Talk:FGM-148 Javelin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Warhead weight
Global Security does state 8.4kg but with missile weight quoted at 11.8kg that seems rather incredible. A missile weighing 26 lb carrying almost the same sized warhead as a 108 lb Hellfire (9kg warhead) over 4.75km. The warhead making up over 70% of the missile's weight. A TOW, for reference, weighs 22kg and has a 3.9-5.9kg warhead. A Kornet weighs 27kg and has a 7kg warhead. Either the warhead weight or the missile weight must be wrong. In light of this I found this source stating 49.5 lb (22.5kg) which sounds ball-park (same as TOW) and looks more official than any of the other sources used in this matter. http://www.americanordnance.com/pdf/Javelin.pdf With this source too my best interpretation is that it weighs 22.3-22.5kg (49.5lb) including launch tube and detachable CLU. http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/.Z07x10 (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Removed reference
Removed reference in disadvantage to it being shorter ranged than TOW. Javelin is a medium ranged system meant to complement TOW, so being shorter ranged is hardly a disadvantage. It does, however have a longer range than the system it replaced, the Dragon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait... Why is the Kornet a comparable system? Last I checked, it lacked the fire-and-forget feature of the Javelin, and it was very heavy for one man to carry. The TOW is a comparable system to the Kornet, not Javelin.
its too good t take 2 or 3 for turkısh army ı thınk .ım a turkısh people and i love hellfire
- videos added :)
Beware of Unreliable Sources and JAVELIN range
Folks,
For the record I had nothing to do with the entry on ARMY RECON about Mexico and the JAVELIN. But from what I was told ARMY RECON made that entry on Mexico based on this Wikipedia JAVELIN article. So it seems a false-fact feed back loop happened. The problem with this internet "fact" about Mexico and the JAVELIN it seems started with an independence parade showing French armored vehicles with the Mexican Army with MILAN launchers on the back hatch, which someone posted as being JAVELINs. And off to the races that "fact" went, no matter how many times people were told that the launchers were MILANs. A lot of Mexican members on MilitaryPhotos-Net wanted to believe it they were JAVELINs purchased in reply to Venezuela, when both presidents were calling each other names. And note on the side of the missile container what everyone was calling a JAVELIN.
Photo Thread That Started It All on MilitaryPhotos-Net
Please note that when I put an ARMY RECON link in it is from articles and photos I have written from information provide me by the manufactures and DoD back in the 1980s and 1990s. The main reason I provide the link is for the early photos and brochures. Also, I do not list the links in references but in external links. Also, note, that when I saw the Mexico entry I made an edit in discussions warning about the misinformation and did not edit it out as I did not believe that was my function and I thought someone may have had information I did not. And for the record, the BBC and Jane's have made quiet a few errors themselves.
Finally, I have exchanged emails with the first US soldier to fire the JAVELIN in combat (ie northern Iraq 2003). He now works for Raytheon and he stated that the newer JAVELINs being produced have a range far in excess of the official figure. And he meant a LOT more maximum effective range. The range problem has never been the seeker but the boost motor after ejection.
--Jackehammond (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
.
Beware of Unreliable Sources
Armyrecognition.com is not a reliable source. I removed Mexico as one of the users of the Javelin because there is no reliable source that has yet been found to give this claim credibility. The one website that was cited here to justify Mexico as a user is not a reliable source. Earlier this year there was an editing war in the Mexican Army article over some people's insistence that armyrecognition.com is a reliable source of information. So let us be clear here and establish that this website is not a reliable source; it doesn't provide any credible citations, it gives no feedback as to where they obtained their information and it makes all sorts of wild attributions to the Mexican Armed forces that are obviously false. As a token of it's sheer unscholarly nature it places Mexico in the wrong continent; for more details see the discussion over in the Mexican Army article. So once again I remind you all: armyrecognition.com is not a valid source of information so do not use it as a citation. For more information on what constitutes as a credible source see Wikipedia's Verifiability Guidelines.Ocelotl10293 (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just for the record, the link below is page 319 from Jane's Infantry Weapons 1995-96. Please note the photo at the bottom on the left and the caption. I have written articles in the 1980s on both the MILAN and BILL. It would seem it is not only ARMY RECONN. And I was the one who brought the Mexico error to everyone's attention not only on Wikipeida but also MilitaryPhotos.net.
Jane's Infantry Weapons 1995-96
--Jackehammond (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
.
Ghost Recon
The lone Rocket Launcher in Ghost Recon AW has a very similar appearance to the Javelin. maybe it is based on the Javelin?
Probably, a similiar weapon, if not the same weapon is also featured in the newer war of the worlds movie.
- Ghost Recon models the AT-4 SenorBeef 08:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
"It entered UK service in 2005 replacing the MILAN and Swingfire systems.[5][6]"
According to the British Army's own website Swingfire is still in service. I'd propose that that part of this entry be edited to reflect that, no matter what the website on note 6 says.
