Mat, as a conscript trained Swede with exp. of both the CG and AT4, I would presume that telescopic front brace of the NLAW was added, not for supporting the weight of the weapon itself, but to prevent unintentional depression of the tube as the missile is launched and it's weight in the tube shifts forward during launch as that's the main source of shorted shot misses on the CG and AT4, both of which lacks that kind of brace.
The NLAW has an IMU, inertial measurement unit, so once the trigger is pulled the flight path is locked in and any subsequent movement whether by wind or operator depression is corrected. Obviously one would still want to limit this. NLAW uses a salt water counter shot like AT4 so is safe to use in doors or bunkers. I suppose you would get a little wet. I'm not sure Javelin would work so well in that situation of an enclosed space.
@@williamzk9083 my point was more that since the Swedish training manual for the AT4 and the CG both notes that it's very common for a shooter to unintentionally droop the tube forwards as the weight of the munition moves, it makes sense that the design of a successor/compliment system incorporates a means to eliminate that possibility from the get go, regardless of any features included in the munition guidance system. Especially when the typical intended user was going to be either an 18-19yo conscript at the end of no more than 3(basic) to 7.5(mech inf privates) months of infantry training. Or a drafted 20 to 45yo with a few odd weeks of refresher training every few years after their initial conscript training.
As someone who has seen multiple videos of Indian army using the Carl Gustav. Where the front of the barrel has slight depression just when the shot leaves the barrel. Your explanation is extremely logical. Thanks for your service to your nation.
What people don't understand about that tiny hole in the armor is that all the metal that used to be where the hole is got heated white hot, accelerated to supersonic sped, and sent flying around inside the tank. It's like turning the tanks own armor into buckshot.
And that white hot metal spray inside the confined space of a tank quickly superheats the air inside to far beyond comfortable and, as air expands with rising temperatures, as well as any additional combustion gasses generated by everything combustible getting hit by droplets of molten, burning steel, will be trying to make room for that extra volume one way or another...
@@SonsOfLorgar Yeah even an RPG round strrapped to an FPV drone now in Ukraine creates the same effect. Shaped charge causes full destrustion and cook-off of the tank
CG Group leader (Gruppbefäl, Furir) here. CG is a fantastic multi-versatile weapon. In a group of 8 conscripts, we have two CGs besides our sidearms. What can we do in 20 sec? (After 20 sec we have to run for cover). We can have 4 grenades fired at targets like Tanks, Helicopters, Ships, Boats, Bunkers Troops (treetop explosions at 1000m), and fire smoke grenades to blind our anime. We can do all this with a very high probability to succeed. CG can replace the NLAW, but NLAW can not replace the CG. BUT 👍 NLAW is a much better, safer weapon against all armour. I guess a formation/group equipped with two CG and two NLAW would be a formidable force...
Being a Brit I get annoyed that people call this a British system. They are made in the UK but designed originally in Sweden. But the Harrier suffers the same issue with people saying that its American.
Exactly. It's brutally effective. Hard to accuse something THIS GOOD of being "overrated." LoL If anything the RPG-7 is the most overrated AT Munition lol.
@@surferofthesynthwaves4710 So can an M203. Neither the M203 nor RPG7 can knock out a modern MBT, IFV, JLTV, or MRAP. And the M203 is 14 lbs lighter than the RPG7.
@@Mygg_Jeager LoL, RPG-7 "overrated". Given it's an old tried and tested weapon, a very well known quantity, that statement makes about as much sense as saying that an assault rifle is overrated or drinking water is overrated. The PG-7V and the PG-7VR warheads have armor penetration of 500 and 650mm respectively. Not even modern MBTs have evenly distributed armor all around that can protect against that, side hull being usually the biggest weak spot, let alone IFVs, MRAPs and other junk.
Yeah, because both javelin and NLAW are similar in appearance, that's confusing him often. But there are tons of videos I see where you can see the Javelin or even 84mm Gustav striking directly.. They often confuse javelin's top attack meaning shoot up to about 150 ft or 150 m I forget, and then come down on the tank's head, they confuse that with NLAW which supposed to fly in a straight path as if it were going to hit the tank flat on except it deliberately misses and the warhead detonates as it's going over which has a directed shape charge (it may actually be an EFP actually) pointed down and knock out most armor...
NLAW does use an EFP. As it crosses above the target horizontal, it has a perpendicular EFP that is delivered downward into the top of the target as it flys over. I will give it to the Brits (Bofors more accurately), it is a simple and effective weapon. We in the US need to field a similar system. Javelin is great at range - no doubt. But NLAW is for shorter engagement ranges; yet in too close, it will not arm. We need a similar system to replace the aging AT4 which simply strikes in the horizontal thus potentially being defeated by ERA, heavy armor, and/or active protective systems. The days of the AT4 and LAW are over for giving US infantry effective, close-in anti-tank capability.
@@pavegray you don't need similar system, you just need NLAW. NATO uses common equipment standards for a reason. Just license it or better make transfer deal with brits to get them small amount of Javelins for big shipments of NLAWs. The only thing that might need to be added in is that I don't recall if NLAW has DP mode.
You were right up until the end there, the NLAW does not rely on an EFP or a shaped charge. It's simply a direct detonation that relies on overpressure to compromise the structural Integrity of the top of the tank. That's a really complicated way of saying that it's a very simple weapon, it makes a big boom. It's a far simpler weapon than a HEAT round or a Javelin.
@@Mygg_Jeager look at scheme of NLAW projectile and at result of detonation on targets, then repeat your statement. I feel like one of us is going insane...
I've spoken to someone who used Nlaw on a reg basis. His 4-man unit was on armor hunt duty and in the back of the pick-up truck was: Stugna-p he called it a workhorse, Javelin, Nlaw, or at4. he said that At4 was so snappy compared to Nlaw. He did tell a story of Russian Bmp_1 standing behind a hill and non-stop firing, he could only see the top of the turret and that was enough for the Nlaw to turn it into a ball of fire, he also said that if its: bmp1, 2, 3, bmd 1, 2 3 4, mtlb, or btr they do not even bother with the top attack mode, a direct hit would take any of them out for good.
I have used one and I must admit that you are ready to somewhat use it after only like a 15min briefing. Also what I liked about it is that you can change it to overhead attack to direct fire so it's not only an antitank weapon as it can be used against buildings aswel. And the ergonomics of it while both the shoulder and chest stock out is so good that you can sit with it for an hour if you need to. Also it having a secondary red dot scope was cool if someone missplaced the acog or you have a night sight on it and its day. So it sosimple it can used with a red dot sight.
No, NLAW is not overrated. It's doing what it's designed to, it's exactly what's been needed. There is a good reason they were requesting *so* many of them. It's not magic, but it *is*, evidently, being extremely effective, this justifies how highly it has been rated.
They actually explain the lack of recoil: salt water counter mass. Which I assume also reduces back blast, or at least the firey sandblasting part. In the PanzerFaust 3s I fired during my service, it was a sandlike substance. So back blast was still a considerable danger, (removing all foliage and shredding range targets in the area) and double checking your six before firing by ammo bearer and specialist mandatory drill. It left you covered in soot from head to toe when firing from indoors. We actually removed the counter mass several times on training rounds, which gave our group leaders some pretty black rings around their right eyes. Stu fun times, don't tell anyone!
I remember we would put our NVGs on our helmets about an hour before dark so we are not searching for them in the dark. Also it is very possible the camera is showing more light then the people there perceive.
Any time you get a weapon like this, It's a winner! Even the most basic of the knuckle draggers can operate it like a pro! Like the M1014 shotgun, it is Marine proof. (sorry Marines, and Semper Fi) Combat is a stressful business. Simplifying the weapons used, just makes sense! Great video Matt!
The NLAW project was initiated by the UK MOD in the early 1980s. A full set of trials was executed by RARDE and Hunting Engineering and the design was ready for production, including the critical technologies, by 1990. It was designed to be able to defeat T90s in urban environments, have an extended storage life, top attack, and be fired from enclosed spaces. It had to be low cost and easy to manufacture. It had to be fire-and-forget. The characteristics of the target meant that an all-burn-on-launch design was not viable, so the soft launch and associated spin stabilisation and course correction technology had to be designed and tested, which was all in place by 1990. The USSR collapsed in 1990, so the design was put on a shelf for a decade, until LAW 80 was reaching end-of-life. At that point there were several similar designs in production, so the contract went to Bofors who were always well regarded by MOD, as Hunting Engineering, the company that manufactured LAW 80, had focused their business around support of the UK's nuclear deterrent. A critical difference between the Bofors product of 2000 and the NLAW design concept of 1990 was the spin stabilisation technology which facilitated fire-and-forget engagement with crossing targets. This had been solved (and secretly patented) by Hunting Engineering in the 1980s using rate sensors developed in support of the US guided munitions programme, starting with Copperhead. That sensor was incorporated into the Bofors design to meet the UK's NLAW requirement. NLAW, as conceived by RARDE and Hunting Engineering, and ultimately delivered by Bofors and Shorts with the addition of BAE technology, did exactly what it was required to do according to General Staff Target written in the early 80s.
@@lukec2375 The guidance system was patented by Hunting in 1983, based around the rate sensor that was incorporated in the Saab solution and specifically developed to meet the General Staff Target. It was a secret patent and therefore not, and has never been, in the public domain. There were two people named on the secret patent, both Hunting employees, one of which was me. The specification of the rate sensor was derived from work that I did on my doctorate, sponsored by BAE, which covered the application of nonlineaar stochastic calculus to inertial navigation problems. At the time my father-in-law was on the Board of Directors of BAE, and was the founder of the Precision Products Group that developed the rate sensor eventually used by Saab. I was employed as a consultant to BAE (then BAC) to define the characteristics of the rate sensor. Saab certainly didn't invent the guidance system, that was done by RARDE and Hunting Engineering in the early 1980s.
