America’s Javelin missile is second to none (2021)

[Someone1234]

A Javelin costs around $178K ($78K for replacement missiles only). The NLAW costs around $35K/ea. The NLAW weighs 12.5 kg. The Javelin weighs 22.3 kg.

So even if we agree a Javelin is technically superior, is it 2x an NLAW in weight or 5x NLAW in cost superior?

Plus the NLAW is easier to use, almost turn-key, and typically can be deployed by one soldier instead of two.

Sometimes good enough is good enough, and that feels like it applies here. If I was in charge of ordering, I'd definitely take a handful of NLAWs over a single Javelin because my assumption is many won't be in the right place at the right time or will be damaged/lost before utilized.

The reality is that a mix of both is great, in particular if they're free. Javelins are great weapon systems at medium range.

[nickff]

They're very different weapons; an NLAW is unlikely to incapacitate a tank at any range, whereas a Javelin has a high probability of destroying a tank at 500-2500m. The NLAW can be very useful against structures or softer targets like APCs and IFVs.

[sklargh]

I'd argue that the NLAW's probability of kill is comparable, easier to use and its cost is radically lower. The Javelin is a great weapons system, and is highly complimentary to the NLAW - but if I was forced to pick one thing to arm my force with it'd be the NLAW (or maybe the Spike-SR).

[thunderbird120]

They are very different types of weapons. The NLAW's range is inferior at a basic level and the missile itself does not actually track the target making shots out to the edge of it's theoretical range very difficult, unlike the Javelin. While both Javelin and NLAW are top attack munitions, their flight trajectories are very different. The NLAW flies more or less in a line from launch to directly above the target and then detonates its shaped charge warhead which shoots down as the missile flies over (i.e it explodes down, not forward). Its flight trajectory is more vulnerable to active protection systems compared to the Javelin's true top attack mode (but that's not an issue against Russians). The warhead is also smaller and less effective. The NLAW is a great weapon but its constraints are apparent in many cases.

[monkeybutton]

If I had to choose, I would take the Stugna-P. You guide it with a laptop and don't have to hold it up to fire (it's mounted on a tripod), and the range is much further (4km!).

[rmbyrro]

Maybe if your army boss can print dollars, you wouldn't mind paying 200% more for 10% improvement.

[ranger207]

The NLAW is easier, cheaper, and if it hits probably has similar lethality, but the Javelin is much more likely to hit in the first place. The NLAW isn't really guided: you point it at a tank, track it through the sights for a moment, then fire, and the missile will keep blindly tracking the movement of the tank. So if the tank stops or turns then the NLAW will keep deflecting and will miss. The Javelin actually does have sensors on the missile to track the tank, so it can compensate for changes in direction. Now, when you're fairly close you can probably get away with just momentum tracking, so the NLAW is perfectly fine in many circumstances, but the Javelin is much more likely to hit in any scenario.

[AussieWog93]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2022/03/31/anal...

The only thing I've seen about the NLAW is a direct hit on the top turret of a Russian tank doing absolutely nothing.

[cameldrv]

I think it depends on the terrain in which you're operating on and whether you're on the offense or the defense. In urban or wooded terrain where engagement distances are shorter, the NLAW is probably a little better. In desert or plains where engagement distances are longer, the Javelin is probably better. If I were in flat terrain or on the offense I would not want to be carrying a weapon with a range of 800m when the tank I'm fighting has a range of 3000m.

[LegitShady]

The nlaw was already obsolete 40 years ago. Every tank has explosive reactive armor and the nlaw is a single warhead projectile. It's useful against trucks and ifvs but against even a tank from the 80s its basically useless.

[rmbyrro]

> each missile typically costing more than the targets it eliminates

???

A cheap tank cost upwards of a million dollars, while a javelin would cost in the low hundreds of thousands.

"Typically", a javelin costs at least 4x less than its targets. On average, I'd argue it's probably 8-10x cheaper.

[didgeoridoo]

I think the “typical” target in recent American wars is a twenty year old Toyota pickup with a machine gun bolted to the bed. In that case, the Javelin is at least 10x more expensive.

[robonerd]

Even if it were true, it wouldn't necessarily matter. Cost-to-cost comparisons, while having some value, don't give the full picture. Real wars aren't wars of attrition between opponents with balanced resources. It's also hard to put a dollar value on the experienced tankers killed by those missiles. The loss of hardware is only part of that picture.

[theptip]

> The irony of using Javelins to destroy pickup trucks and machine guns is that the roughly $80,000 Javelin missiles cost considerably more than the weapon systems they are destroying. This has reportedly has led U.S. forces to at times hold back on using the weapon in Afghanistan.

This was not talking about their earlier uses vs. tanks, rather later targets when there were fewer tanks on the board.

[hyperbovine]

Further down in The Fine Article, it is explained that the javelin is frequently used against pickup trucks and other low value targets.

[mabbo]

The article goes on to describe situations in Iraq where the US was firing them at pickup trucks.

[x3n0ph3n3]

Tanks are not the most frequent targets, though. Trucks and jeeps were the most common targets in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[randbox]

Ukraine's domestically manufactured Stugna-P has longer range, remote controls, and is only $20,000 per missile.

