How Russia’s Kornet Missile Launcher Works
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 มิ.ย. 2022
- Video Sponsored by Ridge Wallet:
www.ridge.com/TASKANDPURPOSE
Use Code “TASK” for 10% off your order
Russia claims their most advanced anti tank missile system, the 9M133 Kornet is capable of taking out any main battle tank with a single shot. It’s a man portable Anti Tank Guided Missile which was designed specifically to take out NATO’s Main Battle Tanks and for a period of time it made Russia the most technologically advanced anti tank forces in the world. In the 2014 invasion of Crimea the Kornets destroyed hundreds of Ukrainian tanks in its first wide spread use so you can understand why Russia thought they were headed in the right direction with this weapon. But we’ll see things change quickly on the battlefield. On paper the Kornets looks like the weapon you would want to take into combat but as we’ll see those numbers don’t always match up with the practical realities of using it in the heat of combat.
Recently the Kornet has seen extensive use by Russian forces in the Ukraine Invasion where they say it out matches both the US Javelin and the British NLAW missile. In this video we’re going to examine whether or not that’s true. Can you blame me for being just a little bit skeptical here? Some sources refer to it as a 2nd generation while others will say it's the third generation. I feel like its more accurate to call it generation 2.5 honestly. I think the reason for this discrepancy is it’s kind of half way between the two since it's not wire guided, it has a newer laser guided ability but it still lacks an automatic lock on homing feature.
The Kornet is also known as the AT-14 Springgar according to its NATO designation. Springgar is of course as we all know a reference to a legendary creature from Cornish Fairy lore. I assume the NATO officer who came up with that name wanted to show off their obscure pretentious European fairy knowledge. Someone promote that guy.
Follow Chris Cappy: / cappyarmy
email for inquiries: april.wilhelm@teamrecurrent.io - บันเทิง
Correction javelin velocity is 583 m/s Sponsor Ridge Wallet: www.ridge.com/TASKANDPURPOSE
Use Code “TASK” for 10% off your order. It's worth investing in a wallet that will last you a lifetime guys!
I've seen the higher number several times, I suspect it's coming from confusion with British Javelin SAM.
So the REAL reason US TOWS went to laser guidance...the factory that MADE the wire went out of business. We only bought so many missiles & weren't shooting them so didn't need more. And newer TOWS are tandem warheads so only need one missiles to kill.
Russia lying? Psssssh, I think you mean telling the absolute truth as always. /s
Potato patato. Pretty much.
A wallet that's going to last a lifetime? Imagine the stench!
This system really isn’t the same type as the javelin. The javelin system’ weighs 24 kg (54lb) while the koronet system weighs 63kg. (138lb). A single person can barely carry a javelin all day, but nobody is going to be running around with a koronet missile. They aren’t analogous systems. It would be like comparing a saw machine gun to a browning 50 cal.
we gotta make a video about something....
RPG-28,
Kornets are carried by teams it's like comparing a M249 to a m240
More comparable to a tow missile system
@@ninjavlad9721 With Ammo and spare barrels. Might not be THAT heavy, but it is when everything else is added.
Also, it's reasonable to figure that an invading army has to pack heavier than those defending their own land, or you get things like cold hungry attackers, something that seriously degrades numerical advantages and such.
I feel like comparing the Kornet to a Javelin system is like comparing a heavy machine gun system to an LMG. Javelins and NLAWs are easily transported and quickly ready to be used, while the Kornet is more of an emplacement weapon.
Yeah Most True but don’t forget it’s also very fast to Built up
But the weight and Portability is a huge different
@@hermelnderhans well, 29 kg vs Javelins 12 kg..., more like 63 kg with launching system. Its more like comparing F-16 with B-52, totally different class
@@petrsafranek5725 as is meant the Huge different is weight and mobility but Not Building up and Fire.
And no you are Comparing Strategic bombers with Fighters 😂 thats far away from Each other
Джавелин стоит в 10 мать его раз дороже
Something I'm wondering about is how on earth the FOF on the javelin (friend or foe) system is working in Ukraine with them and the Russians using so many similar weapons or if its just disabled?
From what I've read, they were pretty successful in Syria - I believe they took out quite a few Turkish Leopard II tanks. I think the type of warfare and topography has to be ideal for nearly any type of small to medium anti-tank missile.
The Turks were also terrible in their tactical employment of their Leopards.
@@nobodynoname6062 yeah dude, everything russia made is terrible, if that weapon successful that mean tank driver terrible employment. but everything US made is god mode, it doesn't matter tank driver is pro, really pro and expert in tank weapon still successful. same with this video, everything russia made is copy from US.😂.. but this not propaganda video, because only Russia know about propaganda other country especially US never use propaganda video 🤣
@@talkbigdosmall3192 Man, learn to make yourself understood in English. Russia is a fucking developing country. Them idiots have ten times the fucking casualties in Ukraine that the US had in Iraq. So think again, if you're capable of it.
Turkey also doesn't have any 2a6 or 2a7 variants with up armored turrets
@@talkbigdosmall3192 lol the entire us space programm is an copy of soviet one even the engine
The Kornet E was used by the Hezbollah in the 2006 war with Israel. Around 52 merkava tanks were reportedly knocked out by these systems. These were used in conjunction with guerrilla tactics, so that may account for the high kill rate.
Hezbullah only had a few hundred Kornet missiles, at most. They used Konkur missiles and RPG-29s as well. So far, there isn't any publicly released data on how many Merkava tanks were knocked out with what type of rocket/missile either
@@AHalz there was data when the conflict happened. I have read it
@@ahafeel can you please post that? I'm quite curious
Not true at all, very few merkava tanks have been knocked out and it is mostly done by land mine.
52 tank were hit. Only five were destroyed. A few were knocked out and has returned to service after the war.
Kornet more or less like a TOW more than the Javelin. The Kornet was effectively deployed against the IDF by the Hizbollah in southern Lebanon where the Israelis lost some Merkavas and other armoured vehicles. The Kornet ATGM should not be underestimated.
Only against Merkeva IIIs. They didn't actually manage to destroy any Merkeva IVs, which have Trophy that can knock out incoming missiles. US Abrams, UK Challengers, and German Leopards all are in the process of being updated with Trophy.