Lockheed Martin actually produced a weapon like this several years ahead of NLAW also using Predicted Line of Sight (PLOS). It was called FGM-172 SRAW (Short-Range Assault Weapon) and was to replaced AT4. It weighed less than NLAW because there were two versions. FGM-172A with a standard warhead and FGM-172B with a top attack warhead. As a result it weighed only 9.7kg instead of NLAW's 12.5 because it carried only one type of warhead. Only 900 or so were produced on budget grounds. -PLOS and inertial guidance is not a new thing. It was proposed in the 70s to use Air to Ground missile aimed simply by a pilot tracking the target with his helmeted mounted site but wasn't entirely viable since IMU were expensive and MEMS versions didn't exist till the 1990s. The SRAW (Short-Range Assault Weapon) program was begun by the U.S Marine Corps in 1987 as a replacement for existing unguided anti-armour rockets and grenades like the M72 LAW (Light Anti-Armour Weapon) and the M136 AT4. Between February 1990 and mid-1993, a demonstration/validation phase was conducted by several competing companies, with the first test firings occuring in 1991. In July 1994, the Predator design of Loral (now Lockheed Martin) was selected for the EMD (Engineering and Manufacturing Development) phase. It was not before 2006 that the official designation FGM-172A was assigned to the missile (before that, it was formally known as SRAW MK 40 MOD 0). The FGM-172A is a small solid-fueled rocket powered missile, which is manually aimed and fired from an expendable shoulder launcher. The complete ready-to-fire system including missile and launcher weighs only 9.7 kg (21.4 lb). The motor is a "soft-launch" rocket with a low initial thrust, so that the weapon can be safely fired from enclosed positions. The SRAW is a fire-and-forget missile which can be used at ranges between 17 m (55 ft) and 600 m (2000 ft) against stationary and moving targets. During aiming, the SRAW's inertial reference autopilot detects the angular motion of the target, and during flight the autopilot directs the missile to a position above the predicted target location. The FGM-172A is armed with a downward-firing top-attack warhead (very similar to the BGM-71F TOW 2B), which is activated by a dual-sensor (laser & magnetic) fuze in the missile's nose. EMD Phase I (Risk Reduction) was completed in March 1998, and was followed by Phase II (System Evaluation). In January 2002, Lockheed Martin was awarded the first LRIP (Low-Rate Initial Production) contract for SRAW, followed by a second one in January 2003. During EMD, a total of about 230 Predator missiles were built, and the two LRIP contracts cover the production of 730 rounds. SRAW was to be a low-cost complement to the larger and more sophisticated FGM-148 Javelin anti-armour missile, but further procurement after LRIP has been cancelled in 2003. In 2004, Lockheed Martin received a contract to refit all remaining SRAW rounds to the FGM-172B SRAW-MPV (Multi-Purpose Variant) configuration with a new multi-purpose blast-fragmentation warhead. This will convert the missile from an anti-armour to a direct-fire urban assault weapon, which better fulfills the needs of the USMC. The U.S. Army evaluated a derivative of the Predator SRAW with a multipurpose warhead for its MPIM (Multipurpose Individual Munition) requirement. A variant named Kestrel, with a direct-attack warhead, was unsuccessfully entered in the UK's NLAW (Next Generation Light Anti-Armour) competition. Specifications Note: Data given by several sources show slight variations. Figures given below may therefore be inaccurate! Data for FGM-172A (missile without launcher): Length 70.5 cm (27.8 in) Diameter 14 cm (5.5 in) Weight 6.4 kg (14.1 lb) Speed 900 km/h (560 mph) Range 600 m (2000 ft) Propulsion Dual-thrust solid-fueled rocket Warhead Downward-firing EFP (Explosive Formed Projectile)
22:50 I'm no expert, but when I watched the NLAW vid which is analyzed here, I immediately understood it didn't mean the NLAW plunges down but flies horizontally until it is above the tank, and then the blast is directed downwards. There was no confusion honnestly.
NLAW and Javelin compliment each other. They both cover an area that the other really can't. Javelin is for long range NLAW short to medium range. It's a perfect combo for a military. Both together are an insane force multiplier on a just boots on the ground platoon and even squad level. A little group of soldiers can obliterate numerous armor.
As a volunteer Canadian in Ukraine... I have about 15-20 with our unit of those... Compared to the Russian rpg-30, nlaw wins in durability. We've had 2 captured RPG-30s loose parts and get damaged from moving...
At 8:25 you mention that the US are keeping the AT4 system as their fire and forgett weapon of choise, i just want to mention that the AT4 is a Saab product aswell. Gr8 video so far!
Regarding the bit about wearing Night Vision during the day, there could be two reasons (even though the video is all staged) To start with, if you are in a built up environment, you could be moving through the buildings, which could either have no power (destroyed power grid) or the lights could simply be off, having you night vision already on your head means you can just swing them down, then you are good to go, Secondly, if its around dusk, you put on your Night vision before you need to, and before it gets dark, just in case. Although in the case of the video, its probably just to look cool
NLAW: NEXT-GENERATION LIGHT ANTI-TANK WEAPON The next-generation light anti-tank weapon (NLAW) is the first missile system for non-experts and can strike out tanks with a single shot as it strikes from above. The weapon weighs 12.5 kilos and depending on which year model it is, the fired missile reaches 600-800 meters. It can be fired in tight spaces. Price per piece $ 35,000. Developed by Saab Bofors Dynamics in Sweden and manufactured in the UK. The American missile weapon Javelin is twice as heavy as the NLAW at 24.3 kilos, and reaches 2500 old one to 4000 meters new one. In 2002, a single Javelin command launch unit cost $ 126,000, and each missile cost around $ 78,000 (equivalent to $ 112,000 in 2020). Thats $ 238,000 do you get it now ?!
The first problem with this discussion is the ignorance of the world on how the Javelin works. The Jav is NOT a "top attack" weapon. It uses the old naval "plunging attack" pattern and quite literally comes in at a more horizontal than vertical angle. On soviet/rooskie tanks it aims to come in under the edge of the turret/turret reactive armor and strike through the side fuel tank - thus resulting in the fighting compartment becoming a single stroke engine fueled by about 50 gallons of super-heated diesel fuel blasted into the interior at thousands of PSI. Differing amounts of fuel left in those tanks results in differing levels of turret-pop. This is the lethal flaw of ALL Russian and Chinese tanks and why almost all NATO nation tanks have large broad turrets instead of puckered bottle caps on top. The Jav is tailor-made to strike precisely that kind of tank in precisely that way and is programmed to aim precisely outside the turret and reactive armor edge at a plunging angle for maximum effect. Go look at the flight profile chart avail at wikipedia which compresses the horizontal scale about 4:1. The chart has 180m on the vertical and 2000m on the horizontal. Now... the NLAW. The NLAW doesn't actually have a "direct attack" mode, it has a self-destruct-upon-impact function. There is a button in the circuitry which can be activated to dead-fire the weapon upon trigger without any targeting or guidance as well! There is no forward facing radar reflection to speak of because it is a _stealth_ ATM designed to defeat any active target defense systems. It can be defended against by an electromagnetic rod offset about 8 feet towards the launching location, resulting in early triggering but it cannot be defended against en masse because its warhead, unless you push the special button, will not be triggered until it reaches the predicted range by the targeting system. Interestingly it can be fired while turned 90° axially to the left or right resulting in the weapon being able to detect vehicles to the side. They don't mention that in the news... its control system can be given an adjusted vertical offset as well, in order to either clear or come in under the mullet-rack that some of the tanks have been using. It is not a highly precise weapon on the Javelin's scale but is still capable of striking the turret top reliably out to about 400 yards, after that - especially on a moving target - it could literally hit the wrong vehicle. The limitations of both of the above missiles are why Ukraine went to develop the 4 mile Stugna laser-signaled missile systems. There are almost no videos at all of the Javelin missiles being used in the Ukraine invasion, almost all of the ones shown were actually Stugna strikes and of course Ukraine doesn't show the Stugna misses. Is the NLAW overrated? No. It is probably the best ATM system available on the market _ever_ and is so simple to operate that people who have never fired a weapon can be instructed through to a hit on a moving target before the battery on the disposable launcher is drained. It will even tell you if the target is too close to fire upon. The NLAW is literally something the Allies could have deployed in WW2 as it is little more than a combination of a radar range finder, autopilot, proximity fuse and shaped charge. The only one of those things that wasn't possible in a man portable system at that time was the radar range finder/trajectory calculator as the primary equivalent unit of the era was the turret targeting computers in the B29 - which could easily have been installed in some kind of tank destroyer.
We had a saying in the Navy, logistics touches all munitions, but only for storage and transport. Leave the shooting to someone who knows the system. Had to Junior Officers(JO) who thought they knew what they were doing "playing" with the Bridge SRBOC(chaff) Launch Control Panel. I was notified and when I saw them they were about to fire chaff in the Persian Gulf. Safety off, Fire depressed and about to push a tube button. I yelled at them, then let them know what about happened, not to do it again unless a missile was inbound and let me know if they want training. I then apologized to the CO for disrupting his Bridge, He nodded at me and motioned to two JOs over. I then had to do Wardroom training for ALL officers. But having everyone know how to use a weapon, even basically, is a very good idea. They can use it and not kill themselves.
This is *ridiculously* important... youtube code rSzDCKfnVNg The USS Missouri took 20mm Phalanx fire because it launched chaff. The other danger of chaff when it isn't absolutely necessary is that it gives a ship a radar signature from about 3x further away that can be used to fire a seeking anti-ship missile at.
1. Its a shape charged that fires a jet of molten copper. Once it pierces through the hull that molten copper will traveling at supersonic speeds will liquify human flesh as well as set off ammunition 2 The warhead is flipped between direct attack.(the shaped charge is pointed front), or top attack (the shaped charge is pointed down and the missile flies over the amour)
Not actually how shaped charges work, but result will be the same. That copper liner cone doesn't melt (high speed x-rays shows temperature is below 800 °C), it gets inverted and around 30% of it forms into the penetrating needle that travels at speeds between 8000m/s and 11000m/s. Remaining 70% ends up crushed into the characteristic carrot lump that trails behind at a fraction of the speed.
I always understood that Saab vehicles and the people who operated them were top notch, but then again, I live in Texas so I'm not sure I have ever even seen a Saab.
I'm no expert (just a truck driver), but my understanding on ammo bustle on, for example, the M1, is that if something like the NLAW penetrated the tank, the armored slide doors would be able to protect the ammo from all the fragments flying around in the haul. I thought those slide doors were armored significantly to protect from that, providing that the doors are closed.
I'm not an American tank soldier, but from what I've been told the sliding door is to contain the blast from the rounds detonating, combined with blowout panels to protect the crew if the rounds detonate. It will provide protection from splinters inside the tank though, but I have no idea how well and it would depend on how much energy is still in the fragments that have penetrated the armour, or the road from what I assume is a shaped charge in the NLAW.
If anyone is looking for it's cons. It can be used on direct attack for MBT, but top attack works best. It's a no go for 45° down. It's a one shot system. It's range is up to 800m but it's effectiveness drops off over 500m. It's a single warhead, so ERA can defeat it in direct attack or top attack sometimes. It takes a lot of space as it's a one shot system. It's a very good ATGM, it's really effective.
Even though it's a single warhead, it detonates and forms above the tank with enough standoff to where the penetrator forms completely, thus ERA will not stop but may degrade penetration, though insufficiently as roof armour is thin af. Obviously you don't want to use direct attack against an armoured vehicle though
The nlaw is a nice weapon in the modern battlefield. Can't tell you how many javelins we used against a machine gun or mortar nest in iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan that were with in 800 meters. Always thought that we needed something cheaper than a javelin, but still had the ability to be guided in on target unlike at-4. Though honestly the matador may be a better choice for that to be honest
@@dwwolf4636 I am hopeful on that one, but it is still a little small for my liking. But then again it will greatly reduce what we will have to hump up a mountain, so I am happy
@@terrynewsome6698 Machine gun or mortar nests doesn't move fast enough that you need guided ammunition. CG can hit stationary targets at 800m without issues.
