the opposing sides. Terrible, a slightly different example? [/ Quote]
          And what is in Grozny? This is a stone in the training of the generals of the Russian army who forgot Berlin. And Iraq is more or less competent actions. [Quote = FROST] How much does a tank cost? About 5 million? 20 Javelins 1,6 million? Given the conditional equality of other conditions and types of troops of the warring parties, being in my right mind, I would have put money on 20 calculations of such ATGMs rather than on one tank, even if at least one of them is enough to launch and more than justify the price of all . [/ quote]
          And what kind of troops do your troops perform? One tank hunt? Or have any tactical and strategic objective?
          And how do you ensure that these twenty javelins are in 2 km from the tank if the front is, for example, 100 km? That they will survive air raids, extend military security, and will not be bent under the attacks of artillery and MLRS?
          I personally would put on the MLRS with anti-tank cartridges and mines [quote = FROST] And then, to counter such tiny and inconspicuous goals as the spike or javelin operator, which can hide anywhere, [/ quote]
          this requires a grammar commander and regular infantry [quote = FROST] for a potential threat with the need to shoot any cats, dogs, gophers, birds, bonfires, corpses and a huge number of other similar thermal targets (initiative is already lost). [/ quote]
          Do not take this nonsense that the taxi drivers in the thermal imager will not be able to ensure the selection of targets --- and you again forget that in front, behind and on the sides there is its own infantry, which also has night vision devices and communications.
          [quote = FROST] And the ATGM operator only needs to lean out, look into the scope, combine the reticle and press the shutter. Everything. Neither special qualifications nor complex preparations are needed for this. [/ Quote]
          To begin with, he just needs to live up to that ----- and then calmly miss or fall into the elements of DZ. By the way, the professor is silent like a fish on ice about the combat effectiveness of the same Zhdavelin, all that was enough for him to remember was that he wasn’t bought only Americans. [quote = FROST] Therefore, we conventionally have an object T (tank) and an object P (ATGM). Object T to hit object P, you need a qualified crew and conditionally one shot. Object P, to hit object T, you just need one shot. [/ quote]
          Again why are you giving 100% ATGM effectiveness (specifically Javelina)

          [quote = FROST] Now attention, question. What is the most likely outcome of the battle between object T and 20 objects P? [/ Quote]
          You first create such a density in the troops.
          And so if you start to disassemble ---- in an open field ---- the tank will beat them before they reach the distance of fire. An ambush is not even considered if we do not consider a single T-55 of the Mazambique army at night.

          When passing the defense line after artillery strikes and bombing --- the controversial outcome may be some infantry and will not notice in a collapsed trench, Javelin will not be damaged, the infantry will not kill the operator when he decides to commit suicide - leaning out of the shelter, finding a tank, cooling the matrix and with a fright, he will be able to press the desired button (he, by definition, has not undergone lengthy preparation), maybe he will knock the tank into 0,3 probability

          Unless of course the tank is driven into the city square, without infantry and the anti-tankers are planted in 20 circles, then yes they will destroy the tank. [Quote = FROST] And now, attention, a question. What is the most likely outcome of the battle between object T and 20 objects P? [/ Quote]
          and once again the hell when this happens, it’s tested in the Czech Republic [quote = FROST] You consider it economically inexpedient to contrast these ATGM tanks, I think the opposite [/ quote]
          I believe that the army should be balanced, and the tank will not replace the tank in the ranks of its troops as it tries to give out a professor. And do not lower the tanks only for anti-tank purposes.
          I want to ask you how 20 Javelins will be able to break through the defense of an infantry company that has strengthened in the private development of the suburbs?
          this refers to [quote = FROST] IMHO tank, has ceased to be one of the key shock and offensive forces in the army [/ quote]
          1. FROST
            -1
            27 February 2012 18: 19
            [quote] that they will survive the air raids, they will stand up to the military guard, they will not bend under the attacks of artillery and MLRS [/ quote]

            This also applies to tanks. They have recently become very vulnerable to these types of weapons with precision munitions.

            [quote] Do not take this nonsense that the taxi drivers in the thermal imager will not be able to provide target selection --- and you again forget that in front, behind and on the sides there is its own infantry also with night vision devices and communications. [/ quote]

            I do not adopt anything, but I believe that they will not provide. How do you imagine the possibility of selecting a spot from a person’s head from a distance of 2 km? IMHO, I think this is nonsense.

            [quote] And so if you start to disassemble ---- in an open field ---- the tank will beat them before they reach the distance of fire. An ambush is not even considered if we do not consider a single T-55 of the Mazambique army at night [/ quote ]

            Again, only your IMHO. And if we take the use of ambushes, especially when the tanks are not in combat formation, but are moved somewhere along the road in the convoy, then it will be possible to make mincemeat in one salvo of a dozen javelinists who have distributed targets. Another fact in favor of anti-tank systems, tanks can actually be used only at the front, and javelin and spike at the front and behind enemy lines (sabotage)

            [quote] I believe that the army should be balanced, and the PTKR will not replace the tank in the ranks of its troops [/ quote]

            And I did not say that. I believe that it is very advantageous to use anti-tank anti-tank systems for economic reasons, which, in combination with the development of other anti-tank weapons, greatly contributed to the overthrow of the tank from its Olympus

            [quote] I want to ask you how 20 javelins will be able to break through the defense of an infantry company that has strengthened in the private development of the suburbs?
            this refers to [quote = FROST Tank IMHO, ceased to be one of the key shock and offensive forces in the army [/ quote [/ quote]

            No way. Tanks will cope better with this task. I believe that tank troops have become the main instrument of "cleansing" the territories from local pockets of resistance, over which the sky has been captured, massive fire engagement of targets by aviation has been carried out, over which massive reconnaissance drones have been deployed, and there is full awareness and control over the situation. Thus, the air and navy became the key offensive forces. The use or not the use of tanks will depend on the outcome of the battle in the sky and at sea and is no longer an independent strategic force in the theater of operations.

            And the question of backfill, do you think the tank has a lot of chances, accompanied by an infantry company, against an infantry company with 20 javelins in urban areas?
            1. -1
              27 February 2012 19: 24
              [quote = FROST] This also applies to tanks. They have recently become very vulnerable to these types of weapons with precision munitions. [/ Quote]
              Reread my comment about a pound of raisins.

              And your infantry is not vulnerable? And we will add not high-precision ammunition. [Quote = FROST] I do not adopt anything, but I believe that they will not provide. How do you imagine the possibility of selecting spots from the head of a person from a distance of 2 km? IMHO, I think this is nonsense. [/ Quote]

              Strange, above there is a device that detects a person with 16 km - and this is a simple everyday one, and don’t expect that you will shoot with 2 km ---- just look out the window and look far you will see something in the city, it’s also from the ground, and even from the ground level. [quote = FROST] if we do not consider a single T-55 army of Mazambique, at night [/ quote]

              Again, only your IMHO. [/ Quote]

              Nut give logical reasons to refute it. [Quote = FROST]. And if we take the use of ambushes, especially when the tanks are not in battle formations, but are moved somewhere along the road in the convoy, [/ quote]

              Somewhere, without cover helicopters, with a small interval, still on a regular route ----- what else can you do? [Quote = FROST] then you can make minced meat with one salvo of a dozen javelinists who distributed targets [/ quote]

              And the 7 RPGs will be able to do this even more efficiently, as I understand it, we are hunting for burdocks --- and they can be easily operated up to a hundred, which is a little waste.

              [quote = FROST] I believe that it is very advantageous to use anti-tank systems for anti-tank purposes for economic reasons, which, together with the development of other anti-tank weapons, greatly contributed to the overthrow of the tank from its Olympus [/ quote]

              But how will you overthrow him, if it has long been clear to everyone that armies are not fighting, armies themselves write [quote = FROST] Tanks will cope with this task better [/ quote] the tank will still remain.
              and what then do you think deposed the MLRS from Olympus with cluster fragmentation submunitions with remote detonation? infantry? ATGM calculations?
              [quote = FROST] How do you imagine the possibility of selecting spots from a person’s head from a distance of 2 km? [/ quote]

              During the Desert Storm, the Americans were destroying dug-in tanks by such flashes, because the Iraqi commanders were sticking their heads out. [Quote = FROST] the defeat of targets by aviation, over which massive flights of reconnaissance drones are deployed and there is full awareness and control over the situation [/ quote]

              You are considering the US variant against Liechtenstein, and if the air defense of both sides does not allow the widespread use of aviation and UAVs? What then?
              [quote = FROST] And the question of backfill, do you think the tank has a lot of chances, accompanied by an infantry company, against an infantry company with 20 javelins in urban areas? [/ quote]

              If they have only 20 missiles, then it will be the same as the second assault on Grozny.
              The tank will fire at the request of the infantry. Using shuttle fire tactics from behind the shelter --- they’ll knock out the 6 hours, and the tank’s chance to get the rocket will be about the same as when armed with the enemy of the 7 RPG, if not lower because of the greater mass complex, longer reaction time due to the time of target capture, and low (oriented on the rollers) initial speed, you also need to ask the professor how much Javelin can be waiting for - i.e. with a cooled matrix.
              [quote = FROST] The use or non-use of tanks, however, will depend on the outcome of the battle in the sky and at sea, and is no longer an independent strategic force in the theater of war. [/ quote]
              And it wakes up in any case, if it will be necessary to take control of the territory - and not just destroy it from far away --- and this will not undermine any state, except perhaps the USA, against a third world country - this was perfectly proved by the Libyan company NATO
              1. FROST
                0
                28 February 2012 03: 06
                And your infantry is not vulnerable? And add not high-precision ammunition


                Well, why, it’s not easy for everyone in the war. I just wanted to note that tanks are no less vulnerable in a modern war, because with infantry vulnerability to conventional ammunition, infantry is more difficult to detect and of course not homing precision munitions to work on it.

                Strange, above there is a device that defines a person with 16 km - and this is a simple household

                Nut give logical reasons to refute him


                Logical, so logical.
                Firstly, the device is not at all simple, but for border protection it is also the best of what is now offered, cooled, weighing 25 kg.
                ThermoVision 2000 MS
                320x240
                Number of fields of view 3
                Wide field of view 25 ° x 19 °
                Average field of view 6 ° x 4,5 °
                Narrow field of view 0,99 ° x 0,74 °
                1,37 mrad wide instantaneous field of view
                Average instantaneous field of view 0,33 mrad
                Narrow instantaneous field of view 0,054 mrad
                IR detector QWIP technology with FPA, 320 x 240 pixels
                Temperature Sensitivity 0,03 ° C
                Spectral range 8,2-9,2 μm
                2x and 4x electronic zoom
                Detection range over 17 km (tank)


                ThermoVision 3000 MS
                640x480
                Number of fields of view 3
                Wide field of view 25 ° x 19 °
                Average field of view 7,8 ° x 5,8 °
                Narrow field of view 1,3 ° x 0,96 °
                0,9 mrad wide instantaneous field of view
                Average instantaneous field of view 0,21 mrad
                Narrow instantaneous field of view 0,035 mrad
                IR detector QWIP technology with FPA, 320 x 240 pixels
                Temperature Sensitivity 0,03 ° C
                Spectral range 8,2-9,2 μm
                2x and 4x electronic zoom
                Detection range over 20 km (tank)

                Pay attention to the resolution of the image, and imagine the possibility of identifying a blurred heat spot from a person’s protruding face measuring 20 by 20 cm, roughly speaking, at a distance of a kilometer or more. How do you distinguish it from cats, dogs, birds, etc. remains a mystery (even if you can see it at such a distance, which actually is not)
                Let's move on to the range. With what fright does she see a person 16 km away? If the system can detect танк 20 km away, using the basics of physics, it becomes clear that a person who emits 64 times less heat will see no more than 000 meters. Now attention. In full growth and naked. And if we leave only the face and if suddenly a logical Jewish guy with a spike, the thought comes to cover his face with a wet rag? Will detect 625 meters? 50? less? or will she really not see it at all?) In addition, thermal imagers on tanks do not yet have such indicators. So, the question of finding such fighters with anti-tank systems can be considered closed.

