anti tank cruise missile

Switch language:

The world’s deadliest anti-tank missiles

Modern anti-tank missiles such as AGM-114R, Spike, Javelin, and Red Arrow 12 provide armed forces with the capability to stop a heavily armoured tank in its tracks. Army-technology.com lists some of the best modern anti-tank missiles currently available, based on precision strike capability and deployability.

• Share on Linkedin
• Share on Facebook

AGM-114R HELLFIRE II Romeo

The AGM-114R multi-purpose HELLFIRE II , developed by Lockheed Martin , is the latest version in the family of HELLFIRE II air-to-ground missiles.

The HELLFIRE II Romeo has a length of 163cm and diameter of 17.8cm. The 49.4kg missile is equipped with semi-active laser (SAL) seeker and employs lock-on before launch (LOBL) or lock-on after launch (LOAL) to defeat a variety of targets.

Related Company Profiles

Rafael advanced defense systems ltd, stryker corp, saab bofors dynamics ab.

The missile can be launched from helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, ground-based tripods, vehicles and boats. The HELLFIRE II Romeo can carry a multi-purpose warhead for a maximum range of 8km.

Spike-MR/LR/ER

The SPIKE family of fourth-generation anti-tank/multi-purpose missiles is produced by EuroSpike, a joint venture between Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Diehl BGT Defence and Rheinmetall Defence. It includes three versions, namely SPIKE-MR (medium range), LR (long range) and ER (extended range).

The SPIKE-MR is a man-portable fire-and-forget missile that can be launched by infantry and special forces to accurately strike targets within a 200m to 2,500m range. The SPIKE-LR can be launched from a ground-based tripod and light combat vehicles for ranges between 200m and 4,000m. The SPIKE-ER is designed for launch by land vehicles, helicopters and naval platforms to defeat tanks within a range of 8km.

Missiles are fitted with tandem-charge high-explosive, anti-tank (HEAT) warhead and an electro-optical seeker for accuracy.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

Javelin Missile

The Javelin is a medium-range anti-tank guided missile developed by Javelin, a joint venture between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. The missile is currently in service with the US Forces and has been combat-tested in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Javelin is considered the world’s best shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon and 12 nations currently operate the Javelin under foreign military sales from the US. Each missile weighs 11.8kg while its command launch unit (CLU) and round weigh 6.4kg and 15.9kg respectively.

The Javelin employs a long-wave infrared (LWIR) seeker for guidance to destroy tanks, bunkers, buildings, small vessel and low-speed helicopters with a high hit probability. It can also be fired from tripods, light armoured vehicles, trucks, and remotely piloted vehicles. It carries a tandem shaped charge, enabling a maximum range of 2,500m.

HJ-12 (Red Arrow 12)

HJ-12 or Red Arrow 12 is a third-generation anti-tank missile developed by China North Industries Corporation (NORINCO). The fire-and-forget missile was unveiled during the 10th China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition held in November 2014.

The 17kg man-portable missile can be fired by a single soldier using a launch unit mounted on a tripod. The missile carries a tandem HEAT warhead to strike targets such as tanks, bunkers, small boats, and low-flying helicopters. The warhead can penetrate up to 1,100mm of armour protected by explosive reactive armour.

The Red Arrow 12 missile employs an infrared (IR) imaging seeker for all-weather, day and night missions. It can be equipped with a television (TV) imaging seeker for missions during the day. The TV version provides a maximum range of 4,000m while the IR variant offers a maximum range of 2,000m.

The tube-launched, optically tracked, wireless-guided (TOW) is an anti-tank and precision-assault missile system produced by Raytheon Missile Systems. The capability to fire advanced TOW 2A, TOW 2B, TOW 2B Aero and TOW Bunker Buster missiles makes the TOW one of the best weapon systems in the world.

The TOW missile system is used by more than 40 international military forces and installed on more than 15,000 ground-based and helicopter platforms. The system is widely deployed by the US Armed Forces on platforms such as Stryker , Bradley and HMMWV armoured vehicles.

The latest TOW missile versions use a radio command link in place of a wire guidance system. The missiles can also be fitted with tandem or explosively formed penetrator (EFP) warheads. The TOW2 missiles are launched from land-based tripods, vehicles and helicopters for a maximum range of 4.5km.

UMTAS is a long-range anti-tank missile system developed by Turkish firm Roketsan. Primarily designed for launch by T129 ATAK and AH-1W Cobra attack helicopters , the missile can also be integrated into unmanned aircraft, light armoured vehicles, land-based fixed installations, close-air support aircraft, and naval platforms.

Each 37.5kg UMTAS missile can be mounted on helicopters using a quad launcher with the capacity to carry four missiles. It comes with imaging infrared (IIR) seeker or laser seeker options and features lock-on before/after-launch capabilities.

The fire-and-forget missile carries a tandem HEAT warhead, which is effective against all types of heavy-armoured vehicles hidden behind a cover. It is capable of engaging targets within a range of 8,000m.

The PARS 3 LR (third-generation missile / long-range), also known as TRIGAT LR, is a helicopter-launched fire-and-forget missile manufactured by PARSYS, a joint venture between MBDA and Diehl BGT Defence. The missile is intended to destroy tanks, armoured vehicles, helicopters, bunkers and command posts.

The PARS 3 LR is the primary weapon of the Tiger attack helicopters operated by the German Army. The 1.6m-long missile weighs 49kg and the weapon system allows Salvo-firing with a rate of fire of up to four missiles in less than ten seconds.

The jamming-resistant infrared seeker aboard the missile ensures the engagement of different targets in direct or top-attack modes. The PARS 3 LR missile can carry a tandem shaped-charge warhead covering a range of 7km.

Missile Moyenne Portée (MMP)

The Missile Moyenne Portée (MMP) is a new generation medium-range anti-tank missile system developed by MBDA for the French Army. The MMP will replace the MILAN anti-tank missile after entering service in 2017.

The MMP missile will weigh 15kg and measure 1.3m in length and 140mm in diameter. The weight of the firing unit, including tripod and battery, is 11kg. The missile can be fired from portable firing posts, vehicles and army aviation platforms.

The missile can engage targets within a 4km range in fire-and-forget, man-over-the-loop, and lock-on after launch modes. Missile guidance is provided by a dual mode seeker, which includes un-cooled infrared and visible channels.

Kornet-EM Anti-Tank Missile

The Kornet-EM is a multi-purpose anti-tank guided weapon system manufactured by KBP Instrument Design Bureau. The missile is designed to destroy main battle tanks fitted with explosive reactor armour (ERA)-fitted, light armoured vehicles, fortifications and low-speed air targets.

The Kornet-EM system can be mounted on either a portable launcher or a carrier-based automatic launcher. The system employs three types of missiles, including 9M133M-2, 9M133FM-2, and 9M133FM-3. The automatic, laser beam guidance ensures the Kornet-EM to effectively destroy targets at a range of 10km.

The 9M133M-2 is an anti-tank guided missile fitted with a tandem HEAT warhead to penetrate 1,100mm to 1,300mm of armour. The 9M133FM-2 guided missile carries a highly explosive warhead with a blast force of 10kg TNT equivalent while the 9M133FM-3 includes a warhead with an explosive force of 7kg TNT equivalent.

LAHAT – Laser Homing Attack Missile

The laser homing attack missile (LAHAT) is a lightweight anti-tank guided missile produced by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI). It was initially developed for Merkava tanks and can be fired from vehicles, helicopters, vessels and remote installations.

The LAHAT is a very compact missile with a length of 975mm and diameter of 104.5mm. It weighs 12.5kg and relies on semi-active laser (SAL) guidance to engage targets using direct or indirect designation system.

The missile can destroy stationary and moving targets at ranges up to 8km with pinpoint accuracy. The high-performance armour piercing warhead ensures the LAHAT can penetrate even add-on reactive armour.

The MILAN ER from MBDA is a new generation anti-tank light infantry missile derived from the MILAN range of missiles now operational with more than 40 countries.

The MILAN ER missile fired from digital firing post uses the semi-automatic command to line of sight (SACLOS) guidance system to defeat targets. Each missile weighs 13kg while the advanced Technology (ADT) fully digitised day/night firing post weighs 21kg.

The MILAN ER offers an extended range of 3km as opposed to the 2km-range of the last generation MILAN missiles. It is fitted with a tandem charge warhead to neutralise new generation explosive reactive armour used by some main battle tanks.

NLAW (Next Generation Light Anti-tank Weapon)

The next generation light anti-tank weapon (NLAW) developed by Saab Bofors Dynamics is the first ever non-expert short-range anti-tank missile system operable by an individual soldier. The NLAW is in service with the armed forces of the UK, Finland, Luxembourg and Sweden.

Each missile launch unit weighs just 12.5kg, enabling one-man-portability in confined spaces. The NLAW weapon system approaches the target guided by predicted line-of-sight (PLOS). It employs overfly top attack (OTA) mode for tanks and other armoured targets while direct attack (DA) mode is used for non-armoured targets.

The single shape charge warhead of the NLAW has been designed to defeat modern MBTs fitted with ERA. The missile requires just five seconds of preparation time and is compatible with night-vision goggles and clip-on night-vision devices. The combat range of the NLAW is between 20m and 600m.

Related content

The world’s 10 best armoured personnel carriers.

Armoured personnel carriers, popularly called APCs, have occupied an important role in military operations since World War I.

The world’s top 10 best main battle tanks

Since the Cold War main battle tanks (MBTs) have evolved from being simple and light to heavy, modernised and highly mobile, with advancements in weaponry and countermeasures.

Sign up for our daily news round-up!

Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.

Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd

Lockheed martin corp, more relevant.

Israel reportedly launches retaliatory missile strike on Iran  

Analysis: how good is challenger 3, the british army’s new main battle tank, in data: egypt looks to secure jets and missile defence, sign up to the newsletter: in brief, your corporate email address, i would also like to subscribe to:.

Global Defence Technology : Army Technology Focus (monthly)

Thematic Take (monthly)

I consent to Verdict Media Limited collecting my details provided via this form in accordance with Privacy Policy

Thank you for subscribing

View all newsletters from across the GlobalData Media network.

The story behind the Neptune missile, the weapon that sank the Moskva

Named for the Roman god of the sea, the Neptune is based on the Kh-35 missile and took years to develop.

By Kelsey D. Atherton | Published Apr 19, 2022 7:00 PM EDT

On April 13, two Ukrainian missiles hit the guided missile cruiser Moskva, flagship of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. The vessel sank as it was being towed back to port, bringing to the bottom of the sea Russia’s most capable ship in the region, as well as a religious artifact . While Russia initially reported the damage and sinking as the result of a fire on board the vessel, US defense officials confirmed to NPR that it was Ukrainian missiles that destroyed the ship.

Those missiles were two Neptunes, a Ukrainian design based on an older Soviet anti-ship missile model, but upgraded for modern warfare. Those upgrades appear to have paid off, giving Ukrainian defenders on land the reach and power to destroy a hostile enemy. 

The ability of missiles to destroy ships with existing anti-missile defenses will shape future planning. The US Navy is already investing in anti-missile lasers to protect its own vessels from such attacks, and any navy considering future wars near coasts will have to take into account the possibility of powerful anti-ship missiles in the arsenals of its enemies.

To better understand the threat, it’s important to understand the specific missile.

Meet the Neptune

The Neptune missile is named for the ancient Roman god that was sovereign over the sea. It is based on the Kh-35 missile, a subsonic anti-ship cruise missile the Soviet Union began developing in 1972 . As designed, the Kh-35 missiles would be launched from a special truck on the shore, and then deliver a 330-pound warhead into the side of a ship up to 75 miles away. 