By that definition neither the Minuteman ICBM nor Poseidon SLBM missile is guided either because both use inertial guidance that cant be changed once launched. NLAW has guidance fins and if subjected to side or head winds or rain will correct its course. I can see that one day the NLAW could be fired remotely by a sighting station aligned and positioned (by a laser fro example) at a known distance from the NLAW missile itself.
The dude is wearing his night vision during the day because it looks so darn cool for the STAGED picture. Night vision is your lifeline in the dark and you protect it so
Both systems complement each other. The ability to use the NLAW at close ranges is very useful in urban environments. Iit’s capable of being used down to 30/40 metres. If I was shooting at something with ERA or an APS I’d think twice about setting it loose.
If I remember correctly, the "projectile" that penetrates the hull, is molten copper. Not something you wanna have push through the roof of your tank, with that power, and get in your thigh.
It would do more than get in your thigh. It would slice straight through it like butter, bone and all. Basically, you're a gonna if you get hit by the super heated copper plasma jet of a shaped charge.
At the USS Star Destroyer orbiting planet Earth, Commander Bridgette, and Combat Engineer Sergeant Timotheus were discussing. Bridgette asketh, - Should we attack, Tim? - Yes, absolutely. The first Russian divisions were at the front line. They are the best.
love the comments about handing an NLAW to a logistics officer. Had a family member who did logistics for army, I remember him saying: Yeah, Private E1 is going to say "excuse me sir" taking that weapon away from me the moment I get into the field because they know what I am.
That tiny hole do a 350,000 bar pressure impact and hot as hell at same time. Guess what happened behind the hole !!! It's like you have a Thor's hammer to deal with coming right at your body.
Mat, the lack of recoil is nice -but not magic. It is basically a two stage rocket fired from a tube open in both ends. First stage - burning extremely fast - sends its energy backwards through the tube - propelling the rocket forward with an equal, opposite energy. Once clear of the tube and in a safe distance from the operator, second stage ignites, burns for a longer time, accelerating the rocket towards the target.
Yes...RPG 7 gets lot of stigma...like...poor mans weapon or terrorist stuff bady guy stuff...but in long war things like RPG will out live any modern hiend AT weapon
@@voidtempering8700 It depends on the situation and the ammunition used. Frontal attacks won’t get you anywhere, and unless it’s urban warfare, you generally won’t be hitting a modern tank on its side with a weapon that has that short of a range. You can get a mobility kill on a tank… But so can a caveman armed with the knowledge about track weaknesses and a fucking wooden log. With the advent of advanced, western APS systems (Trophy) Even the age of Rank ambushes with RPG’s would be limited. Unless you are rocking the RPG-30… which only Russia has.
International sourcing of parts is only viable as long as you control the supply routes. In large scale war cutting of a critical component (or several) supply source is problematic. The internal supply lines of home grown is not to be sneered at. No worries, no one gives cooks, clerks, or logistics officers these weapons. Basically a squad or platoon of irritated grunts is detailed to provide security for those war tourists (sorry retired Infantry NCO here)...
Regarding firing NLAW downwards ; it will not arm if the downward angle is less than 45° from the point of firing ! This is intended to preserve the firer from being blown up by the tank they have fired at exploding i.e. because they are on top of it ! Therefore firing from a high position , downwards, should not be carried out, use another a/tk system (if you have it).
If one absolutely needs to shoot a tank from above, although risky, better do it with M72 LAW because it is cheap and can penetrate the roof. Also it does not ask about the angle. But there is a risk of the revenge by a flying turret .
I am a finn trained for this system in 2018, I used to wonder why USA is not copying this as this is far superior to what they got. Also, the system literally has letters TA engraved in the selection lever for "Top Attack". The missile senses the tank and directs the destructive charge towards the tank, so yes, in the end the attack is from up to down. There is no tank invented that can survive this
If on the frontline face armour , having this system available is a huge morale boost and crucial to countering and assault. With the modular boxer coming into service to get troops forward quickly to where needed. I would have the more complex systems mounted, with longer range drone , anti air, ecm and javelin type systems for close support, and tank drones to draw the enemies fire. BAE have been working on something in that concept , however seems over complex and costly for something that should be a disposable decoy?
I worked in logistics for quite a few years, and feel that this case may be special in that if a subset of supplying countries is at war (say, Sweden and Finland against a common enemy) and no other country produces those parts, it could halt the whole process (and existing stocks at other countries would quickly dry up). OK, a lack of NLAWs may not be the biggest issue in that scenario though.
As a logistics officer who also happens to be a horse, I am deeply offended by this video. Jokes aside I've only used the trainer versions of the AT4(20mm and 9mm) and the NLAW seems to have as much recoil as the 9mm version of the AT4. For some reason I sucked at shooting at stationary targets, was pretyy damn good at hitting mobile targets. Was pretty cool seeing the tracer at the back of the trainer ammo slowly sailing to it's target(looked a lot slower than it actually was). As with every weapon system, it is a constant race in weapons vs counter measures. Great video!
I'm not sure about other countries but in the US airborne units carry equipment as needed. I never had NVGs on during the day if they weren't needed. It really just depended on the mission requirments especially in country or in combat. I feel like it is just a little too heavy and annoying to have it on when not needed.
Comparing costs of AFVs vs ATGMs even the pricier variants make the juice worth the squeeze. I think everything that moves should have a Spike launcher, lol. Seriously.
Comparing it to the Javelin isn't really... Fair. I think the Javelin is more in the region of a fullblown ATGM system, comparable to TOW, Spike, Kornet and BILL2. You need two guys or a vehicle and you can hit stuff at 2-3km away. The NLAW is a squad weapon, not a dedicated antitank team weapon. It's basically an advanced AT4. One guy to use it, throw it away after firing, shot at stuff that's within 300m so you know you'll hit. But, with the ability to knock out a tank and not just IFVs or APCs. The NLAW was designed to replace the AT4 and Carl Gustav as the squads antitank weapon, since these older systems don't have enough oomph to effectively threaten a tank (and no, a CG did not kill a T90 in Ukraine). So the NLAW is intended to be widely used by infantry, as opposed to a few teams of soldiers with extra training. And the ease of use is really evidence for this, the idea is that anyone should be able to use this thing.
40 000 for a throw away fancy RPG? If one thing is soo good about nlaw is the hype factor. First: it is not guided it is electronicly stabilized so you dont have to mess with ballistics. It simply calculates the "ahead" angle from gyroscopic angle of movement and maintains it while flying. Both can be achieved by simple optics at fraction of the price. Top down attack is needed just because 500mm penetration is too weak. Some 20000 were sent to ukis if that was sooo good as hyped russians would only rides bicicleys by know not tanks...
Nods are left on during the day Matt because in urban area's there is no hydro in the buildings and the basements are very dark and there is not the time to keep digging in and out of your gear for your equipment- change out a mag and crack on ! The enemy is in the basements waiting for you. Have you never practiced reloading your c-7 at the ready fire ! position blindly grabbing mags with your free hand?
As I've come to understand it the Americans see the supply chain as a big what if. What I've understood is that to use out of country suppliers is the potential to have part's intercepted in transit and either hijacked, tampered with, or in the case of ships sunk but the potential of a major interruption in the access to the raw materials, or finished components, the shorter supply lines to the UK, Finland, and any other of the manufacturing nations is short and there are quicker ways to ship than just ships they can easily ship them by air in small commercial airlines capable of transfer components almost to the front door of the other company's involved anywhere in an hour or so. Where the US is a long distance run making ships rather easy to intercept or sink. Aircraft would have to be much larger hauling more per load making for plump targets that are rarely equiped to deal with a pair of fighters. While home made mean secure supply lines that are almost impossible for another nation to attack by surprise, unless it's Canada or Mexico. Their radar coverage is rather organic since Canada is so intertwined with the US where Air defence radar's are that they should be considered one. So the fact that they possess the raw materials needed that if nessary they can weather a interruption in a raw material wont slow the production as much as losing a few ships would just about bring everything to a halt since components from us wouldn't make it in time to keep production up and running.
The need to create a weapons system on their own is critical! Responsible price weapons, engineering on a local level with local needs in mind, their own production to guarantee availability to local troops!
If I'm not mistaken, a big diffence between NLAW and Javelin is that the prior has its fancy technology in the optics while the latter has most of the expensive technology in the missile itself. Thus, you can save a LOT of money per shot!
Javelin is a true top attack, has 2 warheads and it's way more fancy. The optics in the launcher for javelin is pretty expensive too. I can't believe cost was heavy factor in javelins design.
The biggest crime i see is yeah people calling the NLAW the Javelin and vise versa. Just look at any robot voice video on any of these weapons systems and all the footage is a mix of NLAW and Javelin footage.
You can totally ignore the forward speed of the missile when it fires over the target. The copper jet produced is many, many times faster. I doubt very much the NLAW moves more than 1 mm. It's the old MxV squared, where the V is huge, that does the damage. I won't mention the terrible heat.
these systems have been very affective against older designed tank, but modern design tank will have counter measures , like spaced amour, systems like iron fist. Trophy, the new PANTHER .
2 things that made the developmen so fast is they used technology derived from RBS 56B BILL 2 (warhead and guidance) and AT4 CS (confined space capability), as well as some further developments.
I am very much torn in half about support weapons embedded into a section/squad or even platoon. OK I do get it. It is far better to have one when you need it rather than not having one. But we keep adding to the basic kit of the section and we are subtracting from endurance of movement and infiltration. I believe NLAW has a long career ahead of it as it ticks the 2 main boxes of availability and simplicity of use. The RPG-7 and in the West the Carl Gustav remain the most used RPGS in the world because they too tick these boxes and another vital box re-usability. It could easily be done by having the ammunition come with its own insertion tube that uses 3 or more alignment grooves or spines so that all pins and connectors are perfectly aligned and still remain simple to use. Science has the bad habit of removing the amazing and replacing it with the simple. The overhead attack works on the interaction of the electromagnetic fields of 2 objects in question. The interaction reaches maximum intensity and the moment the it starts to drop the round ignites, similar to the proximity fuse. Trees and rocks don't normally have electromagnetic fields of the massive field that a vehicle has. Sorry if I killed amazing. Why the unnecessary night gear in the photos, the simple answer is propaganda. Nothing says I am a high tech warrior like night vision on the helmut. I was once talking to a crewman from our Leopard 1A3/4 (Australia) and pentration and I think what he said about it is still relevant today. Go into a 5 story building fire escape stairwell with your mate at the bottom of them. From the top you tip a bucket of super balls down the stairwell. Then ask him what was it like, if he doesn't hit you first.
Nice, very nice. No I haven't used it, I am a civilian. It is like using a 30-40 Krag to hunt ground hogs except it is far more accurate before it just blows the stuff apart. It is perhaps simpler to use than a 30-40 Krag rifle.
It is normal with weapons to have more than one factory both supplying and building, the reason is obvious, you do not want destruction of one factory to prevent things being manufactured.
