How the NLAW Anti-Tank Missile Auto Locks on Enemy Tanks
2022 ж. 11 Сәу.
1 093 656 Рет қаралды
This is an informative video about the NLAW next generation anti tank system. It uses a predictive guidance system to track enemy tanks and lock onto them. I'm your average infantryman Chris Cappy here to examine my top favorite relatively new anti-tank weapon system. Historically since WW2 soldiers have preferred to travel the battlefield within the safety of an armored vehicle but all that is changing now as tanks are becoming giant sitting ducks. How does it feel now that the tables have turned! The hunter becomes the hunted!
#NLAW #MISSILE #WAR
I have 2 questions about the NLAW that weren't answered: How does it work that the missile can fly 1 metre above the tank and explode, killing the tank? I've only ever seen missiles flying and hitting a target directly. I thought even with a shaped charge 1 metre away would lose too much energy, especially against ERA? Also, why can't the NLAW be reloaded? It has great sights and night vision, and you really just dump all that on the battlefield after one shot? Seems it would be many times cheaper and more efficient if it was designed to be reloaded, but I'm obviously missing something here.
I should have gone more into detail on this part. It shoots a shape charge down into the vehicle , there is a video demonstration of it towards the end of this video . It basically punctures a small hole in the armor that sends high velocity fragments into the hull focused on injuring the crew and igniting the ammo inside the tank more so than damaging the exterior pieces. That’s my understanding. Can’t be reloaded because it costs more to make a tube strong enough to be reloadable. Launcher tube needs to be made out of way heavier material to be reloaded. . The optics and sight are reusable it’s the munition that is one and done.
To defeat the ERA it must have a tandem charge.
@@ek8710 No it doesn't, the missile the NLAW is based on had tandem warheads but they realized that the main warhead had plenty of power to penetrate ERA by itself. Search for Bill2 presentation video and see for yourself.
Explosively formed penetrator - this one explodes in distance and forms its projectile on the way.
@@Taskandpurpose Explosively formed penetrator as mentioned by Andris. Basically the explosion shapes a plate of metal into a slug which blasts through the top of the tank.
When I was in the Finnish military, our tank team instructor described the NLAW with a single word "Unfair"
"NLAW users are toxic, noob weapon, let's go 1v1, knifes only!" And that's when a knife guy shows up whit 25 knifes, 7 machetes, 2 can and 1 corkscrew openers.
@@Hk7762Tube so can I bring the American made Switchblade? Nothing better than a Kamikaze drone at a knife fight
Since when was any war fair :) I bet the Germans in WWI thought the first appearance of the British tank was unfair.
@@JustMe-gn6yf sure, bring it. Essentially though Kamikaze applies to any of the anti-tank missiles though. And switchblade is only remotely controlled so it’s kinda not so accurate to dismissed the human suicide pilots where the term really applies.
@@professorcrabs926 but it can linger above giving surveillance just like a drone then crash into its target and at 5.5 lbs for the 40mm warhead every grunt can easily carry one
5:04 that's not Styrofoam, it's expanded polypropylene which has unrivalled energy absorption and impact protection and is used in car bumpers and bike helmets, now used to protect the NLAW from accidental damage. Good video 👍
I thought it was sound absorption. =P I guess Saab is great at destroying vehicles, but not at making them? o_O
Same stuff was on the old Dragon system doing the same job. It also sits inside the crates and cans of many munitions doing the cushion job.
Yea having been one of those Grunts who have to lug something similar around, we're quite rough with it...
@@striker8paints Javelin missiles and the Javelin CLU use the same material.
"unrivaled energy absorption and impact protectin" bunch of marketing bs, it's just a stiffer form of expanded polystyrene (styrofoam). The different material properties mean the bumper on the launcher has to have slightly different geometry (my guess, smaller because of the higher stiffness)
As a Swede I'm really proud how well this weapon turned out. Same with gripen E, it's the software that makes the difference
Thanks to every person involved in development of this „game changer“.
It is probably a lot of circumstances. Congratulations SAAB. If i was in a tank crew...I would shit my pants...
This Anti-Tank Missile is useless, and even Scott Rittor said it. All we've seen are edited videos. Here is the actual footage debunked:kzhead.info/sun/ip2phqmIZ3OwjWw/bejne.html
As a human I'm proud because another human who has nothing to do with me invented something
@@coldjuice9293 Have worked for SAAB, not on the Robot 57 program though, so its not completely random.
I can’t imagine how fulfilling and validating it must be to have been on the engineering team developing this weapon.
I filmed this weapon in Sweden for a series called Future Weapons and yes the tube is throwaway but the expensive optics are detachable. The idea of the weapon being a fire once was to stop sophisticated weapons falling into enemy hands.
So basically the tube is pretty low tech, and the high tech stuff either detonates on impact, or is detachable?
@@cerebraldreams4738 The tube is just like a tube for firing a rocket, but the Optic of the NLAW is expensive and sophisticated. It like Javelin where you can throw away the launcher but not the fire Optic because that cost a lot, can be reused and is also very sophisticated.
That was a fun show. Excellent work making it!
It is interesting. The LPR and DPR militias are posting tons of videos of them using stolen (?captured?) NLAWs on Ukrianian vehicles.