They are made by the badguys therefore they are inferior.
Citizen please report to your local homeland security advisor for further clarification of facts.
@@reufuraque8771 No, they aren't inferior and will still kill virtually any tank that doesn't have an APS specifically designed to counter that type of threat. Unfortunately for Russia, most of Israel's enemies get weapons from them, and so Israel was motivated to develop a countermeasure that could kill their best offense, and then this countermeasure was propagated to a couple of Israel's allies, who happen to be the main adversaries of Russia.
@@theprogressivecynic2407 We've only seen it kill tanks that have half the armor of a modern day Abrams.
The ones we sell to Iraq are deliberately shit on purpose.
@@theprogressivecynic2407 Dude I thought my sarcasm was evident. Yeah my country still fields rpg-2,4,7s we would never underestimate something like the kornet.
This missile is more in the class of the TOW missile in size, range and effectiveness.
Russia has made in limit a top attack weapon more comparable to javelin than kornet to it. That top attack weapon is more like a trap. It works at very limited range.
@@76456 What you're talking about is probably ptkm-1 anti-tank/vehicle mine. It has range of max 100m making it one of best mines... but its nowhere close to range of Javelin, NLAW or Kornet that are all missile launchers
@@kubagra456 yes. Thx
i would say it is a much better tow. still, no jav.
What about top attack tows
Kornet missile has just taken out the second Challenger II tank.
Mostly the "export" model, just like Saudi Abrams. They're not utilizing the same armor as the country of origin.
@@scottadkins9902 Proof that Britain changed the armor array.
The Abram's turret face is probably the only place you could consider armor. The Kornet can without problem penetrate the upper front plate, lower front plate, and through the turret ring.
Yeah only in war thunder, the Abrams tank would eat it for breakfast, we have tried destroying a Abrams with a Abrams before and we couldn't pen the armor with the gun we have which fires shells with much better pen rates than the kornet missle
@@CrazyGamer-ip2wdI can't wait until we see your claim get completely debunked. Allegedly, the Abrams has appeared in Avdiivdka, so it won't be long until we see one get floored.
Smile, 2024 is greeting
@@CrazyGamer-ip2wd Well would you look at that? An Abrams got pegged by a Kornet.
@@definitelyfrank9341 congrats you got me.. oh wait that was a export model of the Abrams meaning it didn't have the DU armor plates or the multitude of armor packages the American Abrams have
The Kornet spins for a different much more mondane reason.
Its not Laser Designated but Laser Beam riding. Meaning the missile just flyes around the laser trying to keep the laser behind it as best as possible, thus spinning around the laser.
The Russians are using this system a lot.
True that, regarding laser beam-riding. Almost everyone confuses a Semi-Active Laser (SAL) designated system with a passive laser beam-riding system, such as the UK Starstreak. Videos of the Starstreak show the same pattern of flyout, a telltale for a beam-rider. The projected laser patterns for such beam-riders do a pretty good job of missile guidance, and the orbital patterns are intentional.
Advantages of the completely passive system are that laser warning sensors are not triggered, which means that only passive warning sensors will be capable of triggering obscurant CM. Chris did mention that the rocket motor is unusually bright, so this would be possible, but it's never as good a trigger as a designator laser.
I worked on one of these beam-riders back in the 1980s called ADATS, designed as a dual anti-armor and air-defense system. Due to high cost and poor development of mission profiles, it was only sold to two nations (Canada and Thailand) which retired them within a decade or so because maintenance costs were too high with a tiny installed base (50 systems). It was produced by Oerlikon-Buehrle (now Rheinmetall) but designed at Lockheed Martin Missile Systems. With better system design it might have been lower cost and successfully sold to the US military, with a Mach 3 missile (much more effective than a slow missile like Kornet, as Starstreak shows) and 900mm RHA penetration, but the HEAT/frag warhead had very poor frag performance and the vehicle was also very unreliable. Hard to do two such different missions well.
I gotta look into the m this I'm not going to lie
@@seekrengr751 wow you are so cool man. Wonder what situation about ADATS right now.
Whats the advantages and disadvantages between the two?
@@barbosaguzman6101 Laser Beam Riders have the advantage of being simpler and cheaper overall, they can function with a comparatively weak laser so it has a higher chance of a laser warning receiver not triggering, It is not affected by smoke, so the gunner can try his best of guiding it towards the target even if smoke is deployed. Their disadvantage is somewhat reduced accuracy, It can only fly a direct flight path towards the target (Top attack being either more difficult to achieve or not possible.
A Semi Active Laser guidance has the Advantages of: Doesn't have to fly directly towards the target, it can loft, fly up and come from above which increases range and potentially hits the top armour of the target, you can also program them what flight path the should use fairly easily, They have the potential of being more precise.
Disadvatages are: More costly production, they require a much more powerful laser as the missile needs to see the reflection of the laser and not just the laser itself, smoke will 99% of the time make the missile go dumb because it can't see any laser anymore.
The upgraded version of Kornet-M is equipped with an automatic target tracker with operational range of 8-10 kms.
Other Kornets also have top attack ability as well
@@lime4rvthats kalibr hahhaa
IT Tracks a moving target ?
@@rafomic4210 yes, automatic target tracking will track a moving target
Stugna doesn't have that ragne but has a top attack mode and the launcher can be placed 50 ft from the launch modem meaning it can be placed high up and operator would be safe. It also has 2 ka-52 helicopter kills with footage. It's my fav reloadable atgm. I'd pick it over the kornet any day
Thank you for the video , always a pleasure to see your work Chris !! 💯👍
Would have liked to see a comparison between this and the Stugna-P
I think they're about the same, the Ukrainians have used the Stugna-P with great effect, but they're set up in ambush defensive positions and the operator isn't sitting at the tripod (source of fire position) guiding the missile in. The Ukrainian system is safer for the operators, but like the Kornet not as man portable as the Javelin, or NLAW
Stugna-p strikes have reached out to 4.3km i think, also the operator of stugna doesn't have to be next to the system so thats good
@@Freeukraine45 such a good system for propaganda purposes. Similar stuff should soon pop up all over the middle east
@@Freeukraine45
I'd rather have the Stugna than the Kornet. Not having to be near the launcher and also being able to aim with a display is so much better.