                Somewhere, without cover helicopters, with a small interval, still on a regular route ----- what else can you wrap?

                And the 7 RPGs will be able to do this even more efficiently, as I understand it, we are hunting for burdocks --- and they can be easily operated up to a hundred, which is a little waste.


                This is another question regarding counteraction to saboteurs. The fact that one type of weapon can be used against another both at the front and in the rear, and the other only at the front, speaks of the advantage of the former over the latter in this regard. The organization of counteraction against ambushes or methods of constructing ambushes to overcome them can be a whole lot, but this is the third question, which the tank, in contrast to the ATGM, is completely deprived.

                During the Storm in the Desert, the Americans destroyed tanks by such flare, because Iraqi commanders poked their heads out


                I hope they already understood that this is a murzilka. And I wonder why it was their heads sticking out of the hatches at night?) Peered into the darkness in search of supposts or made faces to approaching enemies in the hope that they could see the grimace in their thermal imagers, having experienced humiliation, turn around confounded?))

                Quote: professor
                1. In the daytime, the thermal imager is useless;

                As I understand it, in addition to the thermal imager, does the tank and its support have no means of observation?


                Again, who is easier to spot, an infantryman’s face with a pipe or a hefty, rattling colossus raising dust on rough terrain?

                You are considering the US variant against Liechtenstein, and if the air defense of both sides does not allow the widespread use of aviation and UAVs? What then?


                Then, there is no need to talk about the use of stripping weapons, that is, armored forces. Because if they begin an invasion of enemy territory without controlling their skies, without full air reconnaissance, they will be easily burned by air strikes and attacks by secret anti-aircraft missile systems not detected by air reconnaissance.

                and what then do you think deposed the MLRS from Olympus with cluster fragmentation submunitions with remote detonation? infantry? ATGM calculations?


                А countertank means are "Titans" who have never been to Olympus, they are just means of counteracting the force that was on Olympus and which was overthrown by them)

                If they have only 20 missiles, then it will be the same as the second assault on Grozny.
                The tank will fire at the request of the infantry. Using shuttle fire tactics from behind the shelter --- they’ll knock them out in 6 hours, and the tank’s chance to get a rocket will be about the same as when arming an enemy with RPG 7


                Against long-range, homing missiles. Yes, and from the skyscrapers? Do you believe it yourself?

                But how will you overthrow him, if for a long time it has been clear to everyone that armies are not fighting, but armies --- write yourself

                ] the tank will still remain


                Did I say that there won't be? Here only in the secondary role of the "sweeper" used by the winner, i.e. without exerting any key influence on the outcome of the battle in the "defeat or victory" format, as it was before, when tank strikes could decide the outcome of wars. Now victory or defeat in modern warfare is determined exclusively in the battle for air and sea.
                1. -1
                  28 February 2012 12: 53
                  Yes, you start to make me laugh.
                  Quote: FROST
                  Of course, there are no homing high-precision munitions to work on it.


                  Of course? Honestly? Or maybe this ANY (almost) guided munition can be used against infantry? Starting from Tomahawk (you say that tomahawks can't kill infantry?) Ending with 1500 KAB and Mayvrik ----- I meant that for destruction it is enough for infantry to use cheap ammunition, and fragmentation ones having very - very large destruction zones ---- to destroy the infantry it is enough to have a CLOSE attack with deviations sometimes up to hundreds of meters, whereas fragmentation ammunition is ineffective against the tank and direct hits or from a deviation are necessary I eat up to several meters.
                  Quote: FROST
                  Detection range over 17 km (tank)


                  Now you’re just lying ----- not a tank, but a MAN, you will find a photo in my comment above, along with a description there the tank is not even supposed to be a CIVIL instrument --- and I sat down because someone generally says that a person can be detected with 20 m
                  So they are finding out, now people are already finding people from satellites ---, from helicopters, take an interest in progress - I’m there even higher than a police device, weighing 2 kg, without cooling the matrix, it detects a person behind 1200 m

                  Quote: FROST
                  already realized that this is a murzilka. And I wonder why it was their heads sticking out of hatches at night?)

                  Murzilka is what you write, it is a well-known fact that no one disputes besides YOU. And the heads stuck out just because - they looked and listened to the adversary. If you did not know then Iraqi tanks were equipped with night sights with infrared spotlights ---- Would you turn on the infrared spotlight? You surprise me.

                  Quote: FROST
                  Against long-range, homing missiles. Yes, and from the skyscrapers? Do you believe it yourself?

                  Uncle, what skyscrapers? Are you distorting again?
                  Quote: Kars
                  I want to ask you how 20 Javelins will be able to break through the defense of an infantry company that has strengthened in the private development of the suburbs?

                  Look at the sleeping area built up by the Khrushchevs, or at the American two-story building of the suburbs.
                  Quote: FROST
                  Because if they begin an invasion of enemy territory without controlling their skies, without full air reconnaissance, they will be easily burned by air strikes and attacks by secret anti-aircraft missile systems not detected by air reconnaissance.


                  About you, the position of the anti-tank missile also can be detected by aviation, it’s already progress - and read it carefully, if of course you need it - you’re disappointing me
                  Quote: Kars
                  You are considering the US variant against Liechtenstein, and if the air defense of both sides does not allow the widespread use of aviation and UAVs? What then?

                  Pay attention to air defense BOTH sides ----- yes there will be losses, but without tanks and other armored vehicles you can’t do anything at all, or will you break through without armor with javelins?
                  Quote: FROST
                  Now the victory or defeat in modern warfare is determined exclusively in the battle for air and sea

                  No, now everything is decided solely by politics and money ---- to win the victory remotely, only the USA can afford it and then only against third world countries --- and still the tanks go into battle, that in Iraq 1991, that 2003, that in Libya 2011 (eze and various taratayks in civilian cars)
                  Quote: FROST
                  Against long-range, homing missiles

                  2 km is dolnobnaya? At the Chechens before the second assault on Grozny there were also ATGMs
                  1. FROST
                    0
                    28 February 2012 14: 52
                    Of course? Honestly? Or maybe this ANY (almost) guided munition can be used against infantry? Starting from Tomahawk (you say that tomahawks can't kill infantry?) Ending with KAB 1500 and Mayvrik


                    Million dollar tomahawks, do you think they use infantry? With hours of arrival time? They are used only for strategic and key goals. Communication and control centers, radar stations, airfields, etc. KAB-1500 and Maverick, with great pleasure, clap and tank. The latter, in turn, is used for body and heat contrast purposes. Infantry is not. Tanks are an ideal target for them. Vulnerability of infantry from fragmentation ammunition is compensated by the presence of a wide range of homing ammunition in tanks. In addition, infantry is much more difficult to detect.

                    Now you’re just lying ----- not a tank but a MAN, you will find a photo in my comment above, along with a description there the tank is not even supposed to be a CIVIL instrument


                    Well, why, the data was downloaded from the site of the official representative of the company FLIR. Or now you are its distributor and yourself post information based on your speculation? Did you go through physics at school, or just started? If the range is 20 km for a tank, then for a person emitting 64000 times less heat, will it be 16 km?)) Plus, did you look at the resolution? 640 to 480 of the entire surrounding area. Well, how do you identify a heat spot of 20 x 20 cm located at a distance of, say, 500 meters from the lens? And again, what will happen if you put a piece of wet rag or foil on your face? Learn the materiel and physics.
                    What about daylight detection? Who is easier and how much to find each other? A little man leaning out in camouflage or a tank? So, we returned to where we started.

                    Look at the sleeping area built up by the Khrushchevs, or at the American two-story building of the suburbs.


                    Building can be different. Whatever it is, I believe that it will be easier to destroy the tank, and not vice versa. Until the results of combat use, this is only yours and mine, IMHO, and the conversation on this aspect is pointless, as I said.

                    Pay attention to both sides' air defense ----- yes there will be losses, but without tanks and other armored vehicles you can’t do anything at all, or will you break through without armor with javelins?


                    No, I said that breaking through to the earth is necessary only after airspace is captured.

                    You already have the positions of the anti-tank missile and aviation can identify


                    Of course, conducting a separation from a large number of drones, helicopters and aircraft is incomparably easier than with tanks. Do you see something amazing in this?

                    to win the victory remotely, only the USA can afford it, and then only against the Third World countries --- and still the tanks go into battle, what is in Iraq 1991, what is 2003, what is in Libya 2011 (ese and different taratayks in civilian vehicles)


                    We are talking about concepts and trends. Do you propose building armies based on the concepts of third world armies?

                    2 km is dolnobnaya? At the Chechens before the second assault on Grozny there were also ATGMs


                    But, not so secretive and mobile. Secondly, against the abreks, all kinds of troops were used. Aviation, infantry, tanks, artillery. Here the outcome is obvious. So the example is inappropriate.

                    Yes, you start to make me laugh.


                    What can I say. Laughter for no reason, a sign you know what ...)
                    1. -1
                      28 February 2012 16: 11
                      Quote: FROST
                      Million dollar tomahawks, do you think they use infantry?

                      Continue to laugh? Well, so prove that the explosion of a tomahawk will not kill an infantryman in a radius of 200 m, and I did not say that it is intended against infantry, but it can be applied
                      Quote: FROST
                      KAB-1500 and Maverick, with great pleasure, clap and tank.

                      Are you trying to otmazatsa? Nepoluchitsa ---- can maevrik and KAB destroy the infantry or not? are you trying to divert attention from the vulnerability of infantry to the usual --- MASS defeat? Well, this will not work --- infantry on the battlefield is the most vulnerable, unlike a tank against which special ammunition must be used.
                      Quote: FROST
                      Well, why, the data was downloaded from the site of the official representative of the company FLIR.

                      Well, give me a link where it says about the tank, which is easier, my photos and the link from Matvey s --- are higher and I’ll copy it like that
                      Quote: Kars
                      Or such
                      Cooled thermal imagers and multisensor monitoring systems (human detection up to 16 km). ThermmoVision 2000 / 3000 MS FLIR Systems

                      The photo is attached to the seller’s website and tell him about physics and so on.
                      I can imagine what will happen if you find out that a person can be distinguished from a satellite by a thermal signal.
                      Quote: FROST
                      Building can be different. Whatever it is, I believe that it will be easier to destroy the tank, and not vice versa. Until the results of combat use, this is only yours and mine, IMHO, and the conversation on this aspect is pointless, as I said.

                      You just can’t justify your IMHO and can’t imagine the tactics of motorized rifle units, and the assaults and facts abound in that same Iraqi Stalingrad Basra. But unlike you, I can do it perfectly, with the mention of setting smoke curtains, snipers, flamethrowers

                      Quote: FROST
                      No, I said that breaking through to the earth is necessary only after airspace is captured.


                      So you’ll sit around and do nothing, great tactics. You can immediately see the follower of the US strategy against Liechtenstein, and it’s already weak to disassemble the avant-garde India-China.
                      Quote: FROST
                      We are talking about concepts and trends. Do you propose building armies based on the concepts of third world armies?