Yes it is good. And cheaper than the US offerings. Surprise there eh? It is now battle proven. I trained on Wombat ( showing my age ) I am glad I never had to face a T64 using Wombat, or a Piat type of weapon. What hurts American "industry" more than anything? Seeing the little guys produce cheaper and effective kit more than them. We need to wean ourselves off of American kit. Their foot dragging over the F35's integration of British weapons shows that. This kind of weapon turns "Tom" into a tank killer. And I love Saab products of all kinds
WOMBAT was a 120mm recoiless British AT gun wasn't it? Probably would work quite well if supported by a laser range finder and some kind of computer and gyro sight to correct for target movement.
@@williamzk9083 Technically a recoilless rifle. Yes effective but the deployment times were its downfall. More suited to an ambush imo. It was deployed to the Falklands but not used. Milan was though as a "bunker buster", I liked Milan a lot. NLAW really impresses me.
"Seeing the little guys produce cheaper and effective kit..." I mean we all use the same or similar tech and kits so that don't make sense at all. Shit half of the American grunts loadout is probably something from or based on from Europe. M3 CG, AT4 yep, M240 yep... And to be fair cheaper doesn't mean better in the way you put it. Given the NLAWs history is it a big or small win and if so is it really better then the shit we Yanks can come up with? If we want to take your stance I'd say everybody should make and produce their own gear, weapons, etc instead of growing these multi-billion dollar companies to the point of monopolizing the industries. As for the F-35 that's a whole nother can of worms.
Lmao this whole thing reeks of Eurotard Jesus. You make it “cheaper” because y’all niggas are broke. Here is a tip, join any other military but keep the Euro equipment. Companies can make good products, but the militaries that use them are useless. Except France… they go hard.
Re, NVG's , I think, and I'm no expert, that besides looking cool on camera, when you are moving in a urban environment, you're gonna be going into dark buildings a lot. So there is going to be a lot of dark cellars and passageways. I think that might be a good reason for having them ready to use in an urban context.
Depending on the missle used, you get wide array of effects. Direct & top attack vary between missile used, as well as other purpose made missile choices.
@@EstellammaSS They are ALL anti-armor weapon systems. So comparing them IS valid. Pull your head from your ass. Are some fool who wouldn't compare a pen, pencil and marker too?
@@xxxlonewolf49 Would you compare a handgrenade to a 15.5 cm artillery shell? There are occasions where that is relevant and reasonable, and ties when it is just stupid.
Дуже близькі за ефективністю, але у джавеліна є невеличка проблема, наприклад, якщо робити засідку на колону і підбити цистерну з пальним а наступна мішень, наприклад танк, стоїть біля палаючої цистерни, велика вірогідність того, що тепловізійна голівка джавеліна спрямує ракет у палаючу цистерну. Просто треба враховувати обираючи порядок знищення цілей, у цьому сенсі НЛАВ має невеличку перевагу. Обидва зразки озброєння дуже гарні.
Translation from Ukrainian of the above: "Very close in effectiveness, but the javelin has a small problem, for example, if you ambush a column and hit a fuel tank and the next target, for example a tank, is standing next to a burning tank, there is a high probability that the thermal imaging head of the javelin will direct missiles into the burning tank. It is simply necessary to take into account when choosing the order of destruction of targets, in this sense, NLAV has a slight advantage. Both weapons are very good."
There is nothing to stop the Javelin from being given the IMU and predicted line of flight guidance of the NLAW as a back up mode for cases of CLU battery depleted or thermal distraction. The best way its to upgrade the Javelins seeker with a better procesor and higher resolution thermals to allow better algorithms.
I watched the Saab video discussed and thought it was excellent, a question i have though is that it mentions a "saltwater counterweight system" what exactly is that? also in one of the scenes it showed 3 soldiers with NLAW's were they Swedish, British and Finnish?
Salt is added to the water to reduce the freezing temperature so it is not just a solid block of ice in the winter. Let's consider an AT4 with no salt water. The projectile is launched from a tube open at both ends. The propellant is ignited behind the projectile so a lot of hot gas will go back when it pushes the projectile forward. That way there is very little recoil but a lot of backblasts that would kill you if are close. In peacetime no one should be in a 90-degree cone 100m long, in wartime it is no one within 15 meters and beyond that, you need to be in cover. That exhaust will bounce on a wall and come back toward the shooter so firing an AT4 in an enclosed space can kill the user. The solution was to put a container with water at the back of the tube, that is the AT4CS (Confined Space). Its increased mass will result in the slower exhaust, reduce the temperature and it will slow down quicker. The no-person allowed area is reduced to a 50-degree angle and 20 meters. The result is you can use it indoors, the requirement is according to the US manual a room 4.5 meters long and 3.5 meters wide for safe usage. NLAW uses the same saltwater container design to have very low recoil and the ability to use it indoors in large enough rooms.
The NLAW is definitely a good AT weapon. However... MB tanks move fast during action or penetration through a defensive line, supported by APCs and snipers who shoot any soldier above ground level trying to raise the NLAW and fire it at tanks. The sniper's range and APC mahcine gun range are up to 1000 meters, meaning any soldier who raises his waist or torso above ground level will probably get shot before the NLAW missile fires. Second, the speed of the NLAW is around 200 meters per second according to the Saab commercial. This means it needs at least four seconds to travel the 800 meters distance. The problem is that many modern tanks have heat seekers which automatically find the NLAW heat source and shooter's position and send a 125mm round to this exact postion. Third, 500mm of equivalent steel armor penetration may not be enough to penetrate most modern MBTs with additional armor. This is ok to immobilize a MBT, but not as advertized in the Saab video. Most videos show a lone tank shot from close distance. In reality, MBTs have infantry and APC around, move very fast and rarely leave more than a second for a chance to shoot it easily. Just my 2c.
Umm... if that's how you expect anyone to engage AFVs... you need to find a modern soldiers manual. Hint: In the Swedish soldiers manual from 2001, there is an illustration of a tank and a quartered overlay of how to attack it. The rear 90° is labeled 'best' The two side 90° are labeled 'good enough' (only if the turret is facing away from you) The front 90° quarter is coloured red, and labeled 'suicide'
What modern tank has 500mm of equivalent steel armor on the top of the tank? You should use it in the overfly top attack mode against armored vehicles, the direct attack mode is for structures and non-armoured vehicles.
@@target844 Any fast moving tank. You clearly missed the video what Mat was saying. The 500mm penetration is in a direct hit case, the top attack mode much less. This in not a Javelin, the NLAW has a proximity detonation in the top attack mode.
Yup I remember DPM. In royal welch our DPM smock was paper thin until the new kit came in as the NATO jackets, before that we had what I’m sure belonged to the guys doing national service in the 50s lol
Well the price is going to come down with volume production. The important thing is to get them into the light infantry's hands. It can provide a mobility kill on an armoured vehicle, but they will probably kill more transport trucks. They can be used by light infantry "dads-army" types. A tank without fuel and ammunition is just a traffic accident, that has happened. In practise i much doubt they will be used in excess of 400 meters, but that is all right, as vehicle mounted systems will have started whittling down the hostile force. Bring it to a halt - and serve the target on a platter to the artillery.
It manages a strike into the tank that only has the power of about 5 oreo cookies. (a standard oreo has nearly 4x the power of a .50bmg) Often NLAW strikes are followed by everybody climbing out of the tank and finding cover... unlike a Javelin strike which is followed by everything being blown out of the tank and covering everything.
@@prjndigo that’s one of the reasons why the systems compliment each other, although the power of NLAW is more than enough for most short-medium range engagements and the shaped charge is many, many times more powerful than 4 x .50. No army exclusively use Javelin because of the cost, weight and unsuitability in close quarters. Much better to use NLAW (or another ‘light’ anti-armour weapon) alongside Javelin.
Mat, as a conscript trained Swede with exp. of both the CG and AT4, I would presume that telescopic front brace of the NLAW was added, not for supporting the weight of the weapon itself, but to prevent unintentional depression of the tube as the missile is launched and it's weight in the tube shifts forward during launch as that's the main source of shorted shot misses on the CG and AT4, both of which lacks that kind of brace.
The NLAW has an IMU, inertial measurement unit, so once the trigger is pulled the flight path is locked in and any subsequent movement whether by wind or operator depression is corrected. Obviously one would still want to limit this. NLAW uses a salt water counter shot like AT4 so is safe to use in doors or bunkers. I suppose you would get a little wet. I'm not sure Javelin would work so well in that situation of an enclosed space.
The brace would help with window frames or other near obstructions .
@@williamzk9083 my point was more that since the Swedish training manual for the AT4 and the CG both notes that it's very common for a shooter to unintentionally droop the tube forwards as the weight of the munition moves, it makes sense that the design of a successor/compliment system incorporates a means to eliminate that possibility from the get go, regardless of any features included in the munition guidance system.
Especially when the typical intended user was going to be either an 18-19yo conscript at the end of no more than 3(basic) to 7.5(mech inf privates) months of infantry training.
Or a drafted 20 to 45yo with a few odd weeks of refresher training every few years after their initial conscript training.
Good point. The soft launch system makes the muzzle velocity relatively slow so the weight shift would be significant.
As someone who has seen multiple videos of Indian army using the Carl Gustav. Where the front of the barrel has slight depression just when the shot leaves the barrel.
Your explanation is extremely logical.
Thanks for your service to your nation.
What people don't understand about that tiny hole in the armor is that all the metal that used to be where the hole is got heated white hot, accelerated to supersonic sped, and sent flying around inside the tank. It's like turning the tanks own armor into buckshot.
And that white hot metal spray inside the confined space of a tank quickly superheats the air inside to far beyond comfortable and, as air expands with rising temperatures, as well as any additional combustion gasses generated by everything combustible getting hit by droplets of molten, burning steel, will be trying to make room for that extra volume one way or another...
@@SonsOfLorgar Yeah even an RPG round strrapped to an FPV drone now in Ukraine creates the same effect. Shaped charge causes full destrustion and cook-off of the tank
You don’t want to be in a tank when this happens, a very bad day
Its not white hot, its plasticised. Please get it right
Had it happen to me in 07 with an EFP
I have the chunk of copper that almost killed me on my desk- about the size of half a tennis ball
As an ex airborne soldier, I used to love the Karl Gustav. In the hands of a veteran it was almost as accurate as a rifle!
CG Group leader (Gruppbefäl, Furir) here. CG is a fantastic multi-versatile weapon. In a group of 8 conscripts, we have two CGs besides our sidearms. What can we do in 20 sec? (After 20 sec we have to run for cover). We can have 4 grenades fired at targets like Tanks, Helicopters, Ships, Boats, Bunkers Troops (treetop explosions at 1000m), and fire smoke grenades to blind our anime. We can do all this with a very high probability to succeed. CG can replace the NLAW, but NLAW can not replace the CG. BUT 👍 NLAW is a much better, safer weapon against all armour. I guess a formation/group equipped with two CG and two NLAW would be a formidable force...
Ppl don't really know the price difference, you can get 10 NLAWS with the cost of single javelin
Classic Swedish I would say, as a Swede. Things we produce should be easy to use and very practical. That is usually our main focus.
