Hellfire 2 vs Russian Heavy ERA

**Shadowsided** · 09 Jun 12,, 03:02

I hate to make another vs thread but its something that I find to be a concern. Heavy ERA such as the Kontakt 5 and the newer Relikt are much more powerful than their western counterparts in terms of explosive power and how they kill incoming shaped charges and APFSDS rounds. I understand that the US army significantly increased the power of the tandem charge in the hellfire missile (presumably to defeat heavier ERA) Now what I am asking may as well be classified but how would the newest hellfires fare against the latest Russian heavy ERA's which have advanced beyond Kontakt 5 (kaktus,relikt).Information on (Maybe zraver could answer my question)I would appreciate some feedback given the lack of information of the subject matter on the web.Thanks

**Red Team** · 09 Jun 12,, 05:14

I think it's fair to say any anti tank missile commonly fired from a high angle of approach like a Hellfire would, more often than not, hit past the ERA, rendering it irrelevant. But in terms of a direct attack? I'd put my money on the tandem warhead.

**Albany Rifles** · 10 Jun 12,, 03:27

I would say we are skirting very close to an OPSEC violation. Be very leary how this discussion goes so I don't have to lock thread.

**zraver** · 10 Jun 12,, 04:04

Originally Posted by Shadowsided

I hate to make another vs thread but its something that I find to be a concern. Heavy ERA such as the Kontakt 5 and the newer Relikt are much more powerful than their western counterparts in terms of explosive power and how they kill incoming shaped charges and APFSDS rounds. I understand that the US army significantly increased the power of the tandem charge in the hellfire missile (presumably to defeat heavier ERA) Now what I am asking may as well be classified but how would the newest hellfires fare against the latest Russian heavy ERA's which have advanced beyond Kontakt 5 (kaktus,relikt).Information on (Maybe zraver could answer my question)I would appreciate some feedback given the lack of information of the subject matter on the web.Thanks

AR, no opsec violations here

First heavy ERA doesn't mean more explosive, it means better design and performance against kinetic threats through the introduction of sheer- most with the explosive force contained inside the armor block to reduce the threat to nearby soft bodied objects like people. Against missiles the performance is about the same, a tandem charge will still detonate the block allowing the main charge to act against the underlying armor. Against missiles like the hellfire and maverick- armor is useless. Through the use of varying features depending on missile model and type armor is rendered obsolete- if you can see it you can kill it.

**Red Team** · 10 Jun 12,, 16:47

Adding to what zraver said, only real effective ways of countering such a missile is through guidance jammers, active defense (a la Trophy anti-missile platform), or ludicrous evasive maneuvers.

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Jun 12,, 17:24

No, the best way to deal with these missiles is a robust air defence including fighter sweep, SAM nets, and AAA, forcing the enemy birds to clear the skies, perform SEAD, and then find your tanks, hopefully giving you enough time to achieve your objectives before they do.

**zraver** · 10 Jun 12,, 17:33

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

No, the best way to deal with these missiles is a robust air defence including fighter sweep, SAM nets, and AAA, forcing the enemy birds to clear the skies, perform SEAD, and then find your tanks, hopefully giving you enough time to achieve your objectives before they do.

Sir, the US Longbow hellfire can use buddy lasing, the Javalin is fire and forget as this type of technology proliferates suppression will become less effective. However so long as FLIR technology continues to dominate ground sensors, technologies like adaptive armor offer a way forward- you can't hit what you cant see.

**Officer of Engineers** · 10 Jun 12,, 17:52

I cannot remember the exact engagement during the Iraq Invasion but a flight of Longbows went too far away from ground and fixed wing support and ran right into an Iraqi AD regiment. I don't think any were shot down but most were shot up bad enough that they had to withdraw,

**Red Team** · 10 Jun 12,, 18:21

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I cannot remember the exact engagement during the Iraq Invasion but a flight of Longbows went too far away from ground and fixed wing support and ran right into an Iraqi AD regiment. I don't think any were shot down but most were shot up bad enough that they had to withdraw,

Colonel I think that was during the Battle for Karbala, I remember it being mentioned in some (far-fetched IMO) claims that an Iraqi farmer with an anti-tank rifle shot down an Apache. More than likely poor visibility in an urban environment plus a restrictive ROE (not to mention shoddy intel) further exacerbated the chaos from being ambushed by Iraqi air defense.