                      It is you who propose building armies that can wage war, only with the enemy weaker by several orders of magnitude.
                      Quote: FROST
                      But, not so secretive and mobile. Secondly, against the abreks, all kinds of troops were used. Aviation, infantry, tanks, artillery. Here the outcome is obvious. So the example is inappropriate.

                      The example just fits ------ especially in comparisons with the javelins, if you say that a person is almost indistinguishable, then what difference does it make to wait or a competition (unless the competition has more chances) and we are in our hypothetical Aviation and artillery were removed as an example ---- and you have a real example against Soviet tanks without thermal cameras, TV cameras and other bells and whistles. Usual T-72 BV
                      Quote: FROST
                      Of course, conducting a separation from a large number of drones, helicopters and aircraft is incomparably easier than with tanks. Do you see something amazing in this?

                      I find it surprising that you think that the tanks will not have such support
                      Quote: FROST
                      What can I say. Laughter for no reason, a sign you know what ...)

                      no, excuse such a statement and the argument cannot but cause a smile
                      Quote: FROST
                      I just wanted to note that tanks are no less vulnerable in a modern war, because when infantry is vulnerable to conventional ammunition, infantry is more difficult to detect and, of course, there are no homing high-precision munitions to work on it.

                      it’s funny to me that you don’t understand that infantry is simply not worth mentioning in the form of a target --- it is taken for granted --- even a tank equipped with a TANK can hit infantry both open and in fortifications (do not believe me, ask the professor)

                      and still find all the same the word TANK (available in English) in the link about the device, it will be especially desirable in conjunction with ----- 17 km

                      http://www.flir.com/cs/emea/ru/view/?id=42131
                      1. FROST
                        -2
                        28 February 2012 21: 42
                        Continue to laugh? Well, so prove that the explosion of a tomahawk will not kill an infantryman in a radius of 200 m, and I did not say that it is intended against infantry, but it can be applied


                        And who said that he can’t kill? Can. Just will not)

                        Are you trying to otmazatsa? Nepoluchitsa ---- can maevrik and KAB destroy the infantry or not?


                        Can. But the tank is lighter. Maverick is aiming at the tank, but not at the infantry.

                        infantry on the battlefield is the most vulnerable, unlike a tank against which special ammunition must be used.


                        Well, the simplicity of hitting a tank lies in the fact that these special ammunition itselfare pointing at the tank. And against the infantry, we de facto have only the usual low-precision fragmentation munitions. Firstly, because if you use high-precision ammunition against infantry, you can stay without pants (there are more of it), and secondly, by what principle are you going to homing? Thirdly, infantrymen still need to be discovered.

                        The photo is attached to the seller’s website and tell him about physics and so on.


                        But can you analyze it yourself? If someone puts a thermal photo from 5 meters on a desert landscape and says that he took a photo of an astronaut on the moon from his window, will you believe it too?) By the way, give a link to the photo, I want to see who posted this art.

                        You just can’t justify your IMHO and can’t imagine the tactics of motorized rifle units, and there are plenty of assaults and facts on the same Iraqi Stalingrad Basra


                        I know the tactics very well and am aware of the methods of warfare, imagine a lot of ways to take cover and hit a tank, especially in buildings. Probably heard that the tank is particularly vulnerable in the city? This is an undeniable truth, recognized by all reasonable people. How many T-34s did you burn in Berlin with Faustpatrons? Just unlike you, I do not want to breed demagoguery.

                        I find it surprising that you think that the tanks will not have such support

                        So you’ll sit around and do nothing, great tactics. You can immediately see the follower of the US strategy against Liechtenstein, and it’s already weak to disassemble the avant-garde India-China.


                        You again did not catch the logic. I’m just talking about a strategy for waging war between conditionally equal rivals. The necessary air support for the tanks will be only if one stronghold defeats the other in the airspace, breaks the air force, defeats air defense and captures the sky over enemy territory. Only after that you need to enter the tanks. If you enter tanks into enemy territory without capturing their airspace, you will return your tankers in coffins, since they will be burned very quickly by the Air Force and much more secretive anti-tank systems, due to the lack of air reconnaissance, because on the ground with a conditionally equal position in those systems that with the approximate equality of firepower to annihilate each other will be more difficult to detect and hit with aviation, those that will detect each other earlier and those that will be larger will prevail. Because aviation sets the tone of battle on the theater of operations, take for example 2 ground defense systems in the US Air Force, A-10 and AN-64 Apache attack aircraft (you can take other platforms, of course, but the essence will remain approximately the same) The detection and identification range of tanks will be much higher than the infantry, plus they can simply mow the tanks with Maverick and Halffire missiles from maximum range without entering the zone of most short-range air defense systems. The likelihood of defeating such heat-contrast and radar visible targets such as a tank will be very high, because GOS missiles perfectly capture and hold them. And with the counteraction to the calculations of the ATGM, it will be much more difficult. For their detection and identification, you will definitely have to fly into the air defense coverage area and, basically, actually use only a cannon, nurses and air bombs from short distances. And there are MANPADS, ZRAK, short-range air defense systems and anti-aircraft artillery with all that it implies. In addition, there can be many more tanks. The effectiveness of aerial reconnaissance and target designation for other destruction systems will be incomparably higher in detecting tanks than ATGM calculations since tanks have not only significant thermal signature, but also have tangible EPR, and the parties have radar stations for aircraft, high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft and AWACS. We have already talked about the possibilities of dueling detection of a tank against anti-tank systems.
                        So, the example is USA-Liechtenstein, so far only you. (Basra, Terrible, etc.)

                        and still find all the same the word TANK (available in English) in the link about the device, it will be especially desirable in conjunction with ----- 17 km


                        Here you have even 2 links to different sites, in both the data is the same.
                        http://www.pergam.org/ohrana/thermovision3000ms/
                        http://www.teplovizor.info/tv/349/
                        According to your link, the range is not indicated at all.

                        And again, you forgot about the day. And in the afternoon, the calculation of the ATGM is incomparably more secretive than the tank, right?)
                      2. 0
                        28 February 2012 22: 49
                        Quote: FROST
                        Firstly, because if you use high-precision ammunition against infantry, you can stay without pants (there are more of it), and secondly, by what principle are you going to homing? Thirdly, infantrymen still need to be discovered.



                        You continue to make fun of it, why do you need self-reliance on infantry when it has been killed for hundreds of years by artillery, aircraft, mortars, napalm? And they do it perfectly.
                        And of course I’m wildly apologizing for what’s stopping me from navigating through the laser? On the television channel (this is for thought, God forbid you think something up)
                        Quote: FROST
                        Firstly, because if you use high-precision ammunition against infantry, you can stay without pants

                        First of all, this is elementary inappropriately - cheap shells and free-falling bombs do just fine without a direct hit.

                        Quote: FROST
                        But can you analyze it yourself? If someone puts a thermal photo from 5 meters on a desert landscape and says that he took a photo of an astronaut on the moon from his window, will you believe it too?) By the way, give a link to the photo, I want to see who posted this art.


                        I just don’t need your rubbish with physics, it’s even written according to your link that the tank will be discovered at a distance OVER 17 km ----- maybe (I’m exaggerating for you) they will see the tank and 40 km, but you don’t know what a person is they distinguish between 16 km, and this is a device weighing 25 kg, you will argue that the same or the best device cannot be put on the tank (or rather they are set - the target is found for 8-10 km)

                        please enlighten the link - http: //diaworld.ru/attaches/ThermoVision_SS_0002_EN.pdf
                        Quote: FROST
                        Probably heard that the tank is particularly vulnerable in the city? This is an undeniable truth, recognized by all reasonable people. How many T-34 burned in Faustpatrons in Berlin do you remember? Just unlike you, I do not want to breed demagoguery.


                        And do not remind you that they took Berlin? And why don’t you interpret the number of burnt Abrams in Baghdad? Do you think the numbers should be larger? ---- Iraqis already had 7 RPGs and ATGMs, I hope you know that they will better Faustpatron?
                        Quote: FROST
                        I’m just talking about the strategy of waging war between conditionally equal rivals

                        Yes, again, laughter, it doesn’t even occur to you that they will not have air supremacy until the TANKS and motorized infantry seize or destroy air defense systems (not everyone has tomahawks and operational-tactical missiles)
                        Quote: FROST
                        If you enter tanks into enemy territory without capturing its airspace, you will return your tankers in coffins,

                        Or maybe it's just sats?

                        Yes, you only consider Liechtenstein-USA.

                        Quote: FROST
                        much more secretive anti-tank systems

                        And the infantry has already been canceled? Combat guards? Reconnaissance and patrol vehicles --- I don’t mention specialized intelligence complexes anymore.
                        Quote: FROST
                        Because aviation sets the tone of battle on a theater of operations, take for example the 2 ground control system in the US Air Force, the A-10 attack aircraft and the AN-64 Apache

                        And with what joy, if someone will let them fly? We have both sides did not seize dominance in the air - they will be intercepted by fighters, they will call their own and so on until complete angellation.
                        Quote: FROST
                        The detection and identification range of tanks will be much higher than infantry, plus they can simply mow the tanks with maverick and halffire missiles from maximum range without entering the zone of most short-range air defense systems

                        Check out medium-range systems such as Buk, Tor, Krotal
                        Quote: FROST
                        The likelihood of hitting such heat-contrast and radar targets visible as a tank will be very high

                        Are you talking about how charred wreckage will fire at someone? And you’re sorry here all the time to put ATGMs in an ambush and why you don’t put MANPADS in it ----- it’s even harder for planes to find them on the ground ---- there is no motorized infantry that scour the terrain.
                        Quote: FROST
                        And with counteraction to the calculations of ATGM, it will be much more difficult
                        but why flattery in front of the Old Man in hell? whom do they interfere with until the tanks come up? and the cost of artillery ammunition and missiles to the MLRS allows firing at the alleged locations of the anti-tank means ---- no one will be in the forest
                        Quote: FROST
                        In addition, there may be many more tanks.

                        The infantry and artillery shells are even larger.
                        [
                        Quote: FROST
                        So, the example is USA-Liechtenstein, so far only you. (Basra, Terrible, etc.)

                        As I understand it, you couldn’t understand what I wrote when mentioning Grozny and Basra ---- a private scenario of storming a city building was considered, so I don’t understand what you are ----- it’s just you are rewriting the script of Liechtenstein-USA (I just want to see as in the India-China pair, one of the sides will achieve air supremacy, how do you describe that Apaches and A-10 begin a simple tank hunt, Apaches were even afraid to drop into Libya and Yugoslavia)
                        Quote: FROST
                        will be incomparably higher in detecting tanks than ATGM calculations because tanks have not only significant thermal signature, but also have tangible EPR,


                        Well, it’s not a big heroism to find tanks, especially attacking ones (by the way, how do you expect to attack ATGMs?) And what will you do next with ATGMs?
                        Quote: FROST
                        We have already talked about the possibilities of dueling detection of a tank against anti-tank systems.

                        Are you talking about desert night and T-55 of Mozambique in splendid isolation?
                        Quote: FROST
                        And again, you forgot about the day. And in the afternoon, the calculation of the ATGM is incomparably more secretive than the tank, right?)

