WEAPONS Research Notes & MARKETS NUMBER 16 • APRIL 2012 1 around of penetration armour and miles) to up of range effective an have ATGWs weapons. light anti-tank unguided with possible is than accuracy increased with distances greater from to engage targets Moreover, ATGWs ability the soldiers offer effective. less launchers rocket and guns anti-tank direct-fire made traditional armour first ATGWsin created when advances were The buildings. and bunkers hardened as such variants intended for use against other targets, decadelast or so, producers have developed over vehicles, the but particularly armoured to disable designed traditionally weapons are to a target after launch (i.e. during flight).These missiles are designed to be steered, or ‘guided’, launchers, such as the RPG- the as such launchers, 1 ATGWs at engage atarget effectively might payload. and range first-generation Whereas navigation systems were improvements to their weapons’ to these changes with Concurrent acquisition. target enhanced that nologies (IR) tech- infrared later introduced and lasers, radio waves with and manipulation manual quent supplemented weapons first replacedor but subse- weapons were wire-guided, these initially speaking, Broadly generation. the largelydetermining system guidance to the 1950 developed the been since portability. and ance, lethality of its guid- terms of in weapon greatly varies Anti A Spike Spike generation systems are effective at distances at distances effective are generation systems 2007 , , 500 000 Three distinct generations of ATGWs generations distinct haveThree , pp. 445 m and penetrate mm ( mm They differ from unguided rocket rocket unguided from differ They systems. missile-launching small are weapons (ATGWs) guided nti-tank 3 - . – 3 509 feet) (Jane’s, feet) tank GuidedWeapons ). However,). generation each 500 mm of armour, third- 1985 7 , because their their , because s, with changes s, changes with , pp. , 8 , 000 49 m (five m – 69 ; Small Arms Survey Research Notes Notes Research Survey Arms Small system (Gander,system 2000 employed X-Germans the a short time (Jane’s, time a short 1975 although they remained in production for only X- SS- tems and payloads along the way) (Jane’s, sys- weapon guidance the (upgrading this on In 1963In 9 the pp. (MCLOS) (Jane’s, system to line-of-sight 2007 command manual the as was known system or avehicle. on mounted This ground the on disposable transport box that was either placed were simple a Early as as launchers projectile. of the direction control the to manually stick ajoy-used The operator unit. often firing the to was connected that missile of the rear the in by awire launch after target to the guided Arrow’ missiles in the 1970 the in missiles Arrow’ for example, developed ofChina, ‘Red aseries copied. widely subsequently and exported ATGW. Soviet man-portable first the became name), AT- a and up to 8km 2 of between ranges effective reach missiles rates exceeding perform first-generation systemswith accuracy beam-riding technology. SACLOS missiles out- laser- or radio, wire, via missile the to sent are whereby commands automatic guidance target, the on sight the keeps operator the launched, is missile the After performance. (SACLOS),improvements in saw significant systems to line-of-sight automatic command ATGWthe operator vulnerable. was quite of range attack, within forces were other there or if neutralized was not effectively target the If flight. warhead was the in while position same the in to had remain gunner the that was relativependent effectiveness, of their A drawback of first-generationinde- models, introduced the tube-launched, optically optically tube-launched, the introduced (Jane’s, 2007 payload and range of first-generation models the twice almost mm, of upetration to 900 , rmour (Jane’s,rmour 2007 and 5 and 500 7 10 , were the first first , were the ATGWs available forexport, First-generation ATGW missiles were were ATGW missiles First-generation Second-generation systems, known as semi- 445 3 (US or Sagger designation) (NATO code- and German Cobra, both modelled on the – 1 509 The Malyutka/AT- The , ). During the Second World War the m with warhead armour pen- warhead armour mwith 500 , pp. 445 K Malyutka, also known as the the as known 11 also Malyutka,
90 can penetrate can per cent. Moreover, SACLOS – , pp. 445 509 , pp. 136 , p. 743 ). The United States The ). • Number 16 16 Number 7 , the first MCLOS first , the s and 1980s and 3 – was widely widely was 509
– up to 52 ; 1985 ). ). The French French The ). •
1 mof April 2012 2012 April , p. 51 s based s based 2009 ). ). ). , 2 1
(FI, 2007a). Moreover, IR models tend to be lighter and collapsible (i.e. capa- ble of being broken down into lighter and smaller component parts) for transportability. These developments allow soldiers increased versatility in urban spaces. For example, these systems have been employed in Afghanistan and Iraq, where manoeu- vrability is limited due to fighting in buildings and at close quarters, in comparison to prior military engage- ments in Vietnam and Latin America. The costs of ATGWs vary consid- erably. The basic TOW and MILAN, as well as other SACLOS missiles, are reportedly priced at around USD 10,000 apiece. Third-generation sys- tems that use IR guidance missiles cost many times this amount (FI, 2007b).5 While data on unit costs for some sys-
