Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3292
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

Ian Hall wrote: 06 Jul 2023, 19:32 I don't quite understand your point. I believe that both MMP and Javelin have IR seekers.
They do indeed. But MMP does not require a 'lock' to engage in the same way that Javelin does. MMP also has a standard low light camera as well....which Javelin does not...
Ian Hall wrote: 06 Jul 2023, 19:32 I think you're perhaps saying that man in the loop is less likely to be deceived than an auto track/ auto lock (?). This may or may not be true but is there any evidence to prove it?
Man in the Loop means the human can add their intelligence to the missiles seeker. They can choose an aim point, or if necessary direct the missile to a specific point that the seeker could not lock on to i.e. a tank with thermal blanket at dusk...
jimthelad wrote: 06 Jul 2023, 20:52 Man in the loop only works if you have stable firing platform and reliable comm link.
Which MMP does....it has a tripod and uses fibre optic cable (i.e. unjammable and undetectable). Javelin teams increasingly use small tripods as well....
jimthelad wrote: 06 Jul 2023, 20:52 Current seeks have home on jam which renders some of the IR jammers irrelevant.
Removing a vehicles thermal signature by using thermal covers is not jamming. You can't home in on something that has blended into the background.
jimthelad wrote: 06 Jul 2023, 20:52 On a modern battlefield, the luxury of firing and then performing in flight correction is a luxury only if you have a standoff range of >3km, if you have Armour or stage 3 cover, and if your round has Mach 2 + speed. IF x 3 in any sentence does not work if someone is shooting at you (I have some experience in this).
MMP has 3 firing modes; Fire and Forget (i.e like Javelin), Man in the Loop (using the fibre link) and Lock on After Launch.

So it has the same ability as Javelin, but additional modes available....and over 1,000m more range...
jimthelad wrote: 06 Jul 2023, 20:52 Infantry need reliable shoot n scoot with fire and forget.
Which they get with MMP....and more. Plus its under half the price of Javelin....and a significant chunk is made in the UK...

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 510
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by jimthelad »

In an ideal world, I would agree entirely. Looking at what is happening in Ukraine, I think the days of organised infantry defence are gone. The use of UAV and micro UAV has denied cover to all but the most significant defensive positions or to high mobility teams.

I think guided artillery rounds with fire direction form UAV will replace long range non autonomous ATGM (is Brimstone/Spear/Exactor). It is cheaper, easier to use in volume and safer if you use shoot-n-scoot. MMP and similar was a good idea for FIBUA and conflicts 10 years ago if you were infantry, not now. Much better to control the immediate space with rapid direct fires with good optics and hgh speed to get the first shot off, and then relocate before the indirect fire or the drone gets you. Leave longer range to the gun-bunnies.

As an aside, all of the above arguments become efete if you are firing from under armour, here, MMP or similar doe make more sense. The problem for MMP is cost, and limited upgrade path I would go with Javelin ER and its follow on and Brimstone.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1488
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

jimthelad wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 14:27 I think guided artillery rounds with fire direction form UAV will replace long range non autonomous ATGM (is Brimstone/Spear/Exactor).
Brimstone is autonomous. Brimstone 2 has semi-active laser guidance in addition to the MMW seeker.
Exactor/Spike NLOS will probably retain a niche due to their accuracy and small size compared to most guided artillery.
jimthelad wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 14:27 Much better to control the immediate space with rapid direct fires with good optics and hgh speed to get the first shot off, and then relocate before the indirect fire or the drone gets you.
Good optics are desirable regardless, but high speed doesn't help you get the first shot off. At best it might make the missile more resistant to countermeasures but it's also going to hurt the seeker too.
If you want to make sure you get spotted, the best way to do it is by running around unnecessarily. If you can fire without being spotted (soft launch, fire from defilade, low signature motor etc., that is surely better?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3292
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

