Military Review

Critical technological difficulties in the development of ATGM Javelin. Part of 1

26
This translation covers part of a scientific article by authors John Lyons, Duncan Long and Richard Chait (John Lyons, Duncan Long, Richard Chait) from the US National Institute of Security. The article is devoted to critical technological difficulties that the developers of anti-tank systems Javelin and MANPADS Stinger encountered, as well as a comparison of these difficulties. The part devoted to Stinger will not be presented here, nor will the methodology, modeling, simulations and conclusions be presented. This is the third work of the authors on this topic, the first two were devoted to critical technological difficulties in the development tank Abrams and Apache helicopter.


Javelin is a portable anti-tank missile system consisting of a rocket in a transport-launch container and a detachable command-and-launch unit (CPB) for multiple use. The rocket in the transport and launch container consists of a cylindrical transport and launch container, a power supply and cooling unit, and the rocket itself. The command and start-up unit includes a day / night sight for observation, identification and target acquisition. The rocket has a range of approximately 2000 meters and can be used against buildings and bunkers, as well as armored vehicles.

Critical technological difficulties in the development of ATGM Javelin. Part of 1

Rocket Javelin



The ATGM operator Javelin looks at the command and launching unit


foreword
Portable anti-tank complexes were an important means by which the US infantry had the ability to withstand Soviet armored forces in Central Europe. The Dragon complex was such a means for most of the Cold War. This wire-controlled anti-tank complex was developed at the end of 1960-x - the beginning of 1970-s and was first deployed in 1975-th year. It was also used in the Gulf War in 1990-91.

The dragon had significant flaws. Its limited firing range (about 1000 meters in its original version) meant that the operator had to be too close to the target for firing, and the wire guidance system meant that the shooter had to remain open and hold the sight mark on the target for rocket flight (up to 11 seconds). In addition, the complex was inaccurate. The infantry school at Fort Benning was an adamant supporter of the creation of a new system. In 1979, the army made the first attempt to replace the Dragon with a complex called Rattler, but after a few months, abandoned this idea due to the fact that the prototype was rejected as too heavy.

In 1981, the Advanced Research Projects Directorate (DARPA) conducted a study to develop anti-tank missile systems capable of using infrared (IR) guidance systems and to hit the least protected upper part of the tank. This program was known as "Tankbreaker". The Tankbreaker technology proved promising, and as a result, the Redstone Arsenal of the US Army was assigned to take over the management of the new ATGM project.

Before the Tankbreaker program, a number of requirements were put forward. Among them, for example, was that the rocket had to have a shot-and-forget system, it had to have a range of 2000 meters, weigh less than 16-kg and attack the target from above. As a result of the competition, applications from Hughes Aircraft and Texas Instruments were selected for further development. Both applications were based on an IR homing head (GOS). As the name suggests, in contrast to the simpler GOS Stinger, which distinguishes only thermal spots, this type of GOS converts IR signals into a two-dimensional image. The Tankbreaker program consisted mainly in the development of the IC GOS, the culmination of which was a series of flight tests (funding was insufficient for determining the level of rocket functionality). Throughout 1985-86, the Infantry School at Fort Benning continued to insist on the need to replace the Dragon complex and began to draw up terms of reference for the new complex. Ultimately, a technical assignment to replace the Dragon with the US Marine Corps was created.

In 1986, the army announced that it was accepting proposals for a two-year phase of verification and confirmation of the principle of action (Proof of Principle, POP) for an average modern anti-tank complex (Advanced Antitank Weapons System — Medium, AAWS-M), thereby initiating a second attempt to replace ATRA Dragon. Contracts worth $ 30 million each were made with Texas Instruments (for the development of infrared technology), Hughes (for the development of fiber-optic targeting technologies) and Ford Aerospace (laser beam guidance). Approximately through the 18 months of the verification and validation phase, the US Army and the US Marine Corps published a request for proposals for the full-size design phase. In the end, a joint venture (JV) was selected, consisting of Texas Instruments (whose rocket business was later bought by Raytheon) and Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin). The joint venture won the AAWS-M competition using the proposed rocket design, very similar to what Texas Instruments developed for the Tankbreaker program, namely the shot-and-forget system based on the GOS IR, which can attack the target from above or along a straight path. This rocket was later called the Javelin (Spear). The first army unit was equipped with Javelins in 1996.

The Army’s decision to engage a joint venture to develop Javelin ATGMs was an important part of the program’s success. The intention of the US government to require the creation of a joint venture was under a task already at the development stage to attract two main contractors through their chosen structure. At the production stage, the government intended to divide this joint venture in order to obtain competitive products from each of them separately. Later, for several reasons, the government decided not to fulfill this opportunity and continued to work with the joint venture also at the Javelin ATGM production stage.

The management of the Javelin program also assumed responsibility for the overall management of this joint venture; nevertheless, the technical work and most of the production was carried out by both participating companies on the basis of a partnership agreement. Raytheon is now responsible for the command and start-up unit, the electronic module of the missile guidance system, system software and control of system design. Lockheed Martin is responsible for the final assembly of the missiles and the production of the GOS of the rocket (although, as noted below, Texas Instruments was responsible for the development of the GOS of the rocket).