Don’t text that scammer ^^^
@@MelordJenkins - No worries
Tillåmed IKEA instruktionerna! xD
Being a Brit I get annoyed that people call this a British system. They are made in the UK but designed originally in Sweden. But the Harrier suffers the same issue with people saying that its American.
Maybe one day Sweden will achieve its dream.
...if China does not nationalise Ikea, before that.
Still would rather have one of these than no anti tank.
Exactly. It's brutally effective. Hard to accuse something THIS GOOD of being "overrated." LoL
If anything the RPG-7 is the most overrated AT Munition lol.
@@Mygg_Jeager You can reload a RPG and it can use multiple warheads
@@surferofthesynthwaves4710 So can an M203. Neither the M203 nor RPG7 can knock out a modern MBT, IFV, JLTV, or MRAP. And the M203 is 14 lbs lighter than the RPG7.
@@Mygg_Jeager really a M203? I know it can knock out light vehicles but bruh
@@Mygg_Jeager LoL, RPG-7 "overrated". Given it's an old tried and tested weapon, a very well known quantity, that statement makes about as much sense as saying that an assault rifle is overrated or drinking water is overrated. The PG-7V and the PG-7VR warheads have armor penetration of 500 and 650mm respectively. Not even modern MBTs have evenly distributed armor all around that can protect against that, side hull being usually the biggest weak spot, let alone IFVs, MRAPs and other junk.
Yeah, because both javelin and NLAW are similar in appearance, that's confusing him often. But there are tons of videos I see where you can see the Javelin or even 84mm Gustav striking directly..
They often confuse javelin's top attack meaning shoot up to about 150 ft or 150 m I forget, and then come down on the tank's head, they confuse that with NLAW which supposed to fly in a straight path as if it were going to hit the tank flat on except it deliberately misses and the warhead detonates as it's going over which has a directed shape charge (it may actually be an EFP actually) pointed down and knock out most armor...
NLAW does use an EFP. As it crosses above the target horizontal, it has a perpendicular EFP that is delivered downward into the top of the target as it flys over.
I will give it to the Brits (Bofors more accurately), it is a simple and effective weapon.
We in the US need to field a similar system. Javelin is great at range - no doubt. But NLAW is for shorter engagement ranges; yet in too close, it will not arm.
We need a similar system to replace the aging AT4 which simply strikes in the horizontal thus potentially being defeated by ERA, heavy armor, and/or active protective systems.
The days of the AT4 and LAW are over for giving US infantry effective, close-in anti-tank capability.
Need LAWs for units that don’t have MAWs
Times an infantry sqd may need short range anti tank capability
@@pavegray you don't need similar system, you just need NLAW. NATO uses common equipment standards for a reason. Just license it or better make transfer deal with brits to get them small amount of Javelins for big shipments of NLAWs.
The only thing that might need to be added in is that I don't recall if NLAW has DP mode.
You were right up until the end there, the NLAW does not rely on an EFP or a shaped charge. It's simply a direct detonation that relies on overpressure to compromise the structural Integrity of the top of the tank.
That's a really complicated way of saying that it's a very simple weapon, it makes a big boom. It's a far simpler weapon than a HEAT round or a Javelin.
@@Mygg_Jeager
look at scheme of NLAW projectile and at result of detonation on targets, then repeat your statement. I feel like one of us is going insane...
I've spoken to someone who used Nlaw on a reg basis. His 4-man unit was on armor hunt duty and in the back of the pick-up truck was: Stugna-p he called it a workhorse, Javelin, Nlaw, or at4. he said that At4 was so snappy compared to Nlaw. He did tell a story of Russian Bmp_1 standing behind a hill and non-stop firing, he could only see the top of the turret and that was enough for the Nlaw to turn it into a ball of fire, he also said that if its: bmp1, 2, 3, bmd 1, 2 3 4, mtlb, or btr they do not even bother with the top attack mode, a direct hit would take any of them out for good.
What does 'snappy' mean in this context? Light? AT4 clearly has much less range or ability against a moving target.
@@williamzk9083 he was talking about the recoil.
I have used one and I must admit that you are ready to somewhat use it after only like a 15min briefing. Also what I liked about it is that you can change it to overhead attack to direct fire so it's not only an antitank weapon as it can be used against buildings aswel. And the ergonomics of it while both the shoulder and chest stock out is so good that you can sit with it for an hour if you need to. Also it having a secondary red dot scope was cool if someone missplaced the acog or you have a night sight on it and its day. So it sosimple it can used with a red dot sight.
No, NLAW is not overrated. It's doing what it's designed to, it's exactly what's been needed. There is a good reason they were requesting *so* many of them. It's not magic, but it *is*, evidently, being extremely effective, this justifies how highly it has been rated.
They actually explain the lack of recoil: salt water counter mass. Which I assume also reduces back blast, or at least the firey sandblasting part.
In the PanzerFaust 3s I fired during my service, it was a sandlike substance. So back blast was still a considerable danger, (removing all foliage and shredding range targets in the area) and double checking your six before firing by ammo bearer and specialist mandatory drill. It left you covered in soot from head to toe when firing from indoors.
We actually removed the counter mass several times on training rounds, which gave our group leaders some pretty black rings around their right eyes. Stu fun times, don't tell anyone!
I remember we would put our NVGs on our helmets about an hour before dark so we are not searching for them in the dark. Also it is very possible the camera is showing more light then the people there perceive.
Also there for propaganda photo op. No one lets Joe wear his nvgs during the day. They are tied down and checked twice a day for accountability.
Any time you get a weapon like this, It's a winner! Even the most basic of the knuckle draggers can operate it like a pro! Like the M1014 shotgun, it is Marine proof. (sorry Marines, and Semper Fi) Combat is a stressful business. Simplifying the weapons used, just makes sense! Great video Matt!
After I get done eating crayons, I’m going to punch you in the face
@@nametag4277 Fair enough!
@@nametag4277 all is fair in inter-branch rivalry ;)
/Mortars rule!
The NLAW project was initiated by the UK MOD in the early 1980s. A full set of trials was executed by RARDE and Hunting Engineering and the design was ready for production, including the critical technologies, by 1990. It was designed to be able to defeat T90s in urban environments, have an extended storage life, top attack, and be fired from enclosed spaces. It had to be low cost and easy to manufacture. It had to be fire-and-forget. The characteristics of the target meant that an all-burn-on-launch design was not viable, so the soft launch and associated spin stabilisation and course correction technology had to be designed and tested, which was all in place by 1990.
The USSR collapsed in 1990, so the design was put on a shelf for a decade, until LAW 80 was reaching end-of-life. At that point there were several similar designs in production, so the contract went to Bofors who were always well regarded by MOD, as Hunting Engineering, the company that manufactured LAW 80, had focused their business around support of the UK's nuclear deterrent.
A critical difference between the Bofors product of 2000 and the NLAW design concept of 1990 was the spin stabilisation technology which facilitated fire-and-forget engagement with crossing targets. This had been solved (and secretly patented) by Hunting Engineering in the 1980s using rate sensors developed in support of the US guided munitions programme, starting with Copperhead. That sensor was incorporated into the Bofors design to meet the UK's NLAW requirement.
NLAW, as conceived by RARDE and Hunting Engineering, and ultimately delivered by Bofors and Shorts with the addition of BAE technology, did exactly what it was required to do according to General Staff Target written in the early 80s.
Thank you for this nugget😁
It was invented by SAAB on their tech they own the patent on the NLAW
@@lukec2375 The guidance system was patented by Hunting in 1983, based around the rate sensor that was incorporated in the Saab solution and specifically developed to meet the General Staff Target. It was a secret patent and therefore not, and has never been, in the public domain. There were two people named on the secret patent, both Hunting employees, one of which was me. The specification of the rate sensor was derived from work that I did on my doctorate, sponsored by BAE, which covered the application of nonlineaar stochastic calculus to inertial navigation problems. At the time my father-in-law was on the Board of Directors of BAE, and was the founder of the Precision Products Group that developed the rate sensor eventually used by Saab.
I was employed as a consultant to BAE (then BAC) to define the characteristics of the rate sensor.
Saab certainly didn't invent the guidance system, that was done by RARDE and Hunting Engineering in the early 1980s.
Lockheed Martin actually produced a weapon like this several years ahead of NLAW also using Predicted Line of Sight (PLOS). It was called FGM-172 SRAW (Short-Range Assault Weapon) and was to replaced AT4. It weighed less than NLAW because there were two versions. FGM-172A with a standard warhead and FGM-172B with a top attack warhead. As a result it weighed only 9.7kg instead of NLAW's 12.5 because it carried only one type of warhead. Only 900 or so were produced on budget grounds.
-PLOS and inertial guidance is not a new thing. It was proposed in the 70s to use Air to Ground missile aimed simply by a pilot tracking the target with his helmeted mounted site but wasn't entirely viable since IMU were expensive and MEMS versions didn't exist till the 1990s.
The SRAW (Short-Range Assault Weapon) program was begun by the U.S Marine Corps in 1987 as a replacement for existing unguided anti-armour rockets and grenades like the M72 LAW (Light Anti-Armour Weapon) and the M136 AT4. Between February 1990 and mid-1993, a demonstration/validation phase was conducted by several competing companies, with the first test firings occuring in 1991. In July 1994, the Predator design of Loral (now Lockheed Martin) was selected for the EMD (Engineering and Manufacturing Development) phase. It was not before 2006 that the official designation FGM-172A was assigned to the missile (before that, it was formally known as SRAW MK 40 MOD 0).
The FGM-172A is a small solid-fueled rocket powered missile, which is manually aimed and fired from an expendable shoulder launcher. The complete ready-to-fire system including missile and launcher weighs only 9.7 kg (21.4 lb). The motor is a "soft-launch" rocket with a low initial thrust, so that the weapon can be safely fired from enclosed positions. The SRAW is a fire-and-forget missile which can be used at ranges between 17 m (55 ft) and 600 m (2000 ft) against stationary and moving targets. During aiming, the SRAW's inertial reference autopilot detects the angular motion of the target, and during flight the autopilot directs the missile to a position above the predicted target location. The FGM-172A is armed with a downward-firing top-attack warhead (very similar to the BGM-71F TOW 2B), which is activated by a dual-sensor (laser & magnetic) fuze in the missile's nose.
EMD Phase I (Risk Reduction) was completed in March 1998, and was followed by Phase II (System Evaluation). In January 2002, Lockheed Martin was awarded the first LRIP (Low-Rate Initial Production) contract for SRAW, followed by a second one in January 2003. During EMD, a total of about 230 Predator missiles were built, and the two LRIP contracts cover the production of 730 rounds. SRAW was to be a low-cost complement to the larger and more sophisticated FGM-148 Javelin anti-armour missile, but further procurement after LRIP has been cancelled in 2003. In 2004, Lockheed Martin received a contract to refit all remaining SRAW rounds to the FGM-172B SRAW-MPV (Multi-Purpose Variant) configuration with a new multi-purpose blast-fragmentation warhead. This will convert the missile from an anti-armour to a direct-fire urban assault weapon, which better fulfills the needs of the USMC.
