NationStates Jolt Archive

Blowtorch Anti-Tank Guided Missile

Description: This is the vehicle launched version of the FireEater anti-tank missile. HEAT and KE based missiles available.

Variant #1: HEAT based

Weight: 62 kilograms
Length: 1.9m
Diameter: 135mm
Range: 10500m
Seeker: Infrared rangefinder, optical rangefinder, laser rangefinder, laser based targeting unit, passive radar rangefinder.
Guidance: lock-on before launch, automatic self-guidance.
Warhead: Triple stage tandem HEAT warhead.
Propulsion: 2-stage solid propellant

Armor Piercing Abilities:
>2500mm RHA

Variant #2: KE based

Weight: 64 kilograms
Length: 1.9m
Diameter: 135mm
Range: 10500m
Seeker: Infrared rangefinder, optical rangefinder, laser rangefinder, laser based targeting unit, passive radar rangefinder, inertial guidance.
Guidance: lock-on before launch, automatic self-guidance.
Warhead: 30 kilogram depleted uranium penetrator.
Propulsion: 3-stage solid propellant

Armor Piercing Abilities:
Appr. 4000mm RHA.

Relevant Design Features:

*The missile itself doesn't provide the speed for the KE penetrator, an explosive charge within the missile itself propels the penetrator forward at high speeds right before impact.

*High manueverability: The missile itself has a small 3d thrust vectoring unit to allow extreme manueverability in conditions like woods or urban combat conditions.

*Dial a speed: Slows or quickens the missile depending on the obstacles involved. Automatic dial-a-speed, a default setting, slows the missile in areas with many obstacles and quickens it in areas with few obstacles.

*Hard to jam: Triple layered encryption from the reception unit prevents easy jamming of the missile from systems like the Shortstop system. Also, the core flight modules are EMP hardened so the missile will fly on even if the external peripherals are fried.

*Hard to shoot down: Ceramic nose covered with metal resists heating by lasers, reflects microwaves, and deflects many types of bullets.

*Dual Mode top or straight ahead attack.

Cost: $25,000 per missile.
Procduction Rights: $3.5 billion (Free for Generic Empire, Pushka and Space Union)

(MassPwnage, I don't think a tank shell can go through 4000mm RHA... so what makes you think a handheld rocket can?)

(MassPwnage, I don't think a tank shell can go through 4000mm RHA... so what makes you think a handheld rocket can?)
OOC: Most modern HEAT-based ATGMs from what I can recall, can only penetrate around 1000mm of armour, and a bit less with ERA. The figure for the HEAT-based variant I believe is a bit exaggerated, and I don't know how this KE variant is going to have a 4000mm penetration value (considering that few if any tank guns have that type of penetration with DU or other penetrators). I also don't know about this 3-stage rocket engine as I have no idea of why you would even use multiple stages, and the hybrid liquid-solid fuel seems a bit weird as well...

Some questions. What's the speed of this, and how are you going to target the missile manually to make full use of its 10km range?

ooc: this is a vehicle launched weapon. The speed is irrelevant as the 3rd stage of the rocket booster blows the KE shell at high speed into the target. The KE penetrator is also about 60% heavier than a 120mm penetrator, and moves much faster.

The missile is fire and forget, no need for manual guidance.

ooc: holy hell, the missile's too light, hold on.

[OOC: I think that the idea behind any anti-tank missile is that it aims for the top armor. Regardless of its penetration values of RHA any tank is going to get pierced by a heavy ATGM. I've seen the Javaline go through a T-80 on the Military Channel, so I believe it.

Just to clear up any concerngs given by TIoR or Omz222. In other words, does it really matter? Either way, it's going to penetrate through a tank.]

ooc: there I made the missile almost as heavy as the LOSAT to maintain realism.

Right...well, I see some issues with this.