@@meisterproper8304 Hmmm Stugna P is sure showing it's worth theres plenty of footage of people just recording whats on the control screen.
Canadian volunteer sniper Wally in his interview sad that he had to become a Javelin operator because the nature of combat in the eastern front had changed. His complaint was that he never had a chance to shoot his javelin because tanks were constantly out of range.
@Obama yup.
@Obama russian tanks don’t have thermal imaging. only the best of the best. to expensive, they are too broke.
@Obama Wali was a spoiled Canadian living off his laurels cut in Afghanistan against a insurgency wearing man jammies and sandals. He left Ukraine mugged back into reality that the Russian Federation doesnt play war, they win them.
@@sigbauer9782 If he was fighting in Donbass, I wouldn't blame him. I think they are all getting close to the ends of their ropes there. They really need to be rotated out of combat as soon as possible.
@@nicholasconder4703 He was originally deployed on the Kyiv front. After they won there, he was redeployed in the Donbas. He almost died after a tank shot spread shrapnel around his group. Two of his Ukrainians buddies got mangled by the shrapnel and died on the scene. I think most people would just want to go back home after that.
The secret to the penetrating power of kornet is a couple things. The shape of the lens and diameter as well as the means of detonation. The biggest though is the composition of the lens. It is a copper and powdered depleted uranium alloy matrix. This alone allows even small diameter RPGs to have very impressive penetration performance.
The weapon seems a superior product that cost only $26K, flies 10K and defeats Abrams tanks costing $8 million. It seems Russia has done it again. AK47, Sputnik, now this .
I want Task & Purpose to do a video on Taiwan’s military. I’m curious on his thoughts on the PRC’s odds of successfully invading and if Russia’s struggles in Ukraine have discouraged Beijing.
I would love to see Chris tackle that too.
One thing for sure, the west cant sanction china the same way they did sanction russia, since many are still pretty much dependent on chinese manufactured goods and stuff
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he's already working on one
Binkov has a few good videos on the subject.
@@u2beuser714 Everyone thought Russia was going to tank from the sanctions too, but they somehow seem like they've managed to pivot and bounce back and the ruble is doing just fine, jumping 40% against he US dollar since January. So it may be we can pivot in a quick way if necessary away from buying Chinese goods. Especially if there is an air of patriotism attached to it where people start to police/shame each other.
You mention at the start that Russia destroyed hundreds of Ukrainian tanks when they took Crimea in 2014. Wasn't that invasion done without much of a real fight? I remember the Russians appearing with no markings on their uniforms surrounding Ukrainian bases and them backing out and leaving Crimea to Russia without a real fight. The Crimean invasion resulted in only five or six deaths, it wasn't a huge battle and hundreds of tanks weren't destroyed there?
Agree from accounts I’ve read.
Maybe there was a tank graveyard in Crimea in 2014?
Tanks in storage
That whole sentence in the video was a mess.
First, he meant Donbas, nobody shot any Kornets in Crimea.
Second, there weren't hundreds of tanks, just dozens over the course of many years.
Third, the Kornets in the photos were 2 unexploded ones from around Kramatorsk and Luhansk around 2014-2017.
Russia already had military in Svestapol because they rented the port from Ukraine. There was not a war, just a referendum.
@@Anubis2828 more like a quick occupation followed by a referendum
Small correction. Javelin max range is 2000m in top attack mode.
In direct mode it is about 5000m
It’s an improvement on the TOW missle. I think vehicle mounts are most useful. Static defense is just ok
Im no military expert but comparing this and a jav or nlaw is like comparing a pistol and a turret mounted gun One is easily portable and the other looks not so easy to carry. One is good for popping out of a dug out and firing on site ans the other needs transporting and sitting out on display. It certainly looks mote capable but its all about application and differing circumstances
Yeah, but part of it is a difference in doctorine. Russians use RGPs in infantry teams I believe, as they are meant to close the gap quickly in accordance with soviet tactics, so range in infantry AT equipment is not really important
What would be a closer comparison. im sure something exsits thats more close
@@pleasedontwatchthese9593 rpg vs javelin or kornet vs tow
Doesn't matter what comparison is made, the same conclusion is reached - russian technology sucks ass
@@name-yn6vu The rpg is too old to compare to a javelin. Its like comparing the t70 to a modern m1-abrams. Yes one is clearly better, but they're from completely different eras.
Just to make things clear, our average infantryman confused Crimea with Donbas.
Yeah I must have missed the massive armor battles of Crimea
this is all you need to know about western experts
3 months past, still unable to tell a difference between a coal mining province and a peninsula with resorts and naval bases
shows complete lack of willingness to actually learn anything or dive deeper into any details
Ukraine is good and innocent, Putin is evil, Russia is bad, Bucha atrocities, Russians eating babies - congratulations, you are now an expert on Ukraine, according to the western media
oooooh yeah that was rather confusing. I was pretty sure that there was essentially no combat in crimea, certainly no organized ukrainian resistance.
He is likeable guy but, sometimes he seems either clueless, misinformed or most likely just given bad script by his "sponsors".
How dare you! Donbas is not meant to be mentioned, especially not in this critical time of another rescue operation.
Javelin, while Fire-and-forget, has a different set of disadvantages, which is normal for any weapon system. Ones in Ukraine, are basically almost past their use-by date. Secondly, to launch a Javelin, one must perform a 30-second lock-on during which the seeker is cooled from a coolant bottle. Now if target disappears, the procedure has to stop, and operator has one more attempt at it before the bottle is empty and whole thing becomes dead weight. Or at least the pre-launch unit. Kornet can re-lock the target as many times as one wants.
Top-attack mode can only be done from a certain range of over several hundred meters (can't remember exact number), and while that missile is fast, it's also unimpressive in terms of penetration: around 650mm RHA. Which tells us that if fired in direct mode (faster), it wouldn't penetrate most tanks today if it hits an ERA-covered spot on a T-72B3 for instance. Kornet would penetrate pretty much any tank in service today.