@@Boomkokogamez Standard sight is an ordinary ACOG.
From what I understand, the styrofoam is to protect the sensitive tracking system on the launcher from shock forces from poor handling or transport.
Ah yes, militia-proofing.
that makes sense! can't let those sensitive bits get knocked around too much - thats military grade for ya
Seems like a good idea. Imagine carrying that thing for miles just to find out you accidentally bumped it on the ground, making it not work
At the risk of showing my age, they look similar to the end pieces on the older LAW 90 system. They were for protection, as a three foot tube on the back of your bergen or webbing would be fairly easy to damage, otherwise.
Yeah I love the foam - does the job with low cost and almost no mass.
In terms of Military Acquisition's triumvirate, "Cost", "Schedule" and "Performance"...NLAW came in "At Cost", "On Schedule", and "Exceeded the Requirement; i.e., delivered MORE performance than what was originally envisioned possible. Truly a successful weapon system program!
Also, as the training systems were rolled out before the live system many troops were already competent with it. I first had training on it in 2008
As a TOW 2 gunner I have to say that the two most impressive things about it is the relatively small smoke signature at firing, and the fire and forget aspect. The top down attack capability is the direction I think TOW 3 is heading towards.
There's already a top-attack version, the TOW-2B. It's been around several years.
top down attack mode has only 20 meters effective use beyond that its just visual to target
@@kamikaziking what, what missile are u talking about?
With what we are seeing in Ukraine, I wouldn’t be surprised if Lockheed and Raytheon team up to slap a javelin seeker on a TOW and call it 3.
@@peterearden Then it wouldn't be a TOW. At that point may as well just use a Hellfire.
I’m pissed nobody has thought of nicknaming it the mother nlaw yet
theres the better joke I was looking for haha
make a upgrated version with 5 times the range and call it the Mother of All NLAWS... MANLAWS...... it's MAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!
Thats what they call it in the british army
Well they call it the in law
. . . "Is your real name . . ." Les Dawson" . . ." ? Hee , hee.
I remember one officer saying he wouldn't want to be in a tin box when there are jaegers with 66 KES 75 / M72 LAW around, that was ages ago, probably before you were born. These new new antitank weapons are really a game changer on the battle field as is the use of drones and indirect fire in combination.
They aren't as much because tanks evolved too. Crew of a Leopard 1 tank or M60 was equally toast when faced with Malyutka or Kornet. Its a race between a sword and a shield and one rarely gains a huge advantage over the other
RPGs are still useful today as of 30-40 years ago and it's reusable unlike the M72 LAW which is a one time use.
@@Rohliable which is why you can get American made rpgs. Of course they use foreign made rockets for now.
The movie fury gave a good depiction of how scary the panzerfaust was to a Sherman tank crew. Seeing what's going down in Ukraine there's no way in hell I'd be tankist. Give me a akm and some good boots,
@@Rohliable Thats why most militaries use carl gustav,however M72 comes in many new versions as well,anti armour with 450 mm pen,airburst,confined space etc etc.and they are lightweight and easy to carry.
Seems like these weapons just magically appear out of nowhere just in time. This is a good thing. I also like how the NLAW exceeds the performance design. I want a weapon that's "too good".
Trump sent thousands of Javilin rockets to Ukraine when in office effectively saving Ukrainians from being overrun.
tens of thousands of NLAWs and javelins were delivered to Ukraine, and where are the thousands of Russian destroyed tanks? They are not here. there are losses of Russian armored vehicles, but they are not as big as expected. This weapon has completely failed!
@@markd8593 Hahahahahaha there is countless evidence of fucked up russian armour
@@markd8593 I remember there's a few drone that destroyed a tank, funny innit?
@@markd8593 Funny, from where I'm looking in the real world, the only thing that has completely failed is Russia's invasion... unless you count Wagner's very successful invasion of Russia - your military could learn a thing or two from those guys.
This shows how important it is to have a selection of different weapons available; it’s not an either/or between NLAW and Javelin, Stinger and Star Streak, it’s the choice of capability that helps give frontline fighters the edge. I just hope it’s going to be enough in the coming Donbas battle.
Exactly, these systems all have different pros and cons. NLAW is for closer battles and ambushes, and simple to use, basically a guided RPG. Javelin is more complicated but has the longer range needed in more open places. Stugnas are less mobile but also have long range can be fired from cover. Then you have various unguided launchers - less accurate especially for moving targets but they don't need to be fired only at vehicles so they're more versatile. Starstreak takes more training than other MANPADS but defeats things like flares. etc.
Don't forget the simpler, cheaper and just as effective rockets, the at4, m4 recoilless etc
And the complete lack of any aps systems in Russian vehicles.
This Anti-Tank Missile is useless, and even Scott Rittor said it. All we've seen are edited videos. Here is the actual footage debunked:kzhead.info/sun/ip2phqmIZ3OwjWw/bejne.html
One benefit both NLAW and starstreak have is currently neither can be spoofed unlike javelin and stinger. NLAW can also be used more effectively in urban environments and arms at a much closer range making it a great ambush weapon. Javelin needs ideally 2 people to operate effectively due to weight and bulk. One with the CLU one with 2 missiles.
