Generations and trends: development of infantry ATGMs

55
Generations and trends: development of infantry ATGMs
Combat use of ATGM "Kornet" - the most advanced product of the 2nd generation. Photo by the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation


Any modern army should be armed with anti-tank missile systems with guided missiles designed for infantry. Such weapon allows you to deal with well-protected armored objects or structures. For obvious reasons, the development of the ATGM direction is a continuous process and regularly gives new results. At the same time, a number of important trends of various kinds are observed.



A question of generations


According to the generally accepted classification, all anti-tank systems, including those intended for infantry, can be divided into three main generations. Such a classification makes it possible to divide the entire mass of created complexes according to the level of development and applied technologies. According to her, the first generation includes the earliest developments of this class that have reached production and operation - the Soviet 9K11 Malyutka complex, the French SS.10, etc.

The key feature of the 1st generation was the extreme simplicity of design and the absence of any automation. The search for the target, the launch and guidance of the rocket were carried out manually by the operator. At the same time, objective limitations arose in terms of launch range and hit accuracy.


Cut-away layout of the American TOW missile. Photo by Wikimedia Commons

Already in the sixties and seventies, the first complexes of the 2nd generation appeared. At this stage, the creation and introduction of more advanced observation devices, as well as semi-automatic controls, began. Now the operator only has to look for the target and keep it in sight, while the flight of the rocket is controlled by automation using certain principles.

It is to the 2nd generation that most of the modern ATGMs in service belong. In our country, this generation began with the products 9K111 "Fagot" and 9K111-1 "Competition". The main modern development in this area is the ATGM 9K135 "Kornet" and its various modifications. Examples of foreign complexes include the American BGM-71 TOW or the French MILAN.

In the mid-nineties, the first complex of the next 3rd generation, the American FGM-148 Javelin, entered service. In the future, similar developments appeared in other countries. The main feature of these ATGMs is the presence of a full-fledged homing head on the missile. Thanks to this, the principle of "shot and forget" is realized, which gives certain advantages.

The advertising materials of foreign developers already mention the 4th and 5th generations of anti-tank systems. At the same time, the generally accepted criteria for these generations have not yet been formed, which gives a certain scope for imagination and marketing.


Missiles of various modifications for the TOW complex. Photo by the US Department of Defense

So, the Israeli company Rafael refers to the 4th generation some complexes of its Spike family. Part of the missiles of this line is equipped with an optical-electronic seeker and has a fiber-optic connection with ground-based anti-tank systems. This ensures both homing, incl. with retargeting in flight, and work under the direct control of the operator. By the 5th generation, "Rafael" refers to future complexes using artificial intelligence, etc.

Cost - efficiency


The appearance of weapons and equipment of a new generation usually leads to obsolescence of previous models and their gradual replacement. It was according to this scheme that at one time there was a transition from the first to the second generation of anti-tank systems. However, this did not happen with the appearance of the 3rd generation. For a number of reasons, products of the previous generation remain relevant and popular. A number of countries do not even plan to switch to the latest generation.

The reasons for this should be sought in the technical and economic features of the weapons of the last two generations. First of all, it is the question of price that matters. Thus, the export value of the advertised 3rd generation Javelin missile with seeker has already exceeded $200, while ATGMs of previous generations cost several times less. For example, in export contracts of previous years, a rocket for Kornet cost approx. 25-30 thousand dollars. The situation is similar with control units.

The difference in the cost of ATGMs of two generations is so great that it cannot always justify the technical advantages. At the same time, products of the FGM-148 type, due to the reduction in size, are even inferior to the ATGMs of the conditional previous generation in terms of basic characteristics. As a result, in comparison in terms of cost-effectiveness, it is the 2nd generation that is more successful.


French MILAN on an armored car. Photo MBDA Systems

Management Development


The main innovation in the 2nd generation of ATGMs was control units with electronics capable of controlling target movements and missile flight. The consistent development of control units and the introduction of new technologies has become one of the foundations of progress in this area, and these processes are still ongoing.

At the early stages of development of the 2nd generation, the task was to ensure the all-weather and all-day use of the complexes. It was solved by introducing new optics with a night channel. Electronics were also improved, aimed at increasing reliability, speed, etc.

Separately, we should consider the development of ways to control the rocket. In the early complexes of the 2nd generation, the wired control method, borrowed from its predecessors, was retained. However, now the commands for the rocket steering machines were formed in the control unit and transmitted to the rocket via a thin unwinding cable. This method is technically simple, but vulnerable to external influences.