Another thing is that Javelin is a MUCH more expensive weapon. After all that IR seeker isn't cheap by any measure. We can have 2 Kornet launchers as opposed to 1 Javelin. with all the associated increase in defensive capability.
Another thing about Javelin is its limited use against non-IR contrasting target. You can use Kornet against enemy pillbox or fortification. Can Javelin target that?
Why would you think you need IR targeting for a LOS attack on a static target?
If it can hit a moving target, what makes you think it can't hit a building?
@@MrDmitriRavenoff If Javelin can detect the IR signature, then for sure. But again: it needs to detect the building itself in IR. But then damn that's one expensive-ass use of a self-guided missile: against a building.
It was used against fortifications in Afghanistan. It is possible, because it has an IMAGING infrared, that actually gives a picture rather then tracking just the hottest spot in sight
the Javeline doesn't just cost twice as much, more like 10x as much.
Any missile that can fly 10 K is a major achievement.
The Kornet is the best ATGM in the world, it stops everything it engages.
Powerful AT misslile but I dont think it even classifies as a manpad, too big and heavy.
It'd be difficult to classify any AT missile as a MANPADS.
@@LordMarchewka here to say the same, lol
Menpad?
Manpat, not manpad. Manpad is man portable air defense.
@@LordMarchewkaSeen some Stugna-Ps shoot down helicopters though
10:45 C'mon, javelin doesn't fly at 2000 m/s. That would be insane. It flies 15 seconds to 2km, so it is like at least 10 times slower than you said.
Meaning it is slower than the kornet.
lol that's over mach 6, turns out we had hypersonic missiles all along, and they're shoulder fired to-boot! Good catch, I didn't catch that while watching.
@@user-te7rf8ik7z kornet is around 250 m per second, javelin 300 m per second.
@@Ukraineaissance2014
No, the Javelin travels at 140 m/s
@@thephoenix756 nope, top speed 300 m per second. Dont bother me with your quick googling nonsense.
Kornets seemed to do pretty well in Syria, when used by the YPG. Also, I think some Houthis took out a Saudi M1 Abrams with a side turret hit. Seems like a capable missile. The Stugna-P is much better in that you can operate it from a remote location, rather than being stuck under the launcher.
True they were also used in south lebanon and took out lots of Merkava tanks. This report is biasd to say the least
@@jabb161 Yeah, there is a tendency by a lot of people in the west to think Russian equipment is trash. Generally, I think much of the Russian equipment is good *IF* it is maintained and used properly, and while it may not be the best in all areas, it generally is cost-effective and reliable. The Russian military has proven to be poor, although they do have some good units. Although the command structure is a major problem for all of it, along with some major cultural problems.
With a side turret hit an old RPG would do it - tanks have their impressive armor only on the front side for weight reasons.
In fact you could shoot up all modern MBTs with an 8.8 from the side or back.
thanks for the vid
Love seeing you post
thanks for watching , I really appreciate everyone's time
Uhh, I am sure it was an oversight, but I highly doubt the Javelin travels at 2000 m/s, that’s Mach 5.8, that would make it a Hypersonic Missile. For comparison, the AIM-120C AMRAAM Air-Air missile reaches a top speed of around Mach 4, and only at high altitude where atmospheric resistance is much less of a problem.
I was looking for this comment, lol. 2000 m/s is faster than 90 percent of APFSDS from tanks.
I looked it up 150m/s.
00:33, I'm going to jump the gun and guess "True. Completely, wholly and fully, and 100 percent True!! Lolol
The most important thing that people nowadays must understand is following:
How much costs one peace of "these" or "that"!!! It DOESN'T MATTER that Kornett or AK are not "100%" supreme! They work actually pretty good - and they are already all around the world!
Today is not The Wild West - very rarely is coming up to "stand off" moments - its a complex battlefield!
That's why - when you compare Javelin vs. Kornett - it's Kornett the winner!
Battle characteristics are almost the same - actually Kornett can be used usually up to 8 km!..even 10!.. twice more than Javelin. Its dependable sometimes from the weather - but it doesn't matter!!
Javelin - 140 - 175 thousand $ /for the army around 85 000$/
Kornett - 10 000 $ ...for the army maybe 8000.
This was always a battle of Economy, and the Russia is 4-5 times the US - that's all you need to know!
By the way - in one battalion there are 3 vehicles with 16 Kornett rocket each!!
You have almost 50 rockets .
Even if you have a 7-8 the newest M1A2SEPv4 Abrams - at least 4 will be "gone" in a imaginable attack against "Kornett" Battalion... and you have also T90, 152mm Hotwizer..and so long.
..and by the way - all of that is pretty clear to the US Command. That's why they don't want to get "personally involved" in any battle with Russia.. and are using a proxy war variants - Ukraine
for correction; The latest versions of it, which are installed on the Tiger car, have the indirect attack feature, as well as the fire and forget system
Um, the Kornet-EM is noted as having an autotracker, but where are you getting the idea that a beam-rider has a top-attack mode? How would that work?
@@michaelccozensProbably the same way the TOW-2B does it
It has 1300mm RHA max penetration. But it isnt top attack sow, it has its own caracteristics. It will perform well in open field. Depends on doctrine
Another thing. APS becomes more and more standart on newer MBTs. Why wait until the rocket hits when you can jist not be hit/locked?
@@warbrain1053 ik, that would be solved whit rocket spam
@@76456 the problem is APS is far from one use. You shoot once. Tank detects direction. Aims at you. Eradicated. Tank is unharmed
Tanks are still far from obsolete. A gun round is far faster than a missile
@@warbrain1053 RPG28 can penetrate 1300mm after ERA and has been used brutaly by the Russians in the Ukraine war, it is just an RPG whith brutal penetration
@@ultimathule1473 i am not talking about ERA. never had. I was talking about APS, a system that shoots down danger before it touches the tank
To successfully throw off a laser guided ATGM you have to either: 1. Have IR dazzler systems on your vehicle capable of detecting said lasers. 2. If no dazzlers, you have to have visual confirmation of an atgm backblast signature. When dealing with this low profile tripod mounted soviet atgm's their backblaster signature is very hard to spot. With all of these launchers being fairly man portable and compact, Russian infantrymen could utilize mass surprise fires from multiple different angles, and potentially using adjacent armored or mechanized units to draw the eyes of the intended armor away from flanking atgm's.