To work with Javelin, the operator uses an IR finder in the command and launching unit, which provides the image necessary for detecting a target, like a television. Then the operator switches to the IC of the GOS of the rocket, which allows him to set the mark on the target, “fix” it and make a shot. Just like the Stinger MANPADS, the Javelin ATGM system uses a soft-start system to launch a missile from a launch tube, which is necessary for firing from the premises (the Javelin technical task requirement). The sustainer rocket engine is triggered as soon as the rocket leaves the launch canister, 6 of small wings and 4 tail flaps are opened, and the rocket at high speed is sent to the target at a height of about 46 meters on the direct attack path or on top of it. The missile is equipped with a tandem cumulative warhead.

ATGM Javelin proved successful on the battlefield. In the 2003 year, more than 1000 rockets were fired in the Iraq war, and the command and launching unit was used independently of the missile and continues to be a popular night vision device in the US military.

In the next section, the command-start unit and the key system components associated with it will be reviewed. First, the design of the CPB will be reviewed, then the GPS and guidance and control systems, as well as the propulsion system and the warhead. The section ends with a discussion of the use of simulations and simulations in the development of a rocket (not shown in this translation).

Command and starting block (CPB)
The firing process begins with the command-start unit (CPB). Unlike the relatively simple PBC used on the Stinger, the Javelina PBC is a complex component of the system. The CPB has a fourfold telescope and a long-wave infrared night sight with two fields of view with fourfold and ninefold magnifications. Both images - visible and IR - are observed in the same monocular. The CPB operates from a standard army battery, providing the energy needed for operation, the CPB electronics and a cooling device that maintains the operating temperature of the detector matrix. The IR detector is the most important part of the PBC. Unlike previous systems denoting a heat source as a simple spot, the Javelina detector creates a detailed picture of the target. The PBC scans the IR array to enable target recognition. It has a higher resolution than the rocket homing, as the operator needs a high resolution image to determine whether the enemy is on target or not. The infrared detector of the missile launch vehicle (see below) simply has to detect the target after the operator has recognized it and installed an aiming mark on it.

Texas Instruments PBC surpassed the alternative projects involved in the competition, allowing you to see over long distances and showing excellent performance through smoke and other obstacles. It had a matrix in the focal area 240x1, later 240x2 and 240x4, made of cadmium mercury telluride detectors operating in the long-wave infrared 8-12 micron. The detectors scanned with a frequency of 30 Hz in two directions alternating, scanning odd pixels from right to left (1, 3, 5, etc.) and even pixels from left to right. The calculating device allowed the PBC to determine the angular position of the scanning mirror so that it is able to carry out a direct and reverse scan to obtain a coherent picture. The bi-directional scan developed for the Javelin ATGM system was unique and provided significant energy savings. This scan method was later applied in several Texas Instruments programs.

The PBC infrared detector has also become available thanks to a new method for normalizing detector chips. Previously, a so-called “black body” with a constant temperature was used to maintain the calibration of the IR system chips. Texas Instruments has developed a thermal calibration unit (Thermal Reference Assembly, TRA), which is a passive optical unit that provides two temperature reference points by which each detector pixel is calibrated. The first point is in one off-axis reference image, the second point is obtained from the "reflection" created by the cold element. Each time the matrix is ​​scanned, the pixels are calibrated based on the reading of two temperature points. It is important to note that TRA is a passive element that does not require additional power or control circuitry. This allowed developers to use existing detector elements for calibration, as well as reduce power consumption and save space.

To increase the signal-to-noise ratio, Stinger and Javelina infrared detectors require cooling to a very low temperature. The CPD uses a Dewar vessel, a container that uses a vacuum between the double walls to provide thermal insulation. Cooling is carried out using a Stirling closed loop engine with a cold probe from the Dewar vessel and to the back of the detector. The Texas Instruments developed cooling device was designed to reduce power consumption (it consumes just 1 / 5 watts) and meets the weight requirements while cooling the video converter to the required temperature for two and a half minutes. The production of the cooling device initially faced some difficulties, but thanks to the joint efforts of DARPA and Texas Instruments, reasonable costs were achieved.

When developing the IR detector, PSC Texas Instruments used the services of the Night Vision Laboratory (NVL) of the US Army Night Vision Laboratory. NVL shared the necessary experience in modeling IR systems, especially in the field of measuring the minimum resolution temperature (Minimum Resolvable Temperature, MRT) and the development of a video converter. To meet the noise immunity requirements of the army and marine corps, a special development team was created led by the army research laboratory (Army Research Laboratory, ARL). The group, in particular, has developed a technical task for the system noise immunity. The methods and simulations developed by NVL are still standard for measuring the characteristics of IR video converters. NVL also helped introduce a measurement technique called 3D noise and used for more accurate thermal modeling of dynamic noise in sensors at the testing stage. Further development of modeling led to the emergence of new, more user-friendly and more high-precision models.

Since the appearance of the original design of the IR detector, it has been constantly upgraded to improve the performance of the system. At the start of 1990, DARPA funded the program, which ultimately made it possible to make more sophisticated detectors (easy to produce). The result was a so-called Dash 6 detector (Dash 6), which quieted down and scanned quieter, which reduced the acoustic visibility of the operator Javelina on the battlefield. Dash 6 detector entered production in 1998-1999's.

The original PCB was developed using the so-called "through-hole" printed circuit board technology, but this design did not meet the weight requirements. These printed circuit boards used surface mount components. The cost reduction program used advances in the integration of semiconductor devices, especially in compaction of logic elements that can be applied in digital specialized integrated circuits to reduce them to two double-sided printed circuit boards.

