ATGMs

[MikeyD]

"The last supplier for the control wire went out of business three years ago"

Maybe we can ask China or Iran for the phone number of thier TOW-clone wire supplier!

[John Kettler]

Holo,

A wire free TOW was being seriously looked at at Hughes well before I left in September of 1984. I say this based on having briefed Dr. Hans Mauer back then on how the Soviets handled ATGM guidance sans wires. Dr. Mauer was the top technical guy, Technical Director, for all of Hughes Missile Systems Group, which designed and produced the TOW, Maverick, Phoenix, AMRAAM, GBU-15 cruciform wing, etc.

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

I thought Israel has been fielding a laser guided TOW for a loooong time now. I recall them claiming increased range from the new missile. Of course I'm not near ANY of my references (again) Maybe the Hughes wire free TOW became the Israeli weapon? Late 80s is the timeframe I'm thinking of.

[Holo]

I posted this because, as far as I was aware of the issue, US Army is currently using TOW 2A and TOW 2B, which are both wire-guided, and supposedly TOW Fire and Forget was cancelled in 2002, while TOW 2 RF (which is what was mentioned, radio frequency command link with range of 4.5km) was successfully demonstrated. Earlier in the thread we discussed this briefly, but I had no idea if anything "non-wireless" was fielded.

[hellfish]

I saw this posted elsewhere, thought it was worth showing you guys:

http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/TRIALS/19991020.html

The Russians ran some tests against the T80U and T90 with their modern AT weapons and various countermeasures. The RPG-29 was by far the most successful.

Conclusions (VF)

* RPG-29 proved to be by far the most potent weapon among those used. As powerful as heavy ATGM Kornet, it appeared to assure the frontal penetration of T-80U even for the squad-level firepower. Even though T-90 fared better, it is still not immune to it. Considering sufficient proliferation of this weapon and the fact that this is still a fairly light infantry weapon, it is the most dangerous adversary of modern Russian MBTs, and is a very disturbing development.

* Original reports that ATGM Kornet performance is severely degraded by ERA due to its peculiar order of internal components proved true as the ATGM with at least 100mm higher penetrating potential was not superior to a much lighter RPG-29.

* Report of Shtora-1 EOCMDAS trials is confusing. Being laser-guided, ATGM Kornet should not suffer any interference from Shtora as it only affects IR SACLOS ATGMs. Furthermore, ATGMs can only deviate to the left if the marker is set to the left of both emitters, which is hardly likely. It is possible, however unlikely, that it was caused by a sloppy work of removal the warhead which e.g. could cause a gyro cofusion.

[aka_tom_w]

you may have seen this post in that other thread

but since the RPG 29 came up here I thought I would repost.

This weapons looks like it will level the playing field if the oposition of the US forces have it in great numbers. (and it actually works like it claims)

JUST look at what it can penetrate!!!

More info on the RPG 29 here:

web page russian weapons

Caliber: 105 mm barrel; 65/105mm warheads

Type: rocket booster

Overall length: 1850 mm ready to fire; 1000 mm disassembled for transportation

Weight: 12.1 kg unloaded, with optical sight; 18.8 kg loaded and ready to fire

Effective range: up to 500 m

Armour penetration: ERA plus more than 600 mm RHA

[Holo]

What is being used against ATGM positions nowdays, when tank runs into one? I have very little knowledge on this topic, especially I'm confused that usual western tank ammo load (at least in games) doesn't include HE like Russian counterparts. It was on many ocasions frustrating for me playing ie. Steel Panthers II with M1A1's vs Russia and knowing that only thing I have against infantry is MG.

[hellfish]

HEAT would be effective at suppression, if not destruction. And the new cannister rounds are good for everything within around 600m (i.e. RPG teams).

[Denwad]

Holo the Abrams uses HEAT as a dual purpose anti-infantry/anti infantry

i do recall seeing two pictures of the fragmentation pattern of a german 75mm HE round and a 75mm HEAT round, there isn't much of a difference.

i.e. its not worth carrying three types of ammunition when you only have so much storage space.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Army Shuns System to Combat RPGs

Sixteen months ago, commanders in Iraq began asking the Pentagon for a new system to counter RPGs and other anti-tank weapons.