Not only is war horrific. It is also VERY complicated. Thanks for showing both realities in a way that is somewhat comprehensible (although still complicated) for some of us civilians.
Much love for this channel. I really enjoy the tactical analysis. Peace out from the UK
Thanks for the consistent uploads Chris!
I do my best! new episode coming out on Saturday also
@@Taskandpurpose You spoil us!
The Javelin lost its advantages when the Russians put a steel cage on top of the tank 😂😂😂
Great information
10:46 That's impossibly fast for the Javelin. It must be 2000 KM/h. That's supersonic, about mach 1.6 to 1.7.
2km/s would be hypersonic and the missile would likely not be able to take the heat from the compressed air on the nose.
I was also like what the, that's way too fast.
Probably he mistaken with the info for Javelin surface-to-air (not ATGM) . That S2A goes about Mach 1.7. The ATGM Javelin is
That might be the old British mach 1.7 Javelin AA missile. The FGM-148 under discussion is 140 m/s.
Modern APS can stop the javelin also. The US tested the StrikeShield against projectiles going 1700m/s+ so it can just stop it.
Yeah I saw that and just thought “hold the fuck up, what?”
Pretty sure he’s also gone into detail about the Javelin’s flight time and range in other videos, so I don’t know how he thought 2000 m/s sounded right
"Maybe, just maybe the Russians are lying to us" made me lol
Kornet has a top attack capability and newer ones are also capable of tracking their target autonomous.
5:38, Cappy, you sh'tbird!!
Lololol
Apples and oranges.
Javelin and NLAW is a mobile shoulder mounted anti tank weapon this is a fixed anti tank weapon... very different things
The kornet has one fatal flaw, though, which is its guidance system. When the operator lines their laser on the tank, the laser warning receiver mounted on most mbt's fielded by the west would go off. This informs the crew to deploy smoke countermeasures, or if set to AUTO, will deploy the smoke by itself. In most modern weapon systems, the gunner can also swing their turret to the source of the laser and send one away, taking out the kornet operator. Not so effective now...
Most of the time the laser beam is keeped about 2-3 meters above the target. Pointing the laser directly at the target occurs when the missile is on approach and the countermeasures will not be effective enough.
@@sciarpecyril yeah every decent missile operator is taught not to aim directly at the intended target until necessary
@@truekhmer7292, exactly.
Very similar to the Stugna-P employed by Ukraine. Their operators have learned to cunningly lase an object near the tank to avoid the laser detector then paint the tank a few seconds before impact.
Correct, however, in addition to what others have said, I can confirm American vehicles do NOT have laser warning receivers at all
Hell, the SEP v3 Abrams just got around to mounting the Trophy APS system imported from Israel bc the US couldn't design an APS system worth a damn for the Abrams
People HEAVILY underestimate the vulnerabilities of the US military to a point that concerns me. Which is surprising because everyone harps on Russia for mass employing "outdated, Cold War weapons"...when we use systems as old or older than them, in similar states too
He really saying "Springar" lmao still a good video
There were no damaged tanks in Crimea, there was no war, 2 people died there.
The Stugna-P has been shown to be very effective against tanks.
The old Milan missle is plenty deadly
@@murphy7801 Milan 2T......yeah. But its still being phased out in favour of newer ATGM in Indian Army. Even though the other side (Pakistan) has meh Armour and no IFVs. Its days are over, I think.
Stugna really looks nice. On paper, everything is perfect. Available videos, of course, support this narrative. As idea, for sure is almost perfect for such type of weapon. But, one thing raises concern... Ukrainian government asks for other weapons, not for support of own Stugna production. Something is not perfect in reality even if idea is without obvious flaws. If money was the problem before war, now it's not I assume. Maybe, for such type of pretty static weapons, it is problematic when enemy fire back? You can't run with Stugna same as with Kornet, or something else. Looks like it needs some further upgrade.
because they only show successful attacks, that's called propaganda my friend
@@Tonyx.yt. There's a whole bunch of successful attacks. I mean many, many, many successful attacks. Why sit through video of the misses?
No amount of propaganda takes away from the abundance of success.
I think the Javelin's biggest asset is the "fire and forget" ability. With a Javelin you can fire the missile and then shift position to a potentially safer location (like a trench or bunker), while with a Kornet you are stuck in your firing location until after you hit the target. Those 2-5 seconds of time you lose could mean the difference between life or death.
Depends on tactics. In modernized Indian Infantry battalions, for example, there are two types of ATGM available:-
1.) 3rd Gen ATGM with 2.5 km range (Javelin-type, either Israeli Spike or Indian MPATGM)
2.) 2nd Gen ATGM with 5 km range (Russian Kornet or Indian CLGM/SAMHO)
.
So depending on how far away the target is, the ATGM DET deploys either a fire and forget type or a beam riding type.
it depends on how it is used though.
In an offensive battle, the Javelin would win hands down due to how portable it is and with the F & F ability.
But in terms of defense like say defending a building or even a city, this is where the Kornet shines mostly because of it's longer range than the Javey since in a defensive war, you try your damned hardest to make the distance between you and the enemy as far as possible and with the Kornet's long range, you can keep them as far away as possible without worrying about return fire.
The Javey's F & F ability isn't really that realistically useful in a defensive battle since your avenues for "escape" and hiding are small plus with the shorter range of the Javey, the enemy would already be near enough from you to start yeeting rounds onto you. The escaping ability is also a bit moot since in a defensive fight, the enemy already knows about your general location so hiding really isn't going to help you since they already know the direction where to throw rounds at you.
But this video is FULL of false information!!!
That "fire and forget" can be also a biggest flaw on Javelin.One problem is battery that power supply Javelin before firing...Can be low after couple minutes.We can see that now in Ukraina.
Second thing is price of missile for Javelin.It is VERY expensive.Why?
Because is "fire and forget"!
Every "fire and forget" atgm have a expensive missile.Every missile is computer.And because is SMART but also expensive!!!
Launcher is just pipe and small electro unit on.Looke just in size:launcher is just a empty pipe,and looke a size of missile and thickness.Everything important is there.