Truth to be told .. NLAW, Stinger , star strek and javelin are truly game changers .. the situation turned out to be like where a highly motivated Ukrainian fighting for his independence needed very capable weapon and he got what he wanted ..
I didn't see any proof of its effectiveness in Ukraine so far, and they wouldn't miss a chance to show something like that.
@@uros7426 what are you talking about?
I have heard the most effective weapons in these wars were mines. I would love to see Cappie doing a video on aftermath to analyze what eere the most successful weapons in this war.
Star Trek? Beam me up Scottie, there's no intelligent life down hear.
@@fish93837 I didn't see any video of using these things in Ukraine. Most of the destroyed tanks are from artillery and old soviet RPGs.
The amount of technology invested in all these “hand held” missiles, is amazing.
The video where the T72 is hit from above shows actually a failed attempt where the target was not within its arming range yet, so it skipped off the turret and the tank continued as it was.
Yep, just a painful few meters away from being a dead tank.
@@godalmighty83 at least they didn’t turn the turret around
the NLAW also has a minimum distance - it was too close for the NLAW to set it self up
@@kit-geoffbullough8788 he had it on the wrong setting they can fire direct at short range but he set it to fire too late
The NLAW got two attackmodes (DA) direct attack and (DOA) direct overflow attack.
It's still pretty effective even after it's been used. Just carrying the empties would confuse the enemy battlefield intelligence and cause them to hold their armour back. If the night sight can be detached, that would be a useful thing to have too.
The sight can be detached...they thought of everything
@@hull294 It's what I would have done. Reduces what's thrown away to a tube, battery and a bit of wiring for the firing circuit. Probably costs about a grand.
I hope they thought of making the 2.5x night vision scope detachable. Would be a great "free" accessory to any infantryman and would be a great shame to throw that away with the disposable launcher. Perhaps even make a snap on adapter for standard NATO firearms (not that just having it in a grunts pocket wouldn't be a bonus)
I think I remember reading that it is detachable
Good point. Javelin's laser guide sight or whatever sighting thing it is is detachable
@@alawesy It is detachable and will go on a picatinny rail.
The doctrine is that when fired you're meant to take the sight off and either destroy it or lob it in a bush away from the tube
wonder how long the battery last and if it's rechargeable
I don’t think tanks are obsolete. But the way they’re used and built needs a serious turn around All the best to everyone
Tanks provide lots of mobility and firepower. This idea will never be obsolete. But the tank designs will change like they always did since WW1.
MBTs will be replaced by unmanned gun carriers that are faster with lighter armor because you don't have 4 lives inside IFVs will exist as long as infantry does.
@@jeremywomack7090 I agree, we will probably see tank drones soon. They can also be very slim if they don't have to accomodate 3-4 people
They should have conical shape. They will be invincible. they should wear a billowing sheet, like a Halloween ghost, so that their shapeshifting powers can defeat target recognition. Instead of using ammo, which can explode, they can have crab pincers. Deadly at close range. Causing panic at long range. The turret should be screwed to the base, so it won't blow off no matter what. The tank should be able to fire inflatable dummy tanks toward any threat. Every third tank should have a baby on board and a sign saying "baby on board", as well as a little white flag tied to the nose, so the enemy has to look really closely before they shoot. Instead of armour, the tank should have just an empty frame, so enemy weapons pass through and burrow harmlessly into the ground. The tank should have a small rocket propulsion, so that when it detects an incoming weapon, it can boost out of the way at the last moment. Even Nintendo hasn't solved this tactic with generation 9 AI (6 generations ahead of real world NLAW), so it's probably logically impossible to beat.
@Pilgrim17 Armor costs mobility. Instead, it will be more effective to get rid of the people inside and ditch the armor because there's no reason to protect a mass produced computer. That's the future of "tanks".
Chris, this was a great video. The quality of writing, editing, production and your presentation just gets better and better. This one really impresses. Keep it up!
Excellent. This is one of the best explanations of a weapons system that I have seen recently. Subscribed!
Most people aren't old enough to remember them but Saab cars were engineered like this. I miss those cars so much. At least I still have my Sonett.
900i convertible 350.000km
Still rocking my 2008 9-5 Vector
161,000 miles on my 9-3 and never uses a drop of oil or water, superb cars
@יונתן זנטון Had one of those but my wife at that time managed to warp the head 😩 . Cow of a job to fix
Very good cars , shame they destroyed themselves . The company not the cars
Small correction - The m1 ammo stored in a safe space behind a armored door does not prevent the ammo from exploding, it makes it so that when it does the explosion is directed away from the tank, not to the inside of the turret. So yeah, ammo explosion on the m1 the tank is still gone, but there is a decent chance that your crew can get out and stay alive. Ammo explosion on the t-72, everything that was inside the tank was.
He's talking about a fire inside the crew compartment of the turret being able to detonate ammo. There is a barrier to prevent this.
Actually you both are incorrect. The T-72 suffers a catastrophic explosion because the autoloader is below the crew in the turret. If a shell explodes, it kills the crew and usually ignites the remaining rounds. In an M1, the ammo is stored in a compartment designed to direct the explosion AWAY from the turret (the outer shell of the ammo rack is thinner than the plate separating it from the turret). However, the same hit from an NLAW would likely kill or injure the M1 crew the same way it would the T-72 crew. The difference is just what happens when the ammo is hit. In an M1, the crew has a much higher chance surviving.