First, penetration. Four thousand millimetres of steel is a lot of steel. No modern HEAT-based ATGM, short of perhaps the Kh-29 (which is in fact a tactical ASM) is able to penetrate so much armour. Moreover, as Omz rightly cites, most modern tank guns can't go through that. Even the long-barrelled 2A45 Rapira, one of the best ATGs in existence, would have a damn hard time penetrating that much armour at any range using any shell. As well as that, I've said time and again that a kinetic-energy ATGM is simply a monumentally bad idea. ATGMs, unless powered by an obscenely powerful (and large) rocket motor or an SCramjet, are slow, and more than likely to pretty much bounce off any modern tank (say, any tank manufactured after 1973); and even if you CAN make them move quickly enough to be useful in such a role, the thermal stresses of flight, let alone the stresses on the missile if it changed course, would likely be intolerable. Bear in mind also that you might end up with an ATGM which costs not much amount less than the tank it's aimed at. To achieve 2,500 penetration with a HEAT warhead will require a big warhead, of the size you'd get on something like the Kh-29 or similar, and certainly considerably larger than can be practically accommodated on any portable ATGM system (and I'm generously electing to include ATGMs such as the AT-13 in my definition of "portable). Such a warhead would be cumbersome and the missile carrying it would be large and slow.

Second, guidance. If you're going to have this thing guide itself, it's going to be big, the size of something like the Hellfire (which is actually SALH as I recall) or the AT-X-16; not suitable, in other words, for carriage by men. In addition, the guidance system is going to be very susceptible to damage (infantry live in mud remember) and in any case, in order to be self-guided the missile must have its own sensors, which are not mentioned here. Furthermore, pre-launch locking would require a targeting computer system (again large and vulnerable to damage) which is entirely pointless on a portable ATGM. The whole idea of portable ATGMs is that they're simple, cheap, and used in large numbers. There's no need to give it its own guidance and a range of 10 kilometres, because there is no way that your forces should be having to use infantry ATGMs at such a range; bear in mind also that even a fast ATGM such as the 9M114M (which covers 450m/s) would require about 25 seconds to cover such a range, ample time for a tank to react.

Third, propulsion. If you're using a mixed solid and liquid fuel in the same combustion chamber and stored in the same tanks, it's an interesting idea but I can't see any particular utility to have a fuel with the consistency of mud. If you're using liquid fuel in an ATGM, you're out of your mind. ATGMs have to be rugged and reliable, neither of which are attributes of liquid-fuelled missiles. Liquid fuels are hard to store, extremely sensitive to temperature changes and impurities within the fuel, and can only be kept within their missiles for a few hours at a time due to their highly corrosive nature. Unless your AT infantry can lug about a pressurised tank lined with sythetic rubber or similar to hold the fuel and miraculously receive about two hours' warning from the enemy prior to the approach of tanks, liquid fuels are a no-no.

Fourth, design features. Again, a lot of icing here which does little to improve the cake. It's exceedingly unlikely that you'll ever need a missile that could follow a dogfighting jet to attack a tank. It's equally unlikely that you'll ever need a missile that can slow itself down according to the surrounding terrain (which incidentally implies the presence of TFR or some similar system, in order to scan the terrain in the area and compute necessary speeds). And why on earth would you ever need a missile that can survive an EMP attack which will likely knock out everything else in the vicinity, including the launchers and the target? Why even have a command guidance system for a portable ATGM? Do you want your men lugging about something the size of the Falanga guidance pod on the Mi-24V? And why, for that matter, would you increase the already heavy load they'll have on their backs by providing the missile with an armoured warhead?

In all honesty, it's a good ATGM in the making (albeit with some stat issues), but there are a number of ideas suggested by its design which are, as far as I can see, emphatically wrong tactically.

Macabees...top-attack is a panacaea I see far too much of on NS. Everyone simply says "oh well, my missile's a top-attack weapon" and assumes that this will solve the problems, which it won't. The fact is, you won't always be able to attack the top of the tank. There will be occasions when using a top-attack missile will be extremely difficult, be it due to countermeasures on the tank, or due to problems with the missile itself. Blithely assuming that top-attack missiles are somehow a miracle weapon which can be relied upon to consistently achieve results is a very bad idea.