**zraver** · 10 Jun 12,, 21:44

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I cannot remember the exact engagement during the Iraq Invasion but a flight of Longbows went too far away from ground and fixed wing support and ran right into an Iraqi AD regiment. I don't think any were shot down but most were shot up bad enough that they had to withdraw,

Sir, that was a penetration raid which presents a totally different set of variables. In the cotext of my post I was talking busting up enemy armor concentrations in the tactical area.

**Shadowsided** · 11 Jun 12,, 00:58

Thanks for the info zraver, appreciate it

My concern is that the current generation of western armor will become far more vulnerable if the Russians develop and export fire and forget top attack ATGM's . Now given that tanks operate with a larger support structure and allied forces will almost always have air superiority, the only conceivable losses could come from man portable ATGMs and those would not be high enough to render those tanks obsolete but they could still inflict some painful losses. Zraver do you feel that the possible proliferation of such ATGM's would shift the emphasis from heavy composite armor to active protection systems,stealth etc. or will heavy armor still play a large role as it did during ODS and OIF where western tanks slaughtered less heavily armored Soviet tanks.

**zraver** · 11 Jun 12,, 02:22

Originally Posted by Shadowsided

Thanks for the info zraver, appreciate it

My concern is that the current generation of western armor will become far more vulnerable if the Russians develop and export fire and forget top attack ATGM's . Now given that tanks operate with a larger support structure and allied forces will almost always have air superiority, the only conceivable losses could come from man portable ATGMs and those would not be high enough to render those tanks obsolete but they could still inflict some painful losses. Zraver do you feel that the possible proliferation of such ATGM's would shift the emphasis from heavy composite armor to active protection systems,stealth etc. or will heavy armor still play a large role as it did during ODS and OIF where western tanks slaughtered less heavily armored Soviet tanks.

Don't worry about Russian atgm's, worry about Western systems. The west sells more of them and they are more advanced. Russia's niche is vehicle mounted missiles and manpad rockets, not man pad missiles. Active protection systems have major handicaps- they are slow and have limited ammo. As missile speeds and engagement envelops increase an active protection system needs to react faster and cover a greater area while doing it. Also add in being resistant to jammers, shrapnel, IFF systems...

1. Not too make light of the threat but how do you kill a tank with an active protection system? Fire 1 more missile than it can shoot down at a time, fire 1 more missile than it has ammo for, hit it with artillery, hit it with gunfire...

2. How many missiles does it take to kill a tank you can't see?

Black Fox active camo Defense Update Presents: 'Black Fox' Stealth Armor Demonstration - YouTube

BAE adaptiv camo ADAPTIVE camouflage BAE Systems - YouTube

Japanese light bending Optical Camouflage (Invisible Cloak) - YouTube

cuttlefish Cuttlefish changes colors like chess! - YouTube

**Shadowsided** · 14 Jun 12,, 01:08

Zraver I was wondering what you thought about the concept of layered ERA to defeat missiles such as the hellfire. Now the polish ERAWA system only gives you 65-70 % protecttion against medium caliber HEAT rounds like a 125 mm HEAT round or AT-$ but in the near future do you think an updated dual layered ERA scheme could defeat Hellfire/Brimstone and weaker ATGM's?
Army Guide - ERAWA, Explosive reactive armour

**zraver** · 14 Jun 12,, 02:45

Originally Posted by Shadowsided

Zraver I was wondering what you thought about the concept of layered ERA to defeat missiles such as the hellfire. Now the polish ERAWA system only gives you 65-70 % protecttion against medium caliber HEAT rounds like a 125 mm HEAT round or AT-$ but in the near future do you think an updated dual layered ERA scheme could defeat Hellfire/Brimstone and weaker ATGM's?
Army Guide - ERAWA, Explosive reactive armour

That article is a joke... ERA works by disrupting the formation of the EFP jet. A charge big enough to disrupt an manpad AT rocket will disrupt all man pad rockets. Yet the article claims different performance against the RPG-7 and AT-4. Also the article claims protection against standoff EFP's formed by IED/Mines up to 100mm. Unless the tiles are designed to induce sheer- NOT HAPPENING. Yet the article doesn't indicate it has sheer properties. Plus depending how a person reads the 100mm we could be talking about a jet 100mm in diameter. Thats a jet as big or bigger than made by missiles like the Maverick.