Weight reduction was an ongoing task for developers, which influenced all aspects of the development of Javelin’s systems, starting from the IC detector of the PBC and its other parts and ending with the rocket itself. The housing of the CPB was originally made of aluminum. The designers even acid-etched the hull in an attempt to reduce the wall thickness as much as possible. It really reduced the weight, but also increased the cost of its manufacture and worsened the reliability of the device. In 1999, aluminum was replaced by 17 layers of carbon composite fiber. This somewhat reduced the weight, but basically made the case stronger. In addition, the manufacturing process was more consistent than acid pickling. In the current PJavelina PBC, the average time between failures is more than 300 hours compared to the 150 specified in the terms of reference.

In the new generation of Javelin Block 1 planned to use an improved CPB. It will be equipped with optics with magnifications of 4x and 12x instead of 4x and 9x. The PBC will also include a color flat display based on organic LEDs. The goal of the upgrade is to increase the range of the detector by 50 percent, but weight restrictions, in turn, impose serious restrictions on the improvement of optics.

To be continued
Author:
Originator:
Stinger and Javelin Missile Systems
Articles from this series:
Critical technological difficulties in the development of ATGM Javelin. Part of 1
Critical technological difficulties in the development of ATGM Javelin. Part of 2
26 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 19 November 2013 07: 59
    0
    And I’m more interested in methods of counteracting this weapon — what should the tank commander do to attack a similar complex or threat of attack with JAWELIN?
    1. tronin.maxim
      tronin.maxim 19 November 2013 08: 02
      +1
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      And I’m more interested in methods of counteracting this weapon — what should the tank commander do to attack a similar complex or threat of attack with JAWELIN?

      Well, these are the questions for our tank crews, construction engineers. In any case, any action has its own opposition!
    2. makarov
      makarov 19 November 2013 08: 06
      0
      The tank commander doesn't need to do anything. It is necessary to install Kaz "arena", "barrier", and the like. All javelins fight back automatically.
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 19 November 2013 09: 40
        +3
        The rocket attacks from above - what is the angle of reflection of the attack from the curtain?
    3. Nayhas
      Nayhas 19 November 2013 14: 38
      +1
      Quote: The same Lech
      And I’m more interested in methods of counteracting this weapon — what should the tank commander do to attack a similar complex or threat of attack with JAWELIN?

      But the tank commander will not know that he is in danger and will not be able to do anything. How will he detect the fact of pointing a missile with an infrared seeker at the tank? If the GOS captures the thermal image of the tank, then write is gone. The only option is counteracting the coating with varying infrared radiation. This coating is developed by BAE Systems under the Adaptiv program. And there are already successes.
    4. Excalibur
      Excalibur 19 November 2013 23: 00
      0
      Quote: The same LYOKHA
      what to do to the tank commander who attacked such a complex

      Pray!
  2. AlNikolaich
    AlNikolaich 19 November 2013 09: 46
    +4
    The technical tricks of the developers are very interesting. A focused and consistent approach. Well done engineers! But there is a complication of the system with each generation.
    The cooler unit with the Dewar vessel is especially embarrassing! Apparently liquid nitrogen-s! And why not a chemical source of cold? And many more questions! I think the second part will clarify something.
    I want to say special thanks To the professor for the translation!
    1. Nayhas
      Nayhas 19 November 2013 14: 46
      +2
      Quote: AlNikolaich
      The cooler unit with the Dewar vessel is especially embarrassing! Apparently liquid nitrogen-s!

      The use of liquid nitrogen is a thing of the past!
      "June 19, 2013 A team of employees at the AMRDEC Research Center, together with their partners from Dynetics and Torch Technologies Inc., have worked to reduce costs, improve existing and future weapon systems. The essence of the innovation is to develop an infrared homing head (IR seeker) without a cooling system for guided missiles that use the “fire and forget.” The new seeker is based on a commercial uncooled infrared device, which will reduce the cost of the product by 40% compared to cooled infrared technologies. cheaper in the shortest possible time. The uncooled IR seeker significantly increases the range of use of portable missiles. "
      1. Chukcha
        Chukcha 19 November 2013 15: 03
        0
        I wonder how they defeated physics.
        1. Professor
          19 November 2013 15: 20
          +2
          Quote: Chukcha
          I wonder how they defeated physics.

          Chemistry is a joke. wink They do not yet write exactly how:
          Missile seeker delivers more bang for less bucks
          1. Chukcha
            Chukcha 19 November 2013 21: 54
            0
            Thanks for the info. Let's see what happens next. It is possible that this is a "fake invention".
  3. report4
    report4 19 November 2013 10: 38
    +1
    For most of the Cold War, this was the Dragon complex. <Skip> It was also used in the Gulf War in 1990-91.