Unless the loader of the M1 has the door open to load a shell…
@@ThelVadam7777 that might be the case, I think it is a sliding door ... but compared to the T-72, that's a small window of vulnerability ...
@@ThelVadam7777 yes, that's why it's only opened for a few seconds while a new shell is being picked up. Interestingly enough the latest T90 mod added blast panels to the autoloader at the cost of ammo storage space making it safer for the crew but require resupply more often. If I'm not mistaken it still lacks fucking air conditioning but gotta cut costs somewhere lol
Just felt compelled to say to you that you have the most interesting entertaining program about this type of subject material on KZhead
Another great and informative video, thanks Chris!
This is what footmen must have felt when they got their hands on the high powered crossbows of the late medieval era. Finally a genuine fighting chance at range against heavy cavalry.
in Direct Attack mode, the nlaw can take out charging cavalry.
Great point! :)
Crossbows and armor continuously evolved throughout the medieval ages in order to match each other. I don't think there ever was a point where crossbows were suddenly much stronger than the armor at the time, as you suggest.
@@zarwil there likely was a time as described but not for long
Any examples of game changers. Imagine the 90's when a reliable lightweight nightvision helmet mounted system allowed one side to own the night completely.
The NLAW, Javelin, F-35 and other joint defense programs are good examples of why we can not allow our countries to become isolationist. Isolated western nations is exactly what Russia and China want.
100% this. Trump's mindset is ineffective in the modern era, to put it nicely. We need connection, organisation, and mutually beneficial agreements.
What evidence do you have to suggest that our countries are becoming isolationist in a way that would have any bearing on such programmes?
@@B.D.E. how did Trump's mindset threatwn any such defence cooperation programme?
@@B.D.E. If only you knew that Trump never pushed for isolation, but only wanted the states to cooperate, not isolating each other to statehood alone.
@Dick Izzinya Exactly what you said is the exact thing that is scaring so many Americans… food shortages an so much more things all because of trade stopping! Why are we getting things from China we can make ourselves? Because it’s cheaper is my guess! Trade with our fellow Allie’s is one thing but why trade with China an Iran (the oil deal) when they hate us? We need to be making things those countries need from us not the other way around! An trump was so much better then the corrupt old man we have now!
Yo Chris that was a very well put together video m8 respect from across the pond and thanks bruv ❤💯👊
Love these videos. Learned an insane amount from you in the last few weeks
"The consummate leader cultivates the moral NLAW, and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in his power to control success." Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Expensive is good Complicated is good. Disposable is good. That all means you won't have to face your own weapons on the battlefield.
The most effective weapons on the battlefield are cheap drones and AT missile Stugna-P produced by Ukraine, which is 7k dollars - over 10 times cheaper than Javelin
Disposable is great. Complicated and expensive arent great, but we currently can't make a weapon system that is cheaper and less complicated without compromising on effectiveness.
It is pretty cheap compared to the Javelin
@@phunkracy Are you basing that solely on the number of videos of the Stugna? There's a bias at play, because the Stugna has a remote terminal which is easy to record.
@@alphablobmom5521 the bias is that stugna is more popular and easier to use? Maybe
The styrofoam buffer pieces are absolutely the best material for this application as they serve only as cushion and shock bumpers to minimize damage during shipping handling and the desperate and spastic maneuvers of combat conditions.
Hear, hear!
Brilliant clip and very informative.
I thought the video, which was shown twice, with the person from a building shooting an NLAW down at a tank driving in the streeth undeaneath, was a misfire due to being in a too close proximity to the target. So instead of a destructive explosion there was only a small fire from the rocket fuel happening.
Yes, the weapon (no idea if NLAW) was too close, so it didnt have time to arm.
Yes. The shot was inside the minimum safe range and so the warhead never armed. It's kinda like that one scene in Hunt for Red October where they closed the distance to a torpedo before it armed. Just this time they started inside that range.
@@catlee8064 It was an NLAW, if you freeze frame the video, a clear view of the actual missile can be seen.
@@TheNewsDepot "Captain scared them out of the water"
If you look closely, it doesn’t appear to strike the turret, perhaps a stowage bin on the right rear of the turret. I suspect it was also in direct attack mode. Hard to tell, but something certainly detonated and probably not ERA on that part of the turret.
I mean the fact that there's 3 or 4 min video on youtube showing how to aim, arm and fire NLAW for Ukrainian soldiers is just WHAT?! I saw some videos where NLAW's where delivered and there was like 3 page instruction guide with mostly pictures lol. And they've been using it successfully.
were not where
the javelin could be fired by a newbie with 15 mins of training and it was during development . and this day and age with all the kids with hundreds of hours of gaming experience these deadly toys are so easy to operate.
Yup, about 5minutes instruction then practice, of course the army turned it into several 40 min classes
very interesting. I think you can explain it wonderfully
Great video. Thanks for all the info.
I specifically remember the first time I ever fired a man launched anti tank weapon. It was the AT-4 and it was July of 2004, I was at Ft. Benning in good ol Columbus GA well into BCT and on that day was really starting to have doubts about the choice to enlist. Than I fired the AT-4. My doubts were immediately vaporized.
