America’s Javelin missile is second to none (2021)
nationalinterest.org
nationalinterest.org
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.
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-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.
But if we're picking anything, I'd also take a kamikaze drone. While they're ineffective against tanks directly, the logistical support and forward bases are very soft targets, and you could essentially make tanks impractical.
Just feel like a drone is a great psychological warfare weapon, you're never safe even behind your lines.
So what if I turn my country into a radioactive dump. It's my radioactive dump and you'll only get it over my dead body.
Javelins can be fired from inside a building, which'll be nice in close urban quarters.
I suppose it depends on the type of terrain, but it would be interesting to know some representative figures.
The only thing I've seen about the NLAW is a direct hit on the top turret of a Russian tank doing absolutely nothing.
> So most likely, the lucky tank was actually too close for the NLAW to work as intended.
Who knows how it works in practice.
NLAW - 40k Javelin - 80k missile + 140k launcher Stugna - 20k missile
???
A cheap tank cost upwards of a million dollars, while a javelin would cost in the low hundreds of thousands.
"Typically", a javelin costs at least 4x less than its targets. On average, I'd argue it's probably 8-10x cheaper.
Presumed they were used literally against tanks. But it makes sense to use against lightweight vehicles that pose somewhat similar threat against infantry.
Israel's Iron Dome system was and is criticized for its missiles costing far more than the rudimentary Palestinian projectiles they shoot down.
While true, the true measure is whether the Iron Dome missiles are worth more than the damage the Palestinian weapons would cause.
An actual war could quickly spiral out of control if third parties intervene, and the cost of that is far greater the attrition of using a missile defense that’s too good at its job.
This was not talking about their earlier uses vs. tanks, rather later targets when there were fewer tanks on the board.
Wikipedia cites unit costs of Javelin closer to $200,000 than $80,000.
Longer range + tripod + remote control seems safer for operators. The Javelin might be second to Stugna-P.
The Neptune might be another great weapon as well, for example, and they'll never be able to produce enough of them while at war.
It seems that producing only two already had a critical impact on the ongoing war.
I don't know why this is or if anyone cares, just thought I'd mention it
My suspicion is the YouTube channel is a content factory, where the guy narrates a published article over whatever military B-roll video they can find. I highly doubt it was reverse.
Still sorta useful. It's nice to see the actual weapon, and I doubt I'd ever normally read the article otherwise.
I've seen this with several YouTube channels with very generic military-sounding names. I hadn't realized/expected that the channels would just plagiarize existing articles, though!
That's going way too far. Lots of tanks around the world still don't have ERA, and ERA doesn't make tanks impervious anyway. You can put a lot of ERA panels on a T-72 but there will always be gaps.
Here's a YouTube video I recently stumbled over that expresses skepticism about their effectiveness in the current UKR/RU conflict.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT7mMm0d0aw
Since I have no knowledge of the topic, so I can't tell if he's credible or a crank. Anyone care to weigh in?
Here are three reputable Twitter accounts: @oryxspioenkop, @RALee85, @UAWeapons
This isn't a fragile laptop you can sell a hundred million copies of.
I wouldn't be surprised if the 'low volume' part of that statement can be revised a year from now.
They're being used up at a pretty fair clip right now; Ukraine has been provided 7,000 so far, which is about a third of the US inventory. Current production volume is only sufficient to replace those in a bit over a year, which is giving a few folks the heebie-jeebies, and who knows how many more will be sent, and whether there will be a push to enlarge the US stockpile.
So, current production volume is almost certain to be ramped up to replenish the inventory faster, and I would bet that at the same time production capacity will be modernized and ramped up even more (since it looks like when you need to use them, you may need to use them a lot), leading to the per-missile cost coming down, which of course may mean that they'll be handed out and deployed even more widely and used up even faster (per the Jevons paradox), which at some point even starts shortening the design iterations.
There's a reason the Commodore 64 remains the most popular personal computer ever sold: There was really only one model, and it sold millions. Even though the market has expanded hugely since the 80s, it has also fragmented, and no personal computer, not even the original iMacs, has ever reached that level of popularity since.
So, given that the production volume for Javelins may be doubled (at least, and potentially much more if they start being exported more freely), it isn't unreasonable to expect some cost savings.
They aren't cheap, but they aren't expensive for what they are.
If your goal is to just inflict large cost upon the occupiers until they get bored after a decade then ATGMs are great. If your plan involves routing them with a counter-attack ASAP you'll probably find them lacking.
Unit costs tend to be estimated by dividing the total amount of cash spent on a weapons program and divide it per deployment unit.
Let's put it this way: if you invest a million bucks on a R&D program for a donut factory and in the end you close shop after getting a single donut out of the program, that would mean that donut cost 1 million bucks to make.
In any case, the processes and diligence required are extensive which creates a huge barrier of entry. It creates an environment where it's much easier to go with a company that knows all of your requirements and compliance needs.
Like everyone, these procurement people are probably overworked and would rather pay a bit more to reduce their risk and handholding required. They're more likely to be personally blamed for failure of a new vendor, than one that's been used extensively. The upside is limited for them.
Is this bad? Well... allowing silicon valley to self-drive cars is about my upper tolerance. Space-X is getting there, so they're a good example of what's needed to succeed in that space.
If I am an operating force forced to deal with MBA’ers and politicians. I am requesting the NLAW.
But you seem to be saying that if they defend themselves, they do deserve to get invaded?
You seem to be following a very long-running fallacy that you can unilaterally opt-out of violence. Ordinary citizens in safe countries fortunately can opt-out, but only because others are in the business of war protecting us from the likes of Putin. Condemning those good warriors is perilous.