    Uh, sorry, but by whom and against whom was this complex used? Or "was used" for the author means simply being in service?
  4. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 19 November 2013 10: 46
    +1
    Quote: The same LYOKHA
    what to do to the tank commander who attacked such a complex
    IR head, shot-forgot this homing without correction by the operator. Like on an airplane, shooting heat traps and energetic maneuver. Only here, first you need to detect a missile launch, which is problematic on the battlefield. And to detect the threat of use, this is apparently from the realm of fiction.
  5. Vasia kruger
    Vasia kruger 19 November 2013 11: 07
    +1
    Per article plus. Very interesting, I look forward to continuing.
  6. lordinicus
    lordinicus 19 November 2013 17: 16
    0
    Javelin is good, but there are some serious disadvantages:
    The range of a combat defeat is never 2000 meters. At this range, the target should be motionless for 30 seconds, while the weather should be clear and sunny. The maximum effective range is somewhere around 1200-1500 meters.
    The second minus is the cost. Yes, a tank costs $ 2-7 million, rockets 60-100 thousand yew. But practice has shown (Iraq, Afghanistan) the infantry firing these missiles not only at tanks, but at all that is possible, bunkers, houses, ordinary cars, etc. . It’s somehow expensive to shoot such good for unimportant purposes.
    The weight of the complex is about 2-3 people (ammunition 2-3 missiles) but the range is within 800-1500 meters. 2-3 missiles for solving a fire mission within 1 km are already very few. For this reason, the United States launched a program to reduce the weight of the Javelin rocket, and along the way, a study is being conducted on the possibility of increasing combat range.
    Low combat probability of defeat within 0,5-0,6, I want to note that there was no interference from the enemy. On this occasion, there was a trial in parliamentary committees. The result, there is a program that is designed to improve the combat accuracy of the rocket.

    It should be noted that Javelin still has a lot of problems, those who tried to buy this miracle refused. A far more appealing counterpart to Javelin is Spike. Spike is deprived of so many shortcomings of Javelin at the same cost, so many choose Spike. The main drawback of Spike is speed, but perhaps this is the only drawback. In cost, Spike outperforms Javeln since Spike has a fairly large assortment of missiles, from very expensive and long-range to incredibly cheap.
    1. Professor
      19 November 2013 17: 27
      +1
      Quote: lordinicus
      At this range, the target should be motionless for 30 seconds, while the weather should be clear and sunny. The maximum effective range is somewhere around 1200-1500 meters.

      Where did the woods come from for these pearls and the rest? OBS?
      1. lordinicus
        lordinicus 19 November 2013 18: 01
        0
        Quote: Professor
        Where did the woods come from for these pearls and the rest? OBS?

        At one time it was interesting to learn all about Javelin before being written down. I read everything on the Internet that is possible. I found instructions for use, instruction, someone wrote on foreign forums how they shot in Afghanistan and Iraq, there were a lot of links to youtube how people shot. The most striking thing was the video where people, either from amusement or really from need, were fired at the windows of houses in Iraq from a distance of 500 meters no further by Javelin !!!

        I also came across unsubscribing that in Afghanistan, foot patrols took with them a huge number of batteries for sighting blocks, since the mother lasted a minute. I understand that the sighting unit can be used for reconnaissance but it does not work for long in this mode. But I have not read such a thing anywhere else and in any description or instruction.

        Plus, very often I came across documents similar to some reports on the work of parliamentary committees on defense issues, in the United States I like openness. They came across to me on forums in the form of pdf, their primary source is state sites. I tried to dig myself there, there is a lot of information and only one water, you need to spend thousands of hours just to understand the structure of all documents, and I think it would be unrealistic to find useful things.

        Having enjoyed all that information, I realized that Javelin is more of an advertisement. The fighters use it stupidly as a grenade launcher at a distance of 400-1000 meters, firing at everything that is possible. It also seemed to me that it is not as effective as they say. I also understood one truth. Javlin's operation is simple as doors, and as reliable as doors, I have never read criticism of failures, yes there were mistakes, but never failures.
        1. Professor
          19 November 2013 22: 40
          0
          Quote: lordinicus
          I read everything on the Internet that is possible.

          Links not preserved? I am very interested.

          Quote: lordinicus
          The fighters use it stupidly as a grenade launcher at a distance of 400-1000 meters, firing at everything that is possible.

          Here in this I agree with you. American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq have no worthy goals for Javelin.

          Quote: lordinicus
          I also understood one truth. Javlin's operation is simple as doors, and as reliable as doors, I have never read criticism of failures, yes there were mistakes, but never failures.

          Have you read "my" article? Is there about MTBF? By the way, in this week's article about Javelin in the comments there is a video with Javelin's rejections.

          Quote: lordinicus
          The range of a combat defeat is never 2000 meters. At this range, the target should be motionless for 30 seconds, while the weather should be clear and sunny.

          Your untruth. It hits up to 2500 meters and far from sunny weather (the sun just bothers him). The cooling of the seeker is only 10 seconds and the target can then move. You know how long the rocket batteries last? wink

          Quote: lordinicus
          The weight of the complex is about 2-3 people (ammunition 2-3 missiles) but the range is within 800-1500 meters.

          Not true. One person copes and a range of 2000-2500 m.

          Quote: lordinicus
          For this reason, the United States launched a program to reduce the weight of the Javelin rocket, and along the way, a study is being conducted of the possibility of increasing the combat range.

          Not true. The weight of the warhead is reduced with the same weight of the rocket. Armor penetration will be maintained at the same level, and the range will be increased due to the increased solid propellant charge of the engine.

          Quote: lordinicus
          Low combat probability of defeat in the range of 0,5-0,6,

          Let's have a digest on numbers.
        2. Professor
          19 November 2013 22: 40
          0
          Quote: lordinicus
          those who tried this miracle refused to buy.

          more than a dozen countries did not refuse by adopting it.

