Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1115818
the PLOS measurement sequence. After 3 seconds of maintaining the aiming mark at the center of a tank, it is necessary to press the trigger button using the thumb, which will launch the missile. The manipulator can be operated by touch, even in thick winter gloves. After the missile is fired, the launcher is discarded. If the direct attack (DA) mode is se- lected, it is necessary to switch the operating mode lever covered with a guard – found above the manipulator – before placing the hand on the manipulator. Missile warhead – HE-type, 102 mm in diameter, set at right angles downwards to the longitudinal axis of the missile. It's difficult to assess its effectiveness – it doesn't come with a precursor, and the rela- tively long life of the missile (20 years) suggests that the solution doesn't feature modern explosives based on CL20 because if it was so, the life of the warhead would be about 10 years. This would mean in theory that the penetration of a warhead with a liner with 100 mm in diameter would be within the range of 6-7 its diameter, meaning 600-700 mm. It's a quite impressive value, but may be too little to 'handle' modern "dual-action" ERA armors, which are also found in the roofs of tank turrets. Saab's pub- licity materials emphasize that the solution is able to penetrate through reactive armors and guarantees an improved beyond-armor effect. The Swedish manufacturer boasts about having developed warheads able to get through an armor with a thickness of 10 times the diameter of their liners, which can be used with the BILL 2, the NLAW, the Carl Gustaf, and the AT4. In addition to that, thanks to a modern-shaped diaphragm, they are really short. The photos and videos documenting the tests of NLAW warheads reveal some interesting things, such as a short effec- tive distance of the charge (3-4 diameters) and an unusual shape of the blast wave that forms the shaped charge jet. The videos documenting tests performed on tanks (or their mock-ups) show, in turn, a strike on the vehicle roof from a distance of over 10 times the diameter of the liner. This may mean that the invited journalists and experts were shown a bit different warhead than that used in serial launchers, or that the NLAW warhead is not very sensitive to the changes of the effective distance of the charge. This would mean that it's not a typical shaped charge warhead, but something between a HEAT and an EFP, meaning a slow stretching jet. Such a solution would explain the declared high resistance to ERA, the strong post-penetration effect, the insensitivity to the chang- ing effective distance of the shaped charge, and the penetration channel diameter smaller than in the case of EFP, and the penetration value of +500 mm. Unfortunately, the above is only my conjecture because the manufacturer is quite secretive about any specific data regarding the said characteristics. In 2008, one NLAW cost the British armed forces GBP 20,000. At pres- ent, after over a decade, the price tag is similar, but it doesn't include the entire system, meaning simulators, spare parts, profiles, costs of training of instructors and soldiers, and many other components. The overall mark given to the NLAW is positiv – it is currently the most advanced disposable anti-tank grenade launch- er available in the market. Its effective range of 400 m for moving targets and 800 m for stationary targets can be considered really good (for a weapon of this class). Its main advantage is the overfly top attack mode – as a result, the NLAW is one of two existing grenade launchers able to fight tanks and IFVs in the turret down position, i.e. hidden almost completely behind natural obstacles or field fortifications. Even more im- portantly, it can effectively combat tanks heading straight at the gunner's position, meaning charging protected with their strongest armor – the plating of the front of the turret and the hull – as the attack targets the roof of the turret or the engine compartment. Given the above, it's hard to think of any quibble about the effectiveness of the warhead – the only existing reliable measure of protection against it is hard-kill active pro- tection systems. PLOS guidance is prone to operators' mistakes, though, but it offers a completely passive guidance mechanism in exchange, and has made the NLAW, in essence, totally resistant to soft-kill systems. It has also significantly increased the probability of hitting a moving target at a reasonable price for the whole weapon. At present, the NLAW has no direct competitors because the Predator FGM-172 – offering very similar features and design – is out of serial production. Plus, it offers a shorter range (200/600 m) and service life (10 years). In terms of perfor- mance, the NLAW gives in only to ATGMs – both those ultra-lightweight, short-range type and e.g. the Javelin or the Spike, but they are much more expensive. The price of one Spike MR (excluding CLU) is about six times higher than the price of one single-use NLAW. The Swedish weap- on can't be challenged by conventional disposable grenade launchers. Their range and the actual effectiveness of the warhead are much lower – in fact, limited to damaging vehicle sides and rear from a distance of about 100-150 m. Various asymmetric modernizations featuring reactive armors protecting Western tanks and IFVs, e.g. the TUSK, the BRAT, etc., reduce their effectiveness almost to nothing, even in such convenient cir- cumstances. In the case of post-USSR tanks, the situation is even worse LAND FORCES