And so did your target I assume?
You mean it blew up in your hands?
Fun fact; At-4 is also swedish made
I was just a Coasty and have no combat experience whatsoever. I thoroughly enjoy all of your videos. Thanks for the entertaining and informative content.
The UK has been killing it in regards to project management of its high tech systems, be it the Meteor missile, Martlet missile or common anti-air missile system. It seems the MOD can funnily enough manage these complex tasks, however, when it comes to making something as relatively simple as an APC, such as the AJAX, they create a system that deafens its crews and gives them arthritis via Richter scale 10 vibrations.
because it's a tradition... 1 9 4 3.... М4А4 Sherman Firefly.... lovely. who needs eyebrows, right?!
And they really invented the bases of the modern aircraft carrier; and the super armor of the M-1 tank is the UK composite armor.
All those systems are not purely British designed though are they. They're European consortium designed
@@Truthbomb918 that’s why if you read with the eyes god gave you, you will see I say “project management”, which is the hardest part by far.
@@ukironman1 if u used ur brain and wrote exactly what u meant maybe then people will understand what point ur trying to make
I demand from now on we refer to this weapon system as “The mother NLAW”
Oy. You should be PUNished for that.
The most formidable of the Nlaws. Move with caution
this had me cracking up thank you for that 🤣
@@Taskandpurpose It reminded me of the scene from Iron Man 2 when Hammer calls his missile “the Ex-Wife” Lol!
I second. Nothing brings the pain like your suegra.
Back in 04 I was stationed in Iraq being a 0351( usmc assault man) but the smaw was to much weight so we used at4 and laws. I'm glad you can fire this middle inside because back blast is killer. We set up pallets behind the smaw at 50 ft and it destroyed them completely
The USMC needs to bring back assaultmen. The Gustav is an incredibly capable weapon, more capable than the SMAW due to increased range and accuracy, while maintaining a 15lb weight. Trained 51's could do a lot of damage with it against Chinese and Russian motorized forces.
Have to say listening to this shows how insane this weapon is. I get the feeling that the guidance system is gonna be used in a lot more stuff than just a rocket launcher.
a golf ball
Fantastic. Great information. Thank you.
Love your videos keep up with the great work!
I don't know , the NLAW dosnt have the same power as other rockets, they should make a larger caliber version for bunker busting or bigger tanks. They can call it the MOTHER NLAW
Funny but they do and it's called the matador
Would that defeat the "L" part of the acronym? NLAW is an acronym for Next generation LIGHT Anti-armour Weapon. If you make it heavier it's hardly light anymore. It's already an uncomfortable 12.5kg (27.5lbs).
Making a missile with a caliber bigger than 150mms isnt that smart, way to heavy etc
I hate to be the one slogging it on foot tho.
ROFL I see what you did there I guess most of the responders here are too big weapon nerds to have a sense of humour.
This was another very educational video. thx
Another advantage of the soft launch system (besides firing from inside buildings) is that it greatly reduces the risk of injuring your buddies with backblast, a constant risk with any shoulder launched missile or rocket - there have been serious burn injures. And with freshly trained recruits, taking care to clear the backblast zone might not have been hammered in.
These are always great. Thank you!
thanks for watching glad you enjoyed it
Saab bofors have made us swedes proud many times =)
now i cant stop thinking of bofors inventions that makes me proud as a swede =D m48 Carl gustaf, 40mmL60cannon and strv103 among others Ohhhh beautiful times beautiful times
@@Sgt.MajorDani Australian soldiers certainly had a fondness for old "Charlie Gutsache" A bigger Swedish hit than ABBA! Don't forget the other Carl Gustav: the Kpist m/45. That was a really nice SMG.
@יונתן זנטון well now you got the CG M4, less than a meter and only 7kg 👍🏻
@@mortified776 m/45 kpist is excellent, i would never forget it Not even among many other swedish arms and kalibers.. many Excellent inventions actually =) But my frame in this comment was around Bofors arms and it wasn't em who made the kpist Thats a proud production of Carl Gustafs Stads Gevärsfaktori Bofors is big guns
@יונתן זנטון most weaklings manage to carry at4 at least =)
Excellent presentation
Excellent info…Thank you👍🇬🇧
Gotta hand it to Saab. They have quite the lineup of portable missile/rocket systems to make the infantry more lethal.
the guidance system is so innovative
Thank you for correct information on the NLAW. One of my relatives work in the development office and I remember when this system entered service many years ago.
That's a lovely piece of kit.
"They say it's idiot-proof, but *I'll* be the judge of that." -Cappy, 2022
I think one of the reasons why it has polystyrene all over it is for shock apsorption. They're bound to get banged around a bit on the battle field, and there's super delicate instruments inside. I don't think it was 'just' to cut costs.
Javelin is covered in the stuff as well...including the detachable CLU, the thermal sight.
I remember training on the AT4 when I was in the Army, and thinking that was cool. This is a completely different level! 😲
Another great video .
Good and informative video 👍
Glad to see our NLAW's being put to such good use.