This missile travels at around 671 mph, which is below the speed of sound, and it flies close to the water, especially as it approaches its target, making it much more likely to hit the ship at the water line. To travel towards its target, the Kh-35 uses both inertial guidance, which lets the missile know where it is and where it isn’t , and then an active radar to guide it directly to the part of the ship it is supposed to hit. While the Kh-35 was Soviet in origin, it took until 2003 for it to enter service with the Russian Federation. 

Kyiv’s Luch Design Bureau started developing the Neptune missile in 2013 , with the goal of testing by 2016. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea and backed separatists forces in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine, in response to Ukraine’s Euromaidan protests and change of government. That might explain in part why it took until January 30, 2018 for the Neptune to have its first test flight. Later that year, a Neptune hit a target in the ocean 62 miles away . At the time of the later test, Neptune’s range was given at up to 174 miles, though a brochure for Luch Design puts the range at just over 186 miles. The missile was again tested in April 2019 and April 2020 . The missile weighs a total of 1,477 pounds, including a payload of 320 pounds of explosive .

“[Neptune] is intended to defeat warships such as cruiser, destroyer frigate, corvette, airborne, tank landing ships and vehicles, which operate both independently and as part of the ship groups and amphibious groups,” reads a Luch Design Bureau brochure for the missile from 2020. The Neptune is also, the brochure notes, designed to work in all kinds of weather, at night or day, and it works despite any enemy countermeasures, like jamming or shooting at the weapons

By initial accounts, the nine-year process from design start to the sinking of the Moskva appears to have been a major success. The missile had the range and punch needed for a pair of them to destroy a large, hostile ship, and the missiles do not appear to have been stopped by any defensive precautions . 

Defeat the Neptune

Guided missiles like the Neptune have real constraints. There is only so far out to sea they can hit, and there are ship-board countermeasure systems like jamming the electronics of the missile, or hitting it with an anti-missile missile, that could thwart it. Newever developments, like directed energy or laser weapons, may someday defeat missiles. 

The other way to avoid getting hit with a missile is to operate beyond its maximum range. This appears to be the approach adopted by the Russian Navy. One immediate effect of the sinking of the Moskva was that Russia’s Black Sea fleet moved further away from the Ukrainian-controlled coast , out of range of the Neptune missiles. Another is that Russia is using its ships with cruise missiles to attack targets further inland .

In naval warfare circles, missiles like the Neptune are seen as part of an “Anti-access/area denial” strategy, which is one of the more straightforward pieces of military jargon. In essence, it means that the existence of such missiles makes approaching within their range dangerous. If a navy wants to cross a contested passage, its ships will have to rely on their own defenses and will likely want to try and destroy the anti-ship missiles first. Because the Neptune missiles are launched from the back of a dedicated truck, the missiles can fire and the truck can be gone before any return attack hits.

Missiles make it harder to move with impunity, and for a ship to destroy anti-ship missile launchers it will need its own missiles. It will also likely need the support of scouting aircraft to direct the fire and possibly to hit missiles on the ground. (This, too, means flying aircraft into anti-air missile range.) 

As planners and observers watch what is happening in the Black Sea, what plays out there could have implications for how countries either contemplating or threatened by future naval assault develop weapons for the future. Nations like Taiwan were already investing heavily in anti-ship missiles , for example. After the sinking of the Moskva, it’s likely more navies will change how they operate when worried about encountering missile-armed foes.

Kelsey D. Atherton is a military technology journalist who has contributed to Popular Science since 2013. He covers uncrewed robotics and other drones, communications systems, the nuclear enterprise, and the technologies that go into planning, waging, and mitigating war.

Like science, tech, and DIY projects?

Sign up to receive Popular Science's emails and get the highlights.

• Air Warfare
• Cyber (Opens in new window)
• C4ISR (Opens in new window)
• Training & Sim
• Asia Pacific
• Mideast Africa
• The Americas
• Top 100 Companies
• Defense News Weekly
• Money Minute
• Whitepapers & eBooks (Opens in new window)
• DSDs & SMRs (Opens in new window)
• Webcasts (Opens in new window)
• Events (Opens in new window)
• Newsletters (Opens in new window)
• Events Calendar
• Early Bird Brief
• Digital Edition (Opens in new window)

Moskva’s sinking, the rise of anti-ship cruise missiles and what that means for the US Navy

On April 14, Ukraine once again shocked the world when it launched two Neptune anti-ship cruise missiles, scoring decisive hits that sunk the Russian Black Sea Fleet flagship Moskva . Named for the Russian capital Moscow, this once-symbol of Russian naval supremacy in the war on Ukraine carried a crew of roughly 500 and was fully equipped with an arsenal of anti-ship, anti-aircraft and air defense missiles. Despite its foreboding appearance, this pride of the Russian Federation was unable to defend itself against a small number ASCMs, and it paid the ultimate price.

The fallout from the Moskva sinking has been many faceted. First and foremost, it was a strategic success for Ukraine — taking Russia’s most lethal warship out of the war and forcing the remaining fleet to retreat farther away from the coast. Second, the sinking is an inescapable political problem for Russian President Vladimir Putin. His misinformation campaign within Russia, unable to suppress the news of this casualty, now must answer for this destroyed vessel and the well-being of its crew.

There is another message from this catastrophe, however, that both the U.S. Navy and Congress must consider when faced with making long-term spending decisions for our 21st century fleet: If a relatively low-cost, short-range missile such as Neptune can destroy one of the largest warships in the Russian Navy, how do we ensure that ships in our fleet are not doomed to the same fate?

This question becomes even more serious when considering the sophistication of China’s anti-ship missile technology , which significantly dwarfs the range and firepower of Ukraine’s Neptune missile. By way of comparison, the Neptune has a range of roughly 200 miles, travels at subsonic speed and has a warhead that is designed to cripple but not necessarily sink a large ship. China has anti-ship missiles like the Dong Feng 21, or DF21 — whose range is roughly 1,000 miles — and the DF26, whose range is roughly 2,500 miles.

If Ukraine’s Neptune ASCMs upended Russia’s naval presence in the Black Sea with ease, clearly the U.S. Navy and Congress must consider whether our pacing threat is capable of the same.

The U.S. Navy has been furiously working on countermeasures, such as longer-range radars and integrated air and missile defense systems, both of which are being incorporated into new ship construction. The Navy also expressed confidence in the contribution of our submarine fleet with a higher budget for submarine construction and plans to extend the life of older Los Angeles-class subs.

These vessels are relatively impervious to the ASCM threat; our surface fleet is not. Today’s surface fleet must be capable to detect, track and engage our adversaries’ most capable anti-ship missiles, and have the structural integrity to survive damage sustained in combat.

President Joe Biden’s proposed Navy budget reflects the need to think through this strategic challenge. On the one hand, the request of $28 billion for Navy shipbuilding is the largest ever. By way of comparison, then-President Donald Trump’s last budget in 2020 requested $19 billion. But Biden’s request also seeks to decommission a number of legacy surface ships that predate the threat posed by modern anti-ship missiles. Predictably, this decision has been greeted by a chorus of protest, but nonetheless the fact remains: Every U.S. ship that sails into harm’s way must represent a relevant threat and be fit to fight.

Among the contested ships proposed for decommissioning are five Ticonderoga-class cruisers. The Navy, in its annual shipbuilding report to Congress , cited several serious concerns with the Ticonderoga-class cruiser, including “poor material condition of these ships due to their age” and “ongoing concerns with overall legacy sensor and [hull, mechanical and electrical] system reliability.” The chief of naval operations, Adm. Mike Gilday, said that the cruiser’s “SPY-1A, SP-1B [radars are] just not sufficient given the threat we’re facing.” By comparison, the oldest Ticonderoga-class cruiser proposed for decommissioning was commissioned in 1986, only four years after the Russian Slava-class cruiser Moskva.

While it is unclear whether the combat system aboard the Moskva failed her crew, it is without doubt its age and seaworthiness played a role in its demise as the crew was overcome by fire, smoke and seawater.

One lesson that the courageous nation of Ukraine has demonstrated to the world is one that Congress should heed: We not only need to invest in a strong Navy, but also in a survivable one. As Congress begins to shape the fiscal 2023 National Defense Authorization Act, we must take an honest look at whether the platforms we are fielding to engage our adversaries are both relevant and survivable in modern naval warfare.

Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., serves on the House Armed Services Committee and chairs its Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee. He founded and co-chairs the Friends of Australia Caucus as well as the AUKUS Working Group (otherwise known as the AUKUS Caucus).

More In Commentary

From customer to sanctioned ‘proliferator,’ drones extend Iran’s reach

Iranian contractors and government officials have picked up on market demand, frequenting arms expos and other events in russia, iraq, qatar and more..

How the Space Force is making its systems more resilient

A little-known board has been working over the last year to identify resiliency measures and ensure the systems the space force buys meet those standards..

Lack of standards slows allied tech-sharing, Space Force official says

While the issue is often raised by commercial firms, the official told the defense innovation board it is also a challenge for international allies..

Ellis to succeed Rey as director of Army Network Cross-Functional Team

Brig. gen. patrick ellis is expected to take over this summer..

Anduril pairs with Korean shipbuilder to design new unmanned platforms

Anduril and hd hyundai will collaborate to pair american software and autonomy with south korean mass manufacturing in shipbuilding., featured video, this ranger hurled a taliban’s grenade back at the them. his survival depended on cultivated courage.

Navy leaders press integration, retention as major goals | Defense News Weekly Full Episode, 4.13.24

Thales and Saildrone team up for unmanned sub-sensing system

Despite being gravely wounded, this Ranger refused to leave his men in the Vietnamese jungle

Trending now, india proffers hal its largest-ever tender: 97 tejas fighters, nigeria expects first batch of leonardo m-346 fighter jets this year, us air force stages dogfights with ai-flown fighter jet, us, israeli, arab coordination in mideast against iran comes to fruition, russia funneling weapons through libyan port, eying gateway to africa.

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Become an FT subscriber

Try unlimited access Only $1 for 4 weeks

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital, weekend print + standard digital, weekend print + premium digital.

Today's FT newspaper for easy reading on any device. This does not include ft.com or FT App access.

• 10 additional gift articles per month
• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• Videos & Podcasts
• FT App on Android & iOS
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Premium newsletters
• Weekday Print Edition
• FT Weekend Print delivery
• Everything in Premium Digital

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Everything in Print

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

U.S. Marine Corps and the New Long-Range Attack Munition

At the u.s. marine corps’ (usmc) force design 2030 update teleconference to the media held on june 2, 2023, usmc generals offered hints of an under-development long-range attack munition (lram) that would be revolutionary to the marines. naval news reached out to the usmc’s public affairs department for more information on the lram..

Peter Ong 23 Sep 2023

Naval News was in attendance at the media roundtable teleconference. The USMC generals stated that the Hellfire anti-tank guided missile has a range of 8 kilometers (nearly 5 miles) and the Marines deemed that insufficient for precision stand-off range because that would put the AH-1Z attack helicopters well within enemy surface-to-air missile range. To counter this, the under-development Long-Range Attack Munition (LRAM) will have a range in the “hundreds of kilometers and be ready 24 [hours a day]/7 [days a week] with the ground troops.”