On another side,Kornet have a cheap missile because guiding comp is on luancher.
@@milanstankovic4149 it's so cheap that Russian army couldn't afford to equip all the units.
And yes.... Expensive? Compared to what? How much are T72/ T/80 T/90 tanks? What about crew life?
Saw bunch of videos with this Nasty Kornet being used in Ukraine, im impressed, hitting moving targets well over 2 miles, and when it hits you bet that target will not survive, very big bang.
Whatever the author wants to say … it kills all the tanks in Ukraine… and has the biggest distance (about 10 km. for Kornet the newest version , D , E or M). And it’s the deadliest weapon for modern heavy tanks - it destroys about 1300 mm. and it’s laser system is more accurate than Javelin or Nlaw automatic one…
I was in anti tanks, at the time there were recoiless platoon and ATGM platoon in a company . ATGM used Russian M 82 wire guided missile, US TOWs started to replace them , but our company still used Russian one . I was in recoiless platoon but what I understood TOW was superior, but this was long ago.
In which country did you serve?
@@superm.3199 Finland.
@@mhh7544 OK. That explains the fact you firstly had soviet weapons and then American
@@superm.3199 I had pretty good walk through of soviet tanks, we had T 72s, Russian APCs and IFVs. We were stressed to aim always between the hull and the turret, we were told about the dangers of that ammo carousel. Finland is very bad tank country, eastern border at its whole lenght is nothing but dense forest, only few roads cut it.
The Fagot (M82) is incomparable to the Kornet. The Kornet isn't wire guided and is superior in performance compared to the TOW and can also do top-attack.
Little surprised nobody caught the fact that he said a Javalin could go nearly Mach 6. Glad they corrected it.
Lol, I was like 2,000 m/s. That's literally high speed anti air missile territory.
The real speeds are between 300-400m/s Which is the same as the Kornet.
Little surprised nobody caught the fact that he claims there was some massive invasion of Crimea in 2014. The people who took over already lived there.
2,000 m/s or Mach 6 is hypersonic speed. Need a scram jet engine. Wrong information.
Javelin travels at Mach 1.7, or 583 m/s
@@superstar8162 not really. Thaad missile defense has a missile that goes mach 8 hypersonic. And it isn't scram jet. Most hypersonic missiles aren't scram jet.
Now I know why ATGM's spin and move around. Thanks for educating me!
very badass this atgm destroy challenger-2
Thermobaric doesn't vacuum up the air or suck it out of your lungs. It uses the free oxygen in the atmosphere to detonate a fuel charge. This in turn displaces said oxygen with CO2 effectively smothering you, if the pressure wave doesn't kill you.
The explanation of why the Russian AT's follow the squirely path was very interesting. See a lot of other Ukrainian vids where Stugna-P missiles also have a similar flight path.
the real reson is that uses not fins for steering but a small pulse rocket engine on the side , it rotataes so it can steer using only one engine.
they need to circle around of laser beam to not lose it
Exactly the same with KA-52/Mi-28 Vikhrs missiles
The best thing you can do in a tank is still not to get hit by anything. Getting hit by an APDSFDS Shell is horrific, getting hit by a shaped charge warhead or an explosive formed penetrator is also horrific. The Kornet also has a variant that fires a Fuel-Air-Explosive Warhead, which is utterly destructive against fortified positions and bunkers.
But yeah, technically it’s still a SACLOS guided missile like the TOW, with the difference that pretty much all modern Russian ATGMs are Beam-Riders and not wire guided.
Cappy: The ridge wallet can block the kornet anti-tank missile
10:40 I think you meant 2000 feet per second.
Fwiw, 120 and 125mm APFSDS has a muzzle velocity of 1700 m/s.
660 m/s is Hella fast for an AT missile. It's almost mach 2. It's about as fast as a rifle bullet on target.
Sidewinder missiles fly at 1100 m/s, and they are for sure waaay faster than the Javelin
Even 2000 ft/s seems optimistic, I think he just put an extra zero on accident
Yep. 2000 m/sec would be mach 5.8 at sea level -- hypersonic.
Yes I was really baffled at first, then I thought "why would you bother carrying a HEAT warhead when your missile can go at 2km/s", I did some research and then I got the suspicion that he may not have gotten it quite correct in the video. Thank you for helping me confirm my thoughts.
@@user-te7rf8ik7z that’s not an AT missile though. That’s an air-to-air missile
You should do videos on obscure and middle weight militaries too. Very interesting subject which has very little coverage
Well, a year later with Leopard 2, and Challenger 2 easily taken out by Kornet, Merkava 4 taken out by less sophisticated missile fired by "primitive Hezbollah, and even Hamas", meanwhile Abrams was barred from the Front to avoid the same fate and embarrassment, WHO IS LYING?
The Kornet is destroying everything it encounters on an actual battlefield
I don't really think that it makes much sense to compare the Javelin to the Kornet. They seem more of a heavy machine gun vs. light machine gun kind of situation, with the Kornet having to be set on a tripod and the Javelin being shoulder-mounted. It would make more sense to be compared to something like the Stugna or the Milan since you wouldn't be able to use the Kornet the same way you do with a Javelin. Also, no way they'd lie to us, they'd never.
I agree that the wire guided had major issues vs laser guided. Still I have seen Dragon gunners that could "Nose down" the missile just above a target for a top attack and even guide around obstacles to get to a hidden target. This was not the rule I know still at some point I really hope we can get some of the same type of "Trim" control with laser.
He forgot that tanks now have a detector if they are targeted with a laser Sometimes wire-based anti-armor missiles are better than lasers
The TOW (replacement for the dragon I believe) has a laser guided variant.
Russia now has tv guided atgms.
The Kornet that the Russians are using at the moment appears to be an upgrade. 2 Challenger tanks destroyed already.