jimthelad wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 14:27 The problem for MMP is cost, and limited upgrade path I would go with Javelin ER and its follow on and Brimstone.
There is no such thing as Javelin ER....the follow on is Javelin F/G which is entering service now. Its far more expensive and shorter ranged than MMP....
mr.fred wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 14:49 Exactor/Spike NLOS will probably retain a niche due to their accuracy and small size compared to most guided artillery.
Exactor will be leaving service this decade. Its never been entirely satisfactory and will, hopefully, be replaced by the planned LPS. Which would be fired from Land Ceptor and M270.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1488
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Timmymagic wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 17:53 There is no such thing as Javelin ER....the follow on is Javelin F/G which is entering service now. Its far more expensive and shorter ranged than MMP....
Increase in range of the Javelin seems to be associated with the command launch unit rather than the missile variant, and, at 4.5km it isn't vastly different to Akeron's 5km.
As for cost, Javelin F seems to be about $250,000 as of the early 2020's, Akeron seems to be about €200,000 as of the mid to late 2010's, so again, not heaps different.
Though Akeron seems to have a number of features Javelin does not.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 510
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by jimthelad »

I believe it was initally billed as "Javelin ER", apologies. My point is entirely tactical and from extensive experience with Milan and other systems. The former was brilliant, the precursor to MMP (Trigat MR) was not. In fact, car crash was the most polite description used. I had the misfortune to have a limited role in the validation (failed) of the missile. I appreciate on paper it looks great, but it will never be fielded in numbers (American or Israeli will), have a limited and expensive upgrade path, and all the much touted capabilities are fuck all use to an ATGM crew who has to deal with pop up threats, line of sight engagement, and being worked over by artillery. In fact I would take the Stugna system used by Ukraine over MMP. Cheap, remote firing capable, wide aperture HEAT warhead, and COMBAT PROVEN.

MMP is not!

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1488
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

jimthelad wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 18:57 My point is entirely tactical and from extensive experience with Milan and other systems.
It's either the way you are putting it across or that aspects of your experience are obsolete.
jimthelad wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 18:57 The former was brilliant, the precursor to MMP (Trigat MR) was not.
How much does TRIGAT, a beam riding CLOS missile, share with Akeron? The precursor to Javelin, which is well regarded, was Dragon, which, let's be honest, wasn't.
jimthelad wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 18:57 I appreciate on paper it looks great, but it will never be fielded in numbers (American or Israeli will)
We should have had TOW (or Dragon?) over Milan?
jimthelad wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 18:57 In fact I would take the Stugna system used by Ukraine over MMP. Cheap, remote firing capable, wide aperture HEAT warhead, and COMBAT PROVEN.
Everything is unproven at first, if you stick with only proven you'd never advance. If I were France I would definitely consider sending some Akeron to Ukraine for the test, but the smart warhead, fire and forget and ability to top attack make it far more capable than Stugna. While Stugna has proven effective, there have been some reports of it's direct attack profile leaving it lacking against frontal and side armour protected by ERA.
The MMP can also do the remote firing bit, except it can do it with the launcher completely hidden from the view of any land-based observers, and the launcher displaced while another operate does the man-on-the-loop bit.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 510
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by jimthelad »

To be blunt, you don't have a clue. On paper, all these things are nice to have. Trigat should have been game changing, the design house said it was and swallowed over 100m doing so. Same design house for Akeron. I bring you back to my original point. On a modern contested battlefield, you dont have have time to setup such systems.

If you lie low and use the fancy systems, you will end up as artillery /drone bait. Mobility is the only thing that infantry have to protect themselves, hence rapid shoot-n-scoot evolutions with coordinated artillery.