The quest for information on the new LRAM took a bit of a circuitous route in August 2023. Naval News inquired to the U.S. Marine’s Public Affairs who transferred the LRAM inquiry to the U.S. Navy’s Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). NAVAIR checked their programs and replied with the U.S. Navy’s Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) and that is not the USMC’s LRAM. NAVAIR then replied to a follow-on email that the LRAM does not exist in its program inventory. So Naval News went another route with the U.S. Marines, and at the end of August, a USMC major at the Director of Communication Strategy & Operations, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Deputy Commandant, Combat Development and Integration at Quantico, Virginia, emailed the following comments.

“From [retired] General Berger’s Statementto Congress from March 2023:

This year, we will invest heavily in the next generation of RDT&E [ Research, Testing, Development, and Evaluation] efforts. We are placing an emphasis on the future of Marine aviation, JADC2 [ Joint All Domain Command and Control] , persistent sensing, and contested logistics, while expanding our experimentation efforts. With the support of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering’s Joint Capability Technology Demonstration office, we will begin the Long-Range Attack Munition (LRAM) project, to rapidly develop and field a low-cost, air launched, family of loitering and swarming munitions. The LRAM can be employed by not just H-1s and F-35s, but also palletized and employed from MV-22s, CH-53Ks, and C-130s, thereby significantly expanding our magazine depth.”

From Brigadier General Stephen Lightfoot, the director of the Capabilities Development Directorate [June 2, 2023 media roundtable]: The Hellfire missile can go 8 kilometers. This long-range attack ammunition which we’re experimenting with now and we would like to bring into the force, within the next few years, is a capability that brings hundreds of kilometers. And that allows us to be able to use a current platform to be able to do things that we never thought that it would be able to do. The long-range attack munition is absolutely critical and it’s going to help not only in the air and, as a pilot, I will tell you that aviation platforms as a whole are fantastic when they are airborne. But they’re not always airborne, and they can’t always be airborne. So we need to bring that long range attack munition also to the ground side so that it can fire from the ground. So it’s ready 24/7, not just simply on an aerial vehicle that can be forward. You can extend the range of it significantly when you put it on an aircraft, but it also has the ability to do much more. And it would be ready 24/7 with the ground troops.”

Naval News and Author Comments

According to Brigadier General Lightfoot, the USMC is already experimenting with the LRAM although it is unknown at this time if LRAM prototypes exist, what they are, what they look like, and what they can do. The major did tell Naval News to check back as the LRAM program progresses.

Brigadier General Lightfoot also talks about using “current platforms” and the USMC has recently expanded their ground combat launch platforms to include the u nmanned remote-operated Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) ROGUE-Fires 4×4 tactical truck that can carry two Naval Strike Missiles (NMESIS) or a single Mark 41 VLS “strike length” canister that can fire the Tomahawk 1,000-mile range cruise missile (LMSL). The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) might also be a LRAM launch platform candidate. The Long-Range Unmanned Surface Vessel (LRUSV) might also be a LRAM launch platform from the water with the appropriate LRAM launch canisters installed.

For speculative discussion purposes, most likely the LRAM is being developed from scratch by the U.S. Marines as a new design program of requirement that doesn’t exist in the loitering munition (LM) military market. AeroVironment makes the Switchblade ® series of LMs, but none of them go out to “hundreds of kilometers” as their largest one has a range under 100 kilometers. UVision of Israel makes the strategic LM Hero-900 that flies out to 150+ kilometers (93 miles) and the Hero-1250 that has a range of 200+ kilometers (124 miles), but again, none of the LMs produced by UVision go out to “hundreds of kilometers” to satisfy the U.S. Marine Corps’ requirement. Having a LM with a range in the “hundreds of kilometers” will make that LM a strategic weapon and will allow the Marines to able to influence the battlefield deep behind enemy lines, far beyond the reach of traditional M777 155mm USMC towed howitzer tube artillery. When in service, the LRAM will join the ranks of the Precision Strike Missile (400+ kilometers/248+ miles) fired by HIMARS and the Tomahawk cruise missile to strike deep into enemy-held territory.

Being a LM, the LRAM should also be able to target enemy ships because the LRAM can be steered into enemy vessels (if those enemy ships with air defenses do not shoot it down first). While details of the LRAM’s size, shape, and its warhead specifications are unknown at this time, LRAMs that can reach hundreds of kilometers should offer a deterrence against enemy shipping, especially when fired in swarms, to do enough damage and destruction. If the LRAM will be stealthy enough to prevent detection from an enemy warship or a fleet’s advanced radar sensors is not clear at this time, or if stealth is a requirement in designing the LRAM.

LRAMs dropped from pallets from USMC MV-22s tiltrotors, CH-53K helicopters, and C-130 cargo planes compare to the “Rapid Dragon” approach of dropping precision stand-off cruise missiles from the back of U.S. Air Force C-130s , essentially turning cargo planes and rotorcraft with no means of long-distance attack into long-range precision fires (LRPF) bombers. This would greatly aid the USMC in close-air support if, when, and where they have no warplanes to provide that lethal aid at a distance. LRAMs fired from H-1s and F-35Bs should add even more range when at higher altitudes although it is unknown how many LRAMs the USMC helicopters and stealth fighters can carry.

What is also unknown is the “swarming technique” of the LRAM. Practically all LMs in 2023 require an operator to manually pilot the LM to the target using a controller and display screen. Thus, LRAMs, as with all loitering munitions with electro-optical sensors and cameras, are “manpower intensive” to use as they cannot pilot and steer themselves (they are not fire-and-forget). However, to achieve “swarming techniques” may employ the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in an autonomous “follow the leader” mode in that one LRAM may require a human operator to pilot and lead whereas the other LRAMs fired use AI to pilot and steer themselves to follow the human operator LRAM’s path at tactical distances and formations to avoid all getting shot down with just one or two enemy missiles. How the Marines intend to achieve LRAM swarming techniques at such a low cost is unclear although advances and progress in computers, microelectronics, AI programing, military technology, and robotics have made autonomous flight all possible within the past few years.

Naval News will continue to follow the USMC LRAM program as it progresses. 

NAVAIR on September 19, 2023 issued a “LRAM Sources Sought” document :

NAVAIR is conducting market research to determine if there are any responsible sources that have the capability, experience and facilities required to support the rapid development, maturation, integration, prototyping, test, qualification and initial fielding of prototype units in support of the USMC LRAM weapon system.

Requirements:

The USMC requires a Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) Family of Systems (FoS) aircraft agnostic, network enabled, long-range precision weapon that will generate an asymmetric advantage in range, standoff, and lethality to deter/destroy both maritime and land based targets.  The USMC’s desired LRAM solution is a modular design that allows trade-space for various mission specific payloads with a minimum total payload weight capacity of 25 pounds (lbs) to include weapon seeker and warhead (but excludes fuel weight), while relying on a Universal Armaments Interface (UAI) for launch platform integration.   The Naval Air Systems Command anticipates awarding a development contract for LRAM in FY2025.

The objective of this notice is to help the Government determine if there are existing sources with the capability and experience to rapidly prototype, integrate, test and field a long-range, network-enabled weapon system capable of launch from a Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) platform to meet the following threshold requirements:

Related Articles

USMC Taps Birdon Group to Develop Heavy Landing Craft

US Navy Issues Solicitation For Landing Ship Medium To Industry

USMC stand up Marine Littoral Regiment in the First Island Chain

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

North Korea says it tested ‘super-large’ cruise missile warhead and new anti-aircraft missile

Korean Central News Agency released photos showing at least two missiles being fired off launcher trucks on a runway. The missiles in the image were not identified. State media said North Korea’s missile administration on Friday conducted a ‘power test’ for the warhead designed for the Hwasal-1 Ra-3 strategic cruise missile and a test-launch of the Pyoljji-1-2 anti-aircraft missile.

The South Korean and U.S. air forces held joint air drills in Gunsan, South Korea on Friday, where they practiced ways to detect and counter enemy threats.

A TV screen shows an image of North Korea’s missile launch during a news program at the Seoul Railway Station in Seoul, South Korea, Saturday, April 20, 2024. North Korea said Saturday it tested a “super-large” cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile in a western coastal area as it expands military capabilities in the face of deepening tensions with the United States and South Korea. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

• Copy Link copied

South Korean army soldiers pass by the barbed-wire fence in Paju, South Korea, near the border with North Korea, Friday, April 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

A U.S. Army soldier from the Eighth Army and South Korean army soldiers throw simulated grenades during the Expert Soldier, Infantry, and Medic Badge (E3B) competition at the Rodriguez Live Fire Complex in Pocheon, South Korea, Friday, April 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

U.S. Army soldiers from the Eighth Army compete during the Expert Soldier, Infantry, and Medic Badge (E3B) competition at the Rodriguez Live Fire Complex in Pocheon, South Korea, Friday, April 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea said Saturday it tested a “super-large” cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile in a western coastal area as it expands military capabilities in the face of deepening tensions with the United States and South Korea.

North Korean state media said the country’s missile administration on Friday conducted a “power test” for the warhead designed for the Hwasal-1 Ra-3 strategic cruise missile and a test-launch of the Pyoljji-1-2 anti-aircraft missile. It said the tests attained an unspecified “certain goal.”

Photos released by the North’s official Korean Central News Agency showed at least two missiles being fired off launcher trucks at a runway.

North Korea conducted a similar set of tests Feb. 2, but at the time did not specify the names of the cruise missile or the anti-aircraft missile, indicating it was possibly seeing technological progress after testing the same system over weeks.

KCNA insisted Friday’s tests were part of the North’s regular military development activities and had nothing to do with the “surrounding situation.”

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are at their highest in years, with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un dialing up his weapons demonstrations, which have included more powerful missiles aimed at the U.S. mainland and U.S. targets in the Pacific. The United States, South Korea and Japan have responded by expanding their combined military training and sharpening their deterrence strategies built around strategic U.S. assets.

Cruise missiles are among a growing collection of North Korean weapons designed to overwhelm regional missile defenses. They supplement the North’s vast lineup of ballistic missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the continental United States.

Analysts say anti-aircraft missile technology is an area where North Korea could benefit from its deepening military cooperation with Russia , as the two countries align in the face of their separate, intensifying confrontations with the U.S. The United States and South Korea have accused North Korea of providing artillery shells and other equipment to Russia to help extend its warfighting in Ukraine.

North Korea says it tested ‘super-large’ cruise missile warhead and new anti-aircraft missile

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea said Saturday it tested a “super-large” cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile in a western coastal area as it expands military capabilities in the face of deepening tensions with the United States and South Korea.

North Korean state media said the country’s missile administration on Friday conducted a “power test” for the warhead designed for the Hwasal-1 Ra-3 strategic cruise missile and a test-launch of the Pyoljji-1-2 anti-aircraft missile. It said the tests attained an unspecified “certain goal.”

Photos released by the North’s official Korean Central News Agency showed at least two missiles being fired off launcher trucks at a runway.

North Korea conducted a similar set of tests Feb. 2, but at the time did not specify the names of the cruise missile or the anti-aircraft missile, indicating it was possibly seeing technological progress after testing the same system over weeks.

KCNA insisted Friday’s tests were part of the North’s regular military development activities and had nothing to do with the “surrounding situation.”

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are at their highest in years, with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un dialing up his weapons demonstrations, which have included more powerful missiles aimed at the U.S. mainland and U.S. targets in the Pacific. The United States, South Korea and Japan have responded by expanding their combined military training and sharpening their deterrence strategies built around strategic U.S. assets.

Cruise missiles are among a  growing collection of North Korean weapons  designed to overwhelm regional missile defenses. They supplement the North’s vast lineup of ballistic missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the continental United States.

