The U.S. State Department approved the sale of ‘Javelin Lightweight Command Launch Units’ to the United Kingdom for an estimated cost of $300 million.

The UK government had requested to buy 513 ‘Javelin Lightweight Command Launch Units’.

The notice of the proposed sale is shown below.

“The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of the United Kingdom of Javelin Lightweight Command Launch Units (LWCLUs) for an estimated cost of $300 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.

The Government of the United Kingdom has requested to buy five hundred thirteen (513) Javelin Lightweight Command Launch Units (LWCLUs). Also included are Javelin LWCLU Basic Skills Trainers (BSTs); Javelin Outdoor Trainers (JOTs); Javelin Vehicle Launcher Electronics (JVL-Es); Javelin LWCLU Train the Trainer Package; Lifecycle Support; System Integration and Check out (SICO); Javelin Operator Manual; Technical Assistance (TAGM); and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated program cost is $300 million.

This proposed sale will support the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of a NATO ally that is a force for political stability and economic progress in Europe. The proposed sale will improve the United Kingdom’s capability to meet current and future threats. The United Kingdom will use the enhanced capability to strengthen its homeland defense and deter regional threats. The United Kingdom will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment and services into its armed forces.”

The principal contractor would be the Javelin Joint Venture, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin Corp and Raytheon Technologies Corp.

What is Javelin?

Javelin is an anti-tank guided munition that can be carried and launched by a single person. It is a medium-range, “fire-and-forget” missile for use against a wide array of targets including armoured vehicles, bunkers and caves.

The primary mission of ‘Lightweight Command Launch Unit’ is as the launcher for the Javelin missile itself. The unit, or ‘sight’, performs surveillance, allowing the fire to see targets.

Javelin has been used in Afghanistan and Iraq in more than 5,000 engagements, it’s also making a name for itself in Ukraine.

According to the manufacturers, the system uses an arched top-attack profile. Javelin climbs above its target for improved visibility and then strikes where the armour is weakest. To fire, the gunner places a cursor over the selected target. The Javelin command launch unit then sends a lock-on-before-launch signal to the missile. With its soft launch design, Javelin can be safely fired from inside buildings or bunkers.

George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. He also works for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
197 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
farouk
farouk
8 days ago

Interesting development and I suspect born from what has transpired these past 6 months inside the Ukraine. However I fear that this will be used as an excuse to curtail spending on armour by the “Tanks are no longer viable” on the battlefront brigade. Also why Javelin? When NLAW is just as good and joint British?

FOSTERSMAN
FOSTERSMAN
8 days ago
Reply to  farouk

My thoughts exactly unless we’re buying to give away?

Heidfirst
Heidfirst
7 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

NLAW warheads are Swiss-made or incorporate Swiss technology. This complicates re-export to Ukraine …
https://newsfounded.com/switzerlandeng/totally-problematic-swiss-warheads-destroy-russian-tanks/

Mark B
Mark B
7 days ago
Reply to  Heidfirst

Perhaps we need to build our own warheads & increase the range

George Parker
George Parker
7 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

Exactly Mark. An improved variant as a matter of urgency. It is a very effective weapon. No replacement for an MBT but increases the lethality of infantry soldiers.

farouk
farouk
7 days ago
Reply to  Heidfirst

Heidfast wrote: NLAW warheads are Swiss-made or incorporate Swiss technology. This complicates re-export to Ukraine … H, Is there any proof of that in writing, as whislt I have seen Bern refuse to allow the reexport of weapons to the Ukraine on the basis of its neutral standing. it has stated otherwise regards Swiss parts used in weapon sysytems built elsewhere. I quote from June: Neutral Swiss spell out rules for re-export of arms June 3 (Reuters) – Switzerland reiterated on Friday it would not as a neutral country allow the re-export of Swiss arms to conflict zones but this… Read more »

Last edited 7 days ago by farouk
Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Very nuanced isn’t it, could mean either really.

Rusty jake
Rusty jake
7 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Thought nlaws where manufactured in Belfast?

Pongoglo
Pongoglo
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Absolute poppy cock. Never heard such nonsense on this forum before. NLAW was designed and conceived in SWEDEN not Switzerland. Its development was however in the main part driven and funded by UK MOD and all UK weapons are produced by Thales UK in the former Shorts plant in Belfast. Switzerland does not deploy the system and has no part in the design or manufacture of NLAW in any way.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
7 days ago
Reply to  Pongoglo

All fine.

Except it does have a Swiss made warhead.

duff
duff
7 days ago
Reply to  Pongoglo

Not poppy cock, it’s very clear across all the documentation (open source, available online) that the NLAW’s supply chain includes Switzerland and is clearly not 100% UK content. Predominantly Saab Bofors Dynamics in Switzerland, but its still Swiss.

Last edited 7 days ago by duff
Grim
Grim
7 days ago
Reply to  Pongoglo

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2017/06/28/saab-snags-120m-swiss-contract-for-its-next-gen-anti-tank-weapon/

The supply chain for the weapon is predominantly British but some systems, including the Saab Bofors Dynamics Switzerland-produced warhead, are sourced from elsewhere.

So Switzerland does build the warhead and does deploy the missile.

Rob
Rob
7 days ago
Reply to  Heidfirst

NLAW is short range where as javelin is medium. Both systems compliment each other. An infantry battalion will have both.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
7 days ago
Reply to  Heidfirst

Yes been saying this for a while it’s made at the Bofors factory in Switzerland so whether Bofors can transfer production elsewhere or an alternative can be found to it may become a major factor here. Hope that this is a wake up call and as much as possible on any project is now removed from Switzerland. I suspect that the remaining stocks of NLAW we can send to Ukraine will be dwindling fast.