I rather not see any weapon being use in our world
From UK with love )
You state at the end that it’s disadvantages are that it doesn’t have the range of Javelin and it’s expensive. Well, it was designed for the British army from experience gained in several conflicts. They needed a weapon that was small, light, easy for a single soldier to carry, quick and easy to use, fire and forget, no assembly required, cheap, could be fired easily and safely in confined spaces, especially urban environments - mostly things that Javelin fails at. We have both weapons. Javelin is great for fighting tanks formations on the open plains but heavy, expensive, needs setting up. NLAW is far cheaper and better for when the fighting gets a bit gritty and up close. Remember, British troops performed bayonet charges in the Falklands war. They foresaw exactly the type of conflict we see in Ukraine and bought two ATGMs to cover both longer range and close in fighting. Seems us Brits know a thing or two……🤷🏼♂️
kzhead.info/sun/paZufsaolpmjmok/bejne.html pretty much that 25% of the world at one point. It was wrong but still technically impressive.
Wish every MoD logistics and development program was as good as the NLAW. so many are poorly managed and cost twice as much, for a product that doesn't meet spec. May I present the SA80 program as evidence...
The foam does keep the weight down but also absorbs shock if dropped and is an excellent insulator.
Im sure the Russian military has known pretty much how to build an NLAW for a while now. What they lack is the production capacity for most of its components. Russia relied heavily on imported computer parts before they were sanctioned. Even before the sanctions though, Russia was unable to set up the facilities needed to create critical components for 3rd generation anti-tank systems. Now, Russia isn’t legally allowed to purchase fabrication equipment even if it wanted to. However, it is possible that China may be able to supply Russia with microchips and other out-of-reach components; if not setup fabrication equipment outright. Russia would likely need Chinese engineers to help run any delivered equipment though, as Russian engineers would have no experience with it.
yep and now that they are sanctioned by Taiwan any posibility of them getting military microtransistors is toast
Thats why we REALLY should close bussines with China RIGHT NOW, no matter what. Even if it means stop eating Chinese food.
I suspect that China wouldn't be in a hurry to strengthen Russia's military. The Chinese might be eyeing up some real estate in Russia's Far East and the weaker Russia becomes, the easier it would be to effect a hostile takeover.
I think there is an obvious upgrade for the NLAW- add a sustainer motor for increased range. Plus, it would have the fun acronym of EX-NLAW.
LOL I've been making that joke a while now, I APPROVE!
That wouldn't work. At that sort of range the chances of a miss would increase dramatically, you'd be relying on a target going in a straight line for far too long. It would also increase weight and size, the entire idea is that this is man portable. It's important to remember that NLAW is not the main AT weapon. UK uses this at the section level. Company level is Javelin still. Battle Group level could be seen as the Exactor (Spike NLOS). They're all complimentary. Thats likely to change in the future, its likely to be NLAW, MMP replacing Javelin and a much longer ranged Brimstone derivative replacing Exactor at the Battle Group level.
I'm patting myself on the back for calling out the NLAW a week into the "military operation" after I saw it briefly mentioned in an Economist article. I started watching SAAB videos of it and I thought to myself, oh bay bay, it could be like the Kentucky long rifle in the fight for Independence or the machine gun in World War I, a total game changer. Then, about 2 weeks into the conflict, I saw a clip of a Ukrainian soldier stomping around some Russian tanks his unit had just taken out with NLAWs and shouting at the tanks, "let me introduce you to The General." Your overview was excellent: the Russians simply do not have the capability to invent something like this, as you point out. But your one stat blew me away: if only 3 percent or so of the NLAWs worked, that's 300 killed Russian tanks. And rest assured, there are more of them working ...
Some details about the staging that keeps it "safe(r)" when fired indoors or with others around. Some details on the close range limitations - how it needs a bit of leg room to protect the trigger-puller from harm.
excellent video about this truly amazing device
I remember when a Russian guy told me that fancy guided missiles like the Javelin and the NLAW could never defeat modern T-72's. It's hard to be more wrong than that.
Russians are not a very smart people.
Well he’s Russian, that says it all….he probably still thinks they can’t.
That's what happens when you get all your knowledge of armoured warfare from War Thunder.
When older atgms could destroy one why not more modern ones
@@Truthbomb918 Because new stuff is bad, only blackpowder weapons are battle tested, don't trust what them liberal Americans do.
NLAW is basically the perfect ATGM for urban fighting and plugs a nice hole that the AT4 and Javalin can't really do super well. Cheap(ish), easy to learn highly mobile 1 man system. In urban warfare you will often have engagements inside 1km due to buildings and obstructions where the NLAWs tracking and top down Attack is an asset. Javelin and stugna will be the better system for more open area ambushes and used by regular forces, NLAW for forward scouting groups and territorial defence forces
SAAB...that is the way to go...Good work !
I love the picture of that Abrams tank with the fireball coming out the end of the barrel @10:11
There is no night vision on the NLAW. It can operate at night but the operator cannot see any thermal or NIR image through the acog that it comes with. It is just a magnified optic, not so different from those used on rifles.
Night vision and red dots are available when you order them.....
@@catlee8064 no one bought any with NV
@@grandayatollah5655 nobody bought any because they were free
@@grandayatollah5655 Not calling you a liar , but id like to see the proof of that. No way a modern military DOESNT buy night vision gear for its AT weapon, especially when they themselves paid for the R&D.