US Marines fire a tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided missile (TOW) during an exercise at Fort Pickett, tems is available, little is known about United States. 30 March 1998. © AFP PHOTO/DOD/T.A. POPE the price of many ATGWs. Even when it is possible to obtain information on values for certain contracts, a missile’s tracked, wire-guided missile (TOW) missiles consists of the Spike Medium or launcher’s specific price is hard to in 1968. By 2009 more than 660,000 Range (MR), Spike Long Range (LR), calculate. Licensing agreements under TOW missiles and 15,000 launchers and Spike Extended Range (ER), with which unit costs will change over time had been procured, making the system maximum ranges of 2,500, 4,000, and add to the incertitude (see Box 1). the most widely deployed of all ATGWs 8,000 m, respectively (Jane’s, 2009). In 2007 more than 30 countries have (Gander, 2000, p. 140; Jane’s, 2009). Other IR ATGWs include the Indian Nag fully or partially produced ATGWs. France and Germany jointly began and the US- and British-manufactured Seven of these countries were fully producing the Missile d’infanterie Javelin. Maximum range varies con- manufacturing ATGWs with FaF guid- léger antichar (MILAN, infantry light siderably. Whereas maximum ranges ance systems. Many of the countries anti-tank missile) shortly thereafter. are typically between 4,000 and 8,000 m that produced MCLOS systems have Despite advances made in SACLOS (Jane’s, 2007, pp. 445–509), some chosen to cease production for a models, operators were still vulner- models have shorter firing ranges to variety of reasons: an obsolete design able to counter-attack due to their suit current environments of combat with low hit probability, gunner immobility. Third-generation guid- ance systems ameliorated this threat by having a passive IR seeker installed on the nose of the missile to lock on Box 1 Licensing agreements and offsets: the case of the Spike in Poland and reach the target automatically. Israel has exported Rafael’s Spike ATGW to several countries since Singapore first purchased the The seeker functions by continuously system in 1999. Since then, Rafael has received several additional orders, including for sales to Finland, comparing target data taken before the Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Between 2000 and 2009 at least 432 missiles, launchers, and launch to what the seeker sees using complete systems were imported. This figure remains relatively low, because several of these pur- pattern recognition algorithms and chases have included licensed production and offset agreements. For instance, the December 2003 manoeuvring the missile appropri- deal between Poland and Israel for PLN 1.487 billion (USD 512 million) covered the sale of 2,675 missiles ately. In recently designed missiles and 264 launchers with substantial local manufacture involved. The Israeli manufacturer provided it is most often a photographic-like initial materials for the missile, with the Polish company ZM Mesko and Polish partners responsible image.3 Unlike wire-guided and laser- for producing numerous components. Up to ten companies are to be involved. The missiles’ war- beam-riding missiles, IR technology heads, rocket engines (launch booster and sustainer), and launch tubes are among the parts to be enables the operator to reposition or made in Poland. All told, 70 per cent of the missile is to be manufactured in Poland. Rafael will supply reload immediately. First developed the thermal imager, firing post, tripod, and simulators. Under the offset agreements, ZM Mesko will in the 1980s, these ‘fire-and-forget’ (FaF) deliver 2,000 warheads and motors to Rafael. ZM Mesko will also be able to use some technologies received from Rafael to improve or develop other indigenous projects. guidance systems allow the operator to retreat immediately after firing.4 Sources: Holdanowicz (2004; 2007); Jane’s (2005); Small Arms Survey (2011) The most notable of these weapons is Israel’s Spike. The full series of Spike
2 Small Arms Survey Research Notes • Number 16 • April 2012 An Israeli school bus damaged by a second-generation Kornet missile fired by Hamas. 7 April 2011. © REUTERS/Baz Ratner vulnerability, a limited ability to pen- than half of these states’ arsenals are fired a Russian model 9K115 Metis etrate modern armour, and sufficient believed to possess mostly the less (AT-7 Saxhorn) at African Union stockpiles to satisfy demand. Roughly sophisticated and less able MCLOS forces in Mogadishu (UNSC, 2010, half of the systems produced are essen- systems. The international community para. 158). In April 2011 Hamas fired tially copies of another country’s has expended more energy and greater a Russian model laser-beam-riding design such as the 9K11 Malyutka resources on destroying MANPADS— 9P133 Kornet (AT-14 Spriggan) at a (AT-3 Sagger), TOW, and Spike. As of both outside state control and state bus in Israel (CNN, 2011). Free Syrian 2007 roughly 14 countries produced holdings—than it has ATGWs. Army rebels looted the same type of ATGWs with technology acquired from Non-state armed groups also missiles from government stocks in six technology-owning countries, either possess ATGWs, but apparently not early 2012 (Daily Star, 2011). That said, with or without a formal licence. Most (yet) third-generation models. At least whether the result of tighter controls licensing agreements include offsets, nine such actors reportedly possess or limited demand, research suggests which are supplementary arrangements (or have possessed) first-generation that fewer of these groups own ATGWs to compensate the purchaser in some MCLOS systems (Small Arms Survey, than possess MANPADS. fashion—either directly in terms of 2008, pp. 32–33). In recent years, sev- ATGWs will continue to be devel- the item in question, or indirectly in- eral groups are understood to have oped to fulfil their initial anti-armour volving some other good or service obtained second-generation SACLOS function, but comparatively greater (Small Arms Survey, 2007, p. 12). models. Hezbollah, for instance, emphasis will be laid on ways to As with man-portable air defence reportedly received, among other engage other fortified targets. The systems (MANPADS), ATGWs are to be models, hundreds of 9K111 Fagots focus primarily will be on increased found in the stocks of a great number (AT-4 Spigots) and 9P133 Kornets portability (e.g. reduced weight and of states. By one account, more than (AT-14 Spriggans) from Iran and smaller sizes), technical sophistica- 100 countries have such weapons in Syria (Wezeman et al., 2007, p. 410). tion (e.g. non-line-of-sight targeting), their inventories (FI, 2007a). More In October 2009 Somali militiamen and cost effectiveness.
Small Arms Survey Research Notes • Number 16 • April 2012 3 Notes ––. 2005. ‘Polish Live-firing Debut for Rafael’s Spike-LR.’ Jane’s International Defence 1 While the Malyutka/Sagger was deployed Review. Coulsdon: Jane’s Information on several platforms, the AT-3’s predeces- Group. 1 April.
4 Small Arms Survey Research Notes • Number 16 • April 2012