As for experience, I may be 'obsolete', but I'm still here after a few episodes of handbags using ATGM, and i still fancy my chances.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3292
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

mr.fred wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 18:54 Increase in range of the Javelin seems to be associated with the command launch unit rather than the missile variant, and, at 4.5km it isn't vastly different to Akeron's 5km.
4,000m is the max with LWCLU. 4,750m is achievable from a vehicle mount. The seeker head of the missile still has low resolution though, unless you're firing one of the exceptionally expensive brand new G variants.
mr.fred wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 18:54 As for cost, Javelin F seems to be about $250,000 as of the early 2020's, Akeron seems to be about €200,000 as of the mid to late 2010's, so again, not heaps different.
Javelin F and G are very expensive, they might drop in price as Full Rate Production kicks in. But Akeron MP's price is a lot lower according to some in the know. Nicholas Drummond quotes <60,000 EUR per missile, but I'm not sure I buy that...
jimthelad wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 18:57 I believe it was initally billed as "Javelin ER", apologies. My point is entirely tactical and from extensive experience with Milan and other systems. The former was brilliant, the precursor to MMP (Trigat MR) was not.
There is no relation between MMP and Trigat MR....the baleful influence of Trigat disappeared with the Trigan proposal. MMP is wholly new. They have as much to do with one another as Javelin and Dragon.
jimthelad wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 18:57 I appreciate on paper it looks great, but it will never be fielded in numbers (American or Israeli will), have a limited and expensive upgrade path, and all the much touted capabilities are fuck all use to an ATGM crew who has to deal with pop up threats, line of sight engagement, and being worked over by artillery.
It's sales have picked up from a slow start. Sweden recently chose it, and they don't pick pony systems...Spike and Javelin lost out against MMP....

As for the rest I'm confused.

Akeron MP/MMP has...

- All the same firing modes as Javelin
- Plus more firing modes available...
- Is not vulnerable to countermeasures like Javelin
- More fusing options on warhead inc airburst, but still tandem charge
- Weighs around 4kg more....but that 4kg gets you at least 25% more range, and all the other goodies
- According to those in the know it's a lot cheaper as well...
- Large % of missile currently made in Bolton...

So whats the issue? It is quite literally Javelin+...
jimthelad wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 22:29 Same design house for Akeron.
MBDA....who also built MILAN...and Brimstone...and Asraam....and Meteor....and Storm Shadow...

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1488
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

jimthelad wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 22:29 To be blunt, you don't have a clue. On paper, all these things are nice to have. Trigat should have been game changing, the design house said it was and swallowed over 100m doing so. Same design house for Akeron. I bring you back to my original point. On a modern contested battlefield, you dont have have time to setup such systems.
TRIGAT is irrelevant. It's also the same "design house" that made Milan. Javelin came from the same "design house" that made Dragon. With such long periods between new systems you have to treat each one separately. It's like assuming a modern Skoda is no good because the ones produced over thirty years ago were bad.
As for setup, what setup? I've seen nothing to suggest that it takes any longer to set up an Akeron than any other ATGW. It's probably quicker than Javelin (at the moment) because it doesn't have to wait for the seeker to cool down.
jimthelad wrote: 09 Jul 2023, 22:29 If you lie low and use the fancy systems, you will end up as artillery /drone bait. Mobility is the only thing that infantry have to protect themselves, hence rapid shoot-n-scoot evolutions with coordinated artillery.
Infantry don't move very fast and are incredibly vulnerable out of cover.
Akeron doesn't require the operator to stay in one place any more than any other system, but does provide the ability to launch from complete defilade.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1488
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Timmymagic wrote: 10 Jul 2023, 13:46 4,000m is the max with LWCLU. 4,750m is achievable from a vehicle mount. The seeker head of the missile still has low resolution though, unless you're firing one of the exceptionally expensive brand new G variants.
Like I said, related to the CLU rather than the missile. The G model is listed as being $220,000 per missile in 2021*. As previously noted, Akeron has been quoted at €200,000**. That doesn't sound "exceptionally expensive" to me

*That's off Wiki, citing https://www.asafm.army.mil/Portals/72/D ... t_Army.pdf, page 66. I'm not entirely convinced that it is a reasonble inferrence from the text, but can't find anything better
** From here: https://defense-militaire.over-blog.com ... e-mmp.html Slim pickings there too