Not every nation use the same sight for NLAW 😀
"They say it's idiot-proof, but I'll be the judge of that." :D Love watching your videos, man. You're doing great job, both information-wise and joke-wise ;))
Well done....Sir.
Thanks for the insight
I think the auto-loader also helps reduce the tank size, which made sense when it was being designed as an anti-tank vehicle (tank to tank warfare). Less to aim at.
Until it didn't, they made the armour thicker and the crew were often loaded into the gun
The tank wont become obsolete, because on the battlefield, you'll always prefer being behind armor rather than not, being motorized rather than walking, and having a big gun rather than your hand-held weapon.. Their role will change, but the tank wont go away anytime soon
I would prefer being invisible rather than not, flying rather than walking, and having a hand-held weapon that does the same job as a big gun? One can dream :P
@@JavierChiappa everyone likes to fly until you get shot down and hand held weapons can't do the same as gun either due to price or range
Yup. As always, combined arms is the solution.
I think I would pass on being in a Russian tank. You are the target everyone is aiming at and here is the thing : if someone shoots you, it's probably because they have have weapon that makes your armor useless. Instead of making a tank, you can make 100 AT systems that will blast dozens of enemy tanks into non-existence.
@@MichaelDavis-mk4me War Propaganda is a hell of a drug. You need to be careful how much you are taking in. Take a step back and realize that EVERYTHING you are seeing from this conflict is propaganda in some form or another. From both sides. You're not seeing the guys who took a little too long with their NLAW and got blown to pieces by a 30mm from a BMP. You're only seeing the successes. You're seeing pictures and videos with either no context or whose "context" was added by others whose reliability you don't know. How did those "WMD" in Iraq turn out? We don't really know what's going on and likely won't have a somewhat accurate picture for many years. Thus we should not draw any conclusions based on the slanted picture we are being shown. Is there some truth in what we are seeing? Yes. Is it incredibly easy to lie with selective editing of real footage? Also yes. EVERY SINGLE "Counter" to the tank has been cheaper than a tank itself. That did not render tanks obsolete. The Tankgewehr was cheaper than the British tanks in WW1. Anti-Tank guns were cheaper than tanks in the interwar period and into WW2. Bazookas, Panzerschreck and Panzerfausts were cheaper than WW2 tanks. During the cold war, TOWs and AT-3 Saggers were cheaper than either sides tanks. Someone shooting at a tank only does so because they have a weapon that MIGHT penetrate the armor and MIGHT disable or destroy it. This is nothing new. The difference is that the tank has something that WILL, not might, WILL absolutely obliterate the person brave/dumb enough to shoot at a tank. That thing is a 100-125mm stabilized cannon that will kill anyone within 30'-60" of where the shell detonates. Nothing has come along to replace the capability that the tank gives.
NLAW...SAAB...keep up the good work...Seems that the NLAW works...Seems that the system works....Keep up the good work...make it better !
Thanks for the video. I'm not really into mil kit, but my wife has a 53 year old Ukrainian mate in the trenches of the Donbass she's in contact with every second day so wanted to try to understand. {He was driving her around when she filmed a mate's charity in Ukr around 2010.} Watched a few vids in the last hour - he's just been given his Israeli Matador - and this is by far the best vid.
I want one. Ok. I'll wait 'till they go into mass production and the prices come down. Great video. This explains a lot!
once they're available in the local surplus goodwill store I'll grab a few
Probably also worth mentioning that the NLAW's guidance also means it has a completely flat trajectory, as well as compensates for wind drift. So no need to lead your target, or worry about windage or projectile drop. ...Just point, track & shoot. It's simplicity is why it's so effective.
As I was told, the styrofoam was chosen because of compressability. It’s there to protect the tube ends from infantry handling.
Thank you!
NLAW is a good infantry weapon that has worked well in asymmetric warfare, which fits the Ukrainian model right now. Definite worrying parallels with the Winter War though.
Well, the soviets really only won the winter war when they focused their efforts and men to the point closest to the finnish capital, allowing them to capture it, even then they didn't get a lot from that.
The same couldn't be said so on ukraine and its succesful defense of kiev.
Difference being in the winter war the west didn’t really do much to help. They are now pouring material, money and intelligence into Ukraine.
@@gamedominatorxennongdm7956 Karelia was half the country man what are you talking about?
@@kamikaziking Wait, what do you mean by that? Do you mean by terms of population or land.
I fought the NLAW and the NLAW won
ahhhh, an old russo classic.
Im breakin tanks in the hot sun
I have a friend who actually makes these. One of his jobs was to stick the polystyrene attachments on. They're not to reduce cost, leaving them off would be better if that was the case. They have a practical purpose they're simply lightweight buffers to protect the firing tube form damage during combat.
Great video.....and the In-Law joke(s) were funny.
Definitely puts infantry level with armor. After serving in the US Army on tanks I never thought I would say such a thing. Only thing we were ever worried about was air power, rotary and fixed wing. But our doctrine of air superiority supposedly makes that a non worry. Now with that...let's hope the Russians and Chinese don't figure it out.
They will copy it, it's only a matter of time....
China already has the the HJ 12 which is like the Javelin. Expect some NLAW to fall in the hand of the Chinese with this war happening, stuff end up on the black market.
achtually the russian kornet from 1980's cook the abrams from any direction.
