# The MRAAW: Spike or Javelin (Split from  the giant LAV III thread)



## ArmyRick (7 Sep 2005)

Going back to spike and javelin, does anybody knew what system the CF has decided  to go with? I know they were trialing only those two systems a year ago (and only those two) for ALAWS.


----------



## ArmyRick (12 Sep 2005)

For pers with DIN access, go to the gagetown access and go to the trials summary page on the LFTEU site, its on the year 2004 and look up the ALAWS Trials


----------



## plattypuss (13 Sep 2005)

Last that I had heard was that the ALAWS project was temporarily halted due to a re-evaluation of the direct fire capabilities of the CF to minimise redundancy.  When that will be completed and by whom, I do not know.  Personally I think that the Spike is fantastic but politically the Javelin may be more "acceptable".


----------



## Fry (24 Sep 2005)

plattypuss said:
			
		

> Personally I think that the Spike is fantastic but politically the Javelin may be more "acceptable".



I am illiterate when it comes to these systems, could you elaborate on that quote?


----------



## plattypuss (29 Sep 2005)

Some people out there question the "political correctness" of buying an Israeli system, there would also be the small problem of commonality with some of our allies.


----------



## Fry (29 Sep 2005)

I see... anyone have any links to websites with detail regarding the Spike?


----------



## RyanNS (30 Sep 2005)

I did a google search for "spike anti armor/armour" and found quite a few webpages.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Sep 2005)

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/gill/

Try these two links - I find the site a good starting place for comparative analysis.  They are all equally fluffed.


----------



## Fry (30 Sep 2005)

Yeah, I read up on the spike. Seems impressive. What's the difference as opposed to the javelin... I mean cost wise. Is it much cheaper?

I mean, I hear there aren't much live-fire testing done of the javelin or ADATS because of the cost factor... so how can AD soldiers get trained properly?

If they do live-fire tests, what do they shoot? Remote control airplanes or something?


----------



## ArmyRick (1 Oct 2005)

Fry, try and keep up with the conversation. Javelin MANPADS and Javelin Anti-armor are two different systems  :

Javelin ALAAWS has had plenty of missiles fired and the spike is probably better system (There is a whole family of spike anti-armor missiles made for 600m up to 8,000m).
 USA produces javelin and Israel makes spike.


----------



## Fry (1 Oct 2005)

Thanks for filling me in. Like mentioned earlier, I am very illiterate in this field.


----------



## GINge! (28 Nov 2005)

The LFTEU trial was mainly concerned with the DRI evaluation of the sight systems. No live firing took place. I cannot comment on the results of the trial.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (1 Dec 2005)

Fry,

Also check out these threads-

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/21034.0.html

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22360.0.html

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/19952.0.html

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25800.0.html


----------



## Armymatters (14 Jan 2006)

Just to let you guys know, since the testing was done with the Brits, the Brits have chosen Javelin over Spike.


----------



## Mortar guy (14 Jan 2006)

OK, I was in Gagetown when the Brits were doing their live fire evaluation of the Spike and the Javelin and I was lucky enough to run into the PM from DLR who was there observing. I think both missiles are suitable for what we need but don't let the Brit selection of Javelin fool you into thinking it is definitely the better system. They may have placed 'interoperability' and keeping their biggest ally happy above the pure techinical merits of the systems.

That being said, there are a lot of things going for the Spike system that I think make it a better system. Like the Javelin, it can be used in a fire and forget mode, but unlike the Javelin, it also has the option of a Fire, Observe and Update mode which allows more accurate targeting or even re-targeting after launch. This combined with the fact that the Spike family could be the solution to a number of our needs makes it more acceptable to me. For example, we could purchase the Spike MR (range 2,500m) and the Spike LR (range 4,000m) for use at the Company and Battalion level respectively. The MR and LR missiles weigh the same and use the same CLU.

Then there is the Spike ER (or NTD) which has an 8km range and can be fired NLOS (meaning the firer cannot see his target at launch but acquires it through the missile's seeker during flight). This, to me, would seem to be a good TOW replacement for use on a modified TUA chassis as it has double the range of the TOW and the NLOS capability that TOW does not have. Also, if we ever decide to arm the Griffon, the Spike ER would be a good choice for commonality and capability reasons.

So, in summary, me like Spike.

MG


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Jan 2006)

FWIW:

I started off being bothered that our fearless procurement types were not moving expeditiously on the Javelin.  It seemed like an excellent bet and the Brits, Yanks, Kiwis and a bunch of others have bought it etc.

However.  Time moves on and while the Javelin is the best technology that the 90's can offer the Spike family has been able to take advantage of more current technologies.  While Fire and Forget is highly desirable, the Non Line of Sight capability, the Recce/Update possibilities and the commonalities associated with fielding a 2.5/4/8 km family of systems as Mortar Guy suggests, all make it a really attractive option - to this Armchair General anyway.