Kornet missiles made their debut not in 2014, but much earlier in 2006 in Lebanon. Just a note that's all
Second, the Israelis stated that an IDF bulldozer was hit by a Hezbullah Kornet at nearly 4 km (or 2.4 miles) away. Which is at the near max effective range of the missile
The rumor about the Kornets being used in Iraq in 2003 has actually been just that...a rumor. Unless somebody can post sources, I poured over a plethora of sources online and couldn't find a single picture of a Kornet in Iraq, and there was no proof that a third party country ever transferred it to Iraq. The two knocked out Abrams and Bradley's were at first contributed to Kornets, but later reports I saw stated it was just RPG's that hit the more vulnerable areas of these vehicles. The only recorded instance of an ATGM actually being used in 2003 was a Milan missile fired at a British Challenger, but it didn't suffer much damage.
Again, open to hear differently, but that's what I've read.
From what I recall it was supposedly 2 Kornets used at once by republican guards against marines outside some city
@@Ukraineaissance2014 Yes, I read that report. I read a follow on report which stated 'sources' that claimed Iraq bought thousands of Kornets from Ukraine prior to the 2003 invasion.
Obviously, that was false. There was no deal of that sort between Iraq and Ukraine, and on top of that, the Kornet didn't come into service until the 90s anyways, so Ukraine wouldn't have it.
Besides that report, I didn't come across anything that hinted at Saddam's forces having Kornets.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 Iraq never had Kornets, so it's fake. There's no recorded instances of ATGMs being used against US tanks in the invasion
There is a Video of Abrahams being destroyed by kornet in Irak by ISS and One Leclerc in yemen
@@jeansansterre6908 yes, but the Kornets in those case came from the inventory of the former Syrian army which had thousands of them. Didn’t come from Saddam’s Arsenal
You should review Stugna-P, it has unique design and had A LOT of kills and footage
because it's so simple to record video from Stugna-P screen but impossible to put cell phone camera inside Javellin vision system.
But maybe this would colide with the prominent US opinion (and media statements) that nearly all tank destructions are results from glorious Javelins. Sounds like a lot of explanation-work to me that this isen't the case.
@@mikes989 Yes i know the statistics.
As i didn't want to get into detail, i just critisised the medial imbalancement and the warped perspective of interest groups.
same shit made on Konkurs basis (as Kornet) but has a remote control and a screen, so the crew can stay in dugout. There's the same version for Kornet, but not in mass production
@@nikitatarsov5172 80-90% of losses (human and equipment) is a result of an artillery work. All say it from both sides (Ukr and Ru)
Turkish Army lost 4 Leopard II A4 and 20 M60 tanks in total failures in Syria to Kornet anti-tank missile. 4 American M1A1s were knocked out by RPG-7 and some were totally destroyed by "Cornet".
love that shirt during the commercial
Kornet is basically a russian TOW, not in the same league as Javelin
I will say that while carrying a Kornet system looks pretty rough compared to the javelin shit is a dream compared to dismounted TOW operations.
a 20 mins trained recruit with Kornet vs a veteran sniper with 20 years of experience. who wins???
Can we get a video on the Sugna-P, with all the press around NLAW and the Javelin it comes off as a bit of an unsung hero.
Should probably be comparing the 9M133 Kornet to the BGM-71E TOW-2A, seeing as they're more similar. Or maybe to the TOW-2B Aero if you care about the production date matching closer. Truth be told I'm not sure exactly what launcher and missile the US is realistically using right now, but surely some kind of TOW-2.
My god dude.
You have an enemy position.
It doesnt even have to be armored target.
Your combat troops make contact with said position and they *KNOW* that this position is there.
This position consists of trenches and reinforced bunker like structures with heavy machine gun placements.
They tell you about it.
You are a kornet operator.
You show up there.
You pick a position which is way beyond the enemy's ability to spot you.
Say 6 km with a direct line of sight.
You fire a missile.
-1 enemy reinforced firing position.
This happens in Ukraine literally EVERY day.
So yes, there are absolutely targets (static ones) that you can fire your missile at those 5km+ ranges.
Do you have any media examples of such things taking place? Where in Ukraine can you find places where you have unobstructed +5km line of sight (no trees and all) and to make it better, place where you can take your time to set up such thing and use it? (ignoring fact that in such situations you'd probably want to have mortar or artillery piece, which both provite more firepower without need to expose yourself and shoot ~100k USD worth missile aganist max ~10k USD worth machinegun)
@@kubagra456 Have you ever been to Ukrainia? It’s the flattest land you can imagine, it’s like the desert with grass….
@@kubagra456
You mean like every road and farmers field?
It's an ATGM gunners dream
But is not Kornet using the Laser Command Line of Sight (AKA Laser Beam Riding) guidance principle? Which is not the same as being laser-guided. Laser-guided missiles are equipped with electro-optical sensors in the nose, the job of which is to identify the reflection of the laser on the target. In the case of laser-guided missiles the laser designator illuminates the target using a specific pulse repetition frequency code, the missile identifies the pulse repetition frequency code of the particular laser designator and flies towards that illuminated target. Well, if you look at the 9M133 missile, it does not have an electro-optical sensor in the nose, but rather - in the rear end of the missile body and that sensor is looking back towards the launcher, but not looking towards the direction of the flight. That's because it is using the Laser Command Line of Sight guidance principle instead.
90% of comments be like
"compareing this to a jav or an nlaw is like compareing a ......... to a .........."
Since Ukraine was invaded I've seen footage of the AT missile Stugna-P. Would be cool to hear your research on it.
@@dylanwalker7624 so it’s their version of the Kornet?
stugna-p is considerably better then kornet...
Lol no
according to what? ukranian propaganda?
@@Tonyx.yt. Ukraine don't resort to bullshit methods as propaganda, little russian bot.
Shouldn't you be comparing the Kornet missile to, I don't know, the TOW missile instead of the Javelin? Because right now you're comparing apples and oranges.
Few people understand how and WHY country that build by far most tanks in the world and insane number of aircraft, also invested absurd amounts into plethora of anti-armour and air-defence systems. USSR fielded more types, families (not to mention - pieces) of ATGM than rest of the world put together. They hit the wall with one thing: IIR ccd.
PS: usually combat debut of system is either total disaster or spectacular success - only later it settles to some plateu.
Spoilers: It isn't better, its the same as all ATGM.
ATGMs poses a threat more to tanks than tank vs tank.
could be better, soldiers fighting have complained about the lack of range of nlaw and javelin. Sometimes the tank are too far away
@@minhtran7431 Well thats the risk of it.
