NationStates Jolt Archive

http://home.hiwaay.net/~sickler/opforstuff/vids/JavelinLiveFireVsT72.mpg

Very cool stuff. At $125,000 a pop, these things better pack that kind of punch!

$125,000? I guess it's worth it. A huge improvement over LAW

Definitly would not want to be anywhere near that thing when it goes off. Tanks are fucked.

this test was conducted in 2002. The T-72 was loaded with a half tank of fuel and "representative" ammunition (explosives). The plasma jet passed drirectly through the ammunition storage area resulting in the catastrophic explosion you see in the video.

The javelin isn't a replacement to the LAW. the SMAW-D replaced LAW in Marine inventories. Javelin provides company anti-armor protection out to 3 kms.

the 125k price tag was based on initial purchase orders. After the success of javelin in Iraq, the cost is now considerably lower.

Correct.

I wonder what the Javelin could do to a T-99 or even an Abrams.....

Excellent.

Looks a little bulky for infantry use though, does it get mounted on Humvee?

Excellent.

Looks a little bulky for infantry use though, does it get mounted on Humvee?
Nope, you carry it.

whew, crazy rocket...

Well, I don't know how the penetration would be on the Chobham armor of the Abrams, but I'd assume a good penetration on the T-90 (which I believe uses Reactive Armor), as the jet would puncture the disrupting explosives.

Beh, just my $0.02.

Wow

Nope, you carry it.

One more reason not to enlist.

How many missiles would a GI be able to carry into battle?

heh...SWEET! I know what I want for Christmas now :D

One more reason not to enlist.

How many missiles would a GI be able to carry into battle?
They're not issued to everyone. Infantry isn't really intended to kill tanks. That's what our airpower and armor are for.

bloody sweet! That is one of the most impressive pieces of kit i've seen in a while. I want one.

Impressive. Especially if it really carries the kind of firepower you're describing. But wouldn't it be more useful for smaller, defensive situations; Infantry trying to hold a position, as opposed to an assault? It looks alot like something you'd use if you were the guys getting pwned, not the other way around.

Infantry, with such weapons, can effectively counter armour, which is why armour tends not to go too far forward without infantry support. Mind, the infantry is mainly used to take out other infantry and hold ground.

You pull the armour into a killing field and beat the buggery fuck out of them, like the Germans did to the British with their 88s in the desert campaigns of the Second World War. You'd probably be using attack helicopters and artillery for that, but infantry can perform a similar function with such weapons if necessary.

Ah. Makes sense now. :Feels enlightened:

Seriously, WHO THE FUCK CARES?

They're not issued to everyone. Infantry isn't really intended to kill tanks. That's what our airpower and armor are for.

if it packs that much punch and is portable it looks ideal for urban or jungle warfare where US tanks are at a disadvantage against dug in enemy armour.

Well, I don't know how the penetration would be on the Chobham armor of the Abrams, but I'd assume a good penetration on the T-90 (which I believe uses Reactive Armor), as the jet would puncture the disrupting explosives.

Beh, just my $0.02.

I am not a tank expert but don't tanks ussually have the thickest armour on the front? It looks like that missile just smashed through the top of the tank's turret where it would I assume be thin. I would assume that would destroy any tank. By the way haven't more than a few Abrams tanks been destroyed by mere RPG's in Iraq? I always am seeing footage of abadoned burning M-1's on the news about Iraq but maybe they were destroyed by mines or ieds.

I am not a tank expert but don't tanks ussually have the thickest armour on the front? It looks like that missile just smashed through the top of the tank's turret where it would I assume be thin. I would assume that would destroy any tank. By the way haven't more than a few Abrams tanks been destroyed by mere RPG's in Iraq? I always am seeing footage of abadoned burning M-1's on the news about Iraq but maybe they were destroyed by mines or ieds.
Many modern anti-tank rockets are programmed to attack tanks from the top, where the armor is thin.

By the way haven't more than a few Abrams tanks been destroyed by mere RPG's in Iraq? I always am seeing footage of abadoned burning M-1's on the news about Iraq but maybe they were destroyed by mines or ieds.

I had heard somewhere that the Russians have delevoped a plasma jet round for the RPG, some may have been trialled in Iraq?

I had heard somewhere that the Russians have delevoped a plasma jet round for the RPG, some may have been trialled in Iraq?
I think it's the RPG-29. Yes, it has been used in Iraq.

at my last job i worked on the cryostats for these missiles saw many videos on this

I think it's the RPG-29. Yes, it has been used in Iraq.

Hey look a little article on the new russian rpgs, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1015266/posts

oh yeah any question just ask i may know the answer

RPG-29 pics and info
strategypage.com/search.asp?target=d:/inetpub/strategypageroot/gallery/docs/military_photos_2004614.htm&search=RPG-29

RPG-29 pics and info
strategypage.com/search.asp?target=d:/inetpub/strategypageroot/gallery/docs/military_photos_2004614.htm

Those russians! They would sell their own grandmothers to 3rd world dictators to be used for target pactice!

The US DoD is currently developing or has recently developed a number of anti-tank technologies which are extreme overkill against anything the US Armed Forces are likely to face in the foreseeable future. At least the Javelin is somewhat useful, being less or equally bulky as the TOW-2A/2B, not necessarily much more expensive, and certainly have a lot more potential in the MBT-busting sector.

Compare with the LOSAT (http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/losat.htm) system...

The Kinetic Energy Missile weighs 174 pounds, is 113 inches long and 6.4 inches in diameter. The current system provides for a three-man crew, but a crew of two can also conduct engagements. With a missile speed of 5,000 feet per second, it reaches maximum range in less than five seconds. The LOSAT missile is a hit-to-kill missile with no explosive warhead. It carries a long-rod penetrator and destroys the target through the application of brute force.

The key advantages of the LOSAT are the tremendous overmatch lethality of the KEM, which defeats all predicted future armored combat vehicles, and its deployability.
Silly Quote function on this board, and a particularly screwed up auto-url-linky-thingie.

Seriously, WHO THE FUCK CARES?


Then.....STOP POSTING!!!!

oh yeah any question just ask i may know the answer

Is it a fire and forget weapon?

How many GI are required to operate it?

If you freeze the frame at around the 24 second mark, you can see the Javelin entering the tank, and a plasma jet at the bottom of a tank. Its blue.

Pretty cool...but I still would rather have an A-10 spitting Depleted Uranium slugs.

Pretty cool...but I still would rather have an A-10 spitting Depleted Uranium slugs.
A-10s rule! There were some times I wish we had them in Vietnam. Sigh.

Is it a fire and forget weapon?

How many GI are required to operate it?
More actual data on the Javelin can be found here (http://globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/javelin.htm). The missile is indeed fire-and-forget, which is its main strong point and should probably have been mentioned earlier. This means serving as an ATGM crewman might no longer be a suicide job when fighting modern MBTs. The same page says the launcher has a crew of two, although I would assume you can set up and fire the thing on your own -- lugging around the missiles and reloading, maybe not.