In a number of domestic and foreign developments, the wire was replaced by a radio channel. However, the radio command guidance system has become widespread only in anti-tank systems for land and air platforms. However, a successful replacement was also developed for infantry complexes. So, "Cornet" of all modifications is equipped with laser-beam control. In this case, the rocket flies independently along the laser beam directed by the control unit at the target. This method of guidance is more complicated than wired, but it is distinguished by increased reliability and noise immunity.


Shooting from ATGM 3rd generation FGM-148. Photos Lockheed Martin

The direct development of the ideas of the 1st and 2nd generations are the solutions laid down by the foreign industry in the hypothetical fourth generation. In the projects of the Spike family, a simple copper wire was replaced with an optical fiber, which allows organizing high-speed two-way communication between the rocket and the control unit. Such a connection can be used to introduce fundamentally new modes and capabilities.

Combat capabilities


As the name implies, anti-tank systems are designed to destroy armored targets and have a corresponding warhead. Almost all complexes use a shaped charge of one or another mass and configuration. At the same time, charges of this class are gradually developing, and in addition, alternative options for combat equipment are being offered.

Early anti-tank missiles carried a simple monobloc shaped charge. In recent decades, in connection with the development of regular and additional protection tanks, tandem warheads became widespread. In this case, the warhead includes a small-sized lightweight leading charge, the task of which is to defeat and disable the dynamic protection unit. The main charge passes through the gap formed.

Such warheads are intended to hit a target in a frontal or lateral projection, which have the best protection. Alternative solutions are proposed aimed at simplifying the task for the rocket. So, for one of the modifications of the TOW ATGM, a cumulative warhead of an inclined arrangement was developed, directed downward in flight. It is triggered when the missile passes over the target, and the cumulative jet hits the roof. The FGM-148 and some other modern products have a flight mode with a "slide" in front of the target - in this case, the hit also occurs in the weakened part of the armor.


Israeli product Spike-LR, related to the 3rd generation. Photo by Wikimedia Commons

However, on the battlefield, ATGM crews face not only tanks. Accordingly, missiles with other combat equipment are required. So, in the course of the development of the Kornet complex, missiles with high-explosive and thermobaric warheads were developed. In terms of their impact, these charges are comparable to a 152-mm artillery shell. At the same time, the accuracy of the defeat was maintained at the level of the original anti-tank missile, and the launch range was also increased.

Today and tomorrow


Thus, for several decades of its existence, infantry anti-tank missile systems have come a long way. New components and solutions were created and implemented, thanks to which the tactical and technical characteristics improved, the principles of application changed and the overall efficiency increased. In addition, development processes have led to the formation of several full-fledged generations of such weapons with fundamental differences from each other.

The process of developing and improving anti-tank systems does not stop, and the industry of different countries regularly reports on new achievements in this area. As before, the purpose of new projects is to improve the basic technical characteristics. In addition, in advanced projects that receive the necessary advertising, we are actually talking about the rejection of anti-tank specialization in favor of versatility and the ability to work for different purposes.

Attention should be paid to the simultaneous existence of several generations of weapons. If the 1st generation is recognized as obsolete, then the second remains relevant, and the development of new samples of this kind continues. At the same time, many armies are operating complexes of the next 3rd generation, and the development of the 4th is already underway. What all these processes will eventually lead to, and what the generally accepted requirements will be in the 4th and 5th generations of anti-tank systems, will become known only in the future.
55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    4 June 2023 03: 57
    One of the directions of development is a shot in a tank-dangerous direction in a square where tanks are supposed to be located and the rocket independently searches for a target, aims and destroys it. soldier
    1. AAK
      +4
      4 June 2023 06: 29
      Well, this is, as it were, the main direction in the development of anti-tank systems, but unfortunately (and the author rightly kept silent about this), despite the usual characterization of Russian weapons as "having no analogues in the world", there is nothing among Russian anti-tank systems that could be attributed to 3 The th generation, not to mention the 4th, and when they may appear is not known, here the "Xperds" will soon start talking about the effectiveness, simplicity and cheapness of the means of fighting tanks in the form of bottles with a "Molotov cocktail" ...
      1. +3
        4 June 2023 13: 55
        among the Russian ATGMs there is nothing that could be attributed to the 3rd generation, not to mention the 4th, and when they may appear is not known, then the "Xperds" will soon start talking about the effectiveness, simplicity and cheapness of the means of combat with tanks in the form of bottles with a "Molotov cocktail" ...