Last year, a special Pentagon unit thought it found a solution in Israel — a high-tech system that shoots RPGs out of the sky. But in a five-month exclusive investigation, NBC News has learned from Pentagon sources that that help for U.S. troops is now in serious jeopardy.

The system is called “Trophy,” and it is designed to fit on top of tanks and other armored vehicles like the Stryker now in use in Iraq.

...

OFT officials subjected Trophy to 30 tests and found that it is “more than 98 percent” effective at killing RPGs.

An official involved with those tests told NBC that Trophy “worked in every case. The only anomaly was that in one test, the Trophy round hit the RPG’s tail instead of its head. But according to our test criteria, the system was 30 for 30.”

As a result, OFT decided to buy several Trophies — which cost $300,000-$400,000 each — for battlefield trials on Strykers in Iraq next year.

That plan immediately ran into a roadblock: Strong opposition from the U.S. Army. Why? Pentagon sources tell NBC News that the Army brass considers the Israeli system a threat to an Army program to develop an RPG defense system from scratch.

So why would the Army block a solution that might help troops?

“There are some in the Army who would be extremely concerned that if the Trophy system worked, then the Army would have no need to go forward with the Raytheon system and the program might be terminated,” says Steven Schooner, who teaches procurement law at both George Washington University and the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s School.

Trophy’s supporters inside the Pentagon are more blunt. As one senior official told NBC News, “This debate has nothing, zero, to do with capability or timeliness. It’s about money and politics. You’ve got a gigantic program [FCS] and contractors with intertwined interests. Trophy was one of the most successful systems we’ve tested, and yet the Army has ensured that it won’t be part of FCS and is now trying to prevent it from being included on the Strykers” that OFT planned to send to Iraq.

In other words, if it weren't for politics CMSF really could be a turkey shoot.

[Battlefront.com]

By dumb luck I happened to have seen that on the boobtube tonight. I thought it was mostly accurate, but only told half the story They didn't address any of the downsides of Trophy, nor its limitations. Instead they focused on the FCS connection and Raytheon. No doubt these powerful interests are screwing around with things, but the story should have at least discussed the negative issues that Trophy has going for it. As I see them they are:

1. Cost

2. Increased risk to civilians and dismounted soldiers

3. Chance of false triggering

4. Possible cheap tactics that can render undermine the system's effectiveness

The news article linked to above focused heavily, I thought, on the burning Humvees. They would not be slated for Trophy protection as a rule. Since this is the most vulnerable vehicle in a combat theater, the statistics trotted out about how many lives this could save were misleading. It also does nothing for IEDs, which right now are the biggest threat.

It's a promising device, but I think the cost to benefit ratio isn't there (yet). Better to put the money into some other short term program like counter IED measures, better support for discharged veterans, etc. Spending a couple hundred million Dollars to save a dozen lives when the same money could be spent to potentially save more just seems like a bad idea.

Oh, and they should kill FCS while they are at it

Steve

P.S. Trophy is being co developed and co marketed by General Dynamics Land Systems, so portraying this as a US snubbing of a foreign company isn't entirely accurate.

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Holo,

A wire free TOW was being seriously looked at at Hughes well before I left in September of 1984. I say this based on having briefed Dr. Hans Mauer back then on how the Soviets handled ATGM guidance sans wires. Dr. Mauer was the top technical guy, Technical Director, for all of Hughes Missile Systems Group, which designed and produced the TOW, Maverick, Phoenix, AMRAAM, GBU-15 cruciform wing, etc.

Regards,

John Kettler

Hi John:

TOW-2B RF is wireless. Wireless TOW-2B has been successfully demonstrated, but apparently requires further development before full blown production -- this as of 2003. I have not seen any news of the 2B RF in production as yet, so I assume it is still being tested.