Boris Cross
Boris Cross
7 days ago
Reply to  Heidfirst

NLAW is Swedish not Swiss

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
6 days ago
Reply to  Heidfirst

That isnt technically correct. The NLAW ordered by British army came from production site in Belfast. Warhead is British made.

Heidfirst
Heidfirst
5 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

My understanding is that final assembly was in the UK but the warhead was manufactured by Saab Bofors Dynamics in Switzerland.

Kevin Nimmo
Kevin Nimmo
7 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

Javelin has a longer range I think NLAW is better short to medium range

The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
The Artist Formerly Known As Los Pollos Chicken
7 days ago
Reply to  FOSTERSMAN

And there it is Nail on Head 👏🏻 Of course they are going to give them away. I mean why on earth would we want to ensure our own armed forces are sufficiently equipped when we can use it all on a pointless proxy war with everyone’ favourite enemy state.

great piece of kit though 👍🏻

🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇬🇧

Mark B
Mark B
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

NLAW and Javelin have move the goal posts. Armour is good providing it is effective. Is it that is the question? … and if not what do we need to do to prevent these anti-tank weapons being a threat to our armour?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

Have they (recently) moved the goalposts? There has been anti tank missiles around since the mid-50s, or longer if you count unguided types fired from bazooka type weapons. The Israelis were seriously downgraded (over 1,000 tanks lost) due largely to the effective use of Soviet ATGW (AT-3 Sagger) in the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

Counter-measures and means of minimising risk/exposure include APS, use of screening smoke and good tactical handling of the tanks – good use of ground; excellent cam when stationary; use of infantry to clear/suppress enemy ATGW.

Mark B
Mark B
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Perhaps this is my misunderstanding then. I thought that this new generation of ATW allowed an attack on a lightly armoured part of a tank which was tricky to attack in the past. I take your point on the counter-measures but is improving the armour not being considered or is it impractical?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
7 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

The focus is more on killing or deflecting incoming. Hence Trophy and active.

Clearly UK MOD did realise how good NLAW etc were hence why the Trophy project came alive?

DaveyB
DaveyB
6 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

Tank amour has progressed and developed to match HEAT warheads found in ATGMs, through spaced armour and explosive reactive armour (ERA). One part of the tank that has not been seriously up-armoured is, the belly and the turret roof. It would be very difficult to have an ATGM fly underneath a tank. Whereas having one dive on top of the turret is relatively easy. Missiles like Hellfire further developed the concept of top attack. Plus today we have NLAW which passes over the top of a tank and then fires a shaped charge down, when its proximity sensor detects the… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Mark B

I see your point now. Both NLAW and Javelin can do OTA – Overflight Top Attack to hit the least well armoured part of the tank. There are counter-measures available ranging from ERA on turret roof, but ERA is harder to fight to rear engine decks…to Active Protection Systems (APS) such as Trophy.
Some Russian tanks sported some ad hoc roof cage armor virtually from Day 1 of the invasion but this was ineffective –
https://defence-blog.com/improved-armor-doesnt-work-on-russian-tanks/

Steve
Steve
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I think it’s more the realisation of just how good they are in a realsitic war situation has only been identified in Ukraine.

Modern military was designed around the idea of tank battles across open fields, with high mobility, making ATGM less effective. A US general a few years ago said the US had to rethink it’s gearing because of large scale city expansions and he has been proven right. Once tanks get bogged down in urban environments and lose their mobility, things like NLAW dominate for the defenders using pop up style attacks.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

What has massively helped NLAW and Javelin to acheive huge success in Ukraine is Russia’s piss poor army and armoured vehicle fleet. Their MBTs carry live rounds in the turret and turret ring autoloader. Any “flash” or explosion into the turret courtesy of a top attack weapon ends in the live rounds carried cooking off. Russian MBTs are death traps for their crews and are a direct result of soviet fighting philosophy. That philosophy was overwhelm your enemy with massive hordes of rapidly advancing MBTs fleets. Ignore casualties. The crucial operational parameter is close the range quickly. Get in amongst… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Hi Steve, good points. But I do not believe those who claim the tank is obsolete just because there is a counter-system. There is a counter to everything on the battlefield including the dismounted soldier. The tank is the best protected of anything. We lose more dismounted infantrymen in war than tanks. Tanks are only effective if they are of good design, are reliable, are handled tactically skillfully and within an all-arms grouping and are well supported by logistic and engineering teams. Based on the above tanks can be used effectively in urban ops but it is not their natural… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Isn’t NLAW one time disposable whereas you can reload a Javelin launch tube with another missile?

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
7 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

That’s what I thought too which to me makes it more a weapon of last resort or in and out sneak attacks. Javelin I feel is a bit more functional in an organised defence.

Paul.P
Paul.P
7 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Other very knowledgable posts seemed to have cleared up the difference. Seems to be a horses for courses thing. Urban short range > NLAW, more open longer range situations > Javelin.

Steve
Steve
7 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

They would be used in combination. Javelin is longer range and reusable but much much more expensive and far heavier. As such I assume the tactics would be to take out the MBT with javlin and the IFV / lighter armed stuff with NLAW.

