13 ms·
America’s Javelin missile is second to none (2021)
- HonestOp001 5y agoIf I am an insurgent force. I am requesting the Javelin to be supplied with. If I am an operating force forced to deal with MBA’ers and politicians. I am requesting the NLAW.
- sklargh 5y agoI'd argue that the NLAW's probability of kill is comparable, easier to use and its cost is radically lower. The Javelin is a great weapons system, and is highly complimentary to the NLAW - but if I was forced to pick one thing to arm my force with it'd be the NLAW (or maybe the Spike-SR).
- AussieWog93 5y agohttps://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2022/03/31/analysis-when-tank-busting-goes-wrong/?sh=74d451aa2228 https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2022/03/31/anal... The only thing I've seen about the NLAW is a direct hit on the top turret of a Russian tank doing absolutely nothing.
- pcbro141 5y ago> The NLAW may have a maximum range of 600 or even 800 meters, but it also has a minimum range of 20 meters. Below that range its fuse isn’t meant to go off. > So most likely, the lucky tank was actually too close for the NLAW to work as intended.
- abandonliberty 5y agoThe NLAW has a single warhead, while the Javelin and Stugna have a tandem warhead designed to deactivate ERA first. Who knows how it works in practice. NLAW - 40k Javelin - 80k missile + 140k launcher Stugna - 20k missile
- thunderbird120 5y agoNLAW direct attack mode is intended for soft targets. Its shaped charge warhead points down at a 90 degree angle from the direction of flight. It is intended to detonate while the missile flies over the top of the tank shooting a jet hypersonic molten metal down into the most lightly armored part of the tank. If you use the direct attack mode against a tank it's probably not going to work much better than just throwing an equivalent amount of high explosive at the tank which usually won't do shit.
- ALittleLight 5y agoI hope users know that mode as "Unarmored target mode". Knowing nothing about this I can imagine non-professional soldiers selecting "direct attack" because that sounds intuitively like a thing that would work against a tank.
- robonerd 5y agoI'd like to think each missile comes with an instruction booklet illustrated in the same style as the pamphlets airlines have for evacuations.
- monkeybutton 5y agoIf I had to choose, I would take the Stugna-P. You guide it with a laptop and don't have to hold it up to fire (it's mounted on a tripod), and the range is much further (4km!).
- tomjakubowski 5y agoSurely some sampling bias here but, in the overwhelming majority of videos of Russian vehicle kills I've seen, the guys are using a Stugna. Sometimes even a repurposed export model with UI text in Arabic or something.
- Buttons840 5y agoHow does the cost compare? Also, point and shoot might be better than setting up and using a laptop.
- monkeybutton 5y agoA quick google says 20K.
- jerlam 5y agoRemotely operated might be a better descriptor. Instead of getting shot at from the tank or infantry support, you can set up the missile and hide in a ditch/building.
- rmbyrro 5y agoJavelin and NLaw can go up to around 5km, can't they?
- monkeybutton 5y agoApparently a man-potable javalin's range is a 2.5K. The thing I think about is that the amount of of area one has to secure around their tanks using infantry/drones/whatever. The area increases with the square of the counter weapon's distance.
- rmbyrro 5y agoMaybe if your army boss can print dollars, you wouldn't mind paying 200% more for 10% improvement.
- thunderbird120 5y agoThey are very different types of weapons. The NLAW's range is inferior at a basic level and the missile itself does not actually track the target making shots out to the edge of it's theoretical range very difficult, unlike the Javelin. While both Javelin and NLAW are top attack munitions, their flight trajectories are very different. The NLAW flies more or less in a line from launch to directly above the target and then detonates its shaped charge warhead which shoots down as the missile flies over (i.e it explodes down, not forward). Its flight trajectory is more vulnerable to active protection systems compared to the Javelin's true top attack mode (but that's not an issue against Russians). The warhead is also smaller and less effective. The NLAW is a great weapon but its constraints are apparent in many cases.
- LegitShady 5y agoThe nlaw was already obsolete 40 years ago. Every tank has explosive reactive armor and the nlaw is a single warhead projectile. It's useful against trucks and ifvs but against even a tank from the 80s its basically useless.
- ranger207 5y agoThe NLAW is easier, cheaper, and if it hits probably has similar lethality, but the Javelin is much more likely to hit in the first place. The NLAW isn't really guided: you point it at a tank, track it through the sights for a moment, then fire, and the missile will keep blindly tracking the movement of the tank. So if the tank stops or turns then the NLAW will keep deflecting and will miss. The Javelin actually does have sensors on the missile to track the tank, so it can compensate for changes in direction. Now, when you're fairly close you can probably get away with just momentum tracking, so the NLAW is perfectly fine in many circumstances, but the Javelin is much more likely to hit in any scenario.