Macabees...top-attack is a panacaea I see far too much of on NS. Everyone simply says "oh well, my missile's a top-attack weapon" and assumes that this will solve the problems, which it won't. The fact is, you won't always be able to attack the top of the tank. There will be occasions when using a top-attack missile will be extremely difficult, be it due to countermeasures on the tank, or due to problems with the missile itself. Blithely assuming that top-attack missiles are somehow a miracle weapon which can be relied upon to consistently achieve results is a very bad idea.

[OOC: As far as I know, 'fire and forget' weapons, such as the Javaline, are designed to pick up altitude and then descend in a final stage on the top armor of the tank. It's just the missiles flight path - not by the deeds of the operator. Regardless, a side-attack missile, or a missile with a straight path, stands the same exact chance of being knocked out as a top-attack missile. Either way you're not guaranteed a kill, however, in terms of anti-tank missiles, top-attack would be the best choice.]

Not necessarily true. The principles at work at sea are increasingly applying with tanks (which I find appropriate, given their origin); a sea-skimming, high-speed missile is probably less likely to be intercepted than a higher-flying missile simply due to the difficulty of clutter at low altitude and the resultant lower reaction time for the shipborne (or in this case tank) countermeasures systems. If your ATGM is approaching a tank from a high altitude (say about 50m) it will be more easily detected than an ATGM hugging the ground, maybe 2 or 3 metres above it, and more easily countermeasured, unless in my absence radar/LADAR/pretty much any active sensor system has suddenly reversed its usual propensities and now has the greatest difficulty detecting targets flying in the open air. Now by no means does that mean that a missile which flies high and dives at high speed is going to be useless, but in my opinion it will have badly diminisged effectiveness if the enemy's armour is able to put up any sort of countermeasures against ATGMs.

Not necessarily true. The principles at work at sea are increasingly applying with tanks (which I find appropriate, given their origin); a sea-skimming, high-speed missile is probably less likely to be intercepted than a higher-flying missile simply due to the difficulty of clutter at low altitude and the resultant lower reaction time for the shipborne (or in this case tank) countermeasures systems. If your ATGM is approaching a tank from a high altitude (say about 50m) it will be more easily detected than an ATGM hugging the ground, maybe 2 or 3 metres above it, and more easily countermeasured, unless in my absence radar/LADAR/pretty much any active sensor system has suddenly reversed its usual propensities and now has the greatest difficulty detecting targets flying in the open air. Now by no means does that mean that a missile which flies high and dives at high speed is going to be useless, but in my opinion it will have badly diminisged effectiveness if the enemy's armour is able to put up any sort of countermeasures against ATGMs.

[OOC: Nonetheless, the idea many people have been trying to get here, is that a modern ATGM just won't penetrate 2,000mms+ (which I happen to disagree with). It is to say, even if that missile isn't detected - and I assure you that in a role play it will be detected some form or another, just because RPers don't like loosing tanks, and there's always some theoritical way to detect it that happens to be work 100% of the time :p - the question remains; will it penetrate through NationStates side armor? The response to that, would be no. Why? Because NationStates tank seem to have 2,000+ RHA on the side - and if the argument that ATGMs cannot penetrate that stands, then the fact is that the ATGM sea-skimming may not be shot down, but it won't penetrate through the side armor of the tank anyways. Consequently, in the end, although it stands a higher chance of being shot down, a top attack missile can at least penetrate through the tank's top armor.]

Negative DPUO.

Even the 18 lb. Kornet E can penetrate 1200mm RHA, if anything, this 60kg missile should penetrate even more RHA than it currently does. And the British Starstreak ATGM is faster than the ATGM you described, and this missile is faster than the Starstreak. I should note that this missile is dual mode, top and straight penetration.

Hmm...well, I don't agree with that particular piece of military theory for one moment, but I can see the idea behind it. Incidentally, the wanked MT NS tanks have 2,000+mm side armour; the tanks which have been designed with some attention to reality, such as mine, tend to have realistic armour values (well, I hope so anyway ;)) which an ATGM can penetrate. Meanwhile, I've installed a potent countermeasures suite to deal with threats from all angles attacking the tank, including top-attacking weapons. Thus, attacking my AFVs with swarms of top-attack ATGMs would be far less likely to be successful than attacking from the sides with swarms of side-attacking ATGMs; still, I suppose I'm in a minority in designing tanks which are actually practical weapons and not merely repeats of the A7V or E-1000. Anyway, as I said, don't agree with your doctrine, but that's life I guess.