Plus as said gives you a last resort defensive option, as you can carry more within a given unit size.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
7 days ago
Reply to  Steve

I think it would come down to the tactical situation. If the enemy is out in the open and moving towards you in numbers, you are going to want to start to take them out early, helped by the fact that you are more likely to see them. Hence Javelin. If they are hull down under camo then you will need to go find them and that probably means getting close to create a firing line i.e. if they are hiding in woods which seems to be a not uncommon practice for Russian units. The Ukrainians have been very good… Read more »

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
7 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Javelin tubes are single use as well, its the control pad thats reusable. You either plug it into the launcher or wirelessly sync it on later models. They made the detachable controls for two reasons, firstly they have some quite good and expensive optics that are better than standard thermal goggles and secondly having an encrypted control unit gives them better control of whose using them and limits their use back against the US if captured or sold on the black market. Part of this order of 513 control units is replacing stuff given to Ukraine, but its also renewing… Read more »

Paul.P
Paul.P
7 days ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Informative details. Cheers.👍

Pongoglo
Pongoglo
7 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Yes plus Javelin flies at least four time further. NLAW 800 metres as opposed to Javelins 3,500m . Javelins actual max range is classified but there are many reported kills at 4,000m plus. To summarise NLAW is a short range ambush weapon particularly effective in urban terrain which is why the Ukraine found them so effective in the battle for Kiev in the early days of the war. Both are top attack and fire and forget but Javelin has a much greater range. It is not so good as NLAW however up close and personal where you often have to… Read more »

Bell
Bell
7 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

The missile comes in the tube, which attaches to the launcher unit, on firing you junk the tube and attach another tube.

DaveyB
DaveyB
6 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Yes NLAW is a one shot package. Javelin is based around the command launch unit (CLU).This houses the IR cameras used to hunt for an d lock on to a target. The Javelin missile in a one shot tube is then fitted to the CLU for firing. Once fired you load a fresh missile tube.

Paul.P
Paul.P
6 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Very clear. Thx.

David
David
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

NLAW is a 1000 metre range direct line of site projectile with direct or top attack.
Javelin will fo out 3000 metres ( suggested far more from the Ukraine footage) and has top attack. The CLU is an advanced sensor, can pass GPS location of targets to nearby units and provides a platoon with an advanced surveillance sensor. The latest CLU can actually launch a stinger if required and has a capacity to detect drones
Different class of weapon

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
7 days ago
Reply to  David

NLAW is top attack too. It is not line of sight but fire in the general direction and it can go over a small hill or mound.

The differences other than range are not so spectacular.

I am slightly surprised that we are not developing an NLAW-ER version using the proprietary tech that we already own.

dan
dan
7 days ago

Big difference when one is a guided missile and the other is not.

Max Jones
Max Jones
7 days ago
Reply to  dan

Both are guided. Main difference is size and range.

BobA
BobA
7 days ago
Reply to  Max Jones

No, NLAW is not guided. It has predicted flight – ie it’ll lead a target. But if the target does something unexpected it doesn’t follow it.

Max Jones
Max Jones
7 days ago
Reply to  BobA

It sounds like we have different definitions of what guided means.

BobA
BobA
7 days ago
Reply to  Max Jones

That’s fine Max, but officially NLAW is unguided. A guided missile has targeting data all the way to the target and follows that data. Javelin is following a TI head that recognises and homes in on the target; NLAW can’t do that.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
7 days ago
Reply to  BobA

Yeh, but that has one big advantage. Cost!

NLAW is a “throw away” $30K to $40k, but Javelin is reportedly $150k + and that’s just for the missile!

Also, the NLAW missile has a max speed in the region of 200m/s, so allowing for acceleration lets say 5 to 6 seconds out to 800m (max effective range). Not impossible to duck out of the way as you point out but not easy in a closed down AFV. Anyway, an interesting little mind experiment…

Cheers CR

BobA
BobA
7 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

The biggest difference is the CLU on the Jav. It’s an incredible bit of kit with really good TI. It gives the operator a really good chance of finding a target, correctly identifying it and destroying it. You can change the missile mode from top to direct attack if needed. When you group Javelin onto anti tank sections or a Platoon, it’s devastating. With NLAW the operator is using their eyes to find, indentify and target (and an ACOG).

I’m not knocking NLAW, it’s just designed for a different task.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
7 days ago
Reply to  dan

Guided in different ways is the real answer.

Netking
Netking
7 days ago

Both are very capable weapons and have proven themselves countless times. Like all weapons, they have tradeoffs. The NLAW is cheaper, more portable and shorter range, while the javelin is much more expensive and more complex system with longer range and a larger target set. The CLU in particular is an amazing bit of kit. I like to think of them as complementary to each other.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
7 days ago
Reply to  Netking

JAVELIN, means a different UK project in the back of my mind, but that is another story.

I agree they are both very good weapons and they do, indeed, compliment each other.

With NLAW, Starstreak, CAMM-ER etc we have a great group of UK IP missiles that cover most bases except really one: AT – at range?

David Steeper
David Steeper
7 days ago

Brimstone.

Pongoglo
Pongoglo
7 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Agreed and we have already supplied ground launched Brimstone to UKR . Range classified but 8,000 metres plus. We do not however have it in UK service though a number of concept demonstrators have done the rounds on both Ajax and Boxer hulls.

chris
chris
7 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

too heavy to be man portable (50kg) Javelin is medium range

David Steeper
David Steeper
7 days ago
Reply to  chris

Heavy ATGM. In this situation vehicle mounted eg Boxer. NLAW and Javelin are the manportable systems.

Max Jones
Max Jones
7 days ago
Reply to  chris

You won’t get a long range man portable ATGM. At that point they are going to be vehicle-mounted by default.

Rob Young
Rob Young
7 days ago

Would it be cost effective? We may have propietary tech, but would still need to put that tech together as a unit then sort out production facilities – would sales and numbers we need justify this?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
7 days ago
Reply to  Rob Young

NLAWS will be selling well – that nice Mr Zelenski will provide excellent references as to their effectiveness – frankly we have all seen it.

Derivatives using the same warhead and targeting would be a slam dunk.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
7 days ago

We have always been very good at ‘cobbling’ together different bits and pieces to create something useful. MBDA appear to have revived that ability with their systems creating a range of capable options.

