4 ms·

A 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

A 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 ago
They'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 ago
  There 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.
- fmajid 5y ago
  The NLAW is apparently very popular among Ukrainian troops because it is more convenient to use in the confines of urban warfare (don't remember the details). Sometimes the best tool for the job is not the most sophisticated one. It may not be strong enough to take on the best Western armor, but it has certainly proven to be adequate for taking out Russian tanks.
  - fer 5y ago
    That's the place for the Matador[0]. There's been a few videos of NLAWs hitting point blank but not doing anything simply because they were too close to arm. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MATADOR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MATADOR

nickff 5y ago

They'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 ago
There 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.
fmajid 5y ago
The NLAW is apparently very popular among Ukrainian troops because it is more convenient to use in the confines of urban warfare (don't remember the details). Sometimes the best tool for the job is not the most sophisticated one. It may not be strong enough to take on the best Western armor, but it has certainly proven to be adequate for taking out Russian tanks.
- fer 5y ago
  That's the place for the Matador[0]. There's been a few videos of NLAWs hitting point blank but not doing anything simply because they were too close to arm. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MATADOR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MATADOR