Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
The ones used for British service in Afghanistan with improved armour etc. are closer to 19 tonsshark bait wrote:I swear I've seen that it can, a quick Google put the vehicle at 15 tonnes, over the Chinook's 10 tonne capacity.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
Thanks, I guess that put it over weight then.Wrekin762 wrote: The ones used for British service in Afghanistan with improved armour etc. are closer to 19 tons
ArmChairCivvy's speculation may still hold true though
@LandSharkUK
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1747
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
Found a little gif of it at work here:arfah wrote:Javelin tested in UK from M151 remote weapon station mounted on Spartan APC
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /85916678/
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
Given CVRT will be around until 2025 (I believe), this would be a completely logical way to boost it up until other platforms can integrate it.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
Careful, Shark. You almost sounded like you were suggesting cross fleet integration and common weaponry there. :p
-
- Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
Before we integrate it on anything we'd need it to make the formal requirements list, not wishing to burst any bubbles
I guess this will be just another one of those exercises where we tinker about with something and then never pursue it any further. I'd love to be proven wrong though. We seriously need some heavy hitting overwatch to make a return.
I guess this will be just another one of those exercises where we tinker about with something and then never pursue it any further. I'd love to be proven wrong though. We seriously need some heavy hitting overwatch to make a return.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
Big time, especially as we are relying more on medium forces. Unfortunately it would make too much sense to fully exploit the potential of an established and effective weapon.~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:We seriously need some heavy hitting overwatch to make a return.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
Yep, couldn't agree more. Leaving Striker without a dedicated replacement for so long, and with no imminent sign of a serious intent to replace it in the very near future, has been borderline criminal.shark bait wrote: Big time, especially as we are relying more on medium forces. Unfortunately it would make too much sense to fully exploit the potential of an established and effective weapon.
You have to wonder why they have even bothered with this little exercise at all, since we all know how this will likely end. It will be the typical tinkering but with no further action routine
It's even more silly when you think that actually, the medium weight concept could well have some legs behind it - but it needs to be properly resourced; yet we can't (or don’t want to) seem to do that. End result is we have wedded ourselves to a risky (in spite of its potential potency) force concept and exposed ourselves to even more risk by failing to properly implement it.
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
The RWS has already been validated. It is now being looked at for Foxhound, Panther, and Viking.
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
I think it certainly could have some legs behind it, but like you say, being properly resourced is critical.~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:It's even more silly when you think that actually, the medium weight concept could well have some legs behind it - but it needs to be properly resourced; yet we can't (or don’t want to) seem to do that. End result is we have wedded ourselves to a risky (in spite of its potential potency) force concept and exposed ourselves to even more risk by failing to properly implement it.
The 40mm along side 120mm mortars and ATGW would make for a powerful medium force. They cant too reliant on air power, that luxury might not always be afforded so these 'strike brigades' will need some organic firepower.
@LandSharkUK
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
Certainly do, a guided 120mm mortar should be there, and there must be a case for a wheeled artillery.
Whilst a 120mm mortar may be achievable, I think there is little chance of a wheeled artillery.
Whilst a 120mm mortar may be achievable, I think there is little chance of a wheeled artillery.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
shark bait wrote:Certainly do, a guided 120mm mortar should be there, and there must be a case for a wheeled artillery.
Whilst a 120mm mortar may be achievable, I think there is little chance of a wheeled artillery.
Would this work ?
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=am ... &FORM=VIRE
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
That was exactly the system I had in mind. The strike brigades (and ABSV) really should have 120mm mortar and ATGW variants, with just the 40mm CTAS they will have the mobility, but lack the firepower.
@LandSharkUK
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
The Italians have ordered the Centauro mk2 which mounts a 120mm gun able to fire all the latest ammo types. I wonder if the turret would fit on the Ajax and or what ever 8x8 we choose. Also the Polish are introducing a turreted 120mm Mortar variant of the 8x8. If memory serves me right, the Lockheed turret for the Warrior was design to be able to have Javelin fitted to it and operated from inside the vehicle but the Army wasn't interested, most probably to keep costs down. I am sure at some point in the future an desperate UOR will be issued to mount the Javelin on one or more platforms.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Javelin Missile (Army)
Have to go back to what I said at the beginning of the thread and add a key factor to what defines a different class of weapon (with a proviso for quickly changing APS capabilities):
ARENA APS seems to be capable of monitoring and then acting on any projectiles that approach through a 35 degree sector (in elevation). This would be a strong justification for us having chosen just Javelin, with its very steep dive angle. Top attack by (some?) TOW models and NLAW might be rendered ineffective as they pass onto and over the target so low that they will have to penetrate that 35 degree zone first.
ARENA APS seems to be capable of monitoring and then acting on any projectiles that approach through a 35 degree sector (in elevation). This would be a strong justification for us having chosen just Javelin, with its very steep dive angle. Top attack by (some?) TOW models and NLAW might be rendered ineffective as they pass onto and over the target so low that they will have to penetrate that 35 degree zone first.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
(Forces TV) 8th October 2019
The top performers on an anti-tank course on Salisbury Plain have been given the privilege of testing a special piece of equipment. The Javelin is the world's most versatile and lethal one-man portable weapon system, and costs around £70,000 to fire each time it is used. It has a range of up to 2.5 kilometres and is typically used against targets such as heavily armoured tanks. Exercise Racing Snake provides infantrymen from across the Army with the chance to fire the weapon on Salisbury Plain.
Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
Forces TV let themselves down as some of the film was soldiers firing the MBT LAW not Javelin.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
Looked like both to me.Lord Jim wrote:Forces TV let themselves down as some of the film was soldiers firing the MBT LAW not Javelin.
Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
,Yes they were and an interesting video, just being picky today.
Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)
The Ukrainians are certainly making good use of their NLAW and Javelin missiles. Hopefully we can ship a good few more over to them to help clear a 40km traffic jam.
For all the complaints about how the British army lacks mass it really shows how easily it can reduced with effective ATGMs. It's frustrating knowing NATO could take out the all of that exposed Russian armour inside Ukraine but for the threat of nuclear escalation.
Hopefully they are assisting in more covert ways outside the gaze of the media to level the playing field will still maintaining deniability.
For all the complaints about how the British army lacks mass it really shows how easily it can reduced with effective ATGMs. It's frustrating knowing NATO could take out the all of that exposed Russian armour inside Ukraine but for the threat of nuclear escalation.
Hopefully they are assisting in more covert ways outside the gaze of the media to level the playing field will still maintaining deniability.