Hopefully, Bofors can do the same they are after all another very good company.

Cheers CR

farouk
farouk
7 days ago
Reply to  David

David, I think you may have misunderstood me when i typed out: “ Also why Javelin? When NLAW is just as good and joint British?” The point I was making is that the NLAW is just as good at killing tanks. as the much more expensive Javelin. As for the difference in ranges 3klicks is the exception with 1 klick (and under) been the norm. But the point I didn’t make clear (which I should have) is that such an investment into the NLAW, would have resulted in not only having money spent in the Uk, it would have resulted in… Read more »

Rob Young
Rob Young
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Now using it as a kickstarter for a future system MIGHT be cost effective and justified!

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

If only eh but vision isn’t common amongst UK decision makers is it as a couple incompetent decisions just today from Truss well demonstrates, one statement that had to be reversed in 2 hours indeed. I bet Putin is quaking in his boots at the thought of her as PM. Even Biden looks to be clearer of mind.

Paul.P
Paul.P
7 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Fortunately both the US and UK front men or women have teams of sensible people informing and advising and liasing with allies. We just see and hear processed output and political decision. Big difference to Russia where unpredictable mad man Putin rules by fear and other voices are silenced.

Pongoglo
Pongoglo
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

That just isn’t true . My Battalion like all UK AI Bns have both and have used Javelins many many times in Afghan and Iraq. There are occasions when we have employed Javelin at under 1 Km , but that mainly as an act of desperation and against motorbike scouts, or machine gun positions NOT MBT. In Iraq we did use them against MBT and in that instance we tried to keep them out of the range of their main armament, 2000 metres plus. NLAW is great against tanks at close range but because it relies on a magnetic sensor… Read more »

Rudeboy
Rudeboy
7 days ago
Reply to  Pongoglo

The Swiss inherited some of the production line following completion of UK orders. They also make the warhead.

Rudeboy
Rudeboy
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

UK Military use both. They are different classes of munitions. NLAW is a section level munition. It’s range is limited to c1,000m, as is its ‘guidance’ and cannot be extended. It replaced the LAW80 and AT4 CS in that role. Javelin is a full on man portable ATGM. It’s issued at the Company level. Range with LWCLU is >4,000m. It replaced Milan and Swingfire. Horses for courses…they’re complimetary systems. The only alternative to Javelin that has some UK content is the MMP from MBDA. It was looking likely that we might switch to MMP at some point in the future… Read more »

Lordtemplar
Lordtemplar
7 days ago
Reply to  David

FYI – NLAW effective range is only about 400 meters for a moving target.

Pongoglo
Pongoglo
7 days ago
Reply to  Lordtemplar

Agreed – have seen that . Static, 600 metre but I have been told it can fly out to eight. UK PLC don’t however teach that to our troops.

Deep32
Deep32
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Hi Farouk,
Might it possibly be something as simple as range? Javelin must have something like a 3-4x range advantage over NLAW!
You never know, we might yet also be buying some more NLAW to backfill what we have gifted, perhaps just not announced yet!!

dan
dan
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

NLAW is a totally different weapon system. The Javelin is fully guided whereas the NLAW missile is unguided and just uses some predictive math to predict where the target will be before firing. That is a huge difference between the two systems.

Pongoglo
Pongoglo
7 days ago
Reply to  dan

Hoorah for Dan, don’t let the truth get in the way of the truth. They are totally different systems and there is absolutely no prospect of developing NLAW to go beyond 1000 metres absolute max. Don’t get me wrong it is a really good weapon as UKR have proved but is most effective under 200 metres if poss. As Dan states it uses a PLOS , Predicted Line Of Sight system combined with a very clever magnetic sensor to detonate it over the target at exactly the right height.

Something Different
Something Different
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Nothing quite matches the combination of mobility, firepower and protection of a MBT. The threat to these platforms on the battlefield had increased but infantry is still vulnerable (despite improvements in protection) but no one is declaring them obsolete. Tanks need to be used correctly with the appropriate supporting arms, a lesson learnt since at least WWII.

Pongoglo
Pongoglo
7 days ago

Again agreed. Especially if you have to retake territory like UKR have now to do. Light role Inf are great at holding ground but you need MBT to attack.

Allan
Allan
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Probably also from concerns over China, South Korea, and Iran too.

Allan
Allan
7 days ago
Reply to  Allan

North* , not South*

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
7 days ago
Reply to  Allan

Geez had me worried there 😫 (by the way you can edit the function is to the right though not easy to see the cog icon)

Last edited 7 days ago by Spyinthesky
Allan
Allan
7 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Thanks! I’m sure I remember seeing the tiny little cog yesterday but nothing happened when I clicked on it. I don’t see it at all today though… The only symbols I see today at the share symbol, the ‘i’, the link symbol, and the flag symbol. And the open / hide replies arrow. I broke it!

David Steeper
David Steeper
7 days ago
Reply to  Allan

The edit button is time sensitive after a certain length of time you can’t edit your comment.

Allan
Allan
7 days ago
Reply to  David Steeper

Ahh thanks David

Daniel
Daniel
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

My understanding was that having a mixed issue of NLAW and Javelin was viewed favourably by the British Army as their different capabilities compliment each other. Namely, the longer range of Javelin makes it indispensable in certain scenarios, but the lower cost and advantages of NLAW in FIBUA make it the obvious choice for engaging targets within its range.

Pongoglo
Pongoglo
7 days ago
Reply to  Daniel

Got it in one.