- cameldrv 5y agoI think it depends on the terrain in which you're operating on and whether you're on the offense or the defense. In urban or wooded terrain where engagement distances are shorter, the NLAW is probably a little better. In desert or plains where engagement distances are longer, the Javelin is probably better. If I were in flat terrain or on the offense I would not want to be carrying a weapon with a range of 800m when the tank I'm fighting has a range of 3000m.
- causality0 5y agoIn terms of total capability yes, but as an insurgent weapon the nlaw is arguably better. It's much smaller and lighter and deploys faster while being cheaper. The javelin has better performance and can target aircraft, but both kill a T-72 equally dead.
- LegitShady 5y agoNot if the t72 has era. Single charge vs tandem charge warhead. The nlaw was obsolete against tanks 40 years ago.
- robonerd 5y ago> The nlaw was obsolete against tanks 40 years ago. That's going way too far. Lots of tanks around the world still don't have ERA, and ERA doesn't make tanks impervious anyway. You can put a lot of ERA panels on a T-72 but there will always be gaps.
- LegitShady 5y agofrom the front there's more ERA than there are gaps by a large margin. You're not likely to destroy a tank with one, and it can shoot back at you. When equipping someone with weapon for a life and death fight, betting on a weapon unlikely to work because 'there are gaps' is not a winning strategy.
- AussieWog93 5y agoWhy does a single missile cost $80k? Is it just profiteering or is there an actual technical/economic reason for this?
- gizajob 5y agoBecause despite it basically being a metal tube with a rocket motor and some high explosive, it destroys tanks costing many many multiples of $80k
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoPretty much every part of a modern AGTM is made out of fancy high dollar materials and the QC processes on these materials and assemblies are staggeringly expensive (and it's worth it, imagine how much a dud would damage the troops confidence in the weapons system, when you're the underdog you can't afford that kind of doubt.) They aren't cheap, but they aren't expensive for what they are.
- jmccaf 5y agoThe ATGM is much cheaper than a current tank.
- throwaway0a5e 5y agoThe ATGM also doesn't have the offensive capability of a current tank so you get what you pay for. If your goal is to just inflict large cost upon the occupiers until they get bored after a decade then ATGMs are great. If your plan involves routing them with a counter-attack ASAP you'll probably find them lacking.
- 59125throwaya 5y agoDue to these weapons, the current tank does not have the offensive capability of tanks in previous era's
- greesil 5y ago
- rmbyrro 5y ago> each missile typically costing more than the targets it eliminates ??? A cheap tank cost upwards of a million dollars, while a javelin would cost in the low hundreds of thousands. "Typically", a javelin costs at least 4x less than its targets. On average, I'd argue it's probably 8-10x cheaper.
- hyperbovine 5y agoFurther down in The Fine Article, it is explained that the javelin is frequently used against pickup trucks and other low value targets.
- mabbo 5y agoThe article goes on to describe situations in Iraq where the US was firing them at pickup trucks.
- didgeoridoo 5y agoI think the “typical” target in recent American wars is a twenty year old Toyota pickup with a machine gun bolted to the bed. In that case, the Javelin is at least 10x more expensive.
- rmbyrro 5y agoAh, that makes sense then. Presumed they were used literally against tanks. But it makes sense to use against lightweight vehicles that pose somewhat similar threat against infantry.
- x3n0ph3n3 5y agoTanks are not the most frequent targets, though. Trucks and jeeps were the most common targets in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- adventured 5y agoThat's fine. In the context of deployed US soldiers on a battlefield, the US can trivially afford to take out trucks and jeeps with Javelins if it makes sense in the scope of harming the enemy's capabilities.
- randbox 5y agoUkraine's domestically manufactured Stugna-P has longer range, remote controls, and is only $20,000 per missile. Wikipedia cites unit costs of Javelin closer to $200,000 than $80,000. Longer range + tripod + remote control seems safer for operators. The Javelin might be second to Stugna-P.
- adventured 5y agoUkraine can't effectively produce the Stugna while they're at war with Russia. It's one of the many reasons the Javelin and NLAW are so important. The Neptune might be another great weapon as well, for example, and they'll never be able to produce enough of them while at war.
- arinlen 5y ago> The Neptune might be another great weapon as well, for example, and they'll never be able to produce enough of them while at war. It seems that producing only two already had a critical impact on the ongoing war.