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 510
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by jimthelad »

At the risk of my sanity, I will defer to the armchair generals infinite wisdom. Operational experience and extensive training is irrelevant in the light of such omniscience. Shame what has happened to the rather good MP net.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1488
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

jimthelad wrote: 10 Jul 2023, 22:27 At the risk of my sanity, I will defer to the armchair generals infinite wisdom. Operational experience and extensive training is irrelevant in the light of such omniscience. Shame what has happened to the rather good MP net.
If you have to resort to "because I said so" and "don't you know who I am?", it's usually a sign that you don't have a very strong argument.
"I fought a substantially weaker opponent with obsolete equipment twenty-odd year's ago" doesn't automatically give you the final word on more modern technology.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3292
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

jimthelad wrote: 10 Jul 2023, 22:27 At the risk of my sanity, I will defer to the armchair generals infinite wisdom. Operational experience and extensive training is irrelevant in the light of such omniscience. Shame what has happened to the rather good MP net.
Jim wouldn't it be helpful if you explained your point further?

Personally I don't understand what differences you see between MMP and Javelin? Everything that Javelin does, MMP also does in pretty much the same manner (direct attack, diving top attack, fire and forget etc., ability to use the CLU as a surveillance tool) but then it adds a whole lot more (increased range, man in the loop, lock on after launch, unjammable/detectable additional control method, different warhead effects etc, good UK industrial involvement). And the only real negative is a slight increase in weight. And it might be significantly cheaper, plus with more sovereign control (particularly given you mentioned the Israeli Spike system earlier).

In terms of employment its exactly the same as Javelin with the same footprint. If you think it isn't, where is the difference?
These users liked the author Timmymagic for the post:
zanahoria

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 510
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by jimthelad »