Martin
Martin
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

NLAW and Javelin perform different roles, the army always had both and always planned to have both. Javelin is a dedicated anti tank weapon for anti tank teams where as NLAW is an replacement for the old LAW and covers a wide range of infantry teams.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Javelin does have a few advantages I believe and both are worth having in a complimentary fashion. I do wonder if the problems we are getting from Switzerland over the warheads for NLAW are a factor here in not wanting to be stitched up by third parties or maybe it has shown it self just that little bit more effective in crucial scenarios.

Pongoglo
Pongoglo
7 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

SWEDEN not Switzerland. We have NO problems with the Swedes at all and make all of ours in the Thales factory in Belfast as I have stated before. Don’t understand what the Swiss have to do with this except that one will be a NATO country shortly and the other not – and oh yeah – they both begin with an S .

Daniel
Daniel
7 days ago
Reply to  Pongoglo

I believe the warheads for NLAW are in fact made in Switzerland. Yes Sweden is the country with whom we developed the NLAW, but individual components were subcontracted out across the EU. Turns out the Swiss make good and / or affordable explosives.

Grim
Grim
7 days ago
Reply to  Pongoglo

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2017/06/28/saab-snags-120m-swiss-contract-for-its-next-gen-anti-tank-weapon/

The supply chain for the weapon is predominantly British but some systems, including the Saab Bofors Dynamics Switzerland-produced warhead, are sourced from elsewhere.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

NLAW and Javelin have very different capabilities, the most significant being different ranges. “NLAW is great in close combat at ranges from 20 to 600 meters. It is therefore indispensable in close range situations such as urban combat, while Javelin, being a longer range weapon effective at ranges from 1,000 to 2,000 meters, is probably better than NLAW outside cities,” says Anatoliy an ATGM operator from the 128th Independent Mountain Assault Transcarpathia Brigade, had been trained to operate both ATGMs immediately before the war started. Source: Defense Express, 9 Apr 2022. Some give the upper range of Javelin as 2,500m… Read more »

Last edited 7 days ago by Graham Moore
Geoff Roach
Geoff Roach
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Tanks supported by Javelin equipped infantry?

Max Jones
Max Jones
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

NLAW and Javelin are different roles, right? Javelin is a heavier, longer range missile. This is like asking why we have Sky Sabre when there’s already Starstreak.

Rob N
Rob N
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

The missiles complement each other well. Javelin is longer range Nd netter in open areas. NLAW is great at short rang in built up areas. Also NLAW is a very fast reaction missile – ideal for troops to hunt targets of opportunity or react to unexpected encounters with hostile tanks. The army has got it right by having both.

BobA
BobA
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Javelin is used by anti-tank Platoons; fully guided with long range. Also, the CLU is a prime ISTAR asset in light role infantry Bns. Essentially it gives infantry decent punch. We also paired Javelin teams with Sniper Sections to give each Rifle Coy an ISTAR group, which was very effective. NLAW is normally in the Rifle Coys – it’s short range, doesn’t have optics – it’s just the missile. Very different role. NLAW is used in the Bn anti-tank plan, but it’s the last ditch defence on Rifle Coy frontage / used for tank stalking. Put simply, you need both,… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
6 days ago
Reply to  BobA

Yes, so NLAW is today’s LAW80 that used to be issued to sections in companies, where’s Javelin is a Bn asset within FS Coy, today’s Milan.

James Fennell
James Fennell
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

NLAW is a short range self-defence AT system (effective range 800m), Javelin is a medium range ATGM (effective range 4,750m) – they are different and we need both. The US use AT4 rather than NLAW (although both AT4 and NLAW are Saab-Bofors designed products, NLAW was jointly developed with UK and is manufactured by Thales in Belfast, while AT4 is made in Sweden and the US). Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, Malaysia, Indonesia and Luxembourg have also adopted NLAW, and of course Ukraine. NLAW is not strictly a guided weapon, but is has an excellent predictive aiming system which at short ranges… Read more »

Last edited 7 days ago by James Fennell
Tomartyr
Tomartyr
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Why not NLAW instead of oranges.. sorry.. Javelin?
Iirc NLAWs range is about 1km whereas Javelin has a range of about 2.5km+.
NLAW is the world’s best ‘break glass in case of tanks’ device, but Javelin is made for actively hunting tanks.
Different horses for different courses, which is why they have both.

Last edited 7 days ago by Tomartyr
Marked
Marked
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Javelin is longer ranged, both are needed.

Boris Cross
Boris Cross
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

Javelin and NLAW are different types of system Javalin has a longer range and a lock on target before launch guidance system.

jason
jason
7 days ago

Will they be given to Ukraine? We should be buying 500 pieces of himars or powerful artillery pieces minimum. Our tiny military and diminishing reserves of equipment is turning us in to a laughing stock.

Last edited 7 days ago by jason
Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
7 days ago
Reply to  jason

Our tiny military and diminishing reserves of equipment is turning us in to a laughing stock.”

Pull the other one

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
7 days ago

I think it is earning quite a bit of respect actually. It turns out that we did have most of what was needed to deal with Mad Vlad in the spares shed. Bear in mind we are not using the primary heavy tank busing from drones, apache, Typhoon or F35B or any other big integrated systems that are current. The only current stuff given to Ukraine is NLAW, Javelin and Stinger plus now the 270 system. That alone is proving more than effective with British military training. I think what has surprised everyone is that we did have the right… Read more »

Nicholas
Nicholas
7 days ago

Thankfully we are no longer having to train people to use Blowpipe, particularly as having 3 hands was a minimum requirement.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago
Reply to  Nicholas

Blowpipe was an anti-air weapon.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
7 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

True it fired up into the air. If you were very lucky it might get near a slow moving target.

I can attest to its uselessness having fired off a lot of them!

Hitting anything was a challenge.