The U.S. Army evaluated a derivative of the Predator SRAW with a multipurpose warhead for its MPIM (Multipurpose Individual Munition) requirement. A variant named Kestrel, with a direct-attack warhead, was unsuccessfully entered in the UK's NLAW (Next Generation Light Anti-Armour) competition.
Specifications
Note: Data given by several sources show slight variations. Figures given below may therefore be inaccurate!
Data for FGM-172A (missile without launcher):
Length 70.5 cm (27.8 in)
Diameter 14 cm (5.5 in)
Weight 6.4 kg (14.1 lb)
Speed 900 km/h (560 mph)
Range 600 m (2000 ft)
Propulsion Dual-thrust solid-fueled rocket
Warhead Downward-firing EFP (Explosive Formed Projectile)
@@williamzk9083 RARDE was flying NLAW prototypes in 1982.
22:50 I'm no expert, but when I watched the NLAW vid which is analyzed here, I immediately understood it didn't mean the NLAW plunges down but flies horizontally until it is above the tank, and then the blast is directed downwards. There was no confusion honnestly.
AT niche is big and layered. NLAW is a PTRS to Javelin's 6 pounder to TOW2/Shuhna's 17 pounder. They best work when all are available as options.
Indeed, and every good craftsman carries a tool box and/or tool belt instead of just a multitool for that very reason😁
NLAW and Javelin compliment each other. They both cover an area that the other really can't. Javelin is for long range NLAW short to medium range.
It's a perfect combo for a military. Both together are an insane force multiplier on a just boots on the ground platoon and even squad level. A little group of soldiers can obliterate numerous armor.
As a volunteer Canadian in Ukraine... I have about 15-20 with our unit of those... Compared to the Russian rpg-30, nlaw wins in durability. We've had 2 captured RPG-30s loose parts and get damaged from moving...
Even a simple warning that you're too close to fire would double the usefulness of the RPG-30 😅
ua-cam.com/video/X5m0G7S1XK4/v-deo.html Russian from Donbass captured NLAW's and tests them
Pictures or it didn't happen. Nice story bro.
Thank you for supporting Ukraine in their time of need
@@NoSkillzMoto You're an inconsequential tool.
At 8:25 you mention that the US are keeping the AT4 system as their fire and forgett weapon of choise, i just want to mention that the AT4 is a Saab product aswell.
Gr8 video so far!
NLAW also introduces the fear factor in tank crews.
Regarding the bit about wearing Night Vision during the day, there could be two reasons (even though the video is all staged)
To start with, if you are in a built up environment, you could be moving through the buildings, which could either have no power (destroyed power grid) or the lights could simply be off, having you night vision already on your head means you can just swing them down, then you are good to go,
Secondly, if its around dusk, you put on your Night vision before you need to, and before it gets dark, just in case.
Although in the case of the video, its probably just to look cool
Iranian-made anti-tank missiles are the best and most accurate for a 10 km range fire and forget hit bull's eye according to the news.
NLAW: NEXT-GENERATION LIGHT ANTI-TANK WEAPON
The next-generation light anti-tank weapon (NLAW) is the first missile system for non-experts and can strike out tanks with a single shot as it strikes from above.
The weapon weighs 12.5 kilos and depending on which year model it is, the fired missile reaches 600-800 meters. It can be fired in tight spaces.
Price per piece $ 35,000.
Developed by Saab Bofors Dynamics in Sweden and manufactured in the UK.
The American missile weapon Javelin is twice as heavy as the NLAW at 24.3 kilos, and reaches 2500 old one to 4000 meters new one.
In 2002, a single Javelin command launch unit cost $ 126,000, and each missile cost around
$ 78,000 (equivalent to $ 112,000 in 2020). Thats $ 238,000 do you get it now ?!
The first problem with this discussion is the ignorance of the world on how the Javelin works. The Jav is NOT a "top attack" weapon. It uses the old naval "plunging attack" pattern and quite literally comes in at a more horizontal than vertical angle. On soviet/rooskie tanks it aims to come in under the edge of the turret/turret reactive armor and strike through the side fuel tank - thus resulting in the fighting compartment becoming a single stroke engine fueled by about 50 gallons of super-heated diesel fuel blasted into the interior at thousands of PSI. Differing amounts of fuel left in those tanks results in differing levels of turret-pop. This is the lethal flaw of ALL Russian and Chinese tanks and why almost all NATO nation tanks have large broad turrets instead of puckered bottle caps on top. The Jav is tailor-made to strike precisely that kind of tank in precisely that way and is programmed to aim precisely outside the turret and reactive armor edge at a plunging angle for maximum effect. Go look at the flight profile chart avail at wikipedia which compresses the horizontal scale about 4:1. The chart has 180m on the vertical and 2000m on the horizontal.
Now... the NLAW. The NLAW doesn't actually have a "direct attack" mode, it has a self-destruct-upon-impact function. There is a button in the circuitry which can be activated to dead-fire the weapon upon trigger without any targeting or guidance as well! There is no forward facing radar reflection to speak of because it is a _stealth_ ATM designed to defeat any active target defense systems. It can be defended against by an electromagnetic rod offset about 8 feet towards the launching location, resulting in early triggering but it cannot be defended against en masse because its warhead, unless you push the special button, will not be triggered until it reaches the predicted range by the targeting system.
Interestingly it can be fired while turned 90° axially to the left or right resulting in the weapon being able to detect vehicles to the side. They don't mention that in the news... its control system can be given an adjusted vertical offset as well, in order to either clear or come in under the mullet-rack that some of the tanks have been using. It is not a highly precise weapon on the Javelin's scale but is still capable of striking the turret top reliably out to about 400 yards, after that - especially on a moving target - it could literally hit the wrong vehicle.
The limitations of both of the above missiles are why Ukraine went to develop the 4 mile Stugna laser-signaled missile systems. There are almost no videos at all of the Javelin missiles being used in the Ukraine invasion, almost all of the ones shown were actually Stugna strikes and of course Ukraine doesn't show the Stugna misses.
Is the NLAW overrated? No. It is probably the best ATM system available on the market _ever_ and is so simple to operate that people who have never fired a weapon can be instructed through to a hit on a moving target before the battery on the disposable launcher is drained. It will even tell you if the target is too close to fire upon.
The NLAW is literally something the Allies could have deployed in WW2 as it is little more than a combination of a radar range finder, autopilot, proximity fuse and shaped charge. The only one of those things that wasn't possible in a man portable system at that time was the radar range finder/trajectory calculator as the primary equivalent unit of the era was the turret targeting computers in the B29 - which could easily have been installed in some kind of tank destroyer.
NLAWs, Javelins, Carl Gustafs, Panzerfausts, they're needed regardless.
These weapons are cheaper to make, quite capable and you won't run out. Panzerfaust 3 with the DynaHawk laser gyro sight can hit a target at 600m.
We had a saying in the Navy, logistics touches all munitions, but only for storage and transport. Leave the shooting to someone who knows the system.
Had to Junior Officers(JO) who thought they knew what they were doing "playing" with the Bridge SRBOC(chaff) Launch Control Panel. I was notified and when I saw them they were about to fire chaff in the Persian Gulf. Safety off, Fire depressed and about to push a tube button. I yelled at them, then let them know what about happened, not to do it again unless a missile was inbound and let me know if they want training. I then apologized to the CO for disrupting his Bridge, He nodded at me and motioned to two JOs over. I then had to do Wardroom training for ALL officers.
But having everyone know how to use a weapon, even basically, is a very good idea. They can use it and not kill themselves.
This is *ridiculously* important... youtube code rSzDCKfnVNg The USS Missouri took 20mm Phalanx fire because it launched chaff.
The other danger of chaff when it isn't absolutely necessary is that it gives a ship a radar signature from about 3x further away that can be used to fire a seeking anti-ship missile at.
Hey! LOGO here! Navy too! Love the NLAW! Outstanding weapon! I want a bunch of ‘em. Stand back! 😂. Keep the videos coming! Thanks
1. Its a shape charged that fires a jet of molten copper. Once it pierces through the hull that molten copper will traveling at supersonic speeds will liquify human flesh as well as set off ammunition 2 The warhead is flipped between direct attack.(the shaped charge is pointed front), or top attack (the shaped charge is pointed down and the missile flies over the amour)
Not actually how shaped charges work, but result will be the same.
That copper liner cone doesn't melt (high speed x-rays shows temperature is below 800 °C), it gets inverted and around 30% of it forms into the penetrating needle that travels at speeds between 8000m/s and 11000m/s. Remaining 70% ends up crushed into the characteristic carrot lump that trails behind at a fraction of the speed.
I always understood that Saab vehicles and the people who operated them were top notch, but then again, I live in Texas so I'm not sure I have ever even seen a Saab.
They are. Mat is talking bollocks for once - Saabs are very reliable cars. He just doesn't like 'em.
It's pretty significantly that the Nlaw only costs about a 4th of the price of what a Javelin does
I dont think the russians are finding it overated!!!
Slava Ukraine
Better than what we had in '83! 🤠
I'm no expert (just a truck driver), but my understanding on ammo bustle on, for example, the M1, is that if something like the NLAW penetrated the tank, the armored slide doors would be able to protect the ammo from all the fragments flying around in the haul. I thought those slide doors were armored significantly to protect from that, providing that the doors are closed.
I'm not an American tank soldier, but from what I've been told the sliding door is to contain the blast from the rounds detonating, combined with blowout panels to protect the crew if the rounds detonate. It will provide protection from splinters inside the tank though, but I have no idea how well and it would depend on how much energy is still in the fragments that have penetrated the armour, or the road from what I assume is a shaped charge in the NLAW.
Great video, very informative and clear a lot of misconceptions about NLAW.
If anyone is looking for it's cons.
It can be used on direct attack for MBT, but top attack works best. It's a no go for 45° down. It's a one shot system. It's range is up to 800m but it's effectiveness drops off over 500m. It's a single warhead, so ERA can defeat it in direct attack or top attack sometimes. It takes a lot of space as it's a one shot system. It's a very good ATGM, it's really effective.
Even though it's a single warhead, it detonates and forms above the tank with enough standoff to where the penetrator forms completely, thus ERA will not stop but may degrade penetration, though insufficiently as roof armour is thin af. Obviously you don't want to use direct attack against an armoured vehicle though
The nlaw is a nice weapon in the modern battlefield. Can't tell you how many javelins we used against a machine gun or mortar nest in iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan that were with in 800 meters. Always thought that we needed something cheaper than a javelin, but still had the ability to be guided in on target unlike at-4. Though honestly the matador may be a better choice for that to be honest
That's why US is buying Carl Gustav today....
40mm pike...
@@dwwolf4636 I am hopeful on that one, but it is still a little small for my liking. But then again it will greatly reduce what we will have to hump up a mountain, so I am happy
@@heinedenmark I was unaware that the Gustav had finally got guided ammunition types, but makes sense overall
@@terrynewsome6698 Machine gun or mortar nests doesn't move fast enough that you need guided ammunition. CG can hit stationary targets at 800m without issues.