(Kart90 (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC))'the javelin is now on call of duty 4 on the level called the bog -_-Kart90
Javelin VS old T-54/55s and T-62s
I'm tired of some telvision programmes that glorify Javelins when they destroy non mobile T-54/55s and T-62s in the open that are not equiped with composites,Chobham,slat armour,active countermeasures,and/or ERA. Dudtz 9/17/06 9:23 PM EST
here ya go javelin vs a brand new T-80UD and the ERA wouldnt make a difference tandem warhead is used- which was developed specifically for defeating era, slat armor doesnt work for tanks javelin uses top attack mode specifically for tanks and slat on top would be hard to place with all the guns and sights and such up there not to mention the hatches thus works best on light armoured vehicles and the only other vehicle to use it is btr-80 which is a recent addition after the russians noted its use in iraq, chobham armor is used only in certain western tanks and the only russian one that has anything remotely comparable to it would be the t-90
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uyAFOpZDfFI
What if flares and or lasers were used agianst the Javelin? Shotguns and/or grenade launcers with motion sensors could probably destroy the Javelin in flight. Spaced Chobham, and/or composite armour could easily be fitted to the top and sides of the turret. That youtube video looks like it was faked. The engine on the tank seemed to be off,and in the video,the missile hit the side,insted of the top. Dudtz 11/22/06 8:54 PM ET
Faked? Lol. You're one of those, then. Was it faked like 9/11, or faked like the Holocaust? Be more specific about your conspiracy theories, please.
Spaced Chobham/Dorchester on the top of the turret? Are you joking? Do you know just how heavy that stuff is? It would be completley impractical, besides how would you armour the hatches?
You mean the infamous Javelin test video where the tank disappears in a miniature mushroom cloud when it hits? It was in fact faked - kind of. The missile launch and hit was real, but the tank was packed with something like a quarter ton of high explosives to simulate ammo and fuel highly unrealistically exploding with the force of TNT. A real hit would look like a little puff of smoke. Kensai Max 07:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah,I agree with you Kensai Max. About the armour on top,it doesn't need to cover all of the turret,but covering most of it would probably do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudtz (talk • contribs) 22:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
T-72 are infamous for catastrophic ammo fires in ODS; explosions throwing the turret off the chasis was common. And that has nothing to do with what type of T-72 they were. The absence of compartmentalized ammo storage and the using of combustible casing will brew up if it is ignited by a hit. The effect on the footage maybe exaggerated, maybe not, but a 'puff of smoke' is pushing it. To stop >600mm RHA rated javelin warhead (using publically available info) you need serious composite armor thickness; no easy task for any modern MBT. A refitting just won't do. Russian countermeasures to ATGM had not been proven in combat. We don't know how much space it can cover, nor how much time it needs to respond to an attack. Anything about them is conjecture at this point. I don't see why is it necessary to call Iraqi T-72s "Iraqi copies." They are T-72s...
- There is a significant difference between the turret blowing off and the utter obliteration shown in that infamous video. The explosion itself seems similar to other videos online which are certainly not faked. The Iraqi T-72s can be characterized as crappy knockoffs in terms of their performance against U.S. tanks, since they lacked ERA, ATGMs and night vision optics, etc.132.162.84.166 (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Chin Cheng-chuan
- The T-72s in Russian service do have ERA boxes, ATGMs (they are tube fired and radio guided) and night vision optics (LLTV units not the high tech FLIR). Finally, I have a feeling that if the US Army parked an M1A1 ABRAMs on the firing range and fired a JAVELIN at it, the results would also be catastrophic. Just my opinion. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- The T-72s in Russian service do have ERA boxes, ATGMs (they are tube fired and radio guided) and night vision optics (LLTV units not the high tech FLIR). Finally, I have a feeling that if the US Army parked an M1A1 ABRAMs on the firing range and fired a JAVELIN at it, the results would also be catastrophic. Just my opinion. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:NZ Javelin wn06031149tn.JPG
Image:NZ Javelin wn06031149tn.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Jav-Launch.JPG
Image:Jav-Launch.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Call of Duty 4 - popular culture refferences?
Just a suggestion, but perhaps you could add a section under a similar heading, as I'm a sure a large amount of people are coming here, after having played the game and used the missile, that's why I came to have a look. Just a suggestion, anyone have any thoughts? Paul5121 (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, if a specific game uses a specific real-life weapon, then it might make sense to have a link from the game article *to* to the weapons article (since that's where the inspiration came from). But since the weapon *itself* doesn't really have anything to do with games (i.e. it wasn't developed with some specific game use in mind), linking back to any and every game that features a particular weapon wouldn't really make any sense. --Frescard (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
ROC/Taiwan
I've added a reference to Taiwan to ensure that the statement is not confusing. I have changed the number of missiles to 360 - any idea why it was listed as 400? As far as I know it is only 360. More might be sold soon, but it would be more than 40 because the congressional notification limit is US$50 million. John Smith's (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Development Test and Evaluation (DT&E) paragraphs
The two paragraphs on DT&E should be deleted. If this is a standard term, then simple link to an article (or section of an article) where it's defined (e.g. one containing those two paragraphs) would be appropriate.