Sorry for the delay in responding, life has a habit of getting in the way. I am not saying that I am a leading authority on this, but I have some relevant experience. Most of my comments allude to the operational usage of infantry portable ATGM in a contested environment. In many ways, ATGM have been utilized as a ‘Swiss Army Knife’ in western militaries; being used to remove stubborn militants in hard to reach places, material denial, and also AFV. If you look at the usage globally since 2010, whilst there is no official published data, the trend (from a casual Google search Boolean “ATGM+Missile+Fired+Target+2010-“) would suggest that until the recent conflict in Ukraine, ATGM were not used in their primary role, with many of the systems being recently developed have been framed in this context of multipurpose munitions, and have deviated from the original purpose of denying enemy AFV the control of the battlefield. In any complex evolutionary environment, there is an equilibrium within the operational paradigm (Delaney, 2020), where complexity does add effect, but also risk for both impinging forces. Furthermore, Ukraine has taught us that infantry tactics are more aligned to previous theatres such as Germany 1945 and the operational doctrines of NATO and CCCP rather the recent experiences in the Middle East or the COIN operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. As such, dismounted infantry on a contested field must rely on stealth (in the face overwhelming tactical ISTAR), speed, and directed rapid lethality. Operating in fixed positions is now suicide. Fire and manouver does still offer significant protection, and firing first and rapid relocation is the key mechanism for this.
My previous observations did not directly address the actual weapon systems themselves. Allow me to correct that from an operational perspective:
-both Javelin F/G (previously described as ER) and Akeron MMP are so called 5th generation ATGM. The former builds on the hugely successful and combat proven FGM-148, the latter from the lessons learned from the successful MILAN-2ER and less successful TRIGAT MR. For clarity, the MBDA catalogue itself is massively successful and recently has produced globally leading technologies. The MMP program does leverage this success. Further examination of the systems, in my opinion, renders the following germane:
-Guidance: both Javelin and MMP are autonomous IR seekers with a tandem low light TV sensor in CLU, MMP has a fibre optic man-in- the-loop reversion/supplemental system with in-flight CCTV datalink via the fibre optic trail. On first inspection, the MMP would appear to be a clear winner, however, this is not technically the case. Firstly, the CCCP long ago identified the fragility of NATO ATGM which in the 1970-2005 period were largely wire guided. Most CCCP or Warpac doctrine called for use of high intensity supporting barrages in both VT and impact settings (SMP, 1986, 1988, 1990), this caused significant concern for NATO ATGM crews due to the high chance of wire breaks due to shrapnel. In this fact, even if you were well emplaced or firing from behind FLOT (who themselves were under indirect fire), this was often of more concern than the artillery itself. In addition, most AFV would have wire mesh screens on the front of the emplacement or in screens arrayed in front of fixed positions to entangle both wires and in the case of subsonic munitions, the round itself. When in service, I had the chance to discuss tactics from newly joined NATO members from the old Soviet bloc. They were amazed that the West did not really appreciate how the Warpac had developed such tactics, and this was the driving force for the command guidance links on the 9M133. I had the opportunity to train on this system and found the wireless link and the speed of the projectile was impressive, being simple to use, and intuitive, negating the need for complex training that many western ATGM crews underwent. Furthermore, obscurant such as the 902 A/B Tucha smoke grenade launchers which were fitted to most CCCP AFV would render LLTV ineffective. The remote defilade option with a supersonic round is on face value an attractive option, but in the age of modern IIR surveillance, UAV/UGV, and autocued fire control, I feel that this is significant risk to all but firing from inside armour or stage 3 fortification. The standard Warpac response to located ATGM was battery level fires on the grid square, any delay in leaving the firing position could/would be fatal.
Using this doctrine as a prism, the primary usage is direct fire on a preselected target or immediate fire-to-effect emergent targets of opportunity using the IR sensor. In this, there are significant differences; Javelin F/G having a cooled CLU sight (Sterling cycle) and IIR seeker (Argon canister) within the round, whilst the MMP uses as an uncooled IIR array. The original concerns of cycling the weapon coolant for acquisition (as seen in the FIM-192 where the engagement cycle could not exceed 45 seconds) are negated by the super rapid chill of the sensor and lock on in the last 2 seconds of the engagement cycle. This may seem somewhat unimportant due to both having exceptional accuracy and reliability; this is not the case. Cooled IIR sensors have significant advantages in ambient temperatures where emitted background radiation is in the 8-14um wavebands; this is further more significant when targets are using smoke and IR obscurants which often work in 5-22um wavebands, and those using thermal blanketing to obscure higher wavelength IR radiation. Most cooled IIR arrays have an NETD of <20 whereas, uncooled usually have NETD of approximately 60. In a first shot, first kill situation, even if the CLU can acquire the target in obscurants, the missile also needs to lock on, the AFV has no such limitation due to high quality IIR being standard, and as such can fire down the threat channel with a supersonic gun projectile. Due to the aforementioned supporting arms, and obscurants, the LLTV and wire guidance is of little value even in the LOAL modes. This is further compounded by the need for the CLU to auto-refresh following the motor ignition when using man-in-the-loop. This was and remains a problem for IR (S)ACLOS systems, limiting the minimum firing range. This is mitigated if you have a good close range system such NLAW or AT-4 however. Due to the complexity of the seeker software, both are unlikely to be seduced by cruder IR jamming systems such as the Shtora series emitters, but both remain vulnerable to directed energy systems fitted to some of the more modern western vehicles and in limited number to T-90BVM2 or the new T-14. These can be hard kill systems but often are distractive, cooled seekers are more likely to be able to counteract this.