I think the NVG being shown is to demonstrate that you can have NVG when using NLAW.
Yes because it's technically not an ATGM because it's not "guided" in a sense but it at least has a leading system.
By that definition neither the Minuteman ICBM nor Poseidon SLBM missile is guided either because both use inertial guidance that cant be changed once launched. NLAW has guidance fins and if subjected to side or head winds or rain will correct its course. I can see that one day the NLAW could be fired remotely by a sighting station aligned and positioned (by a laser fro example) at a known distance from the NLAW missile itself.
The dude is wearing his night vision during the day because it looks so darn cool for the STAGED picture. Night vision is your lifeline in the dark and you protect it so
Both systems complement each other. The ability to use the NLAW at close ranges is very useful in urban environments. Iit’s capable of being used down to 30/40 metres. If I was shooting at something with ERA or an APS I’d think twice about setting it loose.
Keep doing the little side tracks, they add interesting information. 👍✨
If I remember correctly, the "projectile" that penetrates the hull, is molten copper. Not something you wanna have push through the roof of your tank, with that power, and get in your thigh.
It would do more than get in your thigh. It would slice straight through it like butter, bone and all. Basically, you're a gonna if you get hit by the super heated copper plasma jet of a shaped charge.
Good video, thanks from Sweden
At the USS Star Destroyer orbiting planet Earth, Commander Bridgette, and Combat Engineer Sergeant Timotheus were discussing. Bridgette asketh,
- Should we attack, Tim?
- Yes, absolutely. The first Russian divisions were at the front line. They are the best.
love the comments about handing an NLAW to a logistics officer. Had a family member who did logistics for army, I remember him saying: Yeah, Private E1 is going to say "excuse me sir" taking that weapon away from me the moment I get into the field because they know what I am.
That tiny hole do a 350,000 bar pressure impact and hot as hell at same time.
Guess what happened behind the hole !!!
It's like you have a Thor's hammer to deal with coming right at your body.
Mat, the lack of recoil is nice -but not magic. It is basically a two stage rocket fired from a tube open in both ends. First stage - burning extremely fast - sends its energy backwards through the tube - propelling the rocket forward with an equal, opposite energy. Once clear of the tube and in a safe distance from the operator, second stage ignites, burns for a longer time, accelerating the rocket towards the target.
🤣
Yes...RPG 7 gets lot of stigma...like...poor mans weapon or terrorist stuff bady guy stuff...but in long war things like RPG will out live any modern hiend AT weapon
Not for taking out tanks.
That ship sailed a long time ago.
If you want to blow a hole in a building or hit a light vehicle then sure.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 Tanks don't have enough hull armor to withstand hits from the PG-7V and PG-7VR warheads.
You can probably still M kill a modern tank with rpg7 if you get a track.
@@PeterMuskrat6968 The vast majority of tanks cannot withstand an tandem RPG warhead strike on the sides, how is it not meant for taking out tanks?
@@voidtempering8700 It depends on the situation and the ammunition used.
Frontal attacks won’t get you anywhere, and unless it’s urban warfare, you generally won’t be hitting a modern tank on its side with a weapon that has that short of a range.
You can get a mobility kill on a tank…
But so can a caveman armed with the knowledge about track weaknesses and a fucking wooden log.
With the advent of advanced, western APS systems (Trophy)
Even the age of Rank ambushes with RPG’s would be limited.
Unless you are rocking the RPG-30… which only Russia has.
International sourcing of parts is only viable as long as you control the supply routes. In large scale war cutting of a critical component (or several) supply source is problematic. The internal supply lines of home grown is not to be sneered at. No worries, no one gives cooks, clerks, or logistics officers these weapons. Basically a squad or platoon of irritated grunts is detailed to provide security for those war tourists (sorry retired Infantry NCO here)...
Regarding firing NLAW downwards ; it will not arm if the downward angle is less than 45° from the point of firing ! This is intended to preserve the firer from being blown up by the tank they have fired at exploding i.e. because they are on top of it ! Therefore firing from a high position , downwards, should not be carried out, use another a/tk system (if you have it).
Really depends on how far up you are doesn’t it? Should be an off switch for these safety limitations.
If one absolutely needs to shoot a tank from above, although risky, better do it with M72 LAW because it is cheap and can penetrate the roof. Also it does not ask about the angle. But there is a risk of the revenge by a flying turret .
I am a finn trained for this system in 2018, I used to wonder why USA is not copying this as this is far superior to what they got. Also, the system literally has letters TA engraved in the selection lever for "Top Attack". The missile senses the tank and directs the destructive charge towards the tank, so yes, in the end the attack is from up to down. There is no tank invented that can survive this
24:30 Reminds me of the Dragoon II aiding in preventing the muzzle to dump down when the huge round goes down the barrel (short as it is)
14:42 I swear that video came across my mind and milliseconds later you started talking about it. 🤣
If on the frontline face armour , having this system available is a huge morale boost and crucial to countering and assault. With the modular boxer coming into service to get troops forward quickly to where needed. I would have the more complex systems mounted, with longer range drone , anti air, ecm and javelin type systems for close support, and tank drones to draw the enemies fire. BAE have been working on something in that concept , however seems over complex and costly for something that should be a disposable decoy?
I worked in logistics for quite a few years, and feel that this case may be special in that if a subset of supplying countries is at war (say, Sweden and Finland against a common enemy) and no other country produces those parts, it could halt the whole process (and existing stocks at other countries would quickly dry up).
OK, a lack of NLAWs may not be the biggest issue in that scenario though.
Bill destroys tank was one of the first online videos I ever watched. I understood what it meant when the ammunition cooks off.
As a logistics officer who also happens to be a horse, I am deeply offended by this video.
Jokes aside I've only used the trainer versions of the AT4(20mm and 9mm) and the NLAW seems to have as much recoil as the 9mm version of the AT4.
For some reason I sucked at shooting at stationary targets, was pretyy damn good at hitting mobile targets.
Was pretty cool seeing the tracer at the back of the trainer ammo slowly sailing to it's target(looked a lot slower than it actually was).
As with every weapon system, it is a constant race in weapons vs counter measures.
Great video!
SAAB cars had better quality then any US or UK cars. Apart from that I agree with you 😁😁
That monopod is great man, Just try and lock onto a target 🎯 right after you've had to do a quick sprint right before you get to work.
I'm not sure about other countries but in the US airborne units carry equipment as needed. I never had NVGs on during the day if they weren't needed. It really just depended on the mission requirments especially in country or in combat. I feel like it is just a little too heavy and annoying to have it on when not needed.
4:58
"do you know how to use that thing?"
"Yeeah, the pointy end goes into the other man."
Same energy
you got a Thumbs up from me no. 984 👍 greetings from Sweden 🇸🇪
Comparing costs of AFVs vs ATGMs even the pricier variants make the juice worth the squeeze. I think everything that moves should have a Spike launcher, lol. Seriously.
Good video Matt. Thanks mate.
Comparing it to the Javelin isn't really... Fair. I think the Javelin is more in the region of a fullblown ATGM system, comparable to TOW, Spike, Kornet and BILL2. You need two guys or a vehicle and you can hit stuff at 2-3km away. The NLAW is a squad weapon, not a dedicated antitank team weapon. It's basically an advanced AT4. One guy to use it, throw it away after firing, shot at stuff that's within 300m so you know you'll hit. But, with the ability to knock out a tank and not just IFVs or APCs.
The NLAW was designed to replace the AT4 and Carl Gustav as the squads antitank weapon, since these older systems don't have enough oomph to effectively threaten a tank (and no, a CG did not kill a T90 in Ukraine). So the NLAW is intended to be widely used by infantry, as opposed to a few teams of soldiers with extra training. And the ease of use is really evidence for this, the idea is that anyone should be able to use this thing.
40 000 for a throw away fancy RPG? If one thing is soo good about nlaw is the hype factor. First: it is not guided it is electronicly stabilized so you dont have to mess with ballistics. It simply calculates the "ahead" angle from gyroscopic angle of movement and maintains it while flying. Both can be achieved by simple optics at fraction of the price. Top down attack is needed just because 500mm penetration is too weak. Some 20000 were sent to ukis if that was sooo good as hyped russians would only rides bicicleys by know not tanks...
Must be quite an old video, that fusilier has a really old dpm rig on. Top vid as ever Mat , carry on.
Smock, Combat, Windproof Woodland DP..... lovely bit of kit.
Nods are left on during the day Matt because in urban area's there is no hydro in the buildings and the basements are very dark and there is not the time to keep digging in and out of your gear for your equipment- change out a mag and crack on !
The enemy is in the basements waiting for you.
Have you never practiced reloading your c-7 at the ready fire ! position blindly grabbing mags with your free hand?
❤ awesome info thanks for the Videos. More please ❤
As I've come to understand it the Americans see the supply chain as a big what if. What I've understood is that to use out of country suppliers is the potential to have part's intercepted in transit and either hijacked, tampered with, or in the case of ships sunk but the potential of a major interruption in the access to the raw materials, or finished components, the shorter supply lines to the UK, Finland, and any other of the manufacturing nations is short and there are quicker ways to ship than just ships they can easily ship them by air in small commercial airlines capable of transfer components almost to the front door of the other company's involved anywhere in an hour or so. Where the US is a long distance run making ships rather easy to intercept or sink. Aircraft would have to be much larger hauling more per load making for plump targets that are rarely equiped to deal with a pair of fighters. While home made mean secure supply lines that are almost impossible for another nation to attack by surprise, unless it's Canada or Mexico. Their radar coverage is rather organic since Canada is so intertwined with the US where Air defence radar's are that they should be considered one. So the fact that they possess the raw materials needed that if nessary they can weather a interruption in a raw material wont slow the production as much as losing a few ships would just about bring everything to a halt since components from us wouldn't make it in time to keep production up and running.
The need to create a weapons system on their own is critical! Responsible price weapons, engineering on a local level with local needs in mind, their own production to guarantee availability to local troops!
If I'm not mistaken, a big diffence between NLAW and Javelin is that the prior has its fancy technology in the optics while the latter has most of the expensive technology in the missile itself. Thus, you can save a LOT of money per shot!
Javelin is a true top attack, has 2 warheads and it's way more fancy. The optics in the launcher for javelin is pretty expensive too. I can't believe cost was heavy factor in javelins design.
The nods are there for show. Lol.
We did put them if getting close to dark though. But here...the nods are 100% "look at me, I'm a cool guy"
The biggest crime i see is yeah people calling the NLAW the Javelin and vise versa. Just look at any robot voice video on any of these weapons systems and all the footage is a mix of NLAW and Javelin footage.
Talked to a few of your fellow artillery guys from Guelph yesterday.
You can totally ignore the forward speed of the missile when it fires over the target. The copper jet produced is many, many times faster. I doubt very much the NLAW moves more than 1 mm. It's the old MxV squared, where the V is huge, that does the damage. I won't mention the terrible heat.
these systems have been very affective against older designed tank, but modern design tank will have counter measures , like spaced amour, systems like iron fist. Trophy, the new PANTHER .