                        It’s more secretive if it’s hidden — that is, it won’t be able to take any active action ---- and we don’t forget about optical surveillance devices, television cameras with magnification, etc. - read the link in general, it’s written about the day, and project it to the tank (in a modern tank, almost half the cost goes to sighting and observational devices and fire control systems)
                      3. 0
                        28 February 2012 23: 01
                        Cool photo
                      4. FROST
                        -1
                        29 February 2012 01: 19
                        Why is it self-invading infantry when it has been killed for hundreds of years by artillery, aircraft, mortars, napalm? And they do it perfectly


                        They are killing. But artillery in modern warfare is much more accurate in laying tanks with homing ammunition, for aviation and napalm, you need to go into the air defense zone much deeper than to destroy tanks, and mortars, this is already from a slightly different weight category)

                        And of course I’m wildly apologizing, but what’s stopping me from navigating through the laser? On the television channel


                        The cost of using infantry, the detection range, the need for a deeper penetration into the air defense zone (when attacking with laser-guided missiles from aircraft) as compared to ammunition is hindered and forgotten, the lack of infantry tele-contrast for the use of ammunition such as mewerik and their analogues interferes.

                        First of all, this is elementary inappropriately - cheap shells and free-falling bombs do just fine without a direct hit.


                        On the shortcomings of the use of free ammunition by aviation, wrote above.

                        And with what joy, if someone will let them fly? We have both sides did not seize dominance in the air - they will be intercepted by fighters, they will call their own and so on until complete angellation.


                        Perfectly. And when tanks are introduced into the tactical depth of enemy territory, the air force of the defending side will have advantages, because their flying range and reaction time will be shorter. Controlling their own airspace to a greater extent, they will burn tanks for a sweet soul. And if we consider abstractly "until complete annihilation", then one on one, without aerial reconnaissance and cover, the ATGM is again on a horse in view of the greater number and secrecy.

                        And do not remind you that they took Berlin? And why don’t you interpret the number of burnt Abrams in Baghdad? Do you think the numbers should be larger? ---- Iraqis already had 7 RPGs and ATGMs, I hope you know that they will better Faustpatron?


                        But do not recall why Berlin took on the balance of power? Maybe it will be more correct to compare the number of destroyed tanks and used faustpatrons according to the criterion of cost effectiveness? Baghdad is already a completely different song and the intensity of the conflict, not to mention the undeniable technical superiority of the states and the training of soldiers in all military branches.

                        And the infantry has already been canceled? Combat guards? Reconnaissance and patrol vehicles --- I don’t mention specialized intelligence complexes anymore.


                        And reconnaissance patrol cars aren't targets for anti-tank systems? And what do you think they are so special from the tank to detect infantry? And for the infantry, there is its own infantry, which has an advantage over the advancing one, because It is on the defensive in the appendage to all other types of weapons, which will be much easier to hit on massive open offensive lines.

                        Check out medium-range systems such as Buk, Tor, Krotal


                        Firstly, these complexes are always much smaller. Secondly, medium-range air defense missiles such as Buk are located at a certain tactical depth and often cannot protect the advancing units at the forefront from low-altitude targets such as helicopters and low-flying attack aircraft in view of the terrain, and therefore are complemented by much cheaper and more massive anti-aircraft short range systems to close these gaps. Thirdly, mavericks and halfers can hit tanks even at ranges of the ultimate line of defeat for tori and molehills, making air defense missile launches for maneuvering targets ineffective. Fourth, in order to detect and defeat infantry, aviation must go into the zones of destruction of air defense systems of all ranges, and to detect tanks, it may not go into zones of air defense at all and hit them without entering the zones of effective destruction of complexes such as torus and crotal, completely avoiding damage zones of short-range complexes. Conclusions about the vulnerability of aviation in both cases, I think you can do it yourself?

                        Are you talking about how charred wreckage will fire at someone? And you’re sorry here all the time to put ATGMs in an ambush and why you don’t put MANPADS in it ----- it’s even harder for planes to find them on the ground ---- there is no motorized infantry that scour the terrain.


                        Do you propose to throw MANPADS calculations on the offensive ahead of tanks?)

                        Well, it’s not a big heroism to find tanks, especially attacking ones (by the way, how do you expect to attack ATGMs?) And what will you do next with ATGMs?


                        Yes, not only attackers. And in places of concentration and on the march in front of the front line. Modern radar systems can see convoys of tanks over tens of kilometers, and AWACS can be found beyond 150-200 km. Accurately aiming aviation, artillery and MLRS with submunitions. No one is going to attack the ATGM. I already explained the concepts of modern warfare.

                        I just want to see how, in the India-China pair, one of the sides will achieve air supremacy, how do you describe that Apaches and A-10s will begin a simple tank hunt, Apaches were even afraid to drop into Libya and Yugoslavia


                        Not abandoned because there was no tactical need. And in a pair of India, China, as in any other pair, those air forces that will be better equipped technically and personnel will achieve dominance in the air.

                        It’s more secretive if it’s hidden — that is, it won’t be able to take any active action ---- and we don’t forget about optical surveillance devices, television cameras with magnification, etc. - read the link in general, it’s written about the day, and project it to the tank (in a modern tank, almost half the cost goes to sighting and observational devices and fire control systems)


                        His active actions will be reduced to the fact that somewhere, while secretly lying, viewing the terrain through a thermal imager or optical instruments, or having received target designation (since there are a lot of ways to detect tanks) to tanks entering his sector, he will pop out of the trench, because of a tree, or other shelter and launch. And what about optical systems, will it be easy to catch the contrast of a lying soldier in camouflage on such a large territory?

                        Are you talking about desert night and T-55 of Mozambique in splendid isolation?


                        No, I'm talking about a spike operator with a piece of foil on his face and a T-84 on rough terrain, for example, Ukraine, rich in flora and fauna, in the variant against each other. Read about other options above)

                        but why flattery in front of the Old Man in hell? whom do they interfere with until the tanks come up? and the cost of artillery ammunition and missiles to the MLRS allows firing at the alleged locations of the anti-tank means ---- no one will be in the forest


                        It’s only on infantry that they will strike, assuming both in areas and in tanks, with data on their concentration and high-precision ammunition.

                        nonsense with physics


                        Physics is not rubbish. Physics is a science) Allows you to filter out inaccurate information, advertising and nonsense. Nonsense is your gag about 16 km. Having followed your link, I haven’t found an indication that the picture was taken from 16 km. Neither in the photo nor in the description.

                        even your link clearly says that the tank will be uncovered at a distance of OVER 17 km ----- maybe (I’m exaggerating for you) they will see the tank for 40 km


                        Over 17 km = 40 km?) This is really funny)
                      5. 0
                        29 February 2012 02: 19
                        Quote: FROST
                        They are killing. But artillery in modern warfare is much more accurate in laying tanks with homing ammunition, for aviation and napalm, you need to go into the air defense zone much deeper than to destroy tanks, and mortars, this is already from a slightly different weight category


                        Well, then you continue to assert that a tank is easier to knock out than an infantryman?
                        And what can you say about the MLRS with the covering of infantry on the area 650 000 square meters?
                        Quote: FROST
                        for aviation and napalm, you need to go into the air defense zone much deeper than to destroy tanks

                        And why is it possible to bomb with 8-10 km ALTITUDE, and if the medium and long-range air defense are working then the tanks also don’t shoot ... and if not, then without going into the near air defense zone you can easily drop a lot of bombs over areas and chances camouflaged infantry will have much less than camouflaged tanks. if we are talking about passive targets.
                        Quote: FROST
                        Firstly, these complexes are always much smaller

                        And planes and helicopters are even smaller ----- and by the way they are more expensive ... medium tank ...
                        Quote: FROST
                        Secondly, medium-range air defense missiles such as Buk are located at a certain tactical depth and often cannot provide protection

                        Often? It can you and examples can result? They have a purpose
                        the defense of the troops and the caterpillar chassis were given to her in order to cover up in the attack, but we will not be head over heels.
                        Quote: FROST
                        The cost of using infantry, the detection range, the need for a deeper penetration into the air defense zone (when attacking with laser-guided missiles from aircraft) as compared to ammunition is hindered and forgotten, the lack of infantry tele-contrast for the use of ammunition such as mewerik and their analogues interferes.


                        I asked you not to invent anything
                        And for some reason, the cost does not interfere with shooting from Javelin, which is why not later.
                        Could simply answer what interferes with the laser and so on.
                        Quote: FROST
                        Ideally. And when tanks are introduced to the tactical depth of the enemy’s territory, the air forces of the defending side will have advantages, because their flying range and reaction time will be less. Controlling their airspace to a greater extent, they will burn tanks for a sweet soul

                        You again forget the military air defense
                        And the fact that planes are more expensive than tanks and there are fewer ones --- these are your criteria that a tank is more expensive than ATGM
                        Quote: FROST
                        then one on one, without air reconnaissance and cover, ATGM again on horseback in view of the greater number and secrecy.

                        What joy is it with? But what about the high combat vulnerability of the ATGM, its static character - you disguise yourself, being afraid of stirring ---- and again the infantry that will identify and destroy them on their own, or causing the fire of tanks and artillery.
                        Quote: FROST
                        But do not recall why Berlin took on the balance of power? Maybe it will be more correct to compare the number of destroyed tanks and used faustpatrons according to the criterion of cost effectiveness? Baghdad is already a completely different song and the intensity of the conflict, not to mention the undeniable technical superiority of the states and the training of soldiers in all military branches


                        Then why did you bring Berlin if it does not fit?
                        Quote: FROST
                        Do you propose to throw MANPADS calculations on the offensive ahead of tanks?)


                        Well, you throw saboteurs with the Javelins?
                        Quote: FROST
                        Yes, not only attackers. And in places of concentration and on the march in front of the front line. Modern radar systems can see convoys of tanks over tens of kilometers, and AWACS can be found beyond 150-200 km. Accurately aiming aviation, artillery and MLRS with submunitions. No one is going to attack the ATGM. I already explained the concepts of modern warfare.


                        You cannot explain the concept of modern warfare; your destiny is the rehash of Liechtenstein - USA

                        You are trying to defend the passivity of the positions, for your information, artillery does not shoot at 150-200 km, aviation must go into the air defense zone0-so this did not give you anything. And if you destroy tanks from artillery from dozens of kilometers, then you don’t have millions for Spend the ATGM? (But not the fact there is such a monster as the Zoo and the battery shooting)

                        Quote: FROST
                        Not abandoned because there was no tactical need

                        Are you sure? By the end of the Libyan operation, NATO began to have a shortage of precision munitions, and the anti-Gaddaf opazitsia fought with old, good tanks against Gaddafi tanks, and the super duper Apaches remained at bases in Italy. Of course, no need.
                        Quote: FROST
                        Not abandoned because there was no tactical need. And in a pair of India, China, as in any other pair, those air forces that will be better equipped technically and personnel will achieve dominance in the air.

                        it’s not your level, you don’t have enough imagination and the ability to interpret facts and experience in order to understand what kind of a meat grinder it will be and how many thousands not even coffins, but only funerals will go ----- and at the same time both China and India are increasing their masses tanks - apparently they don’t know anything about your theories.
                        Quote: FROST
                        His active actions will be reduced to the fact that somewhere, while secretly lying, viewing the terrain through a thermal imager or optical instruments or having received target designation (since there are a lot of methods for detecting tanks), tanks that entered his sector

                        And if a simple infantry detects it? Or tanks just won’t pass through its sector? And this despite the fact that saturate the army with such ATGMs like Javelin or Bill vryatli who will get - the above are the numbers of how many Javelins in the world.
                        Quote: FROST
                        No, I’m talking about a spike operator with a piece of foil on his face and a T-84 on rough terrain, for example Ukraine, rich in flora and fauna, in the variant against each other.