TOW-2B (wire-guided) is "fly-over shoot-down". Target picture is the same for the gunner as with other TOW missiles -- he just keeps his cross-hair center of mass. As the missile approaches the intended tank target the missile is designed to fly above the LOS to the target by about 2.5m. The triggering mechanisim consists of some sort of magnetic signature recognition by the missile of the tank. When the missile is overhead it fires two tantalum EFPs down through the top of the tank. It is a bit like BILL-2, however BILL-2 is of course shorter ranged, and relies on two shaped charge warheads rather than the EFPs of TOW-2B.

Best Regards

Jeff

[Jeff Duquette]

John:

Do you still have contacts at Hughes? I had a couple of questions regarding TOW-2B.

What countries has the United States sold 2B, and what – if any -- foreign manufacturers are licensed to produce TOW-2B. The Swiss and Italians used to produce older editions of TOW. The UK have been producing FITOW. However, out-of-country 2B production is difficult to trace.

Lastly -- and this is a little more obscure -- but I have been curious as to whether or not 2B has any sort of impact fuze in addition to its magnetic sensor and laser. In other words, can it be employed against non-armored targets -- bunkers, buildings and the like. I’m thinking no. The additional capability makes little sense to me considering the EFP warhead arrangement – aside from the perspective of the missile having duel purpose capability. But I don’t know for certain. Lack of any sort of impact fuzing; or the presense of an impact fuze would put the question to rest.

Regards

JD

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Jeff,

Just wanted to say it's nice to see you posting again. That's all

Steve

[John Kettler]

Jeff Duquette,

If I do have any contacts left, it's likely to be a fluke by now. The plant I worked in is gone, with operations long ago removed to Tucson, Arizona. I think, though, that all of that business was subsequently bought by Raytheon when the fateful day rolled around on which Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) realized that it would make more money by selling pieces of Hughes Aircraft to various corporate suitors

than it was making in terms of what it was receiving by simply keeping Hughes. This was the secret of Hughes's former success, in that it could pay top dollar for the best people and wasn't saddled with keeping stockholders happy every quarter, being wholly owned by HHMI. The two guys most likely to still be around from my old department, Operations Analysis, are George Haan and Greg Latta. These days, they may be working for Raytheon, which bought the old Hughes Missile Systems Group.

As for the TOW-2B, I'm unaware of any impact fuze's being fitted, seeing as how the weapon was specifically designed for top attack against what were then ERA fitted (according to some reports, double stacked) advanced Soviet MBTs such as the T-80 and beyond. Mind, this weapon was in development when I left.

Raytheon official TOW site, mit TOW-2B spec sheet.

And yes, Tucson is where Raytheon's tactical missile business is situated.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/tow_family/

FAS writeup on TOW family

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/tow.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Hi Jeff,

Just wanted to say it's nice to see you posting again. That's all

Steve

Thnx Steve. Looking forward to seeing what you folks come up with for the new game.

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Jeff Duquette,

If I do have any contacts left, it's likely to be a fluke by now. The plant I worked in is gone, with operations long ago removed to Tucson, Arizona. I think, though, that all of that business was subsequently bought by Raytheon when the fateful day rolled around on which Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) realized that it would make more money by selling pieces of Hughes Aircraft to various corporate suitors

than it was making in terms of what it was receiving by simply keeping Hughes. This was the secret of Hughes's former success, in that it could pay top dollar for the best people and wasn't saddled with keeping stockholders happy every quarter, being wholly owned by HHMI. The two guys most likely to still be around from my old department, Operations Analysis, are George Haan and Greg Latta. These days, they may be working for Raytheon, which bought the old Hughes Missile Systems Group.

As for the TOW-2B, I'm unaware of any impact fuze's being fitted, seeing as how the weapon was specifically designed for top attack against what were then ERA fitted (according to some reports, double stacked) advanced Soviet MBTs such as the T-80 and beyond. Mind, this weapon was in development when I left.