Analysts say anti-aircraft missile technology is an area where North Korea could benefit from its  deepening military cooperation with Russia , as the two countries align in the face of their separate, intensifying confrontations with the U.S. The United States and South Korea have accused North Korea of providing artillery shells and other equipment to Russia to help extend its warfighting in Ukraine.

The Associated Press

Ukraine’s small missiles are challenging a big invader

Associate professor of operations research, Brock University

Disclosure statement

Michael J. Armstrong does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Brock University provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.

Brock University provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA.

View all partners

When Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told the world “ I need ammunition, not a ride ,” what he really wanted was anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons.

Since then, countries have sent him some 17,000 anti-tank missiles and thousands of anti-aircraft missiles .

Zelensky’s request, and the international response, reflect the missiles’ military suitability and political acceptability for Ukraine’s defence against more numerous Russian invaders .

Outnumbered defenders

When the war began, Russia had roughly five times more tanks and nine times more warplanes than Ukraine did.

Russia’s numerical superiority compared to Ukraine makes it impractical for Ukrainians to simply fight tank-versus-tank or plane-versus-plane. Anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles partly make up the difference.

Unlike the larger ballistic missiles fired between countries or cruise missiles fired by warships , Ukraine’s missiles are mostly small enough for individual soldiers to carry.

The technology works particularly well for defence. Soldiers basically point and shoot the missiles at targets they see. This can include armoured vehicles driving along roads or aircraft flying overhead .

Ironically, Russia’s predecessor, the Soviet Union, was a leader in missile development. For example, Egypt used Soviet-supplied missiles to destroy Israeli tanks and aircraft during the 1973 war .

Today’s missiles cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. But they can destroy tanks and warplanes costing millions or tens of millions more.

That makes the missiles good for asymmetric “David and Goliath” situations, where one army is much smaller than its opponent.

Impressive results

Ukraine has apparently used its missiles and other weapons in a highly effective manner. It claims to be regularly destroying Russian warplanes, helicopters, tanks and other armoured vehicles .

A new internet meme has consequently appeared: “ Saint Javelin of the Ukraine .”

The image shows a woman wearing medieval clothes but carrying a Javelin anti-tank weapon. That’s an apparent nod to Saint Olga of Kiev, an Eastern Orthodox Church saint who protected her son and avenged her husband’s death in medieval Ukraine.

Read more: Saint Olga of Kyiv is Ukraine's patron saint of both defiance and vengeance

Ukraine’s success with the missiles has also prompted a darkly humorous announcement from Ukraine’s tax authorities: Captured Russian tanks won’t need to be declared as assets on income tax forms, because they’re clearly not worth much.

Politically acceptable

The missiles also have a diplomatic advantage. Their low cost and defensive usage make them politically easier for other countries to provide.

Not surprisingly, NATO members like Canada , the United Kingdom and the United States are sending missiles to Ukraine. But even traditionally neutral Sweden and Finland have provided some.

By contrast, governments disagree about sending more expensive offensive weapons like warplanes.

Admittedly, some countries are clearing out old inventories. The Soviet-made Strela anti-aircraft missiles coming from Germany were inherited from East Germany after reunification in 1990.

The M72 light anti-tank missiles from Canada were also designed during the Cold War, though they’re still being produced. They have limited utility against modern tanks but remain effective against other vehicles.

Ukraine apparently has not received any larger vehicle-mounted missiles. It still hopes to get some from European countries to replenish its S-300 air defence systems .

The country had asked Israel for an Iron Dome rocket interception system . But those cost more than US$50 million each and Israel only has 10, so it declined the request.

It’s possible the U.S. will offer its two Iron Domes .

Read more: Gaza's enhanced rocket technology challenges Israel's defences

Missile countermeasures

Like any weapon, however, Ukraine’s missiles have limitations.

Many Russian tanks have “reactive armour” that resembles metal bricks glued to the outside . When missiles hit, the armour explodes, thereby interfering with the missiles’ own detonations.

In principle, anti-tank missiles can also be intercepted, much like any other missile. My own research has studied interceptors for cruise missiles at sea and ballistic rockets over land .

Russia has developed active protection systems that try to do this. They shoot down missiles just before they strike the vehicle. Israeli tanks carry similar systems .

Aircraft instead try to throw incoming missiles off course. Burning flares and infrared jammers can confuse a missile’s heat-seeking guidance system.

Other limitations

Ukraine’s anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles also face operational limitations.

They’re great at slowing down Russian forces heading into Ukraine . But they’re less helpful for pushing them out once after they’ve surrounded and begun bombarding cities like Mariupol .

For that mission, Ukraine likely needs to counter-attack with tanks and airstrikes. And then they’ll face Russia’s own anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

So even as other nations continue rushing missiles to Ukraine , the long-term odds against that country look formidable.

• Military equipment
• Listen to this article
• Ukraine invasion 2022
• anti-tank missiles
• Anti-aircraft missiles

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Senior Disability Services Advisor

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

GRAINS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHAIRPERSON

These Are the High-Powered Weapons Ukraine Needs to Repel Russia's Big Offensive

While it waits for jets, Ukraine still has a lot of firepower to work with

But then, to the surprise of the world, Ukraine pushed back, exposing unexpected disorganization within the Russian war operation. “The early phase is really defined by Ukrainian grit and skill, combined with a spectacularly incompetent Russian strategic plan,” says Scott Boston, a senior defense analyst with the RAND Corporation.

Unfortunately, grit and skill couldn’t sustain Ukraine for long. By summer, Russia’s military potency had ground down resistance in swaths of territory in the eastern and southern parts of the country. Russia claimed those regions as its own and attempted to establish pro-Russian provisional governments. The U.S. and NATO allies had already sent Ukraine billions in weapons , but Russia’s advances made it clear that more was needed—reports had emerged that Ukraine’s soldiers were still launching homemade grenades, and its citizens were tossing Molotov cocktails to slow the Russian advances. By December, the U.S. alone had approved $19.3 billion worth of drones, howitzers, missiles, and rockets. Ukrainians would still be outnumbered and fighting in the streets, but they were finally getting the fearsome weapons they most needed.

That arsenal includes long-range rocket launchers, Javelin anti-tank missiles, powerful howitzers, and cruise missiles costing millions of dollars apiece. Together, these munitions have allowed Ukrainian soldiers to destroy command posts and equipment, defend key cities, and prevent Russia from establishing air superiority. As the supplies rolled in, Ukraine clawed back territory, which it is still attempting to hold as Russia has begun attacking Ukraine’s power grid, water supplies, and residential areas.

As the war pushes into its second year and winter threatens to upend strategies on both sides, weapons provided by allies will be critical to future Ukrainian victories. Here are eight whose battlefield performance suggests they may eventually send Russia running.

M142 High Mobility Rocket Artillery System (HIMARS)

What it is: A truck-mounted mobile rocket launcher | Cost per unit: $7 million | Units pledged by the U.S.: 38 | Range: Up to 50 miles

Massive and mobile, the HIMARS has changed the course of the war more than any other weapons system. Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel and senior adviser for the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., says it has been one of the two most effective weapons in the war, alongside Javelin anti-tank missiles (more on those below). Each one contains a pod of six launchers that fire powerful, precision-guided rockets with a range of up to 50 miles. “The main thing is the combination of range and precision. It is a very accurate weapon,” says Scott Boston, the RAND Corporation defense analyst. Ukraine has used HIMARS units to target Russian ammunition depots and headquarters. In fighting this fall, it has used them to destroy bridges crossing the Dnipro River in the strategically important city of Kherson. Because the launcher is mounted on a five-ton vehicle, troops can quickly move the weapon after firing to avoid counterstrikes, and skilled operators can reload the system with fresh rockets in minutes. “Even a small number of HIMARS can fire an enormous number of rockets,” Boston says.

M777 Howitzer

What it is: One of the most agile, reliable cannons ever made | Cost per unit: About $4 million | Units pledged by the U.S.: 142 | Range: 25 miles

As Russia moved more troops into the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine this summer, both sides amassed forces around key battlegrounds and built defensive trenches. “They’re fighting it like World War I, which means lots and lots of artillery. You look at the battlefield and you see lots of craters,” says Mark Cancian, the retired Marine. The M777, a basic artillery howitzer , is surprisingly effective for this kind of fighting. The 155mm cannon has a 17-foot-long barrel that fires 95-pound artillery rounds up to 25 miles. That’s a shorter range than those of similar weapons operated by Russia (the BM-30 Smerch has twice the range), but it makes up for it with greater agility, precision, and reliability. It can fire on Russian weapons ammunition depots, troops, or command centers with accuracy up to 16 feet, well within the shell’s 230-foot blast radius. Its rugged design allows operators to fire as many as 300 rounds a day.

National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile (NASAM)

What it is: Ground-launched surface-to-air missile | Cost per unit: About $25 million | Units pledged by the U.S.: 8 | Range: 25 miles

As Russia intensifies its cruise missile strikes inside Ukraine, surface-to-air defenses are becoming critical. The Russian military frequently targets infrastructure, utilities, and military assets, but Ukraine claims that its missiles have also hit residential buildings, schools, and hospitals. So far, the most effective weapon Ukraine has to protect these locations is the NASAM surface-to-air missile system. Jointly produced by the U.S. and Norway, the weapon can be towed into place or mounted onto the back of a vehicle. Each unit contains a radar system and three launchers that hold up to six short-range to midrange missiles. Through allies, Ukraine has access to large stocks of the types of missiles that are compatible with NASAM, but so far there aren’t many launchers to go around. The U.S. and NATO countries deactivated most of their short-range air defenses after the Cold War because their potential adversaries—like Iraq and Afghanistan—didn’t have strong air forces, says Cancian. Raytheon, who produced the weapon in the U.S., says it will build more, but it could take a year or longer for them to reach Ukraine.

Javelin Anti-Tank Missile

What it is: Portable missile that attacks tanks from above | Cost per unit: $178,000 per missile | Units pledged by the U.S.: 8,500 missiles | Range: 2.5 miles

The Javelin’s name says it all: Unlike some anti-tank missiles, this one flies in an arc, just like the ancient weapon. It strikes from above to hit the top of a tank, where it is most vulnerable. “Javelin is far and away the most capable man-portable, anti-tank missile ever conceived,” says Boston. “It is absurdly good. No tank anywhere is survivable against a Javelin warhead in the roof.” The weapon was especially valuable early in the war, when troops and tanks were moving quickly across open spaces. Unlike some more sophisticated weapons, Javelin requires little training, so Ukrainian forces were able to employ these weapons as soon as the Russians arrived. The U.S. has delivered about 8,500 Javelin missiles to Ukraine, but an unknown number of launchers. Given how important they are, the U.S. and Ukraine don’t want to tip off Russia to how many Ukraine possesses.

Switchblade Drone

What it is: Lightweight kamikaze drone | Cost per unit: $220,000 (Switchblade 600] | Units pledged by the U.S.: 700+ | Range: 25 miles

The evocative official term for the Switchblade is “loitering munition drone,” which means it remains airborne over an enemy and then attacks quickly at speeds of over 100 mph once a target is identified. The U.S. has sent two versions to Ukraine: The smaller 300 weighs about 5.5 pounds and uses a fragmentation warhead that explodes like a shotgun over the target. The larger 600 weighs about 50 pounds and packs a warhead similar to the one on a Javelin anti-tank missile. Switchblade is carried and launched from a portable tube. Once airborne, its wings extend, and an electric propeller sends it toward a target area.