The amazing thing was the variability of it in terms of how the rounds behaved when you tried to steer them.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago

You are right. From http://www.military-today about the FI Conflict :
“When British and Argentine combat records were cross-referenced later in the 1980s, the evidence confirmed that MB.339 #0766 and Harrier GR3 #XZ972 were indeed the only aircraft shot-down by Blowpipes, after numerous launches by both sides. Simply put, the Blowpipe’s trial by fire was a fiasco”.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
6 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Agreed.

Lots of lessons were learned though leading to much, much better systems following on.

On paper Blowpipe was fine. Problem was that it was a pig to use and very variable round to round.

The UI was developed based not on what a soldier could operate but rather on how to produce an elegant solution.

So as well as having three hands your brain needed to work in a certain way.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
7 days ago

Wonder why certain members (or was it ex big wig) of the military claim we would run out of ammunition in a week or so in a major conflict. The Ukraine war is showing various black holes in our capabilities I feel esp artillery. I have no idea what drones we are sending them either, probably mostly off the shelf civilian based stuff which have proved very useful it seems where larger drones have proved vital but vulnerable.

Expat
Expat
6 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

But I assume we would be fighting differently, securing the airspace as a priority and not getting into slugging match. It also appears our intelligence is first rate allow Ukraine to pin point targets and disrupt supply lines. Some of the targets for HIMARs we would hit from the air. A stealthy TB2 type drone would would be a great asset though. What is clear if your going to use certain tactics its best to ensure that it will be 100% effective as the plan B is likely pretty ugly.

Last edited 6 days ago by Expat
Jonathans
Jonathans
7 days ago

Its quite an eye open how much stuff the Army had stashed away, who would have though we had artillery just sitting around that could be given away as well as 10s thousands of shells, and not far off 10 thousand of anti tank weapons.

Rudeboy
Rudeboy
7 days ago
Reply to  Jonathans

We didn’t have artillery stashed away.

We had to buy M109 from Belgian arms dealers because all of ours were retired and sold in the early 2000’s to Austria.

The L119 were purchased from BAE who had bought them commercially from other users for resale.

Jonathans
Jonathans
7 days ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

Hi Rudeboy have you got a reference or links for that, as would be interested to read.
cheers

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Jonathans

We really don’t have much stuff stashed away. As Rudeboy says: much was bought by MoD internationally …and much missile stock came from manufacturers directly.

Jonathans
Jonathans
6 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Burst my little hopeful bubble there, that there was some form of in extremis planning and thought going on. Seems a good idea to have old stuff you can give to allies in need. Maybe the Ukraine Russia war will highlight a need for a nation like the U.K. to have stocks and supply pipelines in place to support an ally in need.

Expat
Expat
6 days ago
Reply to  Jonathans

Jonathan keep in mind that the British military tactics would be different. There’s no surprise in Russia’s doctrine and for UK and NATO dominating the air space is key. As Ukraine has shown hitting supply lines reduce the potential of 100s of artillery pieces. Personally I’m for army Ukraine with longer range kit and aircraft to reduce the need to slug it out shell by shell.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
6 days ago
Reply to  Jonathans

I can’t think of any examples of us keeping old kit to give to allies in need, or even old kit as back up for our own forces. Once equipment is declared obsolete it is disposed of ASAP.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  jason

turning us in to a laughing stock.”

Compared to whom?

Shall I list the equipment the UK field that most nations don’t have a cat in hells chance of having the professionalism, training, knowhow, logistic tail, and infrastructure to use, never mind afford?

500 HIMARS would require the RA to be roughly doubled in size, probably more so. How many will each battery use, 40??!
I’d settle for a regiment of 24 myself for starters with 6 spare and for training, so 30.

Deep32
Deep32
7 days ago

Hi Daniele, slightly OT, just read that the Army have officially disbanded 1st AI Brigade, without an announcement it appears!!!
Not sure what that is about, it’s not as if it wasn’t coming!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  Deep32

It’s been “merged” mate. Was publicised a while ago. Merged with 1 Artillery Bde, an unbrella formation for our artillery, including the CS Regs assigned to the AI Bdes, into the all singing all dancing 1 DRSBCT. Deep Recc Strike. Considering 1 AI Bde… The Tanks are getting chopped ( KRH, as we go from 3 tank regs to 2 ) Warriors are going, and 6 AI Bns become 5 Boxer Bns ( irrelevant regards 1 DRSBCT as that formation has no infantry so 1 AI s 2 Bns are not merging with it ) HPM Bn on Mastiff is… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago

Addenda, considering 25 CS Group RE supports 3 UK Division, 21 RE is a part of that group of 3 regular RE Regs and the R Mon RE ( Militia ), so may still support the DRSBCT without actually forming a part of it.

Jonathans
Jonathans
7 days ago

Daniele where do you get all this stuff, your knowledge base is pretty top notch. You should do an article or two for website on Army Orbat and structures.

DaveyB
DaveyB
6 days ago
Reply to  Jonathans

Tat would be a really bad idea, as he’ll se past the smoke and mirrors and reveal how bad the situation really is. At present it is just the Army doing their normal shell game of hiding cuts.

farouk
farouk
7 days ago

Just been sent this, enjoy:

Untitled-1.jpg
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

😀

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
7 days ago

Sounds about right as it seems most European Countries are looking to acquire them so there will be a hell of a lot around to counter mad Vlad. Have we updated our tracked systems yet? Or plan to?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Going to upgrade with longer range rockets, yes.

Also forming a 2nd GMLRS regiment, but that’s a bit of an MoD con trick, as they’re splitting the capability, 2 batteries per regiment, where at present I think 25 RA has 3 GMLRS batteries. So 1 battery up on the deal.