Negative DPUO.

Even the 18 lb. Kornet E can penetrate 1200mm RHA, if anything, this 60kg missile should penetrate even more RHA than it currently does. And the British Starstreak ATGM is faster than the ATGM you described, and this missile is faster than the Starstreak. I should note that this missile is dual mode, top and straight penetration.

I should point out that the figure of 1,200mm RHA is quoted by the manufacturing company, and was doubtless attained under idealised test conditions; I should also add that the Kornet is NOT a shoulder-launched ATGM, and in fact requires a three-man crew to operate it with the addition of a launching stand. Also, there is no way on earth that this missile will have a 60-kilo warhead, and yet attain an extremely high speed and a very long range. Incidentally, you didn't actually put any speed in, and I still fail to see how you're going to get this missile to a speed in excess of Mach 5 or so in order to attain that penetration, yet retain its size or for that matter its ability to do any sort of manoeuvring.

Anyway, I'm getting tired and bed beckons, so rather than persist in this (which will doubtless manage to spin itself out into the wee small hours) I'm retiring. Night.

Below are links to some info on the Starstreak missile. While its guidance isn't self contained, notice how each individual dart is guided seperately, this says to me that guidance systems can be made very small. Now the weight is interesting, because the Starstreak is quite wider but shorter, but weighs only 14kg(!!?), although it is also not man portable except by stand(and in your I seriously doubt any infantry would lug around something nearly 7ft long that weighs over 130lbs). The starstreak can achieve similar speeds using 2 solid boosters(I dont know why you'd bother with 3), and if you want an exotic fuel, why not try gel or making an air-breathing rocket? The special features I would ditch for the most part, it will never be maneuverable at these speeds and it probably wont have to be, the variable speed is only possible with liquid/gel or hybrid fuels which you might want to dump, the armored nose just wont work, and having a top attack mode would require a different warhead.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/starstreak/
http://www.deagel.com/pandora/?p=mn00110001

I'm not sure you could get it as high as 4000, but a missile like the starstreak with a single penetrator or warhead would be pretty lethal.

Starstreak is a small missile, an SAM that was converted into a moderately effective light ATGM. Starstreak is indeed extremely fast and man-portable, but it weighs a mere 20Kg and has armour penetration closer to 1,000mm than to 2,500mm, let alone the outlandish 4,000mm of this design.

What this boils down to is this: EITHER you can have a large, heavy missile with a large warhead which has a long range and a high RHA penetration value, OR you can have a small, portable and light missile with a shorter range and inferior penetration. A small, lightweight, portable missile cannot, as all prior experience shows, mount a warhead sufficiently large to achieve a very high penetration rating, and cannot achieve a long range; similarly, a large, long-ranged missile with such a warhead simply cannot be portable, unless your infantry happen to like carrying missiles taller than themselves on their backs. You're trying to make an über-missile here, and it's simply not going to work; you have to compromise, be that by trading compactness for range and payload, or payload for range, or range for compactness (like the RPG series).

ok, again:
THIS IS A VEHICLE LAUNCHED WEAPON.

The weapon itself is based off this thing (which can probably easily pierce 3000mm RHA)

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/losat/

The KE missile is based off the LOSAT. And the Starstreak has 1000mm penetration PER DART. If the darts were combined into 1 single big dart, the penetration would be significantly higher.

The HEAT version can pierce 2500mm+ RHA because the warhead is significantly larger than anything else available.