                        this will be vryatli, even in principle --- where did you see the tank alone by itself --- well, in Principle at Oplot, the target detection range is after all 8 km (I hope you will find Morozov’s KB site? and look at the Oplot thermal imager and the instrument on 16 km they will determine they are not similar? maybe it’s less at Oplot’s? subtract of course the height above ground level,)
                        Quote: FROST
                        Physics is not rubbish. Physics is a science) Allows you to filter out inaccurate information, advertising and nonsense. Nonsense is your gag about 16 km. Having followed your link, I haven’t found an indication that the picture was taken from 16 km. Neither in the photo nor in the description.

                        And did I say that the photo was taken with 16 km? It is written in the characteristics of the device - read carefully (although I’m self-confident that you can)
                        Quote: FROST
                        Physics is not rubbish

                        Quote: Kars
                        need your rubbish with physics

                        emphasis on the word ----- YOUR--
                        Quote: FROST
                        Over 17 km = 40 km?) This is really funny)

                        Oh, are you giving a head start to the tank? there someone listed the thermal energy of the tank engine - so maybe it’s less than 40, or maybe more ---- by the way, bring the range of detection of the tank - just accurate ---- Over 17 km ---- 17 400 m for example , only with reference

                        On the page where I gave the link there is
                        7 right page
                        I’ll write in transliteration
                        MEN detection appoxy 12,5 km ---- as I understand the detection (not 16 of course, but so they have a hat,)
                        Identification on 2,3 km (but our identification doesn’t really matter in a duel, it’s not so important, during a military operation you can send a patrol, or just call Paladin or Mstu just in case, 80 000 shells do not cost dollars apiece)
                      6. FROST
                        -1
                        29 February 2012 04: 30
                        Well, then you continue to assert that a tank is easier to knock out than an infantryman?
                        And what can you say about the MLRS with the covering of infantry on the area 650 000 square meters?


                        I did not say that. He said that it was not easy for everyone and the tank became no less vulnerable than the infantryman. Fact.

                        And why is it possible to bomb with 8-10 km ALTITUDE, and if the medium and long-range air defense are working then the tanks also don’t shoot ... and if not, then without going into the near air defense zone you can easily drop a lot of bombs over areas and chances camouflaged infantry will have much less than camouflaged tanks. if we are talking about passive targets.


                        At high altitudes, immediately feel all the charms of medium and long range air defense. Tanks at the forefront, you can shoot with a working long and medium air defense from low altitudes.

                        And planes and helicopters are even smaller ----- and by the way they are more expensive ... medium tank ...


                        That's just incomparably more effective.

                        You are trying to defend the passivity of the positions, for your information, artillery does not shoot at 150-200 km, aviation must go into the air defense zone0-so this did not give you anything. And if you destroy tanks from artillery from dozens of kilometers, then you don’t have millions for Spend the ATGM? (But not the fact there is such a monster as the Zoo and the battery shooting)


                        How does it not shoot? MLRS may well work out at these distances. Plus, you will be aware in advance of the routes and direction of movement of the tanks, applying appropriate measures. Millions at anti-tank systems, just in case) If there are any debris left after air strikes and MLRS.

                        this will be vryatli, even in principle --- where did you see the tank alone by itself --- well, in Principle at Oplot, the target detection range is after all 8 km (I hope you will find Morozov’s KB site? and look at the Oplot thermal imager and the instrument on 16 km they will determine they are not similar? maybe it’s less at Oplot’s? subtract of course the height above ground level,)


                        Passed already. 8 km for the tank. Recount for the infantryman in appropriate conditions.

                        Oh, are you giving a head start to the tank? there someone listed the thermal energy of the tank engine - so maybe it’s less than 40, or maybe more ---- by the way, bring the range of detection of the tank - just accurate ---- Over 17 km ---- 17 400 m for example , only with reference

                        On the page where I gave the link there is
                        7 right page
                        I’ll write in transliteration
                        MEN detection appoxy 12,5 km ---- as I understand the detection (not 16 of course, but so they have a hat,)
                        Identification on 2,3 km (but our identification doesn’t really matter in a duel, it’s not so important, during a military operation you can send a patrol, or just call Paladin or Mstu just in case, 80 000 shells do not cost dollars apiece)


                        You are repeating nonsense again. No 12 km, since the tank is in the region of 20. And of course you do not need identification. You will shoot at each cat) Forgetting about the ammunition and the notorious counter-battery shooting. So, alas, in real life for more than 100, 200 meters of a disguised fighter with ATGM you will not find.

                        You again forget the military air defense


                        Nobody forgets anything. They will burn with her in mind.

                        What joy is it with? But what about the high combat vulnerability of the ATGM, its static character - you disguise yourself, being afraid of stirring ---- and again the infantry that will identify and destroy them on their own, or causing the fire of tanks and artillery.


                        And will they be deprived of their infantry, which is on the defensive? And your artillery will not go anywhere.

                        Often? It can you and examples can result? They have a purpose
                        the defense of the troops and the caterpillar chassis were given to her in order to cover up in the attack, but we will not be head over heels.


                        Beech does not fire on the move. Therefore, he will lag behind the advancing orders.

                        I asked you not to invent anything
                        And for some reason, the cost does not interfere with shooting from Javelin, which is why not later.
                        Could simply answer what interferes with the laser and so on.


                        No one here invents anything, unlike you. Everything is as it is.

                        And if a simple infantry detects it? Or tanks just won’t pass through its sector? And this despite the fact that saturate the army with such ATGMs like Javelin or Bill vryatli who will get - the above are the numbers of how many Javelins in the world.


                        They do not saturate so, because there are also plenty of other countermeasures.
                      7. -1
                        29 February 2012 14: 28
                        Quote: FROST
                        I did not say that. He said that it was not easy for everyone and the tank became no less vulnerable than the infantryman. Fact.

                        The fact is that your tank is vulnerable to splinters and bullets of small arms - a shock wave from medium distances.
                        Let’s also list the nomenclature of weapons that are fatal for an infantryman, comparable to anti-tank and high-precision weapons, and even the radius of destruction. ammunition

                        Quote: FROST
                        At high altitudes, immediately feel all the charms of medium and long range air defense. Tanks at the forefront, you can shoot with a working long and medium air defense from low altitudes.

                        re-read, you can understand what they wrote
                        Quote: Kars
                        And why is it possible to bomb with 8-10 km ALTITUDE, and if the medium and long-range air defense are working then the tanks also don’t shoot ... and if not, then without going into the near air defense zone you can easily drop a lot of bombs over areas and chances camouflaged infantry will have much less than camouflaged tanks. if we are talking about passive targets.

                        Quote: FROST
                        That's just incomparably more effective.

                        Well, the tank is incomparably more effective than the anti-aircraft missile system, and there are always fewer planes than anti-aircraft missiles. The U.S. Air Force on which you build your illusions has never once encountered an equivalent anti-aircraft defense in modern history, and when you collided, you lost --- Vietnam.
                        Quote: FROST
                        How does it not shoot? MLRS may well work out at these distances.

                        So they will shoot at you, but you are so afraid of coffins
                        Quote: FROST
                        Plus, you will be aware in advance of the routes and direction of movement of tanks

                        are they on rails?
                        Quote: FROST
                        Passed already. 8 km for the tank. Recount for the infantryman in appropriate conditions.

                        And where did you get this from? Is it written somewhere that the target is a tank? Are you making up

                        and after bursting, use the STRUSA defense technique
                        http://diaworld.ru/attaches/ThermoVision_SS_0002_EN.pdf

                        if you are careful, you will read on the 7 page in the upper right corner the specification for the search for the 12.5 person, the detection of the 18.7 passenger car and now explain how joyful the specialized tank device is to the domestic one — the limitation in 8 km is the distance the thermal imager sees from the height of his installation on the carrier tank, from it he will give a picture with the goals

                        Quote: FROST
                        Nobody forgets anything. They will burn with her in mind.

                        What is it? Do you really think that enough aircraft?
                        Quote: FROST
                        You are repeating nonsense again. No 12 km, times a tank in the 20 area

                        you make me laugh, is it really so bad with English?
                        http://diaworld.ru/attaches/ThermoVision_SS_0002_EN.pdf
                        there is even a pictogram
                        Quote: FROST
                        And will they be deprived of their infantry, which is on the defensive? And your artillery will not go anywhere.

                        well, you’re already ambushing how many battalions? infantry regiment? and you think that they will not notice it? Well, it will be profitable for me if your artillery strikes at my reconnaissance detachment --- I’ll suppress it earlier, but you didn’t succeed in ambush - how says three in one.
                        Quote: FROST
                        You will shoot at each cat)

                        Identification is recognition, so that a person can be confused with a cat - even by behavior.
                        Quote: FROST
                        Forgetting ammunition and the notorious counter-battery firing

                        I’ll shoot from a tank, its battery shooting is not particularly dangerous, it’s mobile, and why should I spare its ammunition?
                        Quote: FROST
                        So, alas, in real life, more than 100, 200 meters of a disguised fighter with ATGM will not be found
                        Of course, he will already get a temperature equal to the environment.
                        Quote: FROST
                        Do not saturate so because

                        Then what are you trying to prove? Are you looking for van der wafers? So they do not exist and never happen


                        General summary ------ you really amused me. You will come to tell tales when China or India announce the removal of their tanks from service
                      8. FROST
                        -1
                        29 February 2012 16: 43
                        The fact is that your tank is vulnerable to splinters and bullets of small arms - a shock wave from medium distances.
                        Let’s also list the nomenclature of weapons that are fatal for an infantryman, comparable to anti-tank and high-precision weapons, and even the radius of destruction. ammunition

                        And where did you get this from? Is it written somewhere that the target is a tank? Are you making up

                        and after bursting, use the STRUSA defense technique
                        http://diaworld.ru/attaches/ThermoVision_SS_0002_EN.pdf

                        if you are careful, you will read on the 7 page in the upper right corner the specification for the search for the 12.5 person, the detection of the 18.7 passenger car and now explain how joyful the specialized tank device is to the domestic one — the limitation in 8 km is the distance the thermal imager sees from the height of his installation on the carrier tank, from it he will give a picture with the goals


                        Repeat yourself. You have already received the answers to these questions. With examples, links, physics, numbers. But, apparently, a zealous attitude specifically to armored vehicles prevents you from perceiving reliable information (as dear forum participants have already noted) and deprives common sense.

                        Well, the tank is incomparably more effective than the anti-aircraft missile system, and there are always fewer planes than anti-aircraft missiles. The U.S. Air Force on which you build your illusions has never once encountered an equivalent anti-aircraft defense in modern history, and when you collided, you lost --- Vietnam.

                        So they will shoot at you, but you are so afraid of coffins

                        well, you’re already ambushing how many battalions? infantry regiment? and you think that they will not notice it? Well, it will be profitable for me if your artillery strikes at my reconnaissance detachment --- I’ll suppress it earlier, but you didn’t succeed in ambush - how says three in one.

                        Identification is recognition, so that a person can be confused with a cat - even by behavior.

                        I’ll shoot from a tank, its battery shooting is not particularly dangerous, it’s mobile, and why should I spare its ammunition?

                        Then what are you trying to prove? Are you looking for van der wafers? So they do not exist and never happen


                        A bunch of strange, pointless demagogy, devoid of logic and meaning.

                        Quote: FROST
                        This was the answer to your inappropriate remark about the fact that the Russians took Berlin

                        USSR do not you think Berlin?