          Quote: lordinicus
          Spike is deprived of so many shortcomings of Javelin at the same cost, so many choose Spike.

          Not with the same.

          Quote: lordinicus
          The main drawback of Spike is speed, but probably this is the only drawback

          Their speed is about the same, Spike is not much faster.

          Quote: lordinicus
          In cost, Spike outperforms Javeln since Spike has a fairly large assortment of missiles, from very expensive and long-range to incredibly cheap.

          Here you killed me. Enlighten pliz this is what the "incredibly cheap" model of the Spike rocket is?
          1. lordinicus
            lordinicus 20 November 2013 12: 38
            0
            Quote: Professor
            Links not preserved? I am very interested.

            When I read it all, I didn’t bother to save the info, I saved something, but unfortunately the screw burned out a couple of years ago, and then I didn’t use dropbox yet. For a long time I read all this, during the time of active operations in Iraq :). In addition, I gave a comment so that people would think about the shortcomings. There is no super weapon, it is just good.

            Quote: Professor
            By the way, in the article about Javelin this week in the comments there is a video with Javelin's refusals.

            There are always failures, but here the question of the number of failures :). If you consider how they are being shot, left and right, then there are very few failures.


            Quote: Professor
            Your untruth. It hits up to 2500 meters and far from sunny weather (the sun just bothers him). The cooling of the seeker is only 10 seconds and the target can then move. You know how long the rocket batteries last?

            In the complex there are limitations of the aiming block, the rocket will fly. That's just for the maximum range there are limits of 30 seconds. 10 sec is for the GOS missile, but first the aiming block must capture, and this is 30 sec. As far as I understand, the presence of good weather is necessary because the thermal imager does not see so far with the deteriorating weather.

            Quote: Professor
            Not true. One person copes and a range of 2000-2500 m.

            One person :) was smiling. The mass of the rocket in the TPK is 16 kg, the mass of the guidance block is 7 kg. One fighter without transport can drag 1 rocket, if on foot patrol rockets drag everything. Javelin is never easy, here is a mestizo or erix light but javelin at the limit of lightness.
            Even the Wiki says that the calculation of 2 people.

            Quote: Professor
            Not true. The weight of the warhead is reduced with the same weight of the rocket. Armor penetration will be maintained at the same level, and the range will be increased due to the increased solid propellant charge of the engine.

            Perhaps you are right, I read it all from 2008-2010. A lot of time has passed, maybe something has changed in views.

            Quote: Professor
            Low combat probability of defeat in the range of 0,5-0,6, - Let's have a practice on numbers.

            No links :(, then this is my opinion. But again, there is no perfect weapon :)

            Quote: Professor
            more than a dozen countries did not refuse by adopting it.

            Basically, Javelin got to those countries that were or are in Afghanistan or at discounts to faithful allies. For example, Spike participates in tenders and wins them. It is also necessary to pay attention to the Bundeswehr chose Spike, France also buys Spikes. In Spain, Spike is the main anti-tank system, Italy. These are the main operators and Javelin from large countries only in the USA.
          2. lordinicus
            lordinicus 20 November 2013 12: 38
            0
            Quote: Professor
            Spike is devoid of so many shortcomings of Javelin at the same cost, - Not at the same.

            The cost of spike depends on the party. In the case of the purchase of a production license, Spike is much cheaper than the Javelin production license. So the Germans write at one time they considered the costs and chose Spike as the main ATGM that they produce.

            Quote: Professor
            Their speed is about the same, Spike is not much faster.

            Which is faster spike !!! Spike is slower than two times, or even three, as it seems to me. Javelin speed m / s: 290 spike speed 130 m / s. Spike is controlled by a person manually as in a game, but this requires a little speed. Javelin meteorite compared to Spike.

            Quote: Professor
            Here you killed me. Enlighten pliz this is what the "incredibly cheap" model of the Spike rocket is?

            Here are the different spike options that the manufacturer offers. They cost differently the cheapest Spike-SR without cooling. I understand there are no numbers, but think for yourself why to make such a huge number of missiles if you do not push them at different prices. I repeat - the price is very dependent on the number of complexes that are purchased, a little more expensive, much cheaper.

            Mini-Spike - version with a short-range missile (about 1500 meters). Designed for use by infantry. The mass is 12 kg, and the weight of the rocket itself is only 4 kg. Projectile length - 70 cm, diameter - 75 mm.
            Spike-SR - version with a short-range missile (near 200 — 800 m.), Designed for use by infantry (close combat, in urban environments). Weight 9 kg.
            Spike-MR (also known as "Gil") - a 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 - a more long-range modification (maximum range 4000 meters). Used by infantry and for arming light combat vehicles. Weight 26 kg.
            Spike-ER (formerly known as NT-Dandy or NT-D) is a heavy long-range variant (maximum range of 8000 meters). The complex is available in versions for mobile combat systems and for helicopters. Weight is 33 kg.
            Spike NLOS (Eng. Non-Line Of Sight), "Tamuz" - anti-tank missile with a range of 25 kilometers and optoelectronic guidance, to hit targets that are out of line of sight, which can use external target designation. Weight 71 kg.

            You might think of different komplekses for different tasks, but the javelin can be pulled not only by infantry, but also by armored vehicles. At least I saw photos and videos of hummers with Javelin, maybe I don’t know this idea.
            1. Professor
              20 November 2013 13: 39
              0
              Quote: lordinicus
              The cost of spike depends on the party.