Didnt eh marines get deployed in Kosovo, where they faced similar conditions to what the Russians faced in Ukraine? Except this time, the marines actually didnt have 9999 unecessary deaths? I wouldnt worry about it.
Great video! Looks like tanks are becoming as relevant nowadays as the cavalry on WW2 battlefields. Drones and smart munitions will rule.
Tanks are still great and very useful! (at parades and against banana republics with no friends).
How long before it's largely drone vs drone
There are already active protection systems that will foil Nlaw and Javelin attacks (see the Israli Trophy system, that is battle tested and works). I havent seen any deployed by Russia, but going forward it looks like its going to become a prerequisite for tanks going forward. Tanks will be around for a while yet.
@@carlchallinor4933 Sure, there are active system and Russia has some (Shtora-2 on older tanks and Afganit for T-14, a system similar to Trophy), but I think they are going to be lagging behind AT technologies. I mean, they work great against dudes in rags with RPG-7s, but radar-based systems could be jammed, laser-detection can be fooled etc. Plus, I expect swarm-based AT solutions pretty soon. There are already loitering munitions, the swarms are the new logical step.
@@mudmug1 how long before someone jams your internet connection to the drone? Netflix better start working on the issue.
I watched a episode of Futcher Weapons and in one of them the NLAW was in it. So I new a little about it.
Excellent
Around 2014-15, I designed an Arduino drone based tracking system that uses a very similar tacking method! My goal was to successfully track my motorcycle moving at about 30 mph. The only notable difference is my design features a small IR strobe on my front and rear fenders to maintain the track in low visibility. To initiate the track, I'd hover above the track point until the sensors caught the IR strobe but in their case, it seems the software figures out what is and isn't a tank in the image and tracks the thing that is most likely a tank. Pretty neat. The goal was to maintain flight with (semi) successful osbstacle avoidance with a tracking distance of approximately 25ft at 30mph. I can image throwing in some lines of code in to command "A certain action" once the quadcopter (Or missile in the NLAW's case) reaches the indeal track point... *Big Boom*. Im just getting back into the hobby. That'd probably be a cool project to dig up.
The NLAW doesn't really use an image. It measures the distance between the "edges" of the tank so it detonates in the middle as it passes over. It's more like LIDAR than imaging essentially.
A small correction. China does have a 3rd gen portable anti-tank system HJ-12 which is similar to (possibly copied or at the very least influenced by) Javelin. Russia indeed doesn't have anything like that, most likely due to extreme technological backwardness and total reliance on Western or Chinese chips.
Looks pretty bulky.
And the corruption. Probably only a small percentage of the research budget made it to actual research
interesting have they mass produced them in large numbers? are they really effective or is this what we're told? these are the questions I'll have to look into when I cover that HJ-12 . thanks for the comment!
and probably money it seems they cant even afford to keep their army fed so I dont belive they have millions of rubels to spend on weapons development when the west dosent evne have that many tanks
They have Kornets
Love it ! SAAB is definitely world class....no doubt...!
"thank you brittan for the NLAW" *Crying in Swedish*
When they say thank you Britain they are referring to Britain giving them NLAWs before the war started so that they were available to use from day one...they aren't disrespecting Sweden's technical design input...
@@bmin7133 well yea, buf fhey did get nlaw from multiple countries.... and well, with puth sweden they could not have given it anyway. I fully recognize that UK given the most man portabla equipment.
@@matsv201 I think everyone agrees great Swedish design here...the issue was the UK was willing to bank roll the development and also had the ability to put them together in a cost effective manner using its extensive military sub contracting industry.. that's why they're manufactured in the UK rather than Sweden.
@@bmin7133 well sure. Its sort of a a cooperation....but very few things is made in sweden. Not even the gripen 39 is made in sweden, only the tools to produce it. Still... its a very swedish design.
It's a win-win, for both UK and Sweden, both of whom have well respected military industries; an excellent example of a successful joint venture. 2+2=5.
The Ikea version is called the Mörk Blågger, only cost USD 5000 per unit, but takes 8 hours and special tools to assemble.
Can never follow the damn assembly instructions of that missile...is it just me?
@@bmin7133 You are not alone, the stick figures are very unclear, last time we tried we blew up the chow hall cause we put the missile in backwards.
@@mrgunn2726 wow...thank goodness I didn't let my grannie try to put it together like she wanted to...
Is it the one where you think you're finished and then realize there's two parts left over?
@@xn85d2 Yes, but I did get meatballs and lignin berry sauce when I went to pick them up, take that Raytheon!
Great video as always Cappy. Are the launchers recyclable?
The fiberglass and foam tubes are not, but the sight with all the electronics can be separated and recovered.
Amazing bit of kit, in my day we had the Charlie G 84mm .Bloody heavy , took two of us to carry it and the ammo and to operate it. As for hitting anything ....well you had more chance seeing the next messiah than getting a hit unless you were nearly on top of the target. Glad the NLAW is making the difference in the Ukaine !
I always got carrying the Charlie G around
I still wanted it to be named "Intelligent New generation Light Anti-tank Weapon". I think that would have *really* put the scare into the Russians.