Snipex Alligator

What it is: High-powered sniper rifle | Cost per unit: N/A | Units pledged: N/A | Range: 4 miles

The immense size and power of this long gun make it especially useful for Ukraine, as both sides dig into trenches and hardened battlefield positions. Combatants are fighting across greater distances, which is where the Snipex sniper rifle excels. When assembled, it exceeds six and a half feet in length, more than twice the size of a typical hunting rifle, with a 47-inch barrel. It can fire its 14.5x144mm round up to four miles and has enough force to pierce the defenses of lightly armored vehicles. The gun’s maker claims it will penetrate 9mm armor from nearly a mile away. That makes it especially valuable to Ukrainian soldiers, who can use it to take out adversaries, damage radar and communication equipment, immobilize vehicles, or destroy enemy weapons. Another benefit: Unlike other weapons on the list, this one is made in Ukraine, although it’s unclear how many the maker has provided to Ukrainian soldiers or whether it is still producing the weapon. The company is based in Kharkiv, about 185 miles west of Luhansk, where Russia recently mobilized additional troops and fierce fighting continues.

HARM Anti-Radiation Missile

What it is: An air-launched missile that hunts ground-based radar systems | Cost per unit: $200,000 | Units pledged by the U.S.: N/A | Range: 30 miles

One of America’s most capable weapons reached Ukraine this summer, and it quickly made an impact. The AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) was designed to be fired from U.S.-built F-16 and F/A-18 fighter jets, so Ukraine first had to learn how to modify its MiG-29 jets to fit the 14-foot-long, 800-pound missile. Once launched, HARM races toward enemy radars using an antenna in the nose. Before it’s detected, its fragmentation warhead explodes just prior to impact, disabling radar with a violent spray of shrapnel. The benefit is immediate, crippling the opponent’s air defenses. Without radar, they can’t identify, track, or accurately fire missiles at incoming planes or missiles.

Phoenix Ghost Drone

What it is: An experimental kamikaze drone with a long range | Cost per unit: N/A | Units delivered by the U.S.: Approx. 1,800 | Range: 100+ miles (estimated)

So far, the U.S. has resisted providing Ukraine with long-range offensive weapons, especially cruise missiles or longer-range ATACMS munitions that can be fired from the HIMARS launcher. It fears those weapons would escalate the war, possibly leading Russia to attack a NATO country. Ukraine, however, says it needs weapons like these to launch a counteroffensive and to take back Crimea and other territory claimed by Russia. While the two sides debate, the U.S. has supplied another weapon to help Ukraine’s offensive efforts. Little is known about the Phoenix Ghost, except that this one-way kamikaze drone is an experimental weapon first tested in Afghanistan. The drone is believed to have a range of more than 100 miles, and it can carry a warhead powerful enough to take out medium-armored targets—anything up to a battle tank. It has infrared sensors to fly at night and can stay aloft for six hours. That should make it very effective against Russia’s heavy artillery, at least until the U.S. or another of Ukraine’s allies releases the big guns.

Leopard 2 Tank

What it is: Powerful and accurate main battle tank | Cost per unit: $8.8 million + | Units delivered: 54 pledged from Germany, Poland, Portugal, the Netherlands, and Norway | Range: 311 miles (estimated)

The Kampfpanzer Leopard 2, which Germany designed and built in the 1970s, is one of the most widely used tanks in the world, and is by far the most popular tank in NATO’s inventory. It was so advanced for its time that even the mighty American M1 Abrams has some Leopard 2 DNA in it. Now, nearly a year after Russia invaded Ukraine, NATO is set to send up to 54 Leopard 2s to energize the Ukrainian army. The tanks, sent from NATO nations including Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal, will arm Kyiv with a better, more powerful tank fleet than ever before. In small numbers or large, however, the Leopard 2 would be a much better tank than anything fielded by the mighty Russian Armed Forces.

The Leopard 2 is a 55-ton main battle tank . It’s armed with a 120-millimeter smoothbore gun and two 7.62-millimeter machine guns. A crew of four operates the tank, including a commander, gunner, loader, and driver. It’s powered by an MTU MB 873 12-cylinder, water-cooled diesel engine, producing 1,500 horsepower. This results in a ratio of 27 horsepower per ton, enough to drive it to a top speed of 42 miles per hour. The tank’s Rheinmetall Rh-120 120-millimeter smoothbore main gun is managed by one of the most advanced fire-control systems in the world, with a ballistic computer, laser range finder, and thermal night vision that make it the equal of the American M1 Abrams. This allows the tank to engage targets with high first-round hit accuracy, day or night, and even engage moving enemy targets through enemy smoke screens. According to Rheinmetall , a round fired by the Rh-120 gun is supersonic as it leaves the muzzle, traveling at up to 5,692 feet per second. (A .30-06 rifle bullet, on the other hand, travels at just 3,000 feet per second .) The Rh-120 is highly accurate while shooting on the move due to a two-axis stabilization system that counteracts the tank’s movement against the position of the Rh-120 gun barrel. As Russia continues to assault cities in Eastern Ukraine, and plans for a major new offensive, the Leopards power and accuracy could make it one of the most critical weapons determining the war's outcome. —Kyle Mizokami

.css-cuqpxl:before{padding-right:0.3125rem;content:'//';display:inline;} Pop Mech Pro .css-xtujxj:before{padding-left:0.3125rem;content:'//';display:inline;}

A New Hypersonic Missile Will Give the F-35 Fangs

The Navy’s New Drone Could Turn into a Ship-Killer

The CIA’s Secret Plan to Turn Psychics Into Spies

Is This the Real Iceberg That Sank the Titanic?

A Barrage of Missiles Met Resistance Over Israel

The Navy's New Frigates Are Behind Schedule

Stand-by Power: Eco Flow’s Smart Home Panel 2

The Right Way to Use a Fire Extinguisher

The Universe Could Be Eternal, This Theory Says

The Pentagon Created a New Underwater Predator

The U.S. Has Built an Unstoppable Microwave Weapon

• Missiles of the World

Missiles and Rockets of Hezbollah

This is especially true with regard to its missile and rocket forces, which Hezbollah has in vast quantities arrayed against Israel.

The continued growth of Hezbollah’s missile and rocket forces is undesirable for several reasons. It may, for example, embolden the party to overstep Israeli red lines. Hezbollah’s push to acquire longer-ranged and precision-guided munitions could likewise spur Israel into preemptive action. Hezbollah’s weapons acquisition also raises the prospects for the proliferation of missile technology and know-how. According to Saudi and UAE officials, Hezbollah militants have worked with their Houthi forces in rocket development and launch divisions. 6  Hezbollah forces in Syria and Iraq similarly operate with various Shiite militias. Growing relations among these groups presents risks for the dissemination of missile technology and knowledge.

Note : This is not a definitive list of Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal, and the profiles below rely solely on open-source material.

Land Attack Missiles and Rockets

107 & 122 mm ‘katyusha’ rockets.

Fajr-1 / Chinese 107 mm Rockets

Falaq is a family of unguided surface-to-surface artillery rockets developed by Iran in the 1990s. They are sometimes identified as Falagh.

333 mm Shahin-1

122 mm type-81 rocket, fajr-3 and fajr-5.

Raad-2 and Raad-3 / 220 mm Uragan-type Rockets

302 mm Khaibar-1 / M-302 / B-302

The Khaibar-1 was first fired by Hezbollah on July 28, 2006, striking the city of Afula. Subsequent targets included Haifa, Hadera, and areas in the northern West Bank.

Zelzal-1 and Zelzal-2

Fateh-110 / M-600

The Fateh-110 is an Iranian short-range, road-mobile ballistic missile. It is most likely a modified version of the unguided Zelzal-2, with the addition of control and guidance systems. The M-600, or “Tishreen,” is a Syrian variant/copy of the Fateh-110 missile.

Scuds variants have ranges between 300-550 km while carrying a 600-985 kg payload. Standard versions measure 10.3-12.29 m in length, with a body diameter of 0.88 m and launch weight of around 5,400-6,500. 50 If Hezbollah does indeed have Scuds, it could use them to reach Israeli targets from Party-controlled territory in northern Lebanon.

Antiship Missiles (ASMs)

C-802 / yingji-2 / noor.

Hezbollah’s C-802s are likely maintained and operated by Iranian military personnel.

The Yakhont is an antiship cruise missile (ASCM) developed by Russia in the 1990s. It can be air-, ground- or sub-launched.

However, reports suggest that Hezbollah does not have the means to launch the missile without Iranian and/or Syrian support. 59 Israel considers the Yakhont one of the main threats it faces from Hezbollah, as the missile threatens shipping along Israel’s entire coastline and could complicate any potential blockade of Lebanon.

Antitank Missiles (ATMs)

Rpg-29 vampir.

9M14 Malyutka (NATO: AT-3 Sagger) 

9K111 Fagot (NATO: AT-4 Spigot)

9M113 Konkurs (NATO: AT-5 Spandrel)

An Israeli report suggests that Iran provided Hezbollah with domestic copies of the AT-5.

9K115-2 Metis-M (NATO: AT-13 Saxhorn-2)

9M133 Kornet-E (NATO: AT-14 Spriggan)

Antiair Missiles (AAMs)

Israeli policymakers and military officers have consistently reiterated their concerns about Hezbollah acquiring more sophisticated air defenses from Bashar al-Assad’s Syria.

ZU-23 

The ZU-23 is a stationary unit with twin 23 mm anti-aircraft guns developed by the Soviet Union in the 1950s. It was designed to engage low-flying targets at a range of 2.5 km and a maximum altitude of 1.5 to 2 km. It can also target armored vehicles up to a 2 km range. The ZU-23 has a length of 4.57 m, a width of 1.83 m, a height of 1.87 m, and a barrel length of 2.01 m. 85 Hezbollah air defense units reportedly station ZU-23 assets on flatbed trucks to add mobility. 86 ZU stands for “Zenitnaya Ustanovka,” which translates to “anti-aircraft self-propelled system.” The missile is is alternatively known as the ‘2A14 ZU-23-2’ and ‘Sergey’.

9K32 Strela-2 (NATO: SA-7 Grail)

9K33 Osa (NATO: SA-8 Gecko)

9K34 Strela-3 (NATO: SA-14 Gremlin)

9k310 igla-1 (nato: sa-16 gimlet) and 9k38 igla (nato: sa-18 grouse), 9k40 buk-m2 (nato: sa-17 grizzly), pantsyr-s1 (nato: sa-22 greyhound).