- Someone1234 5y agoA Javelin costs around $178K ($78K for replacement missiles only). The NLAW costs around $35K/ea. The NLAW weighs 12.5 kg. The Javelin weighs 22.3 kg. So even if we agree a Javelin is technically superior, is it 2x an NLAW in weight or 5x NLAW in cost superior? Plus the NLAW is easier to use, almost turn-key, and typically can be deployed by one soldier instead of two. Sometimes good enough is good enough, and that feels like it applies here. If I was in charge of ordering, I'd definitely take a handful of NLAWs over a single Javelin because my assumption is many won't be in the right place at the right time or will be damaged/lost before utilized. The reality is that a mix of both is great, in particular if they're free. Javelins are great weapon systems at medium range.
- nickff 5y agoThey're very different weapons; an NLAW is unlikely to incapacitate a tank at any range, whereas a Javelin has a high probability of destroying a tank at 500-2500m. The NLAW can be very useful against structures or softer targets like APCs and IFVs.
- bryanlarsen 5y agoThere are lots of videos of NLAW's taking out Russian tanks on Youtube etc. The biggest difference is that an NLAW is only good to 1000m, whereas a Javelin is good to 3500m. In urban and wooded battle fields like around Kyiv that's not a massive difference, but on the Eastern Front where the land is much more open, it'll be a big deal.
- arinlen 5y ago> They're very different weapons; an NLAW is unlikely to incapacitate a tank at any range SAAB claims that the NLAW "(...) can destroy a heavily protected modern battle tank with one shot, and the system is effective at ranges between 20 and 800 metres.) https://www.saab.com/newsroom/stories/2018/june/5-facts-about-saabs-nlaw-anti-tank-system https://www.saab.com/newsroom/stories/2018/june/5-facts-abou... Do you have any source that substantiates your personal assertion? > The NLAW can be very useful against structures or softer targets like APCs and IFVs. Wikipedia's article on Russia's battalion tactical group mentions that each is comprised of 10 tanks and 40 IFVs. Even if we take your personal assertion at face value, and given that disabling a IFV also takes infantry out of the picture, it seems the NLAW showcases an impressive bang for the buck.
- dilap 5y agoInteresting to note the article is from 2021, and says Javelins haven't been tested against modern tanks. I guess now they have been, but maybe hard to say how effective because of fog of war. Here's a YouTube video I recently stumbled over that expresses skepticism about their effectiveness in the current UKR/RU conflict. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT7mMm0d0aw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT7mMm0d0aw Since I have no knowledge of the topic, so I can't tell if he's credible or a crank. Anyone care to weigh in?
- jerlam 5y agoThe other videos on the channel show a very high pro-Russia bias, so I wouldn't give it a lot of credibility.
- fractallyte 5y agoPhotographic and video footage of burned out wrecks of Russian tanks suggest that Javelins are highly effective. Here are three reputable Twitter accounts: @oryxspioenkop, @RALee85, @UAWeapons
- spirit557 5y agoThis article rang a bell with me. It's basically word-for-word the script for this video which was posted more than a year before date on the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6COKC5ZU6gM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6COKC5ZU6gM I don't know why this is or if anyone cares, just thought I'd mention it
- russellbeattie 5y agoI just linked to same video! I would never have noticed it was word for word! You're right. My suspicion is the YouTube channel is a content factory, where the guy narrates a published article over whatever military B-roll video they can find. I highly doubt it was reverse. Still sorta useful. It's nice to see the actual weapon, and I doubt I'd ever normally read the article otherwise.
- TMWNN 5y ago>My suspicion is the YouTube channel is a content factory, where the guy narrates a published article over whatever military B-roll video they can find. I highly doubt it was reverse. I've seen this with several YouTube channels with very generic military-sounding names. I hadn't realized/expected that the channels would just plagiarize existing articles, though!
- elihu 5y ago(Article is from July 23, 2021.)
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- macinjosh 5y agoAny engineer who spends their time on Earth creating weapons of war deserve to experience the fate they themselves designed.
- dane-pgp 5y agoAnd what should happen to engineers who spend their time on Earth working at a job that pays better, while a foreign country is creating weapons with which to invade their country?
- chmod600 5y ago"Deserves" is a strange word in this context. Did the ukranian software engineers "deserve" to get invaded? No, but it happened. But you seem to be saying that if they defend themselves, they do deserve to get invaded? You seem to be following a very long-running fallacy that you can unilaterally opt-out of violence. Ordinary citizens in safe countries fortunately can opt-out, but only because others are in the business of war protecting us from the likes of Putin. Condemning those good warriors is perilous.
- usrn 5y ago