Matimus you need to do a video on cluster munitions if not already done so. They are very interesting, even on the political end
If NLAW could be reloaded like the Carl G. it would be even more effective.
I think both NLAW and Javelin is fantastic anti tank weopons. To have both of them in your arsenal must be ideal.
yes, in a perfect world.
2 things that made the developmen so fast is they used technology derived from RBS 56B BILL 2 (warhead and guidance) and AT4 CS (confined space capability), as well as some further developments.
Great video keep up your great content
I am very much torn in half about support weapons embedded into a section/squad or even platoon. OK I do get it. It is far better to have one when you need it rather than not having one. But we keep adding to the basic kit of the section and we are subtracting from endurance of movement and infiltration.
I believe NLAW has a long career ahead of it as it ticks the 2 main boxes of availability and simplicity of use. The RPG-7 and in the West the Carl Gustav remain the most used RPGS in the world because they too tick these boxes and another vital box re-usability. It could easily be done by having the ammunition come with its own insertion tube that uses 3 or more alignment grooves or spines so that all pins and connectors are perfectly aligned and still remain simple to use.
Science has the bad habit of removing the amazing and replacing it with the simple. The overhead attack works on the interaction of the electromagnetic fields of 2 objects in question. The interaction reaches maximum intensity and the moment the it starts to drop the round ignites, similar to the proximity fuse. Trees and rocks don't normally have electromagnetic fields of the massive field that a vehicle has. Sorry if I killed amazing.
Why the unnecessary night gear in the photos, the simple answer is propaganda. Nothing says I am a high tech warrior like night vision on the helmut.
I was once talking to a crewman from our Leopard 1A3/4 (Australia) and pentration and I think what he said about it is still relevant today. Go into a 5 story building fire escape stairwell with your mate at the bottom of them. From the top you tip a bucket of super balls down the stairwell. Then ask him what was it like, if he doesn't hit you first.
Do you know the actual success rate of the NLAW at this time? Do we have some numbers?
Basic reusable RPG's are the best all around support rocket.
Fire it in yourself
Nice, very nice. No I haven't used it, I am a civilian. It is like using a 30-40 Krag to hunt ground hogs except it is far more accurate before it just blows the stuff apart. It is perhaps simpler to use than a 30-40 Krag rifle.
It is normal with weapons to have more than one factory both supplying and building, the reason is obvious, you do not want destruction of one factory to prevent things being manufactured.
Yes it is good. And cheaper than the US offerings. Surprise there eh? It is now battle proven. I trained on Wombat ( showing my age ) I am glad I never had to face a T64 using Wombat, or a Piat type of weapon. What hurts American "industry" more than anything? Seeing the little guys produce cheaper and effective kit more than them. We need to wean ourselves off of American kit. Their foot dragging over the F35's integration of British weapons shows that. This kind of weapon turns "Tom" into a tank killer. And I love Saab products of all kinds
WOMBAT was a 120mm recoiless British AT gun wasn't it? Probably would work quite well if supported by a laser range finder and some kind of computer and gyro sight to correct for target movement.
@@williamzk9083 Technically a recoilless rifle. Yes effective but the deployment times were its downfall. More suited to an ambush imo. It was deployed to the Falklands but not used. Milan was though as a "bunker buster", I liked Milan a lot. NLAW really impresses me.
"Seeing the little guys produce cheaper and effective kit..." I mean we all use the same or similar tech and kits so that don't make sense at all. Shit half of the American grunts loadout is probably something from or based on from Europe. M3 CG, AT4 yep, M240 yep...
And to be fair cheaper doesn't mean better in the way you put it. Given the NLAWs history is it a big or small win and if so is it really better then the shit we Yanks can come up with?
If we want to take your stance I'd say everybody should make and produce their own gear, weapons, etc instead of growing these multi-billion dollar companies to the point of monopolizing the industries.
As for the F-35 that's a whole nother can of worms.
Lmao this whole thing reeks of Eurotard
Jesus.
You make it “cheaper” because y’all niggas are broke.
Here is a tip, join any other military but keep the Euro equipment.
Companies can make good products, but the militaries that use them are useless.
Except France… they go hard.
Served from 2002-2007, and always referenced to this as the LAW94. Is it the same weapon?
Re, NVG's , I think, and I'm no expert, that besides looking cool on camera, when you are moving in a urban environment, you're gonna be going into dark buildings a lot. So there is going to be a lot of dark cellars and passageways. I think that might be a good reason for having them ready to use in an urban context.
Also, the TOW-II is top tech just like NLAW as it's passing over on parallel/horizontal trajectory..
Depending on the missle used, you get wide array of effects. Direct & top attack vary between missile used, as well as other purpose made missile choices.
They’re completely different, Tow isn’t even able to be shoulder launched.
Comparing the two is like comparing desk phones to IPhones
@@EstellammaSS They are ALL anti-armor weapon systems. So comparing them IS valid. Pull your head from your ass.
Are some fool who wouldn't compare a pen, pencil and marker too?
@@xxxlonewolf49 Would you compare a handgrenade to a 15.5 cm artillery shell?
There are occasions where that is relevant and reasonable, and ties when it is just stupid.
Дуже близькі за ефективністю, але у джавеліна є невеличка проблема, наприклад, якщо робити засідку на колону і підбити цистерну з пальним а наступна мішень, наприклад танк, стоїть біля палаючої цистерни, велика вірогідність того, що тепловізійна голівка джавеліна спрямує ракет у палаючу цистерну. Просто треба враховувати обираючи порядок знищення цілей, у цьому сенсі НЛАВ має невеличку перевагу. Обидва зразки озброєння дуже гарні.
Translation from Ukrainian of the above: "Very close in effectiveness, but the javelin has a small problem, for example, if you ambush a column and hit a fuel tank and the next target, for example a tank, is standing next to a burning tank, there is a high probability that the thermal imaging head of the javelin will direct missiles into the burning tank. It is simply necessary to take into account when choosing the order of destruction of targets, in this sense, NLAV has a slight advantage. Both weapons are very good."
There is nothing to stop the Javelin from being given the IMU and predicted line of flight guidance of the NLAW as a back up mode for cases of CLU battery depleted or thermal distraction. The best way its to upgrade the Javelins seeker with a better procesor and higher resolution thermals to allow better algorithms.
The Carl Gustav has a very scary just twist the top to set the range air burst round.
Been there shot that, set a VW golf wreck on fire 😁
@@SonsOfLorgarme too 👍🏻
I watched the Saab video discussed and thought it was excellent, a question i have though is that it mentions a "saltwater counterweight system" what exactly is that? also in one of the scenes it showed 3 soldiers with NLAW's were they Swedish, British and Finnish?
Salt is added to the water to reduce the freezing temperature so it is not just a solid block of ice in the winter. Let's consider an AT4 with no salt water.
The projectile is launched from a tube open at both ends. The propellant is ignited behind the projectile so a lot of hot gas will go back when it pushes the projectile forward. That way there is very little recoil but a lot of backblasts that would kill you if are close. In peacetime no one should be in a 90-degree cone 100m long, in wartime it is no one within 15 meters and beyond that, you need to be in cover.
That exhaust will bounce on a wall and come back toward the shooter so firing an AT4 in an enclosed space can kill the user. The solution was to put a container with water at the back of the tube, that is the AT4CS (Confined Space). Its increased mass will result in the slower exhaust, reduce the temperature and it will slow down quicker. The no-person allowed area is reduced to a 50-degree angle and 20 meters. The result is you can use it indoors, the requirement is according to the US manual a room 4.5 meters long and 3.5 meters wide for safe usage.
NLAW uses the same saltwater container design to have very low recoil and the ability to use it indoors in large enough rooms.
The NLAW is definitely a good AT weapon. However...
MB tanks move fast during action or penetration through a defensive line, supported by APCs and snipers who shoot any soldier above ground level trying to raise the NLAW and fire it at tanks. The sniper's range and APC mahcine gun range are up to 1000 meters, meaning any soldier who raises his waist or torso above ground level will probably get shot before the NLAW missile fires.
Second, the speed of the NLAW is around 200 meters per second according to the Saab commercial. This means it needs at least four seconds to travel the 800 meters distance. The problem is that many modern tanks have heat seekers which automatically find the NLAW heat source and shooter's position and send a 125mm round to this exact postion.
Third, 500mm of equivalent steel armor penetration may not be enough to penetrate most modern MBTs with additional armor. This is ok to immobilize a MBT, but not as advertized in the Saab video. Most videos show a lone tank shot from close distance. In reality, MBTs have infantry and APC around, move very fast and rarely leave more than a second for a chance to shoot it easily.
Just my 2c.
Umm... if that's how you expect anyone to engage AFVs... you need to find a modern soldiers manual.
Hint: In the Swedish soldiers manual from 2001, there is an illustration of a tank and a quartered overlay of how to attack it.
The rear 90° is labeled 'best'
The two side 90° are labeled 'good enough' (only if the turret is facing away from you)
The front 90° quarter is coloured red, and labeled 'suicide'
What modern tank has 500mm of equivalent steel armor on the top of the tank? You should use it in the overfly top attack mode against armored vehicles, the direct attack mode is for structures and non-armoured vehicles.
@@target844 Any fast moving tank. You clearly missed the video what Mat was saying. The 500mm penetration is in a direct hit case, the top attack mode much less. This in not a Javelin, the NLAW has a proximity detonation in the top attack mode.
Errrrm: Ukraine. Enough said.
Yup I remember DPM. In royal welch our DPM smock was paper thin until the new kit came in as the NATO jackets, before that we had what I’m sure belonged to the guys doing national service in the 50s lol
In-law sure is deadly
Well the price is going to come down with volume production. The important thing is to get them into the light infantry's hands.
It can provide a mobility kill on an armoured vehicle, but they will probably kill more transport trucks. They can be used by light infantry "dads-army" types. A tank without fuel and ammunition is just a traffic accident, that has happened.
In practise i much doubt they will be used in excess of 400 meters, but that is all right, as vehicle mounted systems will have started whittling down the hostile force. Bring it to a halt - and serve the target on a platter to the artillery.
As Ukr farmers showed, a tank without fuel isn't a traffic accident, it's free real estate! YOINK! 🤣
And it's always cheaper than an AFV plus crew.
How can it be over rated if it does what is was designed to do??
I never said it was haha
It manages a strike into the tank that only has the power of about 5 oreo cookies. (a standard oreo has nearly 4x the power of a .50bmg) Often NLAW strikes are followed by everybody climbing out of the tank and finding cover... unlike a Javelin strike which is followed by everything being blown out of the tank and covering everything.
@@prjndigo that’s one of the reasons why the systems compliment each other, although the power of NLAW is more than enough for most short-medium range engagements and the shaped charge is many, many times more powerful than 4 x .50. No army exclusively use Javelin because of the cost, weight and unsuitability in close quarters. Much better to use NLAW (or another ‘light’ anti-armour weapon) alongside Javelin.