And also the risk of a tank not having infantry support.
Like how the current Russo-Ukraine conflict or US in Iraq.
Sending tanks without proper infantry support spells disaster
Is it true that the Kornet was also used in several of the Israeli conflicts damaging or destroying their Merkavas?
Yes
I think they would be pretty good in the desert and you could get a lot of range out of them..
Very True
not only markavas but also abrams
@@briant5685 Which Israeli conflict was the Kornet used against Abrams
0:59 Nope, my wallet is just like the one I had in the 1970s. Come on 1990s we had Velcro and vinyl wallets in our team colors.
2:49 “springar as we all know….”
Dude what are you talking about? 😂 never heard of that shit ever! Hahaha
You made quite a few mistakes:
1) NLAW/Javelin are more modern but in Ukraine it's been the Stugna system (which is very similar to the Kornet) that's been more deadly by a lot.
2) The Abrams cheeks can resist a Kornet. Nothing else, the front hull plate and the chin would be woefully inadequate and the gun breach would be, at least, wrecked.
3) Where'd you get the 2000 m/s number for the Javelin? Because at those sorts of speeds you're dealing with something going around Mach 5. That's a radically different beast in terms of design needs and any Jarhead can tell you that missile ain't mach capable on the shape alone (look at Zircon for a general idea of how you'd need to design a missile to not fly apart at high Mach speeds).
4) Top attack is mostly a gimmick. It's not liable to hit anything vital unless it's a high yield weapon system (so a top attacking Kornet would by monstrous, a Javelin not so much, much lower yield by nearly 1/3).
5) Didn't the US deplete, severely, its Javelin stockpile with 10-20k sent over to Ukraine? And it'll take Raytheon a few years to replenish the stocks.
@DefinitelyNotBrandon
4) you're shooting a jet of molten shot into a tank from the top where most tanks have a massive crossection but everything in the tank tends to have a much lower crossection due to orientation. Unless it's lacking a spall liner (1950s - 1960s unmodernized) it won't do dick usually.
5) It isn't but thank you for telling us you're to be ignored off brand Brandon.
10:41 come on, there is NO WAY javelins fly up to 2000 meters per second. we've all seen videos of them, haven't we? you can't see a 2000 m/s missile, but you can see a javelin. 2000 m/s is almost mach 6 (mach 1 is about 340 m/s depending on atmospheric conditions). anything that goes that fast is much pointier than a javelin, and rockets that go that fast are way more elongated to pack more fuel while keeping the aerodynamic cross-section small. kinda like stinger missiles, which are faster than javelins but I'm pretty sure still not THAT fast. I think those hypersonic missiles everybody talks about start at mach 7, so no, javelins don't fly at mach 6.
I think the way they avoid active protection systems for the most part is just that the active protection isn't built to shoot up, right?
yeah its actualy about 580m/sec which is 2000kph. you can see where confused it
@@yujinhikita5611 and that is again wrong , 2000 kph is for Javelin MANPAD not ATGM. The ATGM goes at 140 m/s
@@ivanmonahhov2314 oh shit yeah ok still, tho.
Just searched again, found somewhere else that max speed for fgm 148 the atgm that it's max flight speed is 300m/sec but yeah normal speed is around 140m/sec or somthing like that.
Video: velocity of the "javelin" is 2000m/s!
Correction in comment: "javelin velocity is 583m/s sponsor...."
Reality:
FGM148 "Javelin": velocity is ~140m/s
MANPAD "Javelin" missile from UK: max velocity is ~1.7mach (578.5m/s)
"Javelin" used in olympic games: velocity aproaching 31.5m/s
the end, javelin is a very slow, short range atgm that depends on top attack to attack a real tank
the kornet is an extended range atgm, designed to OUTRANGE tank guns and to attack them head on
different weapons, different uses, different cost, different effectiveness on different wars
someone could easily say though that the kornet is a far more capable missile if you are dealing with big amounts of tanks
the tanks wont even try to move in if they know kornets are operated on an area (especialy in wars in the dessert or in the open fields in Ukraine)
"Spriggans i can handle...but this talk of Kornets? World gone mad i say.."
I don't believe the speed of javelin is correct. 2000 meters/sec is like mach 6, which is even faster than APFSDS.
Javelin is Mach 1.6 my bad !
Pin this comment
There’s another problem with an actively guided slow moving missile system like this, especially one that rides a laser beam. Modern tanks usually have a laser detection system so the crew will know if they’re getting lased either for ranging or for an ATGM. If the missile is being launched from 200 meters or so the tank could fire on the launch site with either the main gun or their machineguns. The gun rounds will reach the launcher before the missile reaches the target. Since the missile has no self guidance if the operator is killed or even flinches the missile will miss.
The massive advantage of fire and forget missiles like the Javelin or NLAW is that once the missile is in the air shooting back at the launcher crew does nothing.
Sure javelins are great, unless you have automated vibranium fly swatters on your tank 🤷♂️ 🤜🚀
Most serious users or operators, have been just aiming above the tank. Do not watch the videos?
I think generally, the crew would pop smoke in whatever direction they were being lased from. This is because you never really know what is currently lasing you, it could either be a slow flying kornet missile or a tank about to put a sabot round through you. So I speculate that crews will usually pop smoke and reverse away rather than trying to hunt for whatever it was that was lasing them.
Isn't it a simple matter to lase the target from a drone instead? Plus, why fire from 200 meters? tht would be suicide.
Given the quality of all of their equipment…when it fires,most likely shredded paper will come out like confetti ,lol.
Let's go on comparing 90's technology with recent shit. Makes you feel adequate.
Man-portable? Yeah I suppose, if you a talking about moving it 20 meters from your Tigr. Otherwise not so much.
Problem with a lot of the fancy high tech weapons being sent to Ukraine. How many there have the training to use them properly.
Silly assumption is Russian soldiers have training to use Russian weapons.
The other assumption is how much of the aid being sent to Ukraine is being sold and money laundered to find zelenskys villas in the states. I say this as a Ukrainian.
now that we got your javelin missiles, I don't think its gonna take long until we have the exact same thing being deployed by our forces LMAOOO