• J. Michael Cole, “Opening Pandora’s Box: If Israel Strikes Iran, What About Hezbollah?” The Diplomat , October 13, 2012, https://thediplomat.com/2012/10/opening-pandoras-box-hezbollah-in-israels-iran-thinking/.
• Steven Erlanger and Richard A. Oppel Jr., “A Disciplined Hezbollah Surprises Israel With Its Training, Tactics and Weapons,” New York Times , August 7, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/07/world/middleeast/07hezbollah.html?pagewanted=all.
• Center for Preventive Action, “Israel and Hezbollah: Deterrence and the Threat of Miscalculation,” Council on Foreign Relations , September 11, 2017, https://www.cfr.org/report/israel-and-hezbollah-deterrence-and-threat-miscalculation; International Crisis Group, “Israel, Hizbollah and Iran: Preventing Another War in Syria,” February 8, 2018, https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/syria/182-israel-hizbollah-and-iran-preventing-another-war-syria.
• Udi Dekel et al., The Quiet Decade: In the Aftermath of the Second Lebanon War, 2006-2016,” Institute for National Security Studies , July 2017, 120, http://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/memo167_6.pdf.
• Eric Goldstein and Bonnie Docherty, “Civilians under Assault: Hezbollah’s Rocket Attacks on Israel in the 2006 War,” Human Rights Watch , August 28, 2007, https://www.hrw.org/report/2007/08/28/civilians-under-assault/hezbollahs-rocket-attacks-israel-2006-war.
• Ellen Francis and Laila Bassam, “Lebanon’s Hezbollah denies sending weapons to Yemen,” Reuters, November 20, 2017, https://https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-nasrallah/lebanons-hezbollah-denies-sending-weapons-to-yemen-idUSKBN1DK22D.
• Human Rights Watch, “Q & A: 122mm Cluster Munition Rockets,” October 19, 2006, https://www.hrw.org/news/2006/10/19/q-122mm-cluster-munition-rockets; William M. Arkin, Divining Victory: Airpower in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War , (Maxwell Air Force Base: Air University Press, 2011), 56, https://books.google.com/books?id=Q-NiAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=Hezbollah+Fajr-5&source=bl&ots=pYWo8nRcZZ&sig=zQnmVCQ58vnDJ5TU0x0SnytQ6Ag&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIl6CM7KzXAhWr6IMKHVW_Aco4ChDoAQhRMAc#v=onepage&q=Hezbollah%20Fajr-5&f=false.
• Human Rights Watch, “Q & A: 122mm Cluster Munition Rockets”; Israel Missile Defense Association, “Grad Katyusha,” June 13, 2007, http://imda.org.il/english/Threats/threats_missile.asp?missileid=10.
• David Schapiro and Katherine Zimmerman, “Estimates for Hezbollah’s Arsenal,” AEI Critical Threats June 29, 2010, https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/estimates-for-hezbollahs-arsenal#_ednaa371eb0fcd676f2aa5b2de7656fc4ed4.
• Patrick Devenny, “Hezbollah’s Strategic Threat to Israel,” Middle East Forum , Winter 2006, http://www.meforum.org/806/hezbollahs-strategic-threat-to-israel.
• BBC News, “Hezbollah’s rocket force,” July 18, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5187974.stm; Robert Wall et al., “Harsh Trajectories,” Aviation Week , August 7, 2006, http://archive.aviationweek.com/issue/20060807.
• James Klatell, “Hezbollah’s Rocket Science,” CBS News , July 20, 2006, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hezbollahs-rocket-science/.
• “NORINCO 107 mm (12-round) Type 63 and Type 81 multiple rocket systems,” in IHS Jane’s Land Warfare Platforms: Artillery & Air Defence 2012-2013, ed. Christopher Foss and James O’Halloran (United Kingdom: IHS, 2012), 274-276; Devenny, “Hezbollah’s Strategic Threat to Israel.”
• Army Recognition, “Type 63 107 mm Multiple rocket launcher system,” April 4, 2011, https://www.armyrecognition.com/china_artillery_vehicles_and_weapon_systems_uk/type_63_107_mm_multiple_rocket_launcher_system_data_sheet_specifications_information_description_uk.html; Jane’s Artillery & Air Defence, 275.
• N.R. Jenzen-Jones, Yuri Lyamin, and Galen Wright, “Iranian Falaq-1 and Falaq-2 Rockets in Syria,” Armament Research Services , May 2014, http://www.armamentresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ARES-Research-Report-No.-2-Iranian-Falaq-1-Falaq-2-Rockets-in-Syria.pdf.
• Anthony Cordesman, “Iran’s Rocket and Missile Forces and Strategic Options,” CSIS , October 7, 2014, 54, https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/141007_Iran_Rocket_Missile_forces.pdf.
• Arkin, Divining Victory , 32.
• Jane’s Artillery & Air Defence, 292-293.
• Human Rights Watch, “Q & A: 122mm Cluster Munition Rockets.”
• Jane’s Artillery & Air Defence, 273; Human Rights Watch, “Civilians under Assault.”
• Yossi Melman, “Hezbollah Expected to Launch 100 Missiles a Day at Tel Aviv,” Haaretz , April 8, 2011, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/haaretz-wikileaks-exclusive-hezbollah-expected-to-launch-100-missiles-a-day-at-tel-aviv-1.354826.
• BBC, “Hezbollah’s rocket force”; Jane’s Artillery & Air Defence, 290.
• Cordesman, 17.
• BBC, “Hezbollah’s rocket force”; Jane’s Artillery, 288-290.
• Benjamin Lambeth, “Air Operations in Israel’s War Against Hezbollah: Learning from Lebanon and Getting It Right in Gaza” (Rand Corporation: 2011), 94, https://books.google.com/books?id=IT4rB0V6fDQC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=Zelzal+1&source=bl&ots=bkh-32_XZA&sig=wOolW9JUqnXtBVTcZBucvAKJAIc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzsJX7jI_XAhWD0iYKHVFqDCU4ChDoAQhCMAU#v=onepage&q=Zelzal%201&f=false.
• SBS News, “Rocket barrage hits Israel,” February 24, 2015, https://www.sbs.com.au/news/rocket-barrage-hits-israel.
• Human Rights Watch, “Civilians under Assault”; Sergey V. Gurov, “BM-27 Uragan,” Military Today , http://www.military-today.com/artillery/bm27_uragan.htm.
• Aviation Week, “High Trajectories.”
• Human Rights Watch, “Civilians under Assault.”
• Yuri Lyamin and N.R. Jenzen-Jones, “Assessment of the Khaibar-1 Rockets Captured by the IDF,” Armament Research Services , March 12, 2014, http://armamentresearch.com/assessment-of-the-khaibar-1-rockets-captured-by-the-idf/.
• Stratfor, “Examining Hamas’ Rockets,” July 10, 2014, https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/examining-hamas-rockets#axzz367gaGV7K?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=official&utm_campaign=link.
• Gili Cohen, “Hamas Firing Long-range M-302 Rockets at Israel, Capable of 150-km Distance,” Haaretz , July 9, 2014, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.603957.
• Lambeth, Air Operations in Israel’s War Against Hezbollah , 92-93.
• Jane’s Artillery & Air Defence, 290-291.
• Nicholas Blanford, “Warriors of God: Inside Hezbollah’s Thirty-Year Struggle Against Israel,” (New York: Random House Publishing Group, October 2011), 338, https://books.google.com/books?id=lJWGvIcmODoC&pg=PA337&lpg=PA337&dq=Hezbollah+Uragan&source=bl&ots=zBUq1-aea2&sig=wa0aUucgc1JitWX4ZQtojH56mJA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiCyaGVg6DXAhWBx4MKHf9lCg4Q6AEITjAJ#v=onepage&q=Hezbollah%20Uragan&f=false.
• Anthony Cordesman, “The Lessons of the Israeli-Lebanon War,” CSIS , March 11, 2018, slide 17, https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/media/csis/pubs/080311_lessonleb-iswar.pdf.
• Seymour Hersh, “Watching Lebanon,” The New Yorker , August 21, 2006, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/21/watching-lebanon; Mark W. Pontin, “The Missiles of August,” MIT Technology Review , August 16, 2006, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/406282/the-missiles-of-august/.
• Arkin, Divining Victory , 57.
• Missile Threat, “Fateh-110,” August 9, 2016, https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/fateh-110/
• Jonathan Lis and Amos Harel, “Syria Gave Advanced M-600 Missiles to Hezbollah, Defense Officials Claim,” Haaretz , May 5, 2010, https://www.haaretz.com/news/syria-gave-advanced-m-600-missiles-to-hezbollah-defense-officials-claim-1.288356.
• Tamir Eschel, “Iran: We supplied ballistic guided rockets to Hezbollah,” Defense Update , November 24, 2014, http://defense-update.com/20141124_fatah110.html#.VH47w8IcQdU.
• AEI Critical Threats, “Estimates for Hezbollah’s Rocket Arsenal.”
• Daniel Kurtzer, “A Third Lebanon War,” Council on Foreign Relations , July 2010, https://www.cfr.org/sites/default/files/pdf/2010/07/CPA_contingencymemo_8.pdf.
• Mona Alami, “Hezbollah Rocket Inventories Worry Israel, U.S.,” Inter Press Service , May 2, 2010, http://www.globalissues.org/news/2010/05/02/5455.
• Missile Threat, “SS-1 (Scud A/B/C/D),” last updated August 11, 2016, https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/scud/.
• Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker, “Arming of Hezbollah Reveals U.S. and Israeli Blind Spots,” New York Times , July 19, 2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/world/middleeast/19missile.html.
• Andrew McGregor, “Hezbollah’s Tactics and Capabilities in Southern Lebanon,” Jamestown Foundation , August 1, 2006, https://jamestown.org/program/hezbollahs-tactics-and-capabilities-in-southern-lebanon/.
• “CSS-N-4 ‘Sardine’ (YJ-8/YJ-8A/C-801); CSS-N-8 ‘Saccade’ (YJ-82/YJ-83/C-802/C-802A/Noor/Ghader),” in IHS Jane’s Weapons: Naval 2016-2017, ed. David Ewing & Malcolm Fuller (United Kingdom: IHS, 2016), 3-7; Cordesman, “The Lessons of the Israeli-Lebanon War,” slide 48.
• Uzi Rubin, “Hizballah’s Rocket Campaign Against Northern Israel: A Preliminary Report,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs , August 31, 2006, http://jcpa.org/article/hizballahs-rocket-campaign-against-northern-israel-a-preliminary-report/.
• NYT, “Arming of Hezbollah.”
• Missile Threat, “SS-N-26 “Strobile” (P-800 Oniks)/ Yakhont / Yakhont-M / Bastion (launch systems),” last updated December 2, 2016, https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/ss-n-26/.
• J. Dana Stuster, “Why Hezbollah’s New Missiles Are a Problem for Israel,” Foreign Policy , January 3, 2014, http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/01/03/why-hezbollahs-new-missiles-are-a-problem-for-israel/.
• Darien Cavanaugh, “Russia is teaching Hezbollah some terrifying new tricks,” War is Boring , January 27, 2016, http://theweek.com/articles/601435/russia-teaching-hezbollah-some-terrifying-new-tricks.
• Foreign Policy, “Why Hezbollah’s New Missiles Are a Problem for Israel.”
• NYT, “A Disciplined Hezbollah.”
• Cordesman, “The Lessons of the Israeli-Lebanon War,” slide 45.
• Ben Hubbard, “Iran Out to Remake Mideast With Arab Enforcer: Hezbollah,” New York Times , August 27, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/27/world/middleeast/hezbollah-iran-syria-israel-lebanon.html?action=click&contentCollection=world&module=NextInCollection&region=Footer&pgtype=article&version=series&rref=collection%2Fseries%2Ftehran-turn&mtrref=undefined.
• Cordesman, “The Lessons of the Israeli-Lebanon War,” slide 43.
• Arkin, Divining Victory , 37; BBC, “Tough Lessons for Israeli armour.”
• SIPRI, 411.
• Arkin, Divining Victory , 38. One theory asserts that this operation was actually conducted by Hamas militants, trying to renew fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.
• AEI Critical Threats, “Assessing Hezbollah’s Rocket Arsenal.”
• Arkin, Divining Victory , 37.
• Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, “Armaments, Disarmament and International Security,” (Oxford University Press, 2007), 410, https://books.google.com/books?id=Ys0bJwNfF_MC&pg=PA410&lpg=PA410&dq=Hezbollah+Uragan+rocket&source=bl&ots=uKNhB0u4uI&sig=qqrk5F4zG1s2UlDIRGTuggMA5GE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6rNGlxaLXAhWJJiYKHZ_MAHUQ6AEIOjAD#v=onepage&q=Hezbollah%20Uragan%20rocket&f=false; AEI Critical Threats, “Estimates for Hezbollah’s Arsenal.”
• NYT, “A Disciplined Hezbollah”; War is Boring, “Russia is teaching Hezbollah some terrifying new tricks.”
• John Pike, “AT-4 SPIGOT Anti-Tank Guided Missile,” Federation of American Scientists , January 22, 1999, https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/at4spigot.htm.
• SIPRI, 410.
• Yuri Lyamin et al., “Introduction to the 9M113 Konkurs ATGM,” Armament Research Services , July 28, 2016, http://armamentresearch.com/introduction-to-the-9m113-konkurs-atgm/.
• Jonathan Marcus, “Tough lessons for Israeli armour,” BBC , August 15, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4794829.stm.
• Haaretz, “Hezbollah Expected to Launch 100 Missiles a Day at Tel Aviv.”
• BBC, “Tough lessons for Israeli armour”; Blanford, Warriors of God , 338.
• SIPRI, 410-411.
• “Merkava v Kornet E ATGM,” Al Jazeera video on YouTube, June 5, 2010, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzVEduKGUws.
• Josh Cohen, “If Russia Is Supplying Weapons to Hezbollah — Watch Out,” War is Boring , February 17, 2016, http://warisboring.com/if-russia-is-supplying-weapons-to-hezbollah-watch-out/.
• Robert Beckhusen, “Israel Plans to Counter Hezbollah With Hundreds of Surface-to-Surface Missiles,” War is Boring , December 31, 2016, https://warisboring.com/israel-plans-to-counter-hezbollah-with-hundreds-of-surface-to-surface-missiles/.
• Adam Rawnsley, “Iran-Backed Terror Group Parades New Anti-Aircraft Missiles in Iraq,” War is Boring (Medium) , March 19, 2015, https://medium.com/war-is-boring/iran-backed-terror-group-parades-new-anti-aircraft-missiles-in-iraq-ca0204079eb0.
• Army Recognition, “Misagh-1 Man portable air defence missile system,” January 5, 2012, https://www.armyrecognition.com/iran_iranian_army_missile_systems_vehicles_uk/misagh-1_man_portable_air_defence_missile_system_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures.html; Jane’s Artillery & Air Defense, 620-622.
• Army Recognition, “Misagh-2 Man portable air defence missile system,” January 5, 2012, https://www.armyrecognition.com/iran_iranian_army_missile_systems_vehicles_uk/misagh-2_man_portable_air_defence_missile_system_technical_data_sheet_specifications_pictures.html; Jane’s Artillery & Air Defence, 620-622.
• War is Boring, “Iran-Backed Terror Group Parades New Anti-Aircraft Missiles in Iraq.”
• Jane’s Artillery & Air Defence, 590-592.
• McGregor, “Hezbollah’s Tactics and Capabilities in Southern Lebanon.”
• Jane’s Artillery & Air Defence, 647-649.
• Yiftah Shapir, “Syrian Weapons in Hizbollah Hands,” Institute for National Strategic Studies , February 14, 2013, http://www.inss.org.il/publication/syrian-weapons-in-hizbollah-hands/; Haaretz, “Hezbollah Expected to Launch 100 Missiles a Day at Tel Aviv”; AEI Critical Threats, “Assessing Hezbollah’s Rocket Arsenal.”
• Jane’s Artillery & Air Defence, 490-494.
• Army Recognition, “Israeli Army believes Hezbollah has obtained SA-8 Russian air defence missile from Syria,” January 25, 2012, https://www.armyrecognition.com/january_2012_army_military_defense_industry_news/israeli_army_believes_hezbollah_has_obtained_sa-8_russian_air_defence_missile_from_syria_2501123.html.
• Yifa Yaakov et al., “US official: Israel hit Hezbollah-bound missiles in Syria,” Times of Israel , October 31, 2013, https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-attacked-twice-in-syria-destroying-sa-8-missiles/.
• Jane’s Artillery & Air Defence, 650-652.
• INSS, “Syrian Weapons in Hizbollah Hands”; AEI Critical Threats, “Assessing Hezbollah’s Rocket Arsenal.”
• Judah Ari Gross, “If Hezbollah has the SA-17, it’s a ‘big deal,’ expert says,” Times of Israel , April 8, 2016, https://www.timesofisrael.com/if-hezbollah-has-the-sa-17-its-a-big-deal-expert-says/.
• Gabe Fisher, “Israeli jets reportedly attack convoy on Lebanon-Syria border,” Times of Israel , January 30, 2013, https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-jets-reportedly-penetrate-lebanese-airspace/.
• Times of Israel, “If Hezbollah has the SA-17, it’s a ‘big deal,’ expert says.”
• War is Boring, “If Russia Is Supplying Weapons to Hezbollah — Watch Out.”
• Missile Threat, “Pantsir S-1,” last updated May 4, 2017, https://missilethreat.csis.org/defsys/pantsir-s-1/.
• Amos Harel, “At UN, Netanyahu Reveals Details on Hezbollah Weapons Acquisitions,” Haaretz , October 2, 2015, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.678540.