                        Perception is hard for you. The observation is inappropriate because the result of the capture of Berlin by the Russians does not affect the number of tanks and armored vehicles destroyed by the Faustpatrons, nor their efficiency-cost criterion.

                        Baghdad is a completely different song

                        Your tales.
                        If honestly it just looks like you're just raving --- here in Berlin, the Faustpatrons burned many Soviet tanks ----- and so what if you can't project it to the present?


                        Well, why are fairy tales. Be objective, think broadly and the truth will be revealed to you) Project on modernity? But what, today tanks have become less vulnerable from the fire of modern grenade launchers in the building? Terrible, a clear example that did not. So the reasons for Baghdad are somewhat different? Whether the Iraqis fought against the Germans, whether their professionalism corresponded to the American military (the Russians and the Germans were already veterans by the end of the war and there was relative parity in terms of skill and technology, with the exception of the number), were there the same intensity of fighting or who then sold out quickly? Do you deny the high level of US military-technical and intelligence superiority over Iraqis?) In the aggregate, all these facts speak of incorrectness.


                        Quote: FROST
                        At high altitudes, immediately feel all the charms of medium and long range air defense. Tanks at the forefront, you can shoot with a working long and medium air defense from low altitudes.

                        re-read, you can understand what they wrote


                        The following was meant. In order to bomb the squares, wondering that there will be infantry without going into the range of short-range air defense systems, you will have to go to high altitudes as you wrote (8-10 km), but there you will immediately become a target for air defense systems medium and long range. To attack tanks at the leading edge, aviation can remain at low altitude and attack them without endangering the medium and long-range air defense systems and without entering the short-range air defense system. So available to you?

                        Come tales to tell when China or India announce the removal of their tanks from service


                        You so persistently dismiss the truth that you don’t hear not only what you don’t want to hear, but don’t hear anything at all. What was incomprehensible to you in the paragraph
                        Did I say that there won't be? Here only in the secondary role of the "sweeper" used by the winner, i.e. without exerting any key influence on the outcome of the battle in the "defeat or victory" format, as it was before, when tank strikes could decide the outcome of wars. Now victory or defeat in modern warfare is determined exclusively in the battle for air and sea.
                      9. 0
                        29 February 2012 18: 23
                        Repeat yourself. You have already received the answers to these questions. With examples, links, physics, numbers. But, apparently, a zealous attitude specifically to armored vehicles prevents you from perceiving reliable information (as dear forum participants have already noted) and deprives common sense.

                        You rave
                        Quote: FROST
                        A bunch of strange, pointless demagogy, devoid of logic and meaning.


                        It’s clear that your level doesn’t understand what to speak of proof of groundlessness.
                        Quote: FROST
                        Be objective, think broadly and the truth will be revealed to you

                        Is it something like YOU? Do you know the reasons for the high losses of armored vehicles in Grozny? - Call me ---- and wildly sorry, but the Iraqis in Baghdad had exactly the same anti-tank weapons.
                        Quote: FROST
                        But what, today tanks have become less vulnerable from the fire of modern grenade launchers in the building?

                        Of course, steel - surveillance systems, combined armor, Dynamic armor, laser warning systems, automatic jammers, improved firing systems.
                        Quote: FROST
                        Did the Iraqis fight with the Germans, did their professionalism correspond to the American military

                        as I understand it, the Chechens were super pros and fought like ours in Stalingrad?
                        Quote: FROST
                        Do you deny the high level of military-technical and intelligence superiority of the USA over Iraqis?)

                        When did I deny it? But Sorry, the Iraqi Army is an army of a second-rate state that was internationally isolated and was under an international embargo on the supply of weapons and spare parts for it.
                        Quote: FROST
                        The following was meant. In order to bomb the squares, wondering that there will be infantry without going into the range of short-range air defense systems, you will have to go to high altitudes as you wrote (8-10 km), but there you will immediately become a target for air defense systems medium and long range

                        Not well, you are reaching tight ---- if there are medium- and long-range air defense systems, then you won’t shoot at TANKs, and I’m wildly sorry, but how did you get the height? Modern air defense systems have a lower limit of defeat from 10 meters, and some instances can even hit helicopters on the ground with the main rotor turned on
                        Quote: FROST
                        Now victory or defeat in modern warfare is determined exclusively in the battle for air and sea.

                        Well, again twenty-five --- even the United States cannot ensure a contactless victory, even against third world countries.
                        If you don’t have enough imagination to introduce China-India, imagine Ukraine-Romania
                        Quote: FROST
                        if you are careful, you will read on the 7 page in the upper right corner a specification for the search of the person 12.5 km detection of the 18.7 car

                        Can I answer again? Why is this not possible if it is written in the instrument specification? LINK
                        Quote: Kars
                        http://diaworld.ru/attaches/ThermoVision_SS_0002_EN.pdf
                      10. 0
                        29 February 2012 18: 43
                        HomeCatalogSurveillance security systemsCooled thermal imagers and multisensor monitoring systems (human detection up to 16 km) .ThermoVision 2000 / 3000 MS FLIR Systems

                        Unfortunately, a picture with a pictogram is not better to make

                        where you can see a green strip from the top a human figure and it is written 12.5 km
                        lower next to the thermal image of the 18.7 km
                      11. FROST
                        -1
                        29 February 2012 19: 49
                        You rave

                        It’s clear that your level doesn’t understand what to speak of proof of groundlessness.


                        Demagogues like you always react like that to those who don’t share their empty reasoning)

                        Is it something like YOU? Do you know the reasons for the high losses of armored vehicles in Grozny? - Call me ---- and wildly sorry, but the Iraqis in Baghdad had exactly the same anti-tank weapons.


                        I know, but the reasons for the hits are another matter. I cited Grozny as an example because to show that the penetration and damage of tanks when they were hit by hand grenade launchers has not changed much since then.
                        You always tally the mantra of the USA-Liechtenstein. And yourself give examples of low tank losses, only in such conflicts. Look at conflicts regarding equal rivals. Arab-Israeli conflicts, the same Berlin. How tanks burned do not need to be reminded? And since then, the increase in the capabilities of anti-tank weapons was incomparably higher than the increase in the capabilities of the tank in its resistance.

                        Quote: FROST
                        But what, today tanks have become less vulnerable from the fire of modern grenade launchers in the building?

                        Of course, steel - surveillance systems, combined armor, dynamic armor, laser warning systems, automatic jammers


                        It certainly is. But how will this affect the same RPG-32 shot at the T-72, T-80? Just like in the Second World War, and now it will ensure the penetration of the tank from most projections, with one shot and for dynamic protection.

                        Now victory or defeat in modern warfare is determined exclusively in the battle for air and sea.

                        Well, again twenty-five --- even the United States cannot ensure a contactless victory, even against third world countries.


                        And who said that the war will be contactless? Very contact. It’s just that the future winner of the war will be determined in the battle for air and sea, and then after capturing the enemy’s airspace and after a massive defeat of targets from the air, motorized infantry and armored forces will enter the enemy’s territory for mopping up, under the cover of the Air Force.

                        Not well, you are reaching tight ---- if there are medium- and long-range air defense systems, then you won’t shoot at TANKs, and I’m wildly sorry, but how did you get the height? Modern air defense systems have a lower limit of defeat from 10 meters, and some instances can even hit helicopters on the ground with the main rotor turned on


                        You just do not understand the specifics of the use of air defense. I could answer you, in detail, with technical and tactical aspects, many points. But you do not want to learn anything and learn nothing, it is useless.
                        ,
                      12. 0
                        29 February 2012 20: 15
                        Quote: FROST
                        Demagogues like you always react like that to those who don’t share their empty reasoning)


                        if it’s irrelevant, then in your sayings it’s more empty-handed, just as there is no understanding of modern conflicts at all.
                        All you can do with this is a couple of watched films from Discovery, and build yourself an expert.
                        Quote: FROST
                        I cited Grozny as an example because to show that the penetration and damage of tanks when they were hit by hand grenade launchers has not changed much since then.

                        Can’t it? Is the armor penetration with the 100-150 mm in Faustpatron not changed during the evolution of cumulative ammunition?
                        I’ll tell you a terrible secret - there are one-time RPGs with 400 mm armor penetration, and if your brain can handle it even before 1000 mm is.
                        Quote: FROST
                        And give examples of low tank losses yourself, only in such conflicts

                        I cite the losses from modern VET in urban combat.
                        Quote: FROST
                        How tanks burned do not need to be reminded?

                        burned, and the Iraqi casualties? it turned out not detectable obnobruzhma grenade launchers? And then Baghdad was about 10 000 only RPG 7
                        Quote: FROST
                        It certainly is. But how will this affect the same RPG-32 shot at the T-72, T-80 tank?
                        But will you live to shoot? Can you hit the tank if you survive? Will the missile hit the unprotected DZ fragment of the tank? Or can it break the tank after breaking through the armor?

                        Penetration, mm
                        (at an angle 60 ° to the normal) dynamic protection + 650 mm steel armor (grenade PG-32 caliber 105-mm
                        and it’s actually if they thought it’s by Contact
                        Quote: FROST
                        Just the future winner of the war will be determined in the battle for air and sea, and then after the capture of enemy airspace


                        I look at your consciousness that it might not be possible to capture airspace? NATO (without the USA) was barely barely able to just catch Libyan air defense, in which the air defense missiles, for example, Osa, simply went out of order because of OLD. after that they could not render not only dense, but rare help to the anti-Qaddafavians (well, he wrote the word)
                        Quote: FROST
                        You just do not understand the specifics of the use of air defense. I could answer you, in detail, with technical and tactical aspects, many points. But you do not want to learn anything and learn nothing, it is useless.


                        Well it's vryatli, your tales
                        Quote: FROST

                        The following was meant. In order to bomb the squares, wondering that there will be infantry without going into the range of short-range air defense systems, you will have to go to high altitudes as you wrote (8-10 km), but there you will immediately become a target for air defense systems medium and long range. To attack tanks at the leading edge, aviation can remain at low altitude and attack them without endangering the medium and long-range air defense systems and without entering the short-range air defense system. So available to you?

                        They showed your level completely. You at least I hope you know that for example the TOP can intercept missiles such as maverick? Its range is 12 km and Buk 30 km
                        But I look with you uselessly, you can’t bring anything concrete, there is no logic in your statements.
                        I deeply hope that you have at least learned something about the ranges of human detection with the help of modern devices such as a thermal imager. Ask about the possibility of TV cameras.
                      13. FROST
                        -1
                        29 February 2012 13: 33
                        Then why did you bring Berlin if it does not fit?


                        Just the same fit. This was the answer to your inappropriate remark about the Russians taking Berlin.

                        it’s not your level, you don’t have enough imagination and the ability to interpret facts and experience in order to understand what a meat grinder will be and how many thousands will not even be coffins, but only a funeral will go ---


                        No, just unlike you, I'm not going to breed demagoguery and off-top.
                      14. 0
                        29 February 2012 14: 48
                        Quote: FROST
                        This was the answer to your inappropriate remark about the fact that the Russians took Berlin

                        USSR do not you think Berlin?
                        Quote: FROST
                        Just the same.

                        Quote: FROST
                        Baghdad is a completely different song

                        Your tales.
                        If honestly it just looks like you're just raving --- here in Berlin, the Faustpatrons burned a lot of Soviet tanks ----- and so what if you can’t project it to the present? and Baghdad is not that.
                        Quote: FROST
                        No, just unlike you, I'm not going to breed demagoguery and off-top.