              I’m sorry that in your answer you did not give a single figure, neither about refusals, nor about the cost of the same Spike. By the way, I can give these numbers.

              Quote: lordinicus
              In the complex there are limitations of the aiming block, the rocket will fly. That's just for the maximum range there are limits of 30 seconds. 10 sec is for the GOS missile, but first the aiming block must capture, and this is 30 sec.

              There is no range limitation in the PBC. There is no rangefinder and he has no idea about the range of the target. About 30 seconds to capture the target of the CPB, the same is not true. He does not capture at all, this is the task of the GOS. Why don't you read an article about Javelin. For example, this one? In vain did I translate it?ATRA Javelin

              Quote: lordinicus
              One person :) was smiling.

              In vain they smiled. According to instructions, the calculation of the ATGM Javelin 1-3 fighter.

              Quote: lordinicus
              Which is faster spike !!! Spike is slower than two times, or even three, as it seems to me. Javelin speed m / s: 290 spike speed 130 m / s. Spike is controlled by a person manually as in a game, but this requires a little speed. Javelin meteorite compared to Spike.

              Spike's speed is 130-180 m / s, it is not guided manually but "fired-forgot", manual correction is possible. Javelin's flight time at 2000 meters is 14.5 seconds = roughly 137 m / s. Meteorite you say? wink

              Quote: lordinicus
              I understand there are no numbers, but think for yourself why to make such a huge number of missiles if you do not push them at different prices.

              I have numbers. Show?
              1. lordinicus
                lordinicus 20 November 2013 17: 14
                -1
                The holivar that is born here is not good wink
                I want to note that you are translating ads that are very high-quality but advertisements.

                Quote: Professor
                There is no range limitation in the PBC. There is no rangefinder and he has no idea about the range of the target. About 30 seconds to capture the target of the CPB, the same is not true. He does not capture at all, this is the task of the GOS. Why don't you read an article about Javelin. For example, this one? In vain did I translate it? ATGM Javelin

                I think human logic clearly has superiority to the artificial logic of the GOS AI. The creators of the spike also thought and added the ability to control a person. So the GOS is subject to natural interference.
                About 30 seconds - there is such a BCU "Power supply and cooling unit" in Javelin. So it is designed for a time of 4 minutes !!! If the application occurs in 10 seconds, he presses the trigger before the rocket leaves, then the question arises, why 4 minutes is an extra one and a half kg of weight for the rocket. For 10 seconds, 1 minute would be enough, or even one and a half with a margin is a 6-8 times margin of time. But there are 4 minutes, this is exactly 8 times the margin of time for a 30 second delay.

                Quote: Professor
                In vain they smiled. According to instructions, the calculation of the ATGM Javelin 1-3 fighter.

                Yes, 1 person is needed to press the trigger. But to carry a typical ammunition for guaranteed destruction of 1 target with when the missile has a probability of hitting the target of 0,8, you need 2 missiles! And this is at least 2 people and never 1.

                Quote: Professor
                Spike's speed is 130-180 m / s, it is not guided manually but "fired-forgot", manual correction is possible. Javelin's flight time at 2000 meters is 14.5 seconds = roughly 137 m / s. Meteorite you say?

                You match different numbers. At Spike 130-180 m / s this time is in the initial part of the trajectory and then this speed drops. Javeln has 290 m / s at the beginning and we have a figure of 14,5 seconds. Accordingly, at Spike with 130-180 m / s the figure will not be 14.5 seconds, it will obviously be more.
                "fire-forget" is one of the modes in Spike. For example, I like the implemented mode "shooting from a closed firing position".

                Quote: Professor
                I understand there are no numbers, but think for yourself why to make such a huge number of missiles if you do not push them at different prices.
                I have numbers. Show?

                The numbers are very dependent on the specific conditions of the contract and it is impossible to directly compare them in principle. The main criterion for value is winning tenders. Germany, Spain, Italy, France, even Poland chose Spike in this choice, the cost factor was decisive. So with the cost, Javelin is not so smooth.
                1. Professor
                  20 November 2013 17: 41
                  0
                  Quote: lordinicus
                  About 30 sec

                  I am glad that you are quoting an article I have translated, which means it was not in vain that I translated it. Where is the PBC limit for 2000 m?

                  Quote: lordinicus
                  But there are 4 minutes, this is exactly 8 times the supply of time for a 30 second delay.

                  And also 24 to 10, 48 to 5 ... continue on? So where does the info about 30 seconds come from?

                  Quote: lordinicus
                  Yes, 1 person is needed to press the trigger. But to carry a typical ammunition for guaranteed destruction of 1 target with when the missile has a probability of hitting the target of 0,8, you need 2 missiles! And this is at least 2 people and never 1.

                  The probability of defeat at 0.8 is the result of your imagination or your personal opinion and nothing more. But about the combat crew of 1-3 people from the instructions for use.

                  Quote: lordinicus
                  You match different numbers. At Spike 130-180 m / s this time is in the initial part of the trajectory and then this speed drops. Javeln has 290 m / s at the beginning and we have a figure of 14,5 seconds. Accordingly, at Spike with 130-180 m / s the figure will not be 14.5 seconds, it will obviously be more.