R-360 Neptune: A Ukrainian coastal anti-ship cruise missile

April 14, 2022

R-360 Neptune is a coastal anti-ship cruise missile developed by Ukrainian Luch Design Bureau. Its design is tied to the old Soviet Kh-35 anti-ship missile, designed to defeat surface warships and other vessels with a displacement of up to 5,000 tons. Unlike the Kh-35 missile, the R-360 Neptune missile has improved range and electronics. The missile can engage convoys or individual targets. It is a relatively new weapon in Ukrainian Navy, introduced in early March 2021.

Development

Antiship missiles are large weapons. They require training, which has simulators. An anti-ship missile also requires a launch platform, and the whole system can weigh tons. On top of that, they often require integration with radar to provide launch targeting.

Guided by that, Ukraine started to build its own coastal anti-ship cruise missile system. Production of advanced missile systems took place in cooperation with other Ukrainian enterprises, including Artem Luch GAhK, Kharkiv State Aircraft Manufacturing Company [uk], Motor Sich (MS-400 turbofan engine), Pivdenne YuMZ PivdenMash, Lviv LORTA [uk] and other radar electronics, Vyshneve ZhMZ Vizar Kyiv, Radionics (seeker), Arsenal SDP SE (navigation system) and others.

The first tests of the system were conducted on 22 March 2016, attended by Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) Oleksandr Turchynov. In mid-2017, the manufacturer tested Neptune missiles concurrently with the Vilkha missile complex trials. However, unlike the Vilkha, Luch Design Bureau did not publicize the test results and capabilities of the Neptune.

According to the press service of the NSDC, the first successful flight tests of the system took place on 30 January 2018. On 17 August 2018, the missile successfully hit a target at 100 kilometers (62 mi) during test firings in southern Odessa. On 6 April 2019, the missile was again successfully tested, hitting targets during tests near Odesa. Luch Design Bureau delivered the R-360 Neptune system to the Ukrainian military in December 2019.

The missile was first revealed in the “Weapons and Security 2015” exhibition in Kyiv.

When deployed, a Neptune coastal defense system comprises a USPU-360 truck-based mobile launcher, four missiles, a TZM-360 transport/reload vehicle, an RCP-360 command, and control, and a special cargo vehicle. The system is designed to operate up to 25 kilometers (16 miles) inland of the coastline. A Neptune missile, including a rocket motor, is 5.05 meters (199 in) in length, with a cross-shaped hard wing.

Neptune missiles are designed to be housed in transport and launch containers (TLC) with dimensions 5.30 by 0.60 by 0.60 meters (209 in × 24 in × 24 in). The system has a maximum range of about 300 kilometers (190 mi).[17][18] A single missile weighs 870 kilograms (1,920 lb), of which 150 kilograms (330 lb) is the warhead.

Operational use

Ukraine war.

On April 13, 2022, Ukrainian Navy sources claimed the Russian cruiser Moskva was hit by two Neptune missiles during the Ukraine War, resulting in an ammunition explosion. A day later, on April 14, 2022, the Russian Ministry of Defence stated, without discussing the cause, that a fire had caused munitions to explode, and the crew had been fully evacuated. Russian news outlets announced that Russian warship Moskva had sunk in inclement weather while being towed a few hours later.

Technical specifications

Classified.

Related Post

Kh-47m2 kinzhal: new hypersonic air-to-surface missile.

August 22, 2022

AGM-114 Hellfire R9X: A missile designed to kill terrorists

August 2, 2022

7 thoughts on “R-360 Neptune: A Ukrainian coastal anti-ship cruise missile”

Down with Putin, send more support to Ukraine.

Looks like a viable and good missile defense systems. Too bad the only AN 225 was destroyed….this would bring an immediate end to the current tragedy if it was used as super bomber!

Conventional wisdom is this type of missile should have been easily shot down by the cruiser. It had two sets of SAMs and point defense systems.

It all points to it not being about the weapon, but who’s behind the weapon that brings success.

This is great news that the missile is designed and made in heroic Ukraine. Do serve more up to the invaders.

Regardless of the actual effectiveness of the “Neptune” there can be no doubt that it was NOT designed and manufactured in the Ukraine. First, the Ukraine as the 2nd poorest country in Europe simply did not have the money to develop, let alone manufacture and field such a sophisticated weapons system. 2nd, the Ukraine has never had the needed intellectual, let alone manufacturing infrastructure necessary to create such a weapons system.

Consider that if such a weapons system did not need relatively large sums of money and infrastructure to develop, build and field every 2-bit dictator on the planet would have some now wouldn’t they…

Whatever the actual source of this surface-to-surface anti-ship system may be, it was NOT the Ukraine. If I were to make an educated guess, I suspect it was supplied by a secret skunkworks inside israel, given their vast expertise false flags using foreign weapons (remember israel using remarked US and captured Egyptian jets to attack the USS Liberty). Naturally, israel wouldn’t actually pay for these themselves, so no doubt the original source of funding was the US taxpayer…

Please bear in mind that literally within the first hour of Putin’s Police Action that USA Today published the first piece of fake news when it categorically stated THERE ARE NO US BIO-WEAPONS LABS IN THE Ukraine when in point of fact there were literally dozens…

If Russia were in “Europe”, it would be the second or third poorest. It’s per capita GNP is about the same as Ukraine.

I think that the world is finally coming to realize that wars are largely being fought, so the military industries can make money, along with their puppet politicians, regardless of the country!

Leave a Comment

Featured post.

Overlooked Defense Training Tactics & Gear Everyone Needs

PPK-20: A further development of Vityaz SMG

The Absolute Essentials to Stock Up on During a Gun Craze!

Popular Post

US Army Special Forces (SF): De Oppresso Liber

Ranking the Top Tier: The 2022 List of Elite US Special Forces

The SEAL Structure: A Review of the Ranking System Within the Navy SEALs

What is a 9-line MEDEVAC and easy procedures to call it

Coming soon: Get the latest news and expert analysis about the state of the global economy with Reuters Econ World. Sign up here.

Reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem, Parisa Hafezi in Dubai, Timur Azhari in Baghdad, Jeff Mason, Eric Beech and Doina Chiacu in Washington and Suleiman al-Khalidi in Amman and Lidia Kelly in Lisbon; Writing by Angus McDowall; Editing by Jonathan Oatis, Daniel Wallis, Chizu Nomiyama, Howard Goller and William Mallard

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

World Chevron

Israeli soldiers shot 2 palestinians who attacked them, military says.