I’ve not seen or heard a peep that the RA will acquire HIMARS, sadly.

Sean
Sean
7 days ago
Reply to  jason

The only military that’s a laughing stock is Russian

Rob Young
Rob Young
7 days ago
Reply to  Sean

And probably still Germany. They have a lot of catching up to do – their lack of apparent help is probably more due to not having the stuff to give in working order rather than not wanting to!

Mike
Mike
7 days ago
Reply to  Rob Young

Germany doesn’t have the kit to give, and the rest of eu hasn’t done very well either, but following victory then Germany will make a killing in arms sales.

The degradation of parts of the UK defense industry is shocking

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
7 days ago
Reply to  Rob Young

…and their intent to get paid for the hardware supplied is shameful.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
7 days ago
Reply to  Rob Young

Yes they have pretty much stated that, bad assessment of the dangers mind over the years, just been happy to sell their weapons to others and struggling to increase production now that they need some.

Andy P
Andy P
7 days ago
Reply to  jason

“is turning us in to a laughing stock.” As we’re having a bit of a ‘piley on’ Jason, I might as well join in. How do you know we’re a “laughing stock” ? I know its one of those phrases that gets bandied about but who have you consulted, who is laughing at our (in this case) “diminishing reserves of equipment”. Then you have to consider, who actually cares what the chattering classes (or countries) think, its looking like its based on bollox as we’re happily supplying Ukraine and according to this article buying more ‘stuff’. Like most on here… Read more »

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
7 days ago
Reply to  Andy P

Well said 👍

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
7 days ago
Reply to  jason

Don’t worry who ever is PM will talk big and hope unlike the Putin version no one gets to see the smoke and mirrors.

JamesD
JamesD
7 days ago

Is this any indication as to how many clu’s have been given to Ukraine as opposed to the missiles themselves maybe

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
7 days ago

Does this somewhat mitigate the diminishing number of MBTs? It would certainly be a headache for any Russian or Chinese tankers, I imagine

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago

No, as we field Javelin and NLAW in numbers already in the Infantry.

How many CLU did we give to Ukraine, and what is the standard inventory in the FD companies ? I’ve read 12.

Is this replenishing what we have given, an enhancement of overall numbers, or both?

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
7 days ago

Is this order for just the command unit or does it come with a missile? Would they be listed separately?
I see all the usual add ons listed like training rounds, manuals etc etc.
perhaps I’m just being dense

Mike R
Mike R
7 days ago

Stikes me it could be to arm the original order of Boxers.

Paul.P
Paul.P
7 days ago
Reply to  Mike R

Javelin Launcher Vehicle Electronics?

Mike R
Mike R
7 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Paul: If our Boxers are fitted with a Kongsberg RS4 then yes, if a Protector 151 then a Javelin team would be carried in the back I presume.

Paul.P
Paul.P
7 days ago
Reply to  Mike R

I found a press release saying Thales signed a 1 billion Norwegian Krone contract with Kongsberg for RS4 for UK Boxers. I don’t know how many you get for that.
So can you attach Javelin to the RS4 then?

Mike R
Mike R
7 days ago
Reply to  Paul.P

Yes Paul, look a Kongsberg’s (RS4) or LM’s (Javelin) brochure online and and you will see for yourself.

Paul.P
Paul.P
7 days ago
Reply to  Mike R

Ah, yes, specific reference to ATGM. Looks like you can operate it from your mobile phone too 😊

David
David
7 days ago

Just an upgrade and refresh of the original CLU that first entered service in the 1990s ?
Lighter, has far more detection capability, including drones and GPS data sharing and will solve obsolescence issues.
The maker has launched Stinger form the CLU apparently so it must be a far more capable sensor across the board.

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
7 days ago
Reply to  David

So the new design control units. Meant to be much better. No actual missiles with the order?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago

Over on UKAFC Gabs equates this is comfortably enough to furnish for each of the 31 Battalions assuming all use 12 FPs, which they probably don’t I’m sure, considering some are SFABs.

I thought the establishment was greater than 12 and was 24 FPs with AT Platoon of FS Coy but maybe I’m out of date as that was in Milan days.

Steven Kirkland
Steven Kirkland
7 days ago

513 lol at £300M aye OK

Either gonna collect dust or be gifted to Ukraine.

Don’t like this one bit.

farouk
farouk
7 days ago

Ay up, heres a right wassak for thee:

Opera Snapshot_2022-08-02_192435_www.dailymail.co.uk.png
Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

The ultimate 5th columnist in this country, along with Abbot, and probably quite a few others on HM opposition benches!

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

This is a bit from the interview; Jeremy Corbyn affirmed his opposition regarding the war in Ukraine, deeming Russia’s military operation in Ukraine “fundamentally wrong.” “Pouring arms in isn’t going to bring about a solution, It’s only going to prolong and exaggerate this war,” he asserted, expecting that this war will drag on for years. The former Labour Party leader touched upon NATO’s expansion and the implications it has to the global economy and world peace: “Expanding NATO isn’t going to bring about a longer-term peace, [but it] will only bring about greater, greater strain and greater stress.” “Then the… Read more »

Last edited 7 days ago by Monkey spanker
Paul.P
Paul.P
4 days ago
Reply to  Monkey spanker

Jeremy Corbyn affirmed his opposition to Jeremy Corbyn…..😉

Last edited 4 days ago by Paul.P
Sean
Sean
7 days ago
Reply to  farouk

He’s almost as bat shit crazy as his anti-vaccine climate-change denier brother…

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
6 days ago
Reply to  Sean

There is still the crime of traitor. Send the Corbyns to the tower.