                  Yah? wink Data provided by the MND suggested that the Spike-LR Dual missile flies to the target at a speed of 130-180 m / s, reaching a target located 4 km away in approximately 26 seconds. In total, the spike speed of Spike is 153 m / s, and Javelina 137 m / s. Well, who is the meteor here? laughing
                  By the way, official data from Raphael.

                  Quote: lordinicus
                  The numbers are very dependent on the specific conditions of the contract and it is impossible to directly compare them in principle.

                  Apples to apples, and pears to pears. We are here about the price, not about efficiency. A missile with a missile, and PU with PU compare.

                  Quote: lordinicus
                  Professor, I do not want to say that you are wrong. You do a great job for the community translating these documents, my respect to you.

                  I not only translate articles, but also write myself, shoveling tons of material. Therefore, it is interesting to communicate with those who know, and not only "think logically".

                  Quote: lordinicus
                  We are now discussing various aspects. You focus on strengths, and I focus on weaknesses. We are essentially talking about different things.

                  We are talking about the same thing - about materiel. I do not want to offend you, but it looks like you are poorly versed in the materiel.
                  1. lordinicus
                    lordinicus 20 November 2013 18: 10
                    0
                    Quote: Professor
                    I am glad that you are quoting an article I have translated, which means it was not in vain that I translated it. Where is the PBC limit for 2000 m?

                    As far as I am concerned, the typical target that was to be identified for defeat was a Soviet tank with a working engine at a distance of up to 2000 meters, and this, under certain weather conditions, lack of rain, fog, etc. They called it range, in the place where I read, I don’t remember exactly where it was because it was at least 3 years ago.
                    Now, based on this, we have - if the target is, for example, a motorcycle that has been muffled for several hours, then its identification for the defeat will not be 2000 meters, but much less, suppose 1000 meters means the detection range for this target will be 1000 meters. But this is my conclusion. Correct me if I'm wrong

                    Quote: Professor
                    And also 24 to 10, 48 to 5 ... continue on? So where does the info about 30 seconds come from?

                    Well you staggered my 30 second conviction. Then a counter question to you. Have you met any numbers which somehow specified the range of detection, identification or capture of the GOS of a typical target. It would also be desirable to find out somehow that there is a typical goal.
                    But the obviousness of a block with a running time of 4 minutes is very suspicious, you must agree. It would also be interesting to your opinion or if you know why exactly the Power Supply and Cooling Unit (BCU) is used and why is it disposable? Logically, it could be made one such unit for several missiles.

                    Quote: Professor
                    The probability of defeat at 0.8 is the result of your imagination or your personal opinion and nothing more. But about the combat crew of 1-3 people from the instructions for use.

                    Well, what is the likelihood of a typical target being hit at combat range by a Javelin missile? (I call the combat range the distance from the minimum distance to the maximum range of combat use).
                    Agree, the probability of defeat is a very important factor of weapons because this indicator determines a lot of things in the complex.


                    Quote: Professor
                    Apples to apples, and pears to pears. We are here about the price, not about efficiency. A missile with a missile, and PU with PU compare.

                    Well, how can one estimate the cost of a rocket if, when purchasing weapons, very often the supplier reinvests in the country's economy, sometimes up to 100% of the amount spent by the buyer? And about the dark schemes, I generally keep quiet. To be honest, I can’t soberly assess the cost of weapons in such conditions. Any talk about the cost of weapons is a darkness of darkness, which is impossible to enlighten with anything.

                    Quote: Professor
                    I not only translate articles, but also write myself, shoveling tons of material. Therefore, it is interesting to communicate with those who know, and not only "think logically".

                    Unfortunately, I cannot devote so much time to studying the primary sources, but I also read the primary sources and draw conclusions from them.

                    Quote: Professor
                    We are talking about the same thing - about materiel. I do not want to offend you, but it looks like you are poorly versed in the materiel.

                    And I didn’t say that I know the materiel for all 100. I do not develop missiles and anti-tank systems. I am a layman and I am interested in the theme of Javelin as a layman.
                    1. Professor
                      20 November 2013 21: 24
                      0
                      Quote: lordinicus
                      Now, based on this, we have - if the target is, for example, a motorcycle that has been muffled for several hours, then its identification for the defeat will not be 2000 meters, but much less, suppose 1000 meters means the detection range for this target will be 1000 meters.

                      2000 was driven solely by the size of the cruise engine charge. The ability to detect a cold motorcycle does not mean anything, the PBC can detect a crow only 200 meters away, but this does not mean that "The complex has limitations on the aiming unit, the rocket will fly." The bottleneck is the rocket.

                      Quote: lordinicus
                      Have you met any numbers which somehow specified the range of detection, identification or capture of the GOS of a typical target. It would also be desirable to find out somehow that there is a typical goal.

                      A tank at 2000 meters day and night is detected without problems. There are problems in the morning and evening at certain times of the year.

                      BCU is a separate topic.

                      Quote: lordinicus
                      Well, what is the likelihood of a typical target being hit at combat range by a Javelin missile?

                      "The probability of hitting a target" is a term not used by the bourgeoisie. The reason is its lack of solvency. If you write x%, then you need to add: during the day, in the middle lane, by John, then the T-72 to the side, at 1000 m, at wind speed ... and so on ad infinitum. Change a little test conditions and this probability is down the drain.
                    2. Professor
                      20 November 2013 21: 28
                      0
                      Quote: lordinicus
                      Well, how can you estimate the cost of a rocket

                      You confuse the concepts of value and price. We are discussing the price, I can also write about the price. The price of a rocket is how much the customer paid for it. Spike has never been cheap.