As I understand it, the size of the dart doesn't affect penetration, but speed. A bigger dart would theoretically give you better range and accuracy at the same speed, but that isn't the issue. Regardless, I don't see the usefulness in a vehicle mounted missile almost as long as most light vehicles, nor do I see how you intend to have a missile negotiate dense tree coverage or street corners whilst maintaining a speed adequate to keep it in the air, nor do I see how it would be able to change speed without using liquid propellant (which as DPUO says is impractical for this application), nor do I see the point in a ceramic nose-cone to protect against projectiles which would just knock the thing of course even if they don't destroy it.

What affects penetration is kinetic energy. Let's visit our friend, the equation KE=1/2mv^2. A bigger dart will add mass to the dart, thus increasing the kinetic energy. Hell, the LOSAT depends almost entirely on mass (it weighs 80kg) to penetrate armor.

And a quick demonstration of the corner turning principle:

x

oooooooo
oooooooooo U
ooooooooooo
oooooooo
ooooo
oooooo

x

The "o"s are an obstacle, say a building, or a cliff.
The xs are 2 vehicles. One of them is the vehicle that carries the missile.
The U is an observation unit, maybe a UAV or something.

The UAV signals the the location to the missile launching vehicle, which then fires around or over the obstacle to destroy the other vehicle. This eliminates the need for line of sight when firing missiles.

OOC:A smaller dart however will allow for a higher velocity meaning you can achieve equivalent penetration from a higher speed smaller diameter dart. For example useing the equation for KE alone you can see youll need quite a bit of mass to increase the KE (as only half the mass is counted in) but the velocity is squared. Therefore a smaller dart with a higher velocity will generate higher KE with higher efficency, compared to useing larger penetrator.

Praetonia is correct; Mass isnt everything, Velocity is.

As has been noted, increasning mass does not have that much affect on kinetic energy, and even less on penetration. If you look at the statistics, an 80 kg LOSAT missile flies at close to the same speed as a 120mm APFSDS round, and with similar penetration. Clearly, just adding weight isn't going to help. In fact, one must think of the LOSAT as little more than an APFSDS round without the gun. The "warhead" of the missile is the same as a SABOT penetrator - a solid metal rod. The rest of the missile is just an engine to get it up to speed and fuel to keep it going.

Looking at the stats here, this missile is about 2/3 the length of a LOSAT, 4/5 the diameter, 3/4 the weight, with 2 1/2 times the range, and about 4-5 times the penetration. This is obviously not very well based on the existing missile. Even with accepted technological improvements in propulsion, there is simply no provision in it for the extreme range coupled with the velocity needed for that kind of penetration. You don't even have space for a sufficient engine.

For that kind of penetration, the weapon will literally have to be hypersonic. However, for that, it's only a fraction of the size needed (you need a huge engine and a heck of a lot of fuel - hypersonic flight at sea level can't be sustained for long). Making it hypersonic will also preclude any real maneuvering. At that speed and altitude, the stresses caused by even a slight shift will destroy the missile. The resulting missile would actually have to be several times the size and weight, which is why such weapons aren't around right now.
For the HEAT warhead, it's a similar thing. Most of the increased space on larger ATGMs goes to the fuel and guidance. The big weapons like the Hellfire and Ataka aren't much more powerful than the little ones fired by infantry. They just strike at a better angle (helicopters can easily get shots at the top, sides, and rear, while infantry might not be able to). The missile's diameter is also too small for it to have a HEAT warhead capable of even half that penetration. While overall weight and size are a factor, diameter is important for HEAT rounds, which is why penetration of tank-fired rounds has not improved significantly over that past few decades, while the capability of APFSDS has grown by leaps and bounds.

The warhead is also way too big in both variants. I challenge you to find a single heavy ATGM with half its weight in the warhead and a range of more than a few hundred meters. They don't exist. There are some that can do decent range with 25% of the weight in the warhead, but these are all transsonic (Mach 0.9-1.4).



Final note: just because so many NS tanks are completely wanked, doesn't mean you have to follow suit. Simply stand firm about not accepting it in your RPs. On the other hand, if you wank your own tech, you'll be ignored by many, and many others will force you to downgrade your stuff before accepting you. I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be the one in control.

I'll lower the penetration etc. later when i have a bit more time to think about that and the redesign of this missile.