700 Glengarried men
700 Glengarried men
7 days ago

Could we consider the ukraine stugna system appears good out to 5k and seems to do OK with both soviet tanks and the occasional helicopter, I’m sure we would get a good price

Sean
Sean
7 days ago

I suspect the Ukrainians are busy using them all…

700 Glengarried men
700 Glengarried men
7 days ago
Reply to  Sean

Sean the war won’t last forever, I believe the US will replace their stock first and we will get ours some time in the future, I’m sure I read an article that said the US only produces about 600 per year but can be ramped up to 1200 provided there is no supply chain issues

Sean
Sean
7 days ago

You’re wrong, the Ukrainian’s produce the Stugna missile system.

David
David
7 days ago

I am curious if our Challenger 2 Dorchester armour would be able to withstand a side attack from Javelin or NLAW (leaving top attack aside for obvious reasons). Reports from Gulf War 2 indicated it survived pretty well against ATGWs (we’ve all read the accounts) but admittedly – that was the better part of 20yrs ago now. Does anyone know how the armour is being upgraded for Challenger 3? All I can find says ‘the armour will be upgraded with a new turret’ but what does that mean? – and what about the hull armour? – staying the same? Call… Read more »

Paul T
Paul T
7 days ago
Reply to  David

That information would not be in the public domain.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  David

I could never quite see why older Abrams were rated by some/many as being better than Chally 2. May be a different story with more modern Abrams versions.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney
7 days ago

I keep reading that UK is thinking of buying the Korean K9A2 155mm as a replacement for the AS90. If that is correct why not join the Polish programme to build a heavy ATGW Tank destroyer AFV based on the K9 Thunder chassis and carrying 24 Brimstone missiles.
Any remember Swingfire ?

Pongoglo
Pongoglo
7 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Yep !

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
7 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Of course. The RAC Recc Regs have not had that long range capability since.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

In my opinion a true Strike platform defeats enemy medium and heavy armour and strongpoints at long range. A vehicle with a 40mm cannon (Ajax) ain’t it.

Something like an updated CVR(T) Striker (such an appropriate name!) (which of course had 10 Swingfire – 5 on the roof and 5 reloads inside, range of 4km).

Jack
Jack
5 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Agree 100%. Then we could access Polish spares/repair facilities when our armour is stationed in Eastern Europe.

Tom Keane
Tom Keane
7 days ago

I the plan to give them to Ukraine then??

Bill
Bill
7 days ago

We gave Ukraine 5,000 units? Buying in 500? £300m??

RobW
RobW
7 days ago
Reply to  Bill

We gave 5,000 NLAW to Ukraine. This buy is for Javelin, probably to replace a similar number of donations of that system.

Rudeboy
Rudeboy
7 days ago
Reply to  Bill

We’ve given Ukraine a couple of hundred Javelin missiles and a few CLU’s at most…

We’re buying new CLU to replace the existing older CLU’s…

We still have 6,000 odd Javelin missiles.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
7 days ago
Reply to  Rudeboy

I wonder if the new CLU buy will free up older, but still effective, units for delivery to Ukraine?

Cheers CR

Just Me
Just Me
7 days ago

Finally accepting the tank is just a large, very expensive target

RobW
RobW
7 days ago
Reply to  Just Me

That is a Daily Mail level observation. Every bit of kit is an easy target if it isn’t defended properly i.e. like the Russians.

Jonathans
Jonathans
6 days ago
Reply to  Just Me

Anything and everything is a large expensive target in war, one thing humanity is very good at is blowing things up. Just because something can and will get destroyed does not make it ineffective or not needed as a required part of a combined arms force, this has alway been the case. It’s hard to get your head around but the entire British Army on the Rhine was essentially one very big expensive target that was placed where it was knowing it would be destroyed, the entire purpose of the BAOR in the case of general war was to be… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62
7 days ago

Great to see some ATGWs being restored, presumably replacing stock passed on to Ukraine. Farcical to see Putin accusing the USA of being actively involved in the Ukraine war by providing targeting for HIMARS vetting. Putin invades & seeks to annex Uraine, eradicate it, devestates it, murders, rapes & plunders etc but still thinks it has moral grounds to object to this small aspect ot USA help for Ukraine to defend itself. Fantastic too to see Nancy Pelosi visiting Taiwan rather than Kow-towing to PRCs demands & threats. If everybody backed away from Taiwan, just because the criminal PRC didn’t… Read more »

Danny Powell
Danny Powell
7 days ago

I’m not sure if good idea, buy more javilen as I think we should go for French MMP (maybe fund for British edition) is a better choice over Javelin due to NLOS capacity. Which can link to UAV or Laser designator paint. Meant more surspire and better hide stop return fire to location. Combine bring back section infantry carry: Carl Gastuv Mk4 for Anti structure and vehicle weapon), NLAW (Urban) and MMP (Open Field) Specialist infantry carry Switchblade 600 (Recon & destroy; hunt to kill if find target or recovery and recharge and sent search again repeat), Brimstone 3 light… Read more »

Last edited 7 days ago by Danny Powell
Phil C
Phil C
7 days ago

I wonder if these will be sent to Ukraine or Taiwan? Will we be dragged into supporting the defence of Taiwan in terms of training and arms supplies? Will the QE get sent out there again? It’s hard to imagine our leaders not getting us involved to some degree.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
5 days ago
Reply to  Phil C

Taiwan involvement? That is a potential job for one of our Carrier Groups. Our army should steer well clear. I doubt we have much kit left to gift to Taiwan – leave that to the Yanks.

Bloke down the pub
Bloke down the pub
7 days ago

Any indication of how many missiles we will buy to go with the launchers?

Boris Cross
Boris Cross
7 days ago

See BOFORS BILL.