        Duck, in 2016, the respected Lanista already wrote an article on this topic "Once again about sore ATGMs and patriotism." "Experts" in the Moscow Region and the military-industrial complex already then claimed that the 4th generation ATGM did not give up on us, we don’t even need the 3rd generation, because the 2nd is quite enough, because. it is cheaper, noise-proof, does not require preliminary preparation and can shoot at objects (deliberate typo) that do not reflect in the IR range. I even saved a link for myself https://topwar.ru/98072-esche-raz-o-nabolevshem-ili-ptury-i-patriotizm.html. How I knew that the times would come when such "prudence" would come to us sideways. It’s a pity that this material cannot be attached to the corresponding criminal case on treason, although I would very much like to ...
        1. -4
          5 June 2023 00: 41
          There is nothing wrong with second-generation ATGMs, they work from afar and operators do not put themselves in danger too much. If there were a third generation, there would be a hundred missiles per division. In general, instead of this, there are lancets and lmur, the first launch ten pieces a day, the second have shot off a batch and are now waiting for new ones to be riveted.
    2. -2
      4 June 2023 11: 39
      One of the directions of development is a shot in a tank-dangerous direction in a square where tanks are supposed to be located and the rocket independently searches for a target, aims and destroys it


      And in the end, it successfully hits an inflatable mock-up.
      1. +6
        4 June 2023 11: 53
        And in the end, it successfully hits an inflatable mock-up.

        1) The human operator with the command method of guidance is also not immune from recognition errors.
        2) Combined GOS (for example, as on the AGM-179 version of 2022) will "feel" the layout in addition to the millimeter radar also in the IR range. Do not consider developers stupid. They don't keep people who don't know physics.
        1. -1
          4 June 2023 13: 14
          1) The human operator with the command method of guidance is also not immune from recognition errors.


          But such a simple idea that the number of errors of the operator and the seeker, to put it mildly, will be very different, did not occur to you? lol

          2) Combined GOS (for example, as on the AGM-179 version of 2022) will "feel" the layout in addition to the millimeter radar also in the IR range. Do not consider developers stupid. They don't keep people who don't know physics.


          And what, millimeter and IR ranges provide a guarantee against error?
          And no one thinks developers are stupid. But the thing is that the commercial component has long prevailed in the production of weapons, taking into account the fact that among consumers there are enough idiots who are not able to think critically.
          1. +2
            4 June 2023 13: 40
            But such a simple idea that the number of errors of the operator and the seeker, to put it mildly, will be very different, did not occur to you?

            I suppose in your personalized world order, the machine will have more of them, and not the person winked
            And what, millimeter and IR ranges provide a guarantee against error?

            The question is not what has a 100% guarantee, but what methods give the maximum possible available.
            1. -1
              4 June 2023 15: 44
              I suppose in your personalized world order, the machine will have more of them, and not the person


              Such assumptions are made by refined theorists like you, mentally living in the same refined reality.

              The question is not what has a 100% guarantee, but what methods give the maximum possible available.


              What are you saying, does the millimeter radar range provide the maximum opportunity for target identification? lol
              1. -1
                5 June 2023 10: 18
                What are you saying, does the millimeter radar range provide the maximum opportunity for target identification?

                In combination with IR compared to human vision with the command method of guidance - of course.
                PS To deny evolution and scientific and technological progress is stupid.
                PPS Layouts don't "go on the attack"
                1. -1
                  5 June 2023 11: 48
                  In combination with IR compared to human vision with the command method of guidance - of course.


                  And you still call yourself a vile skeptic? More like a naive idealist. lol

                  PS To deny evolution and scientific and technological progress is stupid.


                  Nobody denies. But common sense with a critical approach should not be forgotten. Especially in our time, when there is more and more commercial component in the production of weapons.

                  PPS Layouts don't "go on the attack"


                  Well, they don’t go on the attack even in conditions of limited visibility, using armored vehicles, despite all the technical achievements.
                  As for the night, the battlefield is instantly illuminated by a wide range of glowing pyrotechnics. Cheap and cheerful, and most importantly, you do not give yourself away as radiation.
          2. 0
            4 June 2023 18: 31
            Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
            And what, millimeter and IR ranges provide a guarantee against error?

            Yes, they do not give any "guarantee"! It is possible to make such an inflatable model with such coatings that it will "glow" in the Ka radar and thermal IR ranges, like a true MBT! Yes
            1. +1
              5 June 2023 10: 19
              It is possible to make such an inflatable model with such coatings that it will "glow" in the Ka radar and thermal IR ranges, like a true MBT!