Raytheon official TOW site, mit TOW-2B spec sheet.

And yes, Tucson is where Raytheon's tactical missile business is situated.

http://www.raytheon.com/products/tow_family/

FAS writeup on TOW family

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/tow.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

Thnx John. I thought my questions might be long shots. But it never hurts to ask.

I've read all of the Raytheon material as well as most internet net based public domain poop. I agree about the impact fuze bit, but of course am always looking for proof positive on it as well as export information and/or foreign manufacturing rights for the 2B.

All the best

JD

[John Kettler]

Jeff Duquette,

I'd suggest contacting Raytheon directly via the PR office listed on the corporate page. If you can't get a straight answer that way, then I'd try the Center for Defense Information and/or the Center for Strategic and International Studies, both in Washington, D.C.

And no, it never hurts to ask.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Jeff Duquette]

Hi John:

I thought of that. I've actually had good luck with this approach in the past when researching various weapon systems -- nothing classified mind you. However, Raytheon has a little blurb on there web site that basically says they won't respond to questions from researchers.

I suppose I'll give it a whirl anyway -- all they can do is say they dont answer questions from folks conducting research on their products. "Read Our Web Site Notice Dumbass" -- or something to that effect.

Regards

JD

[John Kettler]

Jeff Duquette,

I failed to notice that important caveat. All other things being even, though, I'd say if no impact fuze

is on the spec sheet and/or drawings from Raytheon, then the TOW-2B probably has none. There's no valid reason to hide that while providing descriptions of the far more sensitive top kill fuzing means.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Jeff Duquette,

I failed to notice that important caveat. All other things being even, though, I'd say if no impact fuze

is on the spec sheet and/or drawings from Raytheon, then the TOW-2B probably has none. There's no valid reason to hide that while providing descriptions of the far more sensitive top kill fuzing means.

Regards,

John Kettler

Hi John:

Once again I completely agree with your logic. I'll actually go even further to support your logic and say that the field manual for TOW specifically states 2B shouldn't be employed for anything other than armored targets. The layout of the EFP warheads and it's megnetic fuzing suggest that it would be relatively ineffective against buildings, bunkers, etc -- MOUT type targets. 2A -- or better yet the new bunker buster TOW would be the missile of choice in such scenarios.

But you know how it goes sometimes. Someone gets it in their mind that 2B is somehow like BILL-2 or some such thing. Anyway, it's not that critical.

Thanks again for your efforts

Best Regards

Jeff

[John Kettler]

Jeff Duquette,

Aren't you overlooking the obvious solution? Why not simply decree that our opponents have to conduct MOUT from within ISO shipping containers? Or is even that not enough metal for the fuzing to work properly. Oh, and all bunkers have to be made of steel, like the cupolas at Eben Emael.

Don't know where you found the FM you described, but good job!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Pandur]

i have to resurect an old thread, but the question fits in here.

wich ATGM´s in the game do have at least "some sort" of useable night vision opticts/system and so, can be used at night!?

or would that be nearly all other than AT-3´s!? i totaly have no idea about that, and when i look up the real data for the used systems its absolutely not said that this is also true for CM in the game.

can someone enlighten me on that please!?

[Cpl Steiner]

Since this thread has been resurrected, I would like to ask a question regarding ATGMs such as the AT-3 "Sagger" and AT-4 "Spigot". If I put them on a rooftop, I can't get them to fire. I've checked the LOS and they definitely can see the target. In additon, the target is definitely within the min and max range brackets for the weapon. Is this a bug?

[Bigduke6]

I just had an AT-4 on a roof refuse to fire for several minutes at a stationary Stryker about 600 meters away. It was targeted, cover arc, broad daylight, no supression, veteran missile crew not spotted, clear blue line. But no launch.

So eventually the Stryker trundled forward to about 150 meters from the AT-4. By this time a major firefight is in progress, and people are dying and vehicles are blowing up nearby, but the missile crew is fine. So eventually they smacked the Stryker, which died.

I'll be durned if I can say why that happened.