-range: again on paper MMP is a marginal winner by a up to a claimed 1000m, but this is a technical point. Range is dictated by the ability to use operational intelligence, surveillance, and direct observation. Using a 200000 Euro round for fire and see operation is unlikely, and almost certain to attract unwelcome attention. That said, if used by embedded mico-UAV operations it might be marginally better, using the UAV to fix a target and then allow the round to LOAL on a defiladed target. That said, such operations are time intensive and in reality rare. The ability of a fire team to prosecute such a mission under intense fire is in my opinion unlikely, unless they are under armour. Here MMP might be more comparable to Exactor or Brimstone, and could useful in the medium indirect anti-armour role. That said, guided indirect fires (such as Bonus or the Rafael anti-armour mortar round) fill this role, are easier to bring in mass, and are somewhat cheaper.
Given the majority if not totality of engagements for dismounted ATGM teams are going to be ambush/linear regressionary engagements, or targets of opportunity, any engagement range over 2Km is likely to be sufficient, especially Eurasian theatre. Occasionally, in ideal desert or arctic conditions, longer range engagements might be possible, but this works both ways. Certainly western doctrine was, and I believe still is to have defence in depth with overlapping linear and arcal fields of fire allowing a shoot’n’scoot type engagement. To do this, the first rounds are fired well within the no-escape zone of the system, making long range less important. The consensus is to hold as many vehicles in the field of fire, rather than allowing contact to be broken, reorganisation of the enemy, and the application of enemy indirect fire. As such, often the rear team is the range collimator in the engagement. In the case of older wire guided systems, often the rear team was at 1800m, the front teams firing at 1000m, the rounds often hitting the first vehicles at 800m due to flight times.
In some ways, speed is a more important factor. Here there appears to be a neglible advantage to Javelin (Mach 2+) vs MMP (no published source, but hinted to be Mach 1.5). This is important especially in a ballistic arc. The time for the engagement is shorter, there is more Ek in the terminal MIF, therefore less time for any APS to react. Currently our understanding of the APS on Russian and Chinese systems is poor, but they are thought to be more tailored for direct overflight or direct aim point engagements (Delaney, 2020). A ballistic attack might therefore be a better approach rather overly top-attack such as Bill-2/NLAW. However, the latter system seems to have done well in Ukraine defeating upgraded T72, T80, and T90 variants as confirmed by Oryx. Here Javelin with a higher speed is perhaps a better option.
Further to this, most tanks tend to carry a APFSDS round chambered, this is not a significant concern to an ATGM team. Therefore, a shorter MIF would allow the vehicle to be hit before the autoloader could cycle the round or if to be fired and a new HE round chambered (in the case of the 2A46, 6.5 seconds per cycle).
-warhead: this was interesting comparing the claimed effects. MMP makes comparable claims to Javelin with respect to penetration of RHA and hardened structures despite being 1.2 kg lighter than the new multipurpose effects warhead of Javelin, both using a tandem HEAT arrangement. That said, having examined a couple of videos in slow motion, MMP looks very similar to the Milan-2, producing a stable focused primary plasma jet and then a very controlled secondary, albeit better collateral distribution of fragmentation. The target is neutralized efficiently. The Javelin in my experience is unlike anything I have fired (with the exception of the LAW-80), simply devastating an armoured target, especially when hitting the top of the turret. I admit, there is very little data available online, but as a user I would take the big boy in this case.
-utility: MMP is fully 3.7 kg heavier for the launcher and round, but the rounds themselves are slightly lighter at 15kg, vs 15.9 for Javelin. Given that a 2 man fire team will likely carry a maximum of 3 rounds, this evens out. The real difference is in the utilization of the system. MMP is a tripod mounted system and cannot be shoulder fired. The set up time is marginal but not insignificant. A Javelin can be shouldered, initiated, target locked, and the round away in less than 7 seconds by an experienced operator. Tripod units are needed for ACLOS type engagements due to the increased need for stability, this takes time. Using MILAN-2, on average my ginners could get set up in 25 seconds from leaving a vehicle. I would assume this is similar to MMP. If the CLU is active in Javelin, there could be a second round fired before the MMP gets a shot away. I know to some, this might seem an insignificant factor, but in my experience, it is the most important. The ability to emerge from cover, get a round away and relocate is the only defence an ATGM team has. The enemy is likely to counter fire any firing point unless the tank or AFV is operating unsupported by infantry or indirect fires. Here Javelin is the clear winner.
Finally we come to future development and logistics. At the risk of sounding a Luddite, if it works, why change it (cue the SLR posse). Any new system requires a totally new training package, logistics footprint, and in the case of MoD, a new through life costing assessment. The latter is becoming increasingly important when the defence budget is shrinking and HM Treasury insisting this be followed. New lines mean less weapons. This is before we consider the long history of rolling upgrades the US programs follow. NIche European products often are world leading but fail to follow incremental upgrade pathways similar to US systems (for example the SM series of weapons, Tomahawk, and B52!). They are world leaders for a short period of time. In my opinion for such a utility weapon needed in large numbers, I would license produce Javelin here to protect UK jobs if you must but ideally buy off the shelf.
The experiences of Ukraine have showed, even in relatively untrained hands, Javelin can be used effectively with limited initial operational experience. More complex systems such as MMP do take time to train, integrate into ORBAT, and field effectively. In UK hands, there are numerous accounts of the Javelin being used in Herrick by troops untrained on the system to significant effect whilst under heavy fire, being a totally intuitive system. Whilst I acknowledge things have moved on considerably, using (S)ACLOS systems requires considerable training, limiting one of the key benefits claimed by MMP.