              It only seems so.
        2. KCA
          +1
          5 June 2023 07: 16
          Inflatable models, at least Russian ones, have a hole in the kit, which in the IR range creates the image of a tank engine
          1. -1
            5 June 2023 10: 59
            a hole that in the IR range creates an image of a tank engine

            The problem for the "hole" is that a multi-ton mass of metal reacts to daily temperature fluctuations in a very definite way, in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. And all that a "hole" can do is sculpt a contrasting spot at the site of the MTO.
      2. 0
        4 June 2023 17: 28
        If an inflatable mock-up is capable of deceiving automation, then by definition it will also deceive a person. Actually inflatable models for this were originally created and successfully deceived people.
        1. +2
          4 June 2023 18: 59
          Quote: rait
          If an inflatable mock-up is capable of deceiving automation, then by definition it will also deceive a person.

          But you "guessed" the fic ... in this case! You can make a layout that will be perceived by an active millimeter-wave radar seeker or a thermal imaging seeker (IIR) as a true MBT, but will not be able to deceive a dude who will notice the absence of "small" parts from the "body kit" or a slight "wiggle" of the "gun" barrel! But didn’t you read about AI (artificial intelligence), which is often mentioned in Internet articles? More precisely, about AI elements ... But this is an attempt to endow electronic GOS with at least some semblance of a human mind ... human!
          1. -1
            4 June 2023 22: 16
            Exactly what I guessed. At the distances of using anti-tank systems, a person cannot notice any small details at all.

            Here you should study the history of the use of inflatable models and, as a result, familiarize yourself with their results. They were all great at misleading people.

            And here we are talking about a "shot in the square", that is, a person does not observe the target at all.

            But didn’t you read about AI (artificial intelligence), which is often mentioned in Internet articles? More precisely, about AI elements ... But this is an attempt to endow electronic GOS with at least some semblance of a human mind ... human!


            Not only read, but also participated in events with the presentation of domestic developments in this area. And no, the whole essence of these developments is strictly the opposite - to perform those operations with which the human mind copes badly or does not cope at all. Before creating a "likeness of mind" we are still like the moon.
    3. +3
      4 June 2023 13: 51
      Since the late 80s, SPBE (self-aiming combat element) has been in service, which can be used by aviation and MLRS. The Tornado projectile contains 5 such elements and flies up to 70 km. For aviation, a planning cassette Drill was developed with 15 SPBE, a flight range of up to 50 km. Another question is whether they use it now and how effectively.
      And they certainly continue to grow.
      1. 0
        4 June 2023 14: 59
        The Armed Forces of Ukraine use similar NATO missiles and shells. Didn't see ours.
    4. 0
      4 June 2023 22: 59
      And the "target" turns out to be a bus with civilian ...
  2. +3
    4 June 2023 07: 01
    The development vector is determined either by new technologies or new conditions. Today, the mass distribution of UAVs has become a new condition. The main disadvantage of anti-tank systems is precisely the need for the operator to be practically in direct line of sight with the tank. The combination of UAVs and ATGMs will theoretically make it possible to launch from a safe distance and control not one, but a small network of pre-placed RK
    1. IVZ
      +3
      4 June 2023 08: 05
      The combination of UAVs and ATGMs will theoretically make it possible to launch from a safe distance and control not one, but a small network of pre-placed RK
      Great idea. indeed, a combination of a reconnaissance drone, small-sized drones with a target illumination laser, and relatively cheap missiles or various types of kamikaze drones with semi-active laser seekers, for example, may be the best option in terms of cost-effectiveness. But such a system is unlikely to be portable.
      1. +1
        4 June 2023 19: 08
        They talk a lot about "swarms of drones" ... But these "swarms" will be effective in the presence of "multi-mode" GOS (2,3 in 1) and the desired "highlight" ("marking") of targets!
    2. +1
      4 June 2023 09: 39
      Quote: -Igor-
      The main disadvantage of anti-tank systems is precisely the need for the operator to be practically in direct line of sight with the tank.

      No. This was true for 1-2 generations. For 2,5-5 generations, this is no longer the case.
      1. +1
        4 June 2023 17: 40
        But by the way, are there any developments of anti-tank systems with control of a remote installation and an operator?
        Suppose the operator still remains on the line of sight from the target, but the operator and the launcher are at a distance from each other. Let's say the operator is from a camouflaged position, and the launcher is from the zone of the most comfortable firing sector. And there is a 100 m difference between them (and this is enough for firing artillery in the direction of the missile launch, the operator himself would be outside the affected area).
        Or use twisted pair control. An ATGM is taken, but its installation has its own servos. By default, the operator fires it normally. But if necessary, he connects the combat tablet to the installation using a pre-assembled cable. And at a distance equal to the length of the cable (yes, at least 20 m), it controls the anti-tank system through the tablet in the same way as if it were doing it manually. It also sees the field through the eyepiece (through the camera mounted in the eyepiece) and also, at launch, leads the rocket to the target.
        In this design, the operator himself can be safer if he manages the installation from a covered trench.
        1. +2
          4 June 2023 19: 19
          Quote: Mustachioed Kok
          But by the way, are there any developments of anti-tank systems with control of a remote installation and an operator?