Wikipedia cites unit costs of Javelin closer to $200,000 than $80,000.

Longer range + tripod + remote control seems safer for operators. The Javelin might be second to Stugna-P.

[adventured]

Ukraine can't effectively produce the Stugna while they're at war with Russia. It's one of the many reasons the Javelin and NLAW are so important.

The Neptune might be another great weapon as well, for example, and they'll never be able to produce enough of them while at war.

[spirit557]

This article rang a bell with me. It's basically word-for-word the script for this video which was posted more than a year before date on the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6COKC5ZU6gM

I don't know why this is or if anyone cares, just thought I'd mention it

[russellbeattie]

I just linked to same video! I would never have noticed it was word for word! You're right.

My suspicion is the YouTube channel is a content factory, where the guy narrates a published article over whatever military B-roll video they can find. I highly doubt it was reverse.

Still sorta useful. It's nice to see the actual weapon, and I doubt I'd ever normally read the article otherwise.

[causality0]

In terms of total capability yes, but as an insurgent weapon the nlaw is arguably better. It's much smaller and lighter and deploys faster while being cheaper. The javelin has better performance and can target aircraft, but both kill a T-72 equally dead.

[LegitShady]

Not if the t72 has era. Single charge vs tandem charge warhead. The nlaw was obsolete against tanks 40 years ago.

[dilap]

Interesting to note the article is from 2021, and says Javelins haven't been tested against modern tanks. I guess now they have been, but maybe hard to say how effective because of fog of war.

Here's a YouTube video I recently stumbled over that expresses skepticism about their effectiveness in the current UKR/RU conflict.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zT7mMm0d0aw

Since I have no knowledge of the topic, so I can't tell if he's credible or a crank. Anyone care to weigh in?

[fractallyte]

Photographic and video footage of burned out wrecks of Russian tanks suggest that Javelins are highly effective.

Here are three reputable Twitter accounts: @oryxspioenkop, @RALee85, @UAWeapons

[jerlam]

The other videos on the channel show a very high pro-Russia bias, so I wouldn't give it a lot of credibility.

[AussieWog93]

Why does a single missile cost $80k? Is it just profiteering or is there an actual technical/economic reason for this?

[colechristensen]

There probably are opportunities for savings, but there are also significantly higher development costs than your random shitty piece of consumer tech. Low volume, life critical, has to survive harsh environments and have a minimal failure rate, has to go through many rounds of design specification and verification, has to be backwards compatible a long way... etc.

This isn't a fragile laptop you can sell a hundred million copies of.

[buildbot]

A low volume high tech package of incredible sophistication, 80k is cheap! There are cameras that are more expensive made in higher numbers.

[throwaway0a5e]

Pretty much every part of a modern AGTM is made out of fancy high dollar materials and the QC processes on these materials and assemblies are staggeringly expensive (and it's worth it, imagine how much a dud would damage the troops confidence in the weapons system, when you're the underdog you can't afford that kind of doubt.)

They aren't cheap, but they aren't expensive for what they are.

[adgjlsfhk1]

You need to make sure as much of the supply chain is domestically producible as possible. A cheap system that relies on China (or international shipping in general) aren't what the military wants.

[arinlen]

> Why does a single missile cost $80k? Is it just profiteering or is there an actual technical/economic reason for this?

Unit costs tend to be estimated by dividing the total amount of cash spent on a weapons program and divide it per deployment unit.

Let's put it this way: if you invest a million bucks on a R&D program for a donut factory and in the end you close shop after getting a single donut out of the program, that would mean that donut cost 1 million bucks to make.

[gizajob]

Because despite it basically being a metal tube with a rocket motor and some high explosive, it destroys tanks costing many many multiples of $80k

[chroem-]

You're more than welcome to launch a competitor, but the vast majority of Silicon Valley balks at the idea of helping the US military.

[rufus_foreman]

That's actually pretty cheap considering everything. Teenage Engineering sells a version with better UX that costs 5 times as much.

[qzw]

So an average FAANG senior SWE would be able to afford 6-8 in a year? Not sure it needs to be cheaper.

[systemvoltage]

Low volume, high tech and profiteering.

[HonestOp001]

If I am an insurgent force. I am requesting the Javelin to be supplied with.

If I am an operating force forced to deal with MBA’ers and politicians. I am requesting the NLAW.

[macinjosh]

Any engineer who spends their time on Earth creating weapons of war deserve to experience the fate they themselves designed.

[chmod600]

"Deserves" is a strange word in this context. Did the ukranian software engineers "deserve" to get invaded? No, but it happened.

But you seem to be saying that if they defend themselves, they do deserve to get invaded?

You seem to be following a very long-running fallacy that you can unilaterally opt-out of violence. Ordinary citizens in safe countries fortunately can opt-out, but only because others are in the business of war protecting us from the likes of Putin. Condemning those good warriors is perilous.

[dane-pgp]

And what should happen to engineers who spend their time on Earth working at a job that pays better, while a foreign country is creating weapons with which to invade their country?

[elihu]

(Article is from July 23, 2021.)