Cheers.


----------



## ghazise (15 Jan 2006)

Mortor Guy
"Like the Javelin, it can be used in a fire and forget mode, but unlike the Javelin, it also has the option of a Fire, Observe and Update mode which allows more accurate targeting or even re-targeting after launch."

What is Fire, Observe, and Update mode? And how does it allow for more accurate targeting and retargeting?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (15 Jan 2006)

The fire, observe and update mode is where the Spike is fired and remains linked to the firing post by fibre optic.  This means the firer has the view from the seeker head of the missile in flight.  Supposedly this means that the firer can change targets or compensate for the movement of the target if the missile is not tracking the target for some reason.  Could also be used for simple observation on the other side of the hill and then engage any targets of opportunity or just take a look around.  Not this is a missile and has a very short flight time so your vehicle recognition and SA would have to be 110% accurate.
Nice idea if it works...


----------



## ghazise (16 Jan 2006)

The Fire, Observe and Update mode is in addition to Fire and Forget mode, while during the Fire, Observe and Update Mode a physical Fiber Optic line links the Missile to Spike launcher, I am Correct?  And this feature is only on the Extended Range Missiles (>2.5km).  

For a medium range AT missile, this feature would be duplicating capabitilies of the TOW ITAS (acquired for TUA), and since the TOW ITAS can fire a Javelin Missile, a Javelin Acquistion would be in favour over Spike,


----------



## AmmoTech90 (16 Jan 2006)

Yes, if you want to see the output from the seeker in the Spike you have to use the fibre optic link.

Firing the Spike at ranges greater than 2.5 km also requires use of the fibre link (not sure if this is applicable to Dandy).

I'm not sure what you mean by duplicating the capabilities of ITAS.  Javelin has no link and capability to be linked.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jan 2006)

Does this article help at all?

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/gill/



> The Spike family includes: Spike-SR with a range of 800m, Spike-MR (Gill) with range of 2,500m, Spike-LR with 4,000m range and Spike-ER (formerly known as NTD Dandy) with a range of 8,000m. Spike-LR and Spike-ER can also be fitted on light combat vehicles and a package for mounting Spike-ER on helicopters is also available.





> The guidance system in the nose of the Spike missile comprises a charge-coupled device (CCD) and imaging infrared (IIR) seeker. The imaging infrared provides higher sensitivity and improved thermal background rejection characteristics for all weather day and night operation.





> In fire-and-forget mode, the soldier activates the missile, locking the tracker on the target and pushes the Fire button to launch. The missile automatically propels itself towards the target without any additional interaction and this fire-and-forget capability allows the soldier the option of relocating to a new firing position or to reload immediately for the next engagement.





> Spike-LR is equipped with a fibre-optic data link guidance system, which sends commands to the missile from the launch system and receives, into the gunner's field of view, images from the seeker. The gunner can update his aim point while the missile is in flight using the fibre optic link. As well as update target information, the datalink allows the gunner to switch targets and also receive real-time intelligence and perform battle damage assessment. The Spike system can work in non line-of-sight (NLOS) mode allowing the gunner to operate from a covered position. Spike-LR, which can also be installed on light combat vehicles, can be used to engage tanks, armoured vehicles, hardened shelters and low flying slow targets such as helicopters.



Apparently the Fire, Observe, Update capability is available on all models except the SR - short range.  It is standard on the LR and ER versions - long and extended ranges and an option on the MR - medium range.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jun 2006)

Looks like neither is coming to the CF anytime soon....

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409.

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=fce6a269-c25a-4d0e-9569-e90ff542fbfd&k=39712


Canadian missile buy on hold
David ********, CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen, June 10, 2006

''OTTAWA -- The purchase of high-tech missiles that could be used to destroy Taliban bunkers and other fortifications is in limbo as the Conservative government focuses on the purchase of big-ticket equipment items such as transport aircraft.

The Canadian Forces has been trying for almost six years to buy the missiles, and at one point was preparing to take delivery of the new weapons in the fall of 2004. Another plan to award the contract by next month was also scuttled after the government determined the two missile manufacturers failed to meet its strict procurement rules by providing enough supporting documentation on the performance of their systems.

Now, with the Conservatives focused entirely on big-ticket items such as transport planes, ships and trucks, it's expected the Forces will not see the delivery of the missiles for several years.

"Not a lot is happening on this project now so we'll just have to wait and see," said Howie Smith, president of Ottawa-based Lansdowne Technologies. Lansdowne Technologies represents the Israeli-European consortium offering the Spike missile to Canada.

Raytheon, a U.S. company, is offering its Javelin weapon system for the Canadian military.

Smith said the Spike missile would be of use to Canadian troops in Afghanistan in their battles with insurgents, particularly if the enemy was fighting from fortified locations or caves.

"That