          Velik decided to create? It will be several years in Xoxland how they made a similar "device" under the name "Stugna-P" ... But are they the only ones? Don't hurt yourself either! You just need to "remember" "Baby"! Or "Mamba"!
  3. +5
    4 June 2023 09: 33
    Remote control panels for anti-tank systems are one direction. Crew from cover can hit tanks. The second direction is the ATGM, which has a guidance drone with the capture and tracking of the target as part of the calculation. Allows you to reduce the visual distance and launch missiles from large distances from the target. Well, the third is drones with anti-tank systems. Helicopter tactics are switching to copters. Takeoff from cover, launch, hit the target and back.
    1. +5
      4 June 2023 09: 42
      Quote: bulat
      Remote control panels for anti-tank systems are one direction.

      This is a cheap modernization of the 2nd generation. Which qualitatively improves the situation with the safety of the operator. Stugna is a prime example. By the way, it is used not only as an anti-tank system, but also as an observation camera.
    2. 0
      4 June 2023 17: 34
      Remote control panels for anti-tank systems are one direction. Crew from cover can hit tanks. The second direction is an anti-tank system that has a guidance drone with target capture and tracking as part of the calculation


      I will add 4 direction and this is vertical launch.
    3. 0
      8 June 2023 02: 30
      Can you imagine what balance you just described? What do you think the operator should do? Control a drone or look for a target on the battlefield? The creative personalities of Kamov Design Bureau have already sat on this hedgehog, when they hung on one person both piloting and searching for a target on the battlefield. The movie turned out beautiful. Never worked in my life.
      No need to reinvent the wheel, smart people have already come up with. The concept of a "flying TV camera" was justified in the USSR back in the 70s and implemented by people from the Soviet military-industrial complex in Israel in the form of the Spike ATGM. Why duplicate a missile with a drone if you can combine a drone and an ATGM in one product? Now there is "Product 305" that implements this concept in the form of a rocket and the Lancet in the form of a UAV.

      The issue here is not distance. Here the question is in detection and recognition.
      1. 0
        18 November 2023 14: 36
        The point of guidance using a drone camera is that it will be possible to launch a missile from a blind spot, using the terrain as cover, without being exposed by installing anti-tank missiles at heights. Conventionally, the rocket flies out from behind the closed side of the hill at an angle of 45 degrees, and is then directed by the drone’s camera to a point, like a conventional red field. Moreover, the birds themselves can be installed without operators, autonomously. and they will be turned on by a signal from the copter, modern technologies allow.
        those. We place 1 of these autonomous anti-tank guided missile systems along 10 km of the front, which stand there for weeks without operators, well disguised as bushes. then reconnaissance using a drone detects that the enemy has started moving on the vehicle at a distance of about 5 km from these installations, and the UAV operator, flying up to the vehicle at a distance convenient for target designation, activates the guns, which launch missiles at an angle from a closed firing position, then head to the point indicated by the drone, at least 5 missiles at one point at a time. Moreover, the distance to the target from the launcher will no longer affect the accuracy; the accuracy will be determined by the optical complex of the copter. You can make drum-type anti-tank missile systems so that they also automatically reload after a successful launch.
        Or you can also consider air-launched anti-tank missile launchers on unmanned aerostats. Conventionally, at an altitude of 5-10 km there is a weather balloon with an anti-tank missile tube or even 2-3 tubes suspended from it. It’s not so easy to knock such a probe off the needle and so on, remember the case in the USA)))
        So, this probe hangs in one place (back in the First World War they were successfully used as observation points) or drifts at low speed towards the enemy. those. in fact, we always have an anti-tank missile ready to hit a target in 20 seconds in an area with a radius of up to 10 km, or an area of ​​314 km2, impressive. and this missile is aimed according to the above principle - through the eyes of a copter like Krasnopol.
  4. +2
    4 June 2023 10: 34
    Thus, the export value of the advertised 3rd generation Javelin missile with seeker has already exceeded $200.