                        Strange you have been doing this here for three days, so you are simply not able to draw logical conclusions and interpret experience - the case with Berlin-Baghdad clearly showed this
                      15. FROST
                        -1
                        28 February 2012 22: 03
                        It is you who propose building armies that can wage war, only with the enemy weaker by several orders of magnitude.


                        Not. I propose to build an army in accordance with the concept that will make the enemy a priori, an order of magnitude weaker.
                      16. 0
                        28 February 2012 23: 02
                        Quote: FROST
                        Not. I propose to build an army in accordance with the concept that will make the enemy a priori, an order of magnitude weaker.


                        does not look like it,
                      17. FROST
                        -1
                        29 February 2012 16: 55
                        Seem to be. It's just that you are in modern times, reminiscent of Budenny with your unwavering faith in cavalry, at the time of the beginning of the tank era ...)
                      18. 0
                        29 February 2012 18: 05
                        Yes, you don’t know the story either. I congratulate you.
                        Maybe look for someone who believes Guderian is the father of the theory of blitzkrieg-deep operation.

                        And by the way, cavalry was used by Germany and the USSR until the end of World War II.
                      19. FROST
                        -1
                        29 February 2012 19: 12
                        Yes, you don’t know the story either. I congratulate you.
                        Maybe look for someone who believes Guderian is the father of the theory of blitzkrieg-deep operation.

                        And by the way, cavalry was used by Germany and the USSR until the end of World War II.


                        Which speaks of the complete stupidity of the fathers of commanders. And comparing you with Budyon, I apparently hit the mark))
                      20. -1
                        29 February 2012 19: 53
                        Well, this is clear to you. The level of knowledge is just below the baseboard.
                      21. 0
                        29 February 2012 21: 35
                        And by the way, if you compare with someone, Tukhachevsky immediately recalls - to a large extent responsible for the fact that the USSR almost lost the Second World War, and no less in our high losses. Also, by the way, it was worn with expensive toys.
                      22. -1
                        28 February 2012 23: 05
                        Looking for such a fighter is like a needle in a haystack.
                      23. 0
                        28 February 2012 23: 17
                        And we want to live, we’ll find.

                        And professor, well, since from Merkava 4 people can be found up to a maximum of 20 meters? Or not?
                      24. +1
                        28 February 2012 23: 25
                        And we will find.

                        And how is it that the Professor is true that from Merkava 4 person can be found only twenty meters away, as your colleague writes
                        Quote: matvey.z
                        The IR sensor of the tank detects a person, the detection range (T okr av.20 ° C (object weightfrom 50kg): up to 12 -16м (under ideal conditions)
  19. +1
    26 February 2012 22: 36
    In adequate news
    "The creation of anti-tank missiles with automatic targeting is not a problem for Russia. The question rests on the desire of the Ministry of Defense to have such weapons. As the KBP representative put it at TVM-2010," the most important thing is that the Ministry of Defense has enough money to shoot disposable thermal imagers. " In the same "Hermes", in caliber 130 mm, both radar and IR seeker are implemented. Placing similar seeker in the caliber of 152 mm "Cornet" is not a problem. Another question is whether such guidance systems are required in portable anti-tank complexes? that it is advisable to have them on self-propelled and aircraft carriers, and the most massive, wearable systems can be with semi-automatic guidance.The missile consumption of portable anti-tank systems can be very significant, since targets can serve not only enemy armored vehicles, but also its firing points. "
    In the automated launchers of ATGM "Kornet" (9P162, 9P163, OBM "Cleaver", BM "Berezhok", etc.), it is possible to fire two missiles at one target, which makes it possible to defeat targets equipped with KAZ. A very significant advantage of the Russian complex in comparison with missiles with thermal imaging seeker.
    4. Ways of countering missiles with thermal imaging seeker have long been known and are quite cheap. For example, RPM "Cape" which reduces the likelihood of the capture of a GOS tank by 2,5 times http://www.niistali.ru/security/2010-07-05-08-58-15?start=1. I must say that "Cape" is a universal kit that reduces the visibility of military equipment in different spectral ranges, with different
    efficiency. But when using other, more specialized materials http://www.niistali.ru/security/2010-07-05-08-58-15?start=2, in particular it is better to reduce the thermal signature of armored vehicles, the probability of target capture by thermal imaging seekers, further reduced. But I must say that the protective materials presented by the last link are also far from the last word in disguise.
    5. In fact, the terminology "fire-forget" from the evil one. "Forgetting" is possible only if two provisions are implemented: a). 100% chance of hitting the target; b). 100% chance of hitting the target on hit. Neither the Jewish nor the American complexes with thermal seeker systems guarantee this. Even their developers don't talk about it. Therefore, you will not be able to "forget" about the fired target. Control of the results of the shooting has not yet been canceled. "
  20. FROST
    -2
    29 February 2012 02: 02
    In real life, considering that all the same, the dependencies are not so linear, I think that such thermal imaging systems from a height of 2 meters on an average night will be able to detect and acceptably identify a person from a distance of a kilometer or a little more, standing at full height and in open area. If he lies in ambush and hides behind grass, wood, soil, the range will fall by another order of magnitude. I generally keep quiet about the little trick with foil ... In any case, the tank is a loser. Although in itself, an excellent thermal imaging system, much cooler than those that are on the tanks.
  21. -2
    29 February 2012 21: 33
    FROST, Do not feed the trolls!!!

    Professor 2 February 2012 10: 14
    Dear Kars,
    I lost valuable time in a dispute with you, I did not learn any useful and new information, I did not teach you anything. Continue to remain with your opinion and ignorance.
    I add you to ignore-list and delete my comments. I won’t bother you anymore.
    I have the honor.

    Although it may not be necessary to delete comments wink
    1. FROST
      -1
      29 February 2012 23: 32
      Professor, Thank you, perhaps a very timely comment.
      1. +2
        29 February 2012 23: 45
        Quote: FROST
        Professor, Thank you, perhaps a very timely comment.

        Of course, they were timely, the professor looked at it for two days, looked at it and saw that you weren’t channeling and wrote that you weren’t feeding the troll, trying to save your face.
    2. +1
      29 February 2012 23: 39
      Well, what should I do if I refuted your words that there is no documentation that the tank can fire beyond the distance you specified in 4000 meters, and you are offended.
      .

      Well, don’t answer me, tell Frost at what distance Merkava 4 which is equipped with the new panoramic sight of the commander with an independent thermal imager and the Tsayad (Hunter) combat information system can find a person for
      Quote: matvey.z
      RESPECTIVELY:
      The IR sensor of the tank detects a person, the detection range (T okr av.20 ° C (object weightfrom 50kg): up to 12 -16м (under ideal conditions)
      1. FROST
        0
        1 March 2012 10: 01

        Of course they are timely, the professor watched for two days, watched as he saw that you were not channeling and wrote that you didn’t feed


        Why feed you?)

        http://lurkmore.to/%D0%A2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BB%D1%8C

        Troll (boyar. Troublemaker) - an individual engaged in trolling. Initially, it was the very provocative message or action itself. The troll's goal is to produce lulz for himself and visitors who have bitten him, at the expense of less resourceful visitors who spend time, effort and blood from his ass to srach with him.


        Some signs of a troll

        * Constant attempts to get personal in the conversation.
        * Use of the topic of the dispute only to provoke the emotional reaction of the interlocutor (demagogy).
        * The pretense of nearness and ignorance - or vice versa, knowledge of everything in the world (usually the inverse relationship between the real and the shown is traced).
        * Opinion radically different from the opinion of the local majority.
        * Bad manners, boorish behavior (usually this is a sign of a fat, that is, uninteresting, obvious, troll).
        * Throwing shit on the fan (touching obviously controversial provocative topics).
        * Confidence that everyone else is “dull shit” and another demonstration of their superiority.

        According to the methods and objectives of attacks of trolls, distinguish:

        * Individual therapy of the patient / group is the usual troll behavior. Any skills can be applied, in this case the termination of the site’s life is not meant.
        * Destruction of a resource is a more complicated thing. One way or another, item No. 1 is included in itself. It’s basically possible to take the newly created site to the grave until it has found its own atmosphere and any actions leave a strong impression on potential customers, forcing them to fall down immediately. With large resources, things are more complicated. An attempt to raid thick and medium trolls a little more often than always ends with a bloody and senseless suicide about moderators. Therefore, for such raids, a comprehensive plan of action with thin trolls should be developed.

        Although trolls rarely form any semblance of society, their population and development model are vaguely reminiscent of a swarm of bees [0], but instead of nectar they collect lulz. Like bees, trolls undergo metamorphoses as they develop. Thus, 1 main stages of development or class of trolls can be distinguished:

        * cattle-troll (trollis animalis). (Your style)
        * ordinary troll (trollis vulgaris), it is often a fat troll.
        * Elite troll (trollis rex), he is also a thin troll [2].

        Spherical Cattle Troll in a vacuum.

        The life path of a troll can begin at any stage, but more often it is the first or second. As a rule, a certain human schoolchild, who has accumulated a certain amount of PSV and filled with romantic feelings for Internet heroes, enters the network one day, singing the song “Paris will still recognize d'Artagnan” under his breath. This is how a troll baby is born. With an unfavorable genetic situation, the troll baby becomes a cattle-troll and spends this way his entire semi-conscious life. This subspecies is unable to find forage areas on its own, nor to troll correctly, nor to protect itself (at a young age, the light green color of the skin, at a later date, the dark green color and exorbitant size, are too conspicuous). The main motive for their actions is recognition and therefore they live in places where only they were expected (for example, on the image boards or discussion pages of the lurk). Their efforts are useless, the results are scanty, and they themselves are a pitiful sight. The only abilities that they, with a twofold sin, have are flood, flame and offtopic.
        1. +1
          1 March 2012 12: 58
          Why are you describing yourself? You’re not less and even more than me.
          in principle, it does not bother me to clarify your level.

          We look
          Quote: professor
          FROST, Do not feed the trolls !!!

          Quote: FROST
          Professor, Thank you, perhaps a very timely comment.

          Quote: Kars
          Of course, they were timely, the professor looked at it for two days, looked at it and saw that you weren’t channeling and wrote that you weren’t feeding the troll, trying to save your face.

          Quote: FROST
          Why feed you?)



          You yourself can analyze how funny you are by writing the last sentence?