But tell me if the close range charge that blows the penetrator into the target at close range is possible or not?

I just caught my own mistake
This missile is entirely vehicle launched.
Sorry about the confusion i caused you all.

I'll lower the penetration etc. later when i have a bit more time to think about that and the redesign of this missile.

But tell me if the close range charge that blows the penetrator into the target at close range is possible or not?
Actually, I was waiting for that to be brought up. ;)

You see, this method actually isn't that effective. It's a common misconception, but all that it will do is accelerate the penetrator to a set velocity, completely independant of the speed of the missile. Launching speed is only relevant for range of a missile (the faster it's going when launched, the less it needs to accelerate to reach speed, saving fuel), and for ramjet and scramjet engines (need speed to initialize). Beyond those applications, there is nothing to be gained. In fact, the system is actually counterproductive. The space required for that could be used to provide a better engine and more fuel, and there's one more thing: if the booster doesn't accelerate the penetrator beyond the speed of the missile quickly enough, the missile will catch up, and will knock the penetrator off course!
Another problem would be the fact that the penetrator will need time to accelerate to maximum velocity, which means air density may have a much more important role in capability than you'll want.

No, the missile couldn't crash into the penetrator, because the penetrator is already moving at the speed of the missile when the booster speeds it up even more. Common misconception there.

This is giving me a headache...
Why don't we just live in peace?

No, the missile couldn't crash into the penetrator, because the penetrator is already moving at the speed of the missile when the booster speeds it up even more. Common misconception there.
Bah, you're right. Just not thinking clearly (I really shouldn't be making posts less than 10 minutes after waking up . . . ). Though with certain methods of separating the two, that could still happen.

Blowtorch Anti-Tank Guided Missile (ooc: 2nd version)

Description: This is the vehicle launched version of the FireEater anti-tank missile.

Long Range Variant:

Weight: 53 kilograms
Length: 1.8m
Diameter: 205mm
Range: 10500m
Seeker: Infrared rangefinder, optical rangefinder, laser rangefinder, laser based targeting unit, passive radar rangefinder.
Guidance: lock-on before launch, automatic self-guidance.
Warhead: Triple stage HEAT warhead.
Propulsion: 2-stage solid propellant.
Speed: Mach 0.5-3

Armor Piercing Abilities:
ERA+1500mm RHA

Design Notes:

*Totally Fire and Forget. Just lock on and fire.

*Can recieve targeting coordinates from observation units.

*3 stage HEAT warhead for defeating ELERA.

*Thrust vectoring unit for manuevering around obstacles.

*Dial a velocity mode (the slower the missile, the more it can manuever)

Cost: $20,000 per missile.
Procduction Rights: $3.5 billion (Free for Generic Empire, Pushka and Space Union).

Okay, one last important thing:

You don't sell advanced ATGMs for $20,000. If you look at the prices, modern missiles easily go for $50,000 or more, even the Russian and Chinese ones. Just look at Syria, which purchased 1000 Kornet-E missiles (with 50 launchers) for $65 million. That's certainly not cheap, and those are much smaller and lighter than this)
With the size and complexity of this missile, I'd estimate a price range of at least $90-120,000 per weapon.

well, this is NS, at the costs you suggest, using ATGMs on tanks is more or less not cost effective, because it takes around 10-20 ATGMs per kill on NS, which makes ATGMs cost almost as much as the tank its killing.

I wish to purchase production rights ($3.5 billion), plus purchase 10,000,000 of these missiles for $250,000,000,000. The grand total, $253,500,000,000, will be wired upon confirmation.

-Minister of Commerce Christine Peralta

Confirmed.

ooc: CSJ, i'm gonna sell these at a loss deliberately, because most people go for production rights anyway.

bumP!

SIC:

We're gonna need 50,000 of these for USD$1,000,000. Those Yakuza Mofos are pissin' us off.

Dragon Tang
Godfather (ooc: not sure of real Triad title)
Jade Sword Triad

Confirmed.

"Catfish wishes to buy 2,000 to provide protection against an enemy tank attack."

Feline Catfish

Confirmed.