    Fresh contract with Britain - rocket price 78 thousand dollars, the price of the SYSTEM is 178 thousand dollars. This is the price with CLU. With the cost of logistics, technical support, spare parts (batteries, battery chargers, cooling devices, etc.) and training (which includes the cost of simulators and practical missiles) - 208 thousand per unit.
    PS Despite the fact that the US Army can buy missiles for itself at prices twice as high. Well, why not - the market))))
  5. +3
    4 June 2023 11: 15
    The conclusion from the article is that due to the fact that the Russian industry was unable to establish the production of ATGMs of the 3rd generation, the author chose the second generation as the best, in which the author himself appointed the Cornet as the best.
    Everything else is "too late, useless and will not help."
    1. -2
      5 June 2023 00: 48
      Do not confuse "could not fix" and "MO refused to purchase." There is no money to equip tanks with thermal imagers, but here let's have a thermal imager for each missile. MANPADS are the same ATGM of the third generation, only the fragmentation warhead, modifying this to an anti-tank missile is not a very difficult task
      1. -1
        5 June 2023 00: 52
        Quote from alexoff
        MANPADS the same ATGM of the third generation, only the fragmentation warhead

        That's enough, you've already won the competition... the idea of ​​making an ATGM out of MANPADS is new, fresh, stylish, fashionable, youthful. Patent good laughing
      2. 0
        8 June 2023 02: 20
        Quote from alexoff
        MANPADS are the same ATGM of the third generation, only the fragmentation warhead, modifying this to an anti-tank missile is not a very difficult task



        Very difficult. An airplane is a hot spot against an infinitely cold sky. Which, moreover, yells at the whole universe his own or someone else's. The tank can be hot, or it can be cold, but it is always against the background of the ground, which is either cold or warm, and surrounded by a bunch of hot objects. And no one knows whether this particular tank is Russian or French? He will not tell himself how the plane is.
        Therefore, for guidance of MANPADS, one point thermal sensor is sufficient. And to create an ATGM seeker, a matrix of sensors is required.
  6. -4
    4 June 2023 13: 21
    At least two points should not be forgotten.
    1. ATGM, although it is an anti-tank weapon, can be successfully used for other purposes.
    2. Very often, in combat conditions, it becomes necessary to retarget an already launched ATGM.
    And the principle let-forgot for these cases, well, does not fit at all. But for SPBE just right. True, this was developed in the USSR.
    1. +3
      4 June 2023 14: 21
      Although ATGM is an anti-tank weapon, it can be successfully used for other purposes.

      From the 2016 article by Comrade Lanista I already mentioned:
      So, the dispute regarding generations.

      1 argument. Second generation ATGMs have the ability to change the target after the launch, while the third ATGM is flying exactly to the selected target. The defeat of the selected goal at the time "after start-up" may already be impractical, because the target may already be hit by someone else during the flight of the ATGM, or a higher priority target may appear on the battlefield.
      Counter argument 1. The speed of the ATGM flight is such that, in most cases, the attempt to re-guide will only lead to the fact that the ATGM leaves both the first and the second selected target. The range of distances at which the effective implementation of such a change of target is possible is extremely limited. We also do not forget that the field of view of the sight is somewhat narrower than the field of visibility of the naked eye, therefore, it will be difficult for the operator to search for some other target other than the chosen one. It is easier to work out the second start, which is also suitable for the 3 generation.

      2 argument. An ATGM of the second generation is capable of working on a fixed target that does not have a contrasting IR signature, for example, a DOT. The third-generation ATGM cannot do that, because such targets are not captured by the GOS ATGM.
      Counter argument 2. Not captured - and not necessary. Conditional Jvelin can work on a similar goal in the "grenade launcher" mode (without turning on the GOS), and the Conditional Spike does not know such a problem at all, because it has a duplicated control channel (if desired, the “Spike” can be operated manually according to the principle of the 2 generation). No one bothers to use two types of targeting on one launcher at once, which was successfully implemented by the Israelis. By the way, such a proposal was issued by the designers of the Cornet-D modification, but for some reason was rejected.
      1. -4
        4 June 2023 15: 40
        From the 2016 article by Comrade Lanista I already mentioned:


        I have no idea who this comrade Lanist or Lanista is, but it so happened that I am familiar with ATGMs in practice, not only reading the Internet on the couch.
        Therefore, I will say this, the counterarguments look pale, at the level of bleating. lol
        1. I personally retargeted about 20% of ATGMs in combat conditions, and there were no problems. Moreover, taking into account the peculiarities of the ATGM complex on the Mi-24V / P, sometimes, in order to save time, it was possible to launch the ATGM simply in that direction, followed by a turn. Yes
        2. What does it mean not to capture and not to. During the events in Afghanistan, and Chechnya too, there were practically no such targets as tanks. Nevertheless, there were quite enough targets for ATGMs, which at one time prompted designers to develop high-explosive warheads as well.
        1. +2
          4 June 2023 16: 37
          I personally retargeted about 20% of ATGMs in combat conditions

