Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The Kornet-M missile is a laser-beam rider. This means that it flies along the LOS to target. I can't imagine how a top-attack mode could be realised with such  guidance (without changing Kornet's warhead from front-looking HEAT to down-looking EFP or HEAT to realise Overflight Top Attack  mode, like TOW 2B).

P.S. I wonder what kind of damage could be expected from a warhead of thermobaric version of Kornet (comparable to 7-10kg of TNT) detonated 2m over the top of tank's turret, while overflying it. Nothing good for the vehicle, I guess. Effectiveness would not be great, but mission-kills could easily happen. And for sure any unbuttoned crewmans would be killed...

Edited by Amizaur
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Amizaur said:

The Kornet-M missile is a laser-beam rider. This means that it flies along the LOS to target. I can't imagine how a top-attack mode could be realised with such  guidance (without changing Kornet's warhead from front-looking HEAT to down-looking EFP or HEAT to realise "top-attack while overflying the target" mode, like some TOW models).

The Kornet-M is not a top attack missile, like you say. But like the Javelin, you don´t need to make the top-attack missile like TOW2B or the BILL 1&2. which fly close over the target and shoots down. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kornet does not fly towards a painted laser spot but looks backwards towards the launcher as it flies, keeps itself inside a laser light circle. Its advantage is it can't be blocked by countermeasure (flairs/smoke), its disadvantage is it's obliged to follow a flat trajectory. I recall there is a technique where the launcher aims high so the intended target does not detect the laser signature then the aim point is adjusted down to the target at the last moment. That's not so much 'plunging attack' as avoiding detection during a (potentially long) flight.

Edited by MikeyD
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

Kornet does not fly towards a painted laser spot but looks backwards towards the launcher as it flies, keeps itself inside a laser light circle. Its advantage is it can't be blocked by countermeasure (flairs/smoke), its disadvantage is it's obliged to follow a flat trajectory. I recall there is a technique where the launcher aims high so the intended target does not detect the laser signature then the aim point is adjusted down to the target at the last moment. That's not so much 'plunging attack' as avoiding detection during a (potentially long) flight.

That was new to me, very interesting. I thought it was a beamrider. Thanks MikeyD

Link to post
Share on other sites

'I'm not sure of the nomenclature, 'beamrider' might be a synonym. I believe its the same technique used by the Russians for guiding cannon fired missiles. When the missile's inside a laser circle if it drifts low it hits the 'pull up' laser light, if it drifts high it hits the 'point down' laser light. The optics are in the tail and the rocket nozzles are mid-body.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much. I don't think SALH is a very common guidance method anymore since it requires a much more powerful emitter - it has to hit the target and reflect back to the seeker - compared to beam riding SACLOS. I think the mechanism is that the seeker detects where the laser is in relation to itself through the diffusion of the beam, I don't think it hits specific "pull up" beams.

Most Russian laser guided missiles do this, like Bastion, Vikhr, Ataka, Kornet, Sheksna, and others...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12.05.2017 at 9:19 PM, Armorgunner said:

That was new to me, very interesting. I thought it was a beamrider. Thanks MikeyD

I believe that word "beamrider" means that missile flies along the patch of the laser beam. And this is the way Kornet guidance works. The laser receiver is in the rear part of the missile, rear looking, so it's protected from any jamming or blinding the enemy may try. It also receives the laser light directly, so the laser can be much less powerfull (and harder to detect, it is possible it won't be detected at all). Disadvantages are that missile has to literally follow the beam of the laser, so it flies in straight line -  usually straight to the target. It can't use ballistic, top-attack or any non-direct trajectory (the only thing that can be done is to point the laser beam only in proximity of the target at first, this way target would not detect the laser, then put the beam directly on the target later, but this has to be done gently). And as the missile flies along the LOS to target, measuring the trajectory of the missle at last few hundred meters (which APS systems like Trophy do) can pinpoint the exact location of the launcher, even if the laser beam itself was not detected. 