The Israeli army said that its soldiers shot two Palestinians who tried to shoot and stab them in the occupied West Bank on Sunday, and the Palestinian health ministry said both men had died.

Russian weapons help Iran harden defenses against Israeli airstrike

Intelligence officials say tehran’s growing partnership with moscow is strengthening the capabilities of both countries.

Last March, a Russian arms maker invited a delegation of Iranians to a VIP shopping tour of its weapons factories. The 17 visitors were treated to lunches and cultural shows and, on the final day, toured a plant that makes products long coveted by Tehran: advanced Russian air defense systems for shooting down enemy planes.

The factory, NPP Start, in the city of Yekaterinburg, is under U.S. sanctions for supporting Russia’s war against Ukraine. Among its wares are mobile launchers and other components for antiaircraft batteries — including Russia’s S-400, which military analysts assess to be capable of detecting and destroying stealth fighter jets flown by Israel and the United States.

A leaked Russian document, part of stolen Iranian emails posted online in February by a hacker group, described the tour as a showcase for “scientific and technical potential and production capabilities” that Russia could offer Iran.

Whether the visit led directly to a purchase is unknown. But the trip is emblematic of what intelligence officials describe as a deepening strategic partnership between Moscow and Tehran in the two years since Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine — an alliance that could emerge as a significant factor as Israeli leaders weigh possible military strikes in retaliation for the hundreds of drones and missiles launched against Israel over the weekend.

Iran opened a dangerous new chapter in its relations with Russia by agreeing in 2022 to supply thousands of battlefield drones and missiles to aid Moscow in its war against Ukraine. The expanded ties have now helped cement agreements between Moscow and Tehran, including a pledge by Russia to provide its ally with advanced fighter jets and air defense technology, assets that could help Tehran harden its defenses against any future airstrike by Israel or the United States, according to U.S., European and Middle Eastern intelligence officials and weapons experts. The officials, like several others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

It is not known how many of the systems have been provided and deployed, but Russian technology could turn Iran into a far more formidable adversary, with an enhanced ability to shoot down planes and missiles, the officials and experts said.

The weapons deals, some details of which have not been reported previously, are part of a broader collaboration that includes co-production of military drones inside Russia, the sharing of anti-jamming technology, and real-time battlefield assessments of weapons deployed against NATO-equipped forces in Ukraine, the intelligence officials and weapons experts said. The cooperation is reaping substantial benefits for both countries, while elevating Iran’s status from junior ally to strategic partner, they said.

“It’s no longer the patron-client dynamic, where Russia holds all the leverage,” said Hanna Notte, director of the Eurasia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “The Iranians are accruing benefits from this change. The nature of their relationship has gone beyond just getting things. There’s knowledge transfer, there’s intangible gains.”

Intelligence officials described Russia as “advancing” agreements negotiated in secret to supply Iran with Su-35s, one of Russia’s most capable fighter-bombers and a potentially dramatic upgrade for an Iranian air force that consists mainly of rebuilt U.S. and Soviet aircraft dating from before 1979. Russia also pledged to provide technical help with Iranian spy satellites as well as assistance in building rockets to put more satellites into space, the officials said.

There is no public evidence that Su-35s have been delivered; the holdup may be a delay by Iran in paying for the planes, according to a U.S. and a Middle Eastern intelligence official with detailed knowledge of the deal.

On the defensive side of the ledger, Iran has long sought Russia’s top-of-the-line antiaircraft missile batteries to protect its nuclear and military facilities against a possible U.S. or Israeli strike. In 2007, Tehran cut a deal to purchase Russia’s S-300 antiaircraft system, but Moscow delayed supplying the weapons amid pressure from the United States and European powers. The self-imposed ban ended in 2016, and Iranian S-300s became operational in 2019.

Iran has since sought to purchase Russia’s more capable S-400 system, although whether Moscow has moved to provide S-400 batteries is not publicly known.

Some variants of the S-400 are equipped with radars that can defeat stealth technology used by modern warplanes. Russia has deployed the S-400 to protect its military bases in Syria, and the batteries constitute a potentially lethal threat to U.S. and Israeli military aircraft that occasionally operate in Syrian airspace.

An Israeli airstrike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus on April 1 killed two Iranian generals and led directly to Iran’s decision to launch drones and missiles against Israel over the weekend.

Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, said Monday that Iran’s attack “will be met with a response.”

If delivered, the new Russian antiaircraft missiles and anti-stealth systems, deployed to protect underground bases carved in rocky mountains , would assuredly make Iranian airspace “a more dangerous place,” said Can Kasapoglu, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank.

“This is important at a time when the regime is fast and unchecked moving toward a bomb,” Kasapoglu said. In addition, he said, “any engagement [with Israel] will take place in the Iranian airspace, where Tehran will hold the advantage of playing at home.”

Moscow also is reaping benefits from the collaboration, intelligence officials said. In addition to thousands of drones procured from Iran, Russia agreed late last year to purchase about $2 billion worth of additional military goods, including anti-drone defensive systems that have become a top priority for Russian generals in Ukraine, according to two intelligence officials with detailed knowledge of the deal.

Iran has separately agreed to sell Russia surface-to-surface missiles for use in Ukraine and, according to a new intelligence assessment, is expected to begin transfer of the weapons imminently. Spy agencies have seen no evidence so far that the missiles have been delivered, the officials said.

The production of battlefield drones, meanwhile, has evolved into a joint venture between the two countries, intelligence officials said. Initially, Iran’s provision of drones to Russia was an attempt by Tehran to help its ally plug a hole in its military campaign against Ukraine. Russia, which possessed few battlefield drones at the start of the war, began using two types of Iranian-made Shahed drones in the fall of 2022: the long-range, sweptwing Shahed-131 and the Shahed-136.

By midsummer 2023, Russia was beginning to manufacture Iranian-designed Shahed-136 drones indigenously, at factory in Alabuga, a town in Russia’s Tatarstan region, about 500 miles east of Moscow. Russian documents obtained by The Washington Post last year described plans to manufacture 6,000 drones by summer 2025 to use in its campaign of strikes against Ukrainian forces as well as electricity plants and other vital infrastructure.

Concerned about Russia’s domestic production, the Ukrainian military launched a drone attack of its own against the Alabuga complex on April 2.

More recently, Moscow and Tehran have begun working cooperatively on new kinds of unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, according to intelligence officials and leaked documents. The trove of Russian and Iranian emails and records released by the hacking group Prana Network were purportedly stolen from an Iranian server linked to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps earlier this year.

Among the documents were details of visits by Iranian and Russian delegations to tour weapons facilities in both countries. The Iranians’ trip to the NPP Start factory was described in a Russian “program” for the visit that listed tours of defense facilities in five cities. The document was signed by officials of Technodinamika JSC, which operates NPP Start, as well as the Russian Defense Ministry.

The Post could not independently verify the documents, but two Biden administration officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence agencies have closely studied the leaked materials and do not dispute their authenticity. Neither Russia nor Iran has publicly responded to the leak.

Several documents describe an April 2023 trip to Iran by a delegation of Russian engineers to watch a demonstration of a new jet-powered drone as well as a line of hunter-killer UAVs designed to destroy enemy drones. Both appeared to impress the visitors.

Variants of the jet-powered drone, dubbed the MS-237, Shahed-238 and Shahed-236, were described as having a maximum speed of about 400 mph — about three times faster than previous iterations of Iranian drones. Tehran revealed the existence of the new drone at an air show in November.

In the demonstration, the jet drone — code-named “motorboat” in the Russians’ internal communications — “successfully took off, accomplished the tasks … and successfully landed by parachute,” a leaked Russian report said. “Given its high speed, the boat is essentially a cruise missile.”

The test apparently helped cement an agreement to acquire more than 600 of the Iranian-designed jet drones, with most of them built on Russian soil with Iranian parts and help, according to the leaked emails. The documents also describe protracted negotiations over how Russia would pay for the drones. At least two installments were to come in the form of gold bullion valued at about $140 million, the documents show.

In January, photos of the remains of a jet-powered drone that appears identical to the MS-237 were posted by Ukraine bloggers after the aircraft reportedly was shot down somewhere over central Ukraine. It is not yet known whether any of the jet drones were launched against Israel in the recent Iranian attack.

“It’s faster, which means it is more difficult to intercept,” said Fabian Hinz, a defense analyst and expert on UAVs and missile systems with the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think tank. But, he said, the jet drones are “probably also substantially more expensive, because these types of jet engines are tricky to build.”

Producing the drones as a joint production offers substantial benefits for Iran, including the ability to evaluate their performance on Ukrainian battlefields. David Albright, an expert on Iran’s weapon systems and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington nonprofit, noted that the leaked documents show evidence of Russian engineers incorporating design improvements on Iranian drones.

“Mistakes and flaws in the designs were identified and fixed,” he said, “and Iran would benefit from that.”

Even if Russian systems such as the S-400 have not already been sold to Iran and deployed there, Albright said the sharing of design information and technological expertise could quietly bolster Iran’s capabilities without triggering alarms in the West.

“You might not see anything,” he said.

Israel-Gaza war

The Israel-Gaza war has gone on for six months, and tensions have spilled into the surrounding region .

The war: On Oct. 7, Hamas militants launched an unprecedented cross-border attack on Israel that included the taking of civilian hostages at a music festival . (See photos and videos of how the deadly assault unfolded ). Israel declared war on Hamas in response, launching a ground invasion that fueled the biggest displacement in the region since Israel’s creation in 1948 .

Gaza crisis: In the Gaza Strip, Israel has waged one of this century’s most destructive wars , killing tens of thousands and plunging at least half of the population into “ famine-like conditions. ” For months, Israel has resisted pressure from Western allies to allow more humanitarian aid into the enclave .

U.S. involvement: Despite tensions between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and some U.S. politicians , including President Biden, the United States supports Israel with weapons , funds aid packages , and has vetoed or abstained from the United Nations’ cease-fire resolutions.

History: The roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and mistrust are deep and complex, predating the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 . Read more on the history of the Gaza Strip .

• Israel strikes Iran, Israeli official says; White House declines to comment on attack April 19, 2024 Israel strikes Iran, Israeli official says; White House declines to comment on attack April 19, 2024
• After Israeli strike in Iran, both sides appear to downplay incident April 19, 2024 After Israeli strike in Iran, both sides appear to downplay incident April 19, 2024
• Homes burned, animals killed: Palestinians describe Israeli settler rampage April 16, 2024 Homes burned, animals killed: Palestinians describe Israeli settler rampage April 16, 2024

North Korea conducts cruise missile warhead test on Friday, KCNA says

S EOUL (Reuters) -North Korea conducted a cruise missile warhead test and test launch of its new anti-aircraft missile in the West Sea of Korea on Friday, the North's KCNA news agency said on Saturday.

North Korea had conducted a power test of a super-large warhead designed for "Hwasal-1 Ra-3" strategic cruise missile and a test launch of "Pyoljji-1-2" new-type anti-aircraft missile on Friday afternoon, it reported, citing the DPRK Missile Administration.

DPRK stands for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the North's official name.

North Korea's strategic cruise missile is believed to be designed to carry a nuclear warhead.

"Both tests were part of the regular activities of the administration and its affiliated defence science institutes for the rapid development of technologies in various aspects such as tactical and technical performance and operation of new-type weapon systems," KCNA reported, adding that they were not related to the regional situation.

South Korea, Japan, and the United States, which often report large missile tests they detect from North Korea, made no mention of a flight.

(Reporting by Heekyong Yang and Josh Smith; Editing by Chris Reese and Bill Berkrot)