          Happy for you. Just please, do not broadcast your own experience and skill to other people so categorically. The fact that you calmly cope with it does not mean at all that absolutely any other person can cope with the same task. I am already silent about the difference in conditions: because a training ground is one thing, but fighting is another. I don’t want to offend or offend you, I just don’t know you or what specific experience you are writing about, so I’m just listing the options.

          In addition, you need to understand that the training of army aviation pilots and a grenade launcher infantryman differs radically. What can I say, you even observe the battlefield from a slightly different angle, not to mention the fact that, unlike infantry, a tank cannot oppose a helicopter with almost anything except its turret machine gun, but for the queen of the fields it has a much more expanded arsenal. Therefore, the use of ATGMs from a helicopter from a relatively safe position will inevitably differ from the use of the same product from the ground under enemy fire.
          What does it mean not to capture and not to

          I think, in this vein, it was not about the fact that the 3rd generation ATGM is not capable of hitting targets that do not have an IR signature, but about the fact that it does not need to capture the seeker for this, because there are other alternative ways to implement this task. Another question is the economic feasibility of hitting a relatively inexpensive object with a rather expensive missile, but this is no longer the subject of the conversation.
          1. 0
            5 June 2023 12: 18
            Happy for you. Just please, do not broadcast your own experience and skill to other people so categorically. The fact that you calmly cope with it does not mean at all that absolutely any other person can cope with the same task. I am already silent about the difference in conditions: because a training ground is one thing, but fighting is another. I don’t want to offend or offend you, I just don’t know you or what specific experience you are writing about, so I’m just listing the options.


            First, in my experience, nothing special. I myself repeated only the techniques of older comrades. And that's not all. It’s not that he couldn’t, he simply considered, for example, such a refinement as launching and guiding ATGMs without looking into the guidance device as unnecessary. Yes, and "Phalanx" is no longer found.
            Secondly, Afghanistan and Chechnya, a training ground in your opinion?

            In addition, you need to understand that the training of army aviation pilots and a grenade launcher infantryman differs radically. What can I say, you even observe the battlefield from a slightly different angle, not to mention the fact that, unlike infantry, a tank cannot oppose a helicopter with almost anything except its turret machine gun, but for the queen of the fields it has a much more expanded arsenal. Therefore, the use of ATGMs from a helicopter from a relatively safe position will inevitably differ from the use of the same product from the ground under enemy fire.


            It is immediately clear that you are a theorist. It is much easier to work with ground-based anti-tank systems. There is no shortage of time, and most importantly, such a quest as a dreary search for a target in the field of view of the PN.
            In addition, the ATGM is so simple and convenient to learn that any fighter after five (on average) launches is already a sniper.

            I think, in this vein, it was not about the fact that the 3rd generation ATGM is not capable of hitting targets that do not have an IR signature, but about the fact that it does not need to capture the seeker for this, because there are other alternative ways to implement this task. Another question is the economic feasibility of hitting a relatively inexpensive object with a rather expensive missile, but this is no longer the subject of the conversation.


            The whole point is that the GOS is capable of isolating a target only at relatively short distances, and then under ideal conditions. And it’s worth fencing a garden for the sake of this, if, in addition to this dubious advantage, how many minuses?
            1. +1
              5 June 2023 14: 48
              I agree with you in many ways, except for the thesis about the simplicity of learning to work with ground-based anti-tank systems.
              If you launch ATGMs from equipment and use the Cheburashka remote control inside the car, then it is. But a portable installation requires long-term training to develop skills to automatism. Control using two primitive handwheels is a very difficult process for an untrained operator, especially if the target is in motion. Probably many who have encountered this remember training at the training stand, where very few people coped with it the first time.
              1. 0
                8 June 2023 02: 33
                For this, there are special trainers. In general, even with a knife and fork, it doesn’t work right away :)
    2. +1
      4 June 2023 19: 32
      Quote: vovochkarzhevsky
      there is a need to retarget the already launched ATGM.
      And the principle let-forgot for these cases, well, does not fit at all. But for SPBE just right

      Lord! How "shaken" everything is! 1. "Retargeting" ATGMs and SPBEs ... how is this connected? request 2. Israeli "Spikes" "4 generations" are capable of both "retargeting an already launched ATGM" and "observe" the principle of "let it go, forget it!" So, do not fool yourself ... and others!
      1. 0
        5 June 2023 12: 25
        Lord! How "shaken" everything is! 1. "Retargeting" ATGMs and SPBEs ... how is this connected? request 2. Israeli "Spikes" "4 generations" are capable of both "retargeting an already launched ATGM" and "observe" the principle of "let it go, forget it!" So, do not fool yourself ... and others!