          The Professor’s comment refers to YOU ​​(that is, he doesn’t feed Troll by feeding him), but he did it after you, according to his expression, feed Trol for two days, and the Profesor saw it perfectly (not saying that he already knows me) tossed photographs ---- but he didn’t write to you right away --- Don’t feed the troll ------ and from here you can conclude that he considered you to be a person capable of making arguments and arguments in defense of his views (by the way, he is an ardent opponent of tanks, and the anti-tank gun) Israeli)
          but since he saw that you only descend his theories (even though he helped you and type ---- because he is furiously silent about the ability of the Israeli tank Merkava 4 to find targets)
          he tried to give you a chance to save face when you already started a putatz in your own statements. and lost the thread of narration ----- and the petition about trolls ended in your debacle.
  22. +2
    1 March 2012 01: 15
    I found the probability of Javelin getting hit, 0,93 was declared, but for some reason I think that it is overpriced, well, maybe I'm mistaken. And now we compare the Cornet: we take 0,7-0,8 probability of defeat, we take 0,75, the cost is 5 times less, the warhead is such that it flashes 3 meters of concrete and still remains for blocking action, as the javelin provides stealth, as it is guided by a direct and not reflected beam from for which there is a higher range missiles with a thermobaric part ...
    1. +1
      1 March 2012 01: 31
      Most likely, the effectiveness of Javelin will be somewhere in the 0.4 wound
      which in combination with the cost just determined that it did not receive wide distribution even among NATO members
    2. -2
      1 March 2012 10: 02
      25 again !!!
      Cornet costs about $ 45000 apiece, which makes it almost half the price of Javelin, and not like 5 times.
      I've already written about stealth. The cornet is aimed "along a direct and not a reflected beam". Let me ask you where this "direct" laser beam is directed? That's right, the tank. Accordingly, the tank has an EM radiation warning system. So there is no need to talk about any secrecy.
      1. 0
        1 March 2012 21: 01
        You are not quite right, the trick is that with this method the beam is aimed not at the tank, but at the rocket, it has a photodetector in the back), and it is corrected by the beam during the flight ... the so-called "see-shoot" principle ... but the price for someone is 45000, but for someone it is cheaper, 5 times I did not invent it myself, but took it from an interview ... My conclusion (and I am not a urapatriot) Cornet is better ... these are amers indirectly and confirmed by starting the development of Griffin .. ...
        1. -1
          1 March 2012 21: 33
          the trick is that with this method the beam is not aimed at the tank, but at the rocket, it has a photodetector at the back

          You are wrong again, the laser beam is aimed at the tank, and the rocket flies along this beam, periodically interrupting the irradiation of the tank, as you correctly noticed the photodetector is in the tail of the rocket. The diameter of the rocket cannot provide only its irradiation, and it periodically "jumps out" behind the beam and it calmly irradiates the tank. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvk4Z4gHEIU

          And the price for someone is 45000, and for someone cheaper, in 5 I didn’t invent it myself, but I took it from an interview ...

          the same can be said of Javelin, but it is sold to foreign customers for $ 75000, and Cornet for $ 45000.

          .My conclusion (and I'm not an urapatriot) Cornet is better ... it’s amers indirectly and confirmed by starting the development of Griffin ...

          Your IMHO for that and yours.
          I have no complaints about the Kornet rocket - it gets into the tank and doesn’t seem weak, but the guidance system lags behind the generation of Javelin. And therefore, I’m not sure that the next generation Cornet will be cheaper than Javelin.
          Griffin is not developed because Javelin is worse or worse than Cornet, they just want to make a cheaper non-anti-tank missile system (guidance system, range and warhead of non-cumulative type) sharpened for other purposes.
          1. -1
            3 March 2012 00: 34
            I propose to discuss the "Verba" MANPADS very interesting, but there is little data ... I know that, in comparison with the needle, the warhead power has been increased, the three-band head, target selection, the height is up to 5 km, the radius is up to 7 km, you can shoot at small targets ... that's all.
  23. FROST
    -1
    1 March 2012 03: 33
    Not myself armorpenetration, namely the degree of penetration and damage to the tanks themselves, remained equivalent to the WWII indicators for hand grenade launchers, especially at characteristic points of destruction of tanks during battles in the building. This is evidenced by the degree of armor penetration of various models of the Faustpatron and its analogues, making the majority of tanks of those times from multiple projections vulnerable, in relation to the reservation of that time. Approximately the same thing now, the RPG-32 with armor penetration of 650 mm steel homogeneous armor behind dynamic protection will ensure the defeat of most modern tanks with the defeat of many projections and providing significant armored action.

    TTX SAM TOR-M1

    * Affected area:
    o in range: from 1 to 12 km
    o in height: from 0,01 to 10 km
    o by parameter: 8 km
    * Reaction time, s: 7,4 sec
    * Max. target speed 700 m / s
    * Maximum missile overload: 30 g
    * SAM flight speed 700..800 m / s
    * Guidance system anti-jamming radio command
    * Number of target channels - 2 channels
    * The number of missiles in a combat vehicle of 8 missiles
    * Crew 3 people
    * Cruising range 500 km

    With the probability of hitting one small-sized, high-speed target of the Maverick missile class of about 0,5, taking into account the reaction time of the complex and the speed of the Maverick approach, the complex in combat conditions will be able to defeat 1-2 (at best targets), but not a salvo from maveriks with 2-3 attack aircraft, along the advancing tank lines. The chances of hitting a helfair are even less. In fact, the complex is never used to defend the advancing lines of tanks from aviation ammunition, because for this, it is necessary to follow practically in the same order with the tanks, and when the radiation is turned on on the front line, they can immediately cover them with conventional artillery, and not just anti-radar missiles. Therefore, it is mainly used only for carriers (priority targets), upon receipt of external target designation or their optical detection, being in radio silence mode and the target entering the sector of the complex.
    The maximum range of 12 km is indicated for an attack in the teaching staff of a medium-high, medium-speed, non-maneuvering approaching target. The range of destruction of low-altitude targets is much lower.
    In view of the vulnerability of the complex, even from conventional shrapnel-shrapnel ammunition, such complexes follow at a certain depth, behind tank orders. There are much fewer such systems than simpler and cheaper short-range air defense systems. For example, in the PLA there are only 60 of them, most of which are used to cover important strategic stationary objects from cruise missile attacks, planning air bombs and other high-precision munitions. Requiring more time for deployment and coagulation after turning on the radiation of Buk air defense systems can only be at a considerable tactical depth from the advancing lines and cannot provide air defense of the front edge from low-altitude targets.

    Using the sub-radar radar, the AN-64D Apache helicopter can carry out volley target destruction with AGM-114L missiles from ranges of 10-12 km, while in hover mode from a height of 20-30 m. Having at the same time the ability to detect and launch a volley according to the target’s principle - I forgot, hiding in the folds of the terrain, sticking out only the radar mounted above the rotor. Therefore, it can hit not only armored vehicles, but also independently hit short-range air defense systems and Tor, Osa, and Krotal air defense systems (although mainly anti-radar missiles launched from long ranges are used to defeat them). Also now very active is the arming by UAV helpers.

    With the increased strike capabilities of aviation, to date, military air defense cannot actually provide effective defense of the front lines of the advancing armored vehicles from attacks by low-altitude carriers of high-precision weapons, which greatly affects the possibility of using armored forces.
    1. -1
      1 March 2012 10: 54
      Quote: FROST
      Not the armor penetration itself, but the degree of penetration and destruction of the tanks themselves, remained equivalent to the WWII indicators for hand grenade launchers,


      But do not share the source of the fairy tale? Or did you come up with it yourself? By what principle was this equivalence considered. Do you continue to make laugh?
      Quote: FROST
      but not a salvo from mavericks with 2-3 attack aircraft

      And where will they come from if they get the average air defense knocked out and the torpedoes clean up what they fly ---- by the way, it’s also usually not alone alone --- this is also considering that there are long-range air defense ----- you are sure that you have already crushed it ? Or do you hope for tomahawks? Well, so they have almost no one, and even with layered air defense they will fly away.
      Quote: FROST
      "missile maverick" of the order of 0,5, taking into account the reaction time of the complex and the speed of the approach of the maverick, the complex in combat conditions will be able to defeat 1-2 (at best targets), but not a salvo from maveriks from 2-3 attack aircraft, against the advancing tank chains

      Torahs are driven by batteries == 4 units

      Quote: FROST
      for this you need to follow almost the same order as the tanks, and when you turn on the radiation on the front line, they can immediately cover with conventional artillery,

      Correct me, but in general, according to the regulations, tanks come after artillery preparation, that is, destruction of enemy artillery, this has been the case since 1939 of the year. (If we are already starting to consider large military operations when the alleged enemy has attack aircraft, very expensive)
      Quote: FROST
      In fact, the complex is never used to defend advancing tank lines from aircraft ammunition

      like the A-10 Thunderbolt in terms of counteracting the air defense of the enemy of the armed forces with modern systems
      Quote: FROST
      The maximum range in 12 km is indicated for an attack in the faculty of medium-high, medium-speed, non-maneuvering approaching target

      Again, share where it is written except for your imagination --- all that I see
      12 km range, where did you get the clarifications?
    2. -2
      1 March 2012 11: 13
      Quote: FROST
      Helicopter AN-64D Apache using over-the-body radar

      And that it can not be brought down or what?
      And the volley using the radar readings, these are the helphires that are guided by the laser?

      Range: 8-11 km (depending on altitude and trajectory

      Do you think she will have 12 km range on such a trajectory? Will the tanks know that they are being irradiated and will not interfere?
      In the case of an autonomous (from the carrier) it is required to illuminate the target during the entire flight of the rocket from the moment of launch to hit the target.
      When the Hellfire flies through interference (fog, clouds, smoke) or the target designator cannot illuminate the target correctly before hitting, then the missile loses its target and is no longer capable of anything. Only AGM-114K is equipped with a built-in system to "re-lock" a target after a loss. The only Hellfire that fully complies with the "fire and forget" concept is the AGM-114L.

      The first mode is called LOBL - Lock-on Before Launch ("locking" the target before launch). In this mode, the seeker of the missile "captures" the reflected encoded laser radiation before launch. The advantage of this method is that the crew makes sure that the missile has "captured" the target, thereby reducing the likelihood of its loss. But the trajectory of the Hellfire flight is such that in order to compensate for low clouds and for successful use, the carrier may need to enter the zone of enemy air defense systems.
      LOAL-DIR - Lock-on After Launch-Direct. do not allow volley fire



      Quote: FROST
      With the increased strike capabilities of aviation, to date, military air defense cannot actually provide effective defense of the front lines of the advancing armored vehicles from attacks by low-altitude carriers of high-precision weapons, which greatly affects the possibility of using armored forces.


      And I would also like to see the source. It is especially interesting where it was checked.
  24. +1
    1 March 2012 21: 12
    We all missed two points, not every hit in a tank deprives it of fighting capacity and the use of tanks implies their evacuation, repair and return ... So with the extreme butting of Hezbollah and IA, more than 40 tanks (Merkava not Khukhra Muhra) were damaged and all were irretrievably lost 3 for which the ammunition detonated. So if getting into a tank does not deprive him of combat effectiveness and after that the shooter is detected and answered from 125 mm ... then the tank will be repaired, and the shooter ...... is doubtful ...
    1. -1
      1 March 2012 23: 14
      Can you imagine the maintainability of an airplane or a helicopter? Especially if it crashes? And they are not only smaller than tanks, they are also much more expensive, but their operation and pilot training are even more expensive.

      For example, the same Apache --- uncounted USA, not a single country has even a hundred, but mainly up to 30 units or less.
  25. 0
    2 March 2012 00: 33
    A helicopter or an airplane) is much more mobile and faster than a tank. And in many ways, their capabilities are determined by weapons ... for example, the helicopter received target designation, crept up, crashed in from afar with an anti-tank missile and dumped ...
    1. 0
      2 March 2012 00: 38
      Or received a missile from MANPADS by the way, mainly because of the Libyan MANPADS AN-64 Apache did not support the democratization of Libya.

      There is a counteraction to any weapon, and then they enter the scene --- quantity, cost, maintainability,
      1. 0
        3 March 2012 00: 29
        By the way, the helicopter is not defenseless before MANPADS .... here is the article http://worldweapon.ru/strelok/stat1.php
        1. 0
          3 March 2012 22: 18
          As well as the tank in front of the helicopter - and even articles are not necessary.
  26. 0
    2 March 2012 01: 20
    Well, no one argues with this, everything is applied in a complex, and there is a constant search for an advantage ...
  27. +1
    April 2 2012 23: 05
    I would like to hope that this:
    "due to the relatively large opening flaps, the range" is just a mistake of the translator .... winked

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"