Another way of laser guidance (Semi-Active Laser Homing) is using a strong laser designator to paint a "spot" on  the target, and a missile having a laser spot detector in the front guides on that spot. This is the way laser guided bombs and laser guided Hellfire  missile works. Missle can then follow almost any trajectory (direct, semi-ballistic with top attack, non-direct to mask firing position) while closing the distance, only pointing directly at the target in the last moment to hit it. Disadvantages of semi-active method - laser has to be strong (because the missile receives not direct, but reflected laser light from long range), is easlily detected by warning devices, the laser detector in the front of the missile can be potentially jammed or blinded, also it doesn't work very well in presence of fog, smoke and other obscurants. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2017‎-‎05‎-‎14 at 0:56 PM, Amizaur said:

I believe that word "beamrider" means that missile flies along the patch of the laser beam. And this is the way Kornet guidance works. The laser receiver is in the rear part of the missile, rear looking, so it's protected from any jamming or blinding the enemy may try. It also receives the laser light directly, so the laser can be much less powerfull (and harder to detect, it is possible it won't be detected at all). Disadvantages are that missile has to literally follow the beam of the laser, so it flies in straight line -  usually straight to the target. It can't use ballistic, top-attack or any non-direct trajectory (the only thing that can be done is to point the laser beam only in proximity of the target at first, this way target would not detect the laser, then put the beam directly on the target later, but this has to be done gently). And as the missile flies along the LOS to target, measuring the trajectory of the missle at last few hundred meters (which APS systems like Trophy do) can pinpoint the exact location of the launcher, even if the laser beam itself was not detected. 

Another way of laser guidance (Semi-Active Laser Homing) is using a strong laser designator to paint a "spot" on  the target, and a missile having a laser spot detector in the front guides on that spot. This is the way laser guided bombs and laser guided Hellfire  missile works. Missle can then follow almost any trajectory (direct, semi-ballistic with top attack, non-direct to mask firing position) while closing the distance, only pointing directly at the target in the last moment to hit it. Disadvantages of semi-active method - laser has to be strong (because the missile receives not direct, but reflected laser light from long range), is easlily detected by warning devices, the laser detector in the front of the missile can be potentially jammed or blinded, also it doesn't work very well in presence of fog, smoke and other obscurants. 

I think you are right about that. As a non native English speaker, like your self. It sometimes hard to get it right. my misstake. But i was wrong, and had missunderstudd how the kornet worked in that part.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd add one more thing, the whole initial idea behind a beam rider is that it's cheap compared to any top attack. So moving to top attack somehow kills the very idea of it - saturating the battlefield with as much infantry portable AT assets as possible. I guess the concept was proven viable in Syria and Yemen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kornet crews are trained to aim over a Target and AT the last minute to move the beam on the Target .. so the Target is not tipped off by the laser. Something we dont see in CMBS . This and tank crews not lasing targets at under 1500 meters since its point and shoot with 100% probability at that range .

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2017 at 3:53 PM, antaress73 said:

Kornet crews are trained to aim over a Target and AT the last minute to move the beam on the Target .. so the Target is not tipped off by the laser. Something we dont see in CMBS . This and tank crews not lasing targets at under 1500 meters since its point and shoot with 100% probability at that range .

Wow, considering the speeds and distances involved, that would take some pretty good hand-eye coordination.  How would the gunner estimate range?

I would also be a little skeptical of the 100% claim on accuracy without guidance.  Without guidance, I would imagine just the variability of the rocket motor would cause some significant accuracy issues at 1500m

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the absence of a command signal from the laser, it's possible that the missile maintains its attitude and altitude. So not guided, but autopiloted, in a sense. May make a fair amount of sense too, since you don't want your missile to veer wildly if battlefield obscurants block the laser. Modern electronics are certainly small enough to do that, especially for a short flight time of only a few seconds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. I just had an M1 miss a shot at around that range. Sucks too,  'cause he is facing two salvo firing ATGM launchers which means next turn he is likely to eat four missiles. First two missed so perhaps I'll get lucky. I hope the loader hustles his butt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be 100% accurate at 1500m against full silhouette targets - if you do not make any stupid mistakes while aiming (which come easily if you are nerveous because it's for real and you may die).

But in combat (especially low intensit combat like in Ukraine now) you probably rarely have comfort aiming to full silhouette of advancing targets, but rather to upper part of turret, or just a turret roof, or part of tank (the rest covered by something solid). And here "point and shoot" may be not enough, exact range to target is needed to hit it with first shot. 

(The above statement is based on playing tank sim games only :) not real life)

Edited by Amizaur
Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall reading accuracy stats on HOT ATGM some years ago and was surprised to see accuracy greatly INCREASES with range. Accuracy at 4000m was very much better than accuracy at 1000m, and it was a dicey proposition trying to get it to hit something at below 300m. The tube-launched Shillelagh missile for M60A2 and Sheridan had such poor close-range accuracy than they had to field a big HEAT round to cover targets inside of 900m.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...