                      Quote: lordinicus
                      And I didn’t say that I know the materiel for all 100. I do not develop missiles and anti-tank systems. I am a layman and I am interested in the theme of Javelin as a layman.

                      And I don’t know everything and don’t work for the defense industry, but I’m studying the materiel thoroughly.

                      hi
              2. lordinicus
                lordinicus 20 November 2013 17: 25
                0
                Professor, I do not want to say that you are wrong. You do a great job for the community translating these documents, my respect to you.
                Immediately make a reservation, Javelin is a highly effective weapon analogous to which in the world there are only two: Spike and Japanese Type. Neither in Europe nor in Russia there is such a thing at all, I am convinced of this.

                We are now discussing various aspects. You focus on strengths, and I focus on weaknesses. We are essentially talking about different things. Try yourself to find the flaws in Javelin, believe you will be very interesting because it is a lot of work. Maybe I'm wrong about the flaws right now, but no one is looking for these flaws. Everyone hopes that Javelin is PERFECT, but it is not.
          3. lordinicus
            lordinicus 20 November 2013 12: 52
            0
            About a year ago, there was information about the purchase by the Japanese of the "Type 01 LMAT" complex, which is an analogue of Javelin. There was a total amount in yen for a certain number of missiles and targeting blocks. So I was not too lazy and translated all this from en in dollars then at the exchange rate.
            It turned out that the rocket for the "Type 01 LMAT" - 15 thousand dollars.
            Aiming block for "Type 01 LMAT" - $ 30 thousand
            Yes, I agree, Japan is a bit strange in terms of the military-industrial complex, but the numbers seem to make you think. It seems to me that this is the actual cost of this class of weapons. All prices of 50-100 thousand for the Spike and Javelin rocket are pure marketing and cutting down money.

            The prime cost of a missile with a range of 2 km and a thermal imaging seeker of 15 thousand dollars - as it were, you can already think about this figure, because the cost of the previous generation missiles is somewhere in the same range.
  7. lordinicus
    lordinicus 22 November 2013 16: 09
    0
    Quote: Professor
    So where does the info about 30 seconds come from?

    Well, let's continue our discussion Professor, and I like our discussion.

    I recalled the old, spent all my free time for two days searching for information. Unfortunately, I don’t have much free time now, but here’s what I found. Need to start watching from 2:15



    This is a video from practical shooting exercises.
    In this video there is a clear time span from the commander's command to "get started" to the fighter's command to "Ready". Those. from this video we can get a time period, rough, very rough but a time period about which we were arguing (30 seconds).

    Here is my analysis, which is based on my life experience and on what I know about Javelin.
    I estimated the range to the goal as maximum. The assessment was made according to the flight time of the rocket (about 15 seconds) - range of about 2 km.
    We make allowance for the worst, the fighter shoots for the first time, but at least he trained on the simulator.
    The weather at the landfill is ideal for the operation of the Javelin complex.
    Also, the fighter has already spent 20-30 seconds allotted by the standard time for preparing for firing - he unpacked the aiming block, prepared the rocket for the second calculation number and attached it to the aiming block, the shooter took up his position with his body according to the instructions.

    45 seconds elapsed from the command "to work" to the notification by the fighter that he was "Ready". We remove the time, well, 20-25 seconds, that the fighter understands what's what, plus safety and we get the time of 20-25 seconds.

    Video analysis result:
    Range 2 km;
    The weather is excellent, ideal for thermal imagers;
    The process of capturing the target for 20-25 seconds;

    Now my conclusion, perhaps not correct, then correct me.
    As far as I understand, the principle of operation of the Javelin sighting process is this: the farther to the target, the longer the capture will take place. If the target is at a distance of 1000m, respectively, the time will be less.
    I don’t know the reasons why there is such a huge delay from the start of aiming to launch, but I can assume that the delay consists of:
    1. Automatic preparation of the rocket for military use - cooling, the start of electronics in the rocket.
    2. Visual search with a sight of the target and its zooming. In this preliminary direction of the goal is known, at least the fighter saw the target with his own eyes.
    3. Retention of the target within certain limits on the display to capture the target homing system.
    4. The fighter receives some confirmation from the automation on the display that the target has been successfully captured and can be fired.
    5. Rocket launch, I do not know how long the rocket has been launched, but at least some processes in the rocket itself must go through to launch.

    From all that I wrote above, the most time-consuming is:
    "Automatic preparation of missiles for combat use";
    "Keeping the target within certain limits on the display to lock the target with the homing system"
    Without these points, the remaining 3 points will take time from 5-8 seconds. But here are two time-consuming items devour 17-20 seconds.

    That's where the figure of 30 seconds came from. This figure does not mean 30 seconds always. No, this is the maximum indicator, the average will be 10-15 seconds, as they say in the original sources.
    1. Professor
      22 November 2013 16: 25
      0
      Quote: lordinicus
      As far as I understand, the principle of operation of the Javelin sighting process is this: the farther to the target, the longer the capture will take place.

      The distance is not affected, the contrast of the target is affected.

      Quote: lordinicus
      I can assume that the delay consists of:

      Read an article about Javelin, everything is painted there.