        Imagine such a situation, a schoolboy enters the flight class and begins to teach pilots how to pilot an airplane. Of course, in real life this cannot be, because regardless of his FSW, the schoolboy will not dare to do this, so as not to be ridiculed.
        But on the Internet, under anonymity, the same schoolboy, without hesitation, with all the ardor of a youthful soul, will already teach those same pilots.
        Here's how you are now.
        So what am I talking about, I’m not saying that “spikes” are a whole family of missiles. The point is that in the GOS mode, ATGMs can no longer be retargeted. Are they able to understand? And save your valuable instructions for your own dad and mom. lol
        1. 0
          5 June 2023 12: 31
          The point is that in the GOS mode, ATGMs can no longer be retargeted.

          And what is the "GOS mode" for example on the same Spike? lol
          1. +1
            6 June 2023 15: 03
            1. I shoot - I keep the mark on the target - 2nd generation
            2. I shoot - the machine accompanies - 2+ generation
            3. I aim at the target, I shoot, the AGSN takes on escort and hits -3e (Javelin)
            4. I shoot, the AGSN takes on escort, I can correct the hit in the right part of the tank, I can search for a target and give the control center already in flight. Here is Spike and the Frenchman.
            1. 0
              8 June 2023 02: 39
              Rather like this:
              Quote: Zaurbek
              I shoot - I keep the mark on the target

              Working scheme
              Quote: Zaurbek
              I shoot - the machine accompanies

              Redesigned workflow
              Quote: Zaurbek
              I aim at the target, I shoot, the AGSN takes on escort and hits

              Hollywood scheme
              Quote: Zaurbek
              I shoot, the AGSN takes on escort, I can correct the hit in the right part of the tank, I can look for a target and give the control center already in flight. Here is Spike and the Frenchman.

              Overcomplicated Hollywood scheme

              :)
              "Automatic accompanies" this, sorry, how? I can understand on a helicopter - there is a rotary OLS and complex optics. Well, how many tons does the car weigh. And what is this for an infantry ATGM? How much will this miracle weigh?
  7. 0
    4 June 2023 21: 37
    A millionaire can afford the latest models of cars, he has sources of income, the rest are content with junk. And in the same way, countries with developed production of modern types of weapons are not a problem for them
  8. 0
    5 June 2023 10: 21
    I think the 4th generation is a hybrid of anti-tank systems and kamikaze UAVs with the possibility of television guidance and target acquisition.
  9. 0
    5 June 2023 14: 29
    We need to do massively what we can do. 2nd generation (based on foreign systems), at least, expand the range of missiles, introduce standard thermal imaging optics, introduce a combined tank attack (from above), automatic target tracking, recognition.
  10. 0
    5 June 2023 16: 36
    The main trend of the future is not mentioned. There will be equipping ATGMs with heavy high-explosive warheads, starting from closed positions, flying along a hinged ballistic trajectory and modifying the software to obtain final target designation already in flight.
    I also foresee the use of such ATGMs against entrenched infantry and even against single infantrymen. In any case, all outdated ATGMs should be used this way today.
    1. -1
      6 June 2023 12: 48
      Agree. HE ATGM needs to start from a closed position and arrive at coordinates (in addition to laser guidance), maybe (optionally) HE rocket of a larger caliber 150-200mm (and taking into account satellite guidance and longer range)
  11. 0
    28 July 2023 16: 31
    The second generation will be relevant for a long time, the 4th generation will soon move into various fvp drones and loitering ammunition.
    Generation 3 is expensive and has a number of disadvantages, for example, it requires a rather long target capture and a well-prepared crew, the number of which decreases during large battles with an equal opponent.
    It is not bad, it has some pluses, but the minuses do not completely supplant the 2nd generation. Even the Americans, who have the money to completely switch to the 3rd generation, are in no hurry to abandon the tou-2, and even the ancient dragons have not written off everything yet.
    There is an opinion that the 2nd generation will outlive the 3rd, and the future is definitely for 4, and 5, these are all kinds of drones controlled by a person or neural networks.
  12. The comment was deleted.