I appreciate I often am quite brief in my comments in the forum, but it does come from some level of experience, and even though I have had a complete career change, I still try to keep current on the salient systems and tactics (as evidenced above). I find some the comments levied a little distasteful and I would like to address them directly:

If you have to resort to "because I said so" and "don't you know who I am?", it's usually a sign that you don't have a very strong argument.

You don’t and won’t know who I am. Suffice it to say, I have some significant experience of the systems discussed above, their utilisation, and the practicalities of ATGM operations in contested environments.

“I fought a substantially weaker opponent with obsolete equipment twenty-odd year’s ago” doesn’t automatically give you the final word on more modern technology.

You are correct, I was a much younger man. That said, the opponents I trained to fight was the Second Guards Shock Army (or subsequent analogues), I would argue they were not weaker or obsolete. The opponents who I did fight were as well if not better equipped than us, in 2 cases considerably more numerous, and very highly motivated. The exact details are not relevant to this forum and are likely to be obscured for several years to come. That said, I am still here (as are my team), and they are not. Call that good judgement, training, or (most likely) luck if you will, personally I do not care.

“But everything takes a different shape when we pass from abstractions to reality. In the former, everything must be subject to optimism, and we must imagine the one side as well as the other striving after perfection and even attaining it. Will this ever take place in reality?”


Delaney V; https://mwi.westpoint.edu/on-killing-tanks/
Sen, V, et.al.; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles,/PMC6308595/
SMP 1985,1986, 1988, 1990; https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1120503
These users liked the author jimthelad for the post:
RunningStrong

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1376
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by new guy »

..... Damn.

User avatar
Ian Hall
Member
Posts: 625
Joined: 18 Jun 2023, 14:55
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by Ian Hall »

jimthelad wrote: 16 Jul 2023, 23:17 This is mitigated if you have a good close range system such NLAW or AT-4 however. Due to the complexity of the seeker software, both are unlikely to be seduced by cruder IR jamming systems such as the Shtora series emitters, but
I didn't know that NLAW or AT-4 had seekers. Can somebody confirm one way or the other?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1488
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Ian Hall wrote: 17 Jul 2023, 18:25 I didn't know that NLAW or AT-4 had seekers. Can somebody confirm one way or the other?
Neither have seekers.
The NLAW is guided to follow a flight path dictated by the position and movement of the launcher at and before launch. It also has a sensor to initiate the warhead as it passes over the target. Neither facility would count as a seeker.
AT-4 is purely ballistic.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
Ian Hall

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1488
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Javelin Anti-Tank Missile (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

jimthelad wrote: 16 Jul 2023, 23:17 You don’t and won’t know who I am.
That was rather my point.
On that basis it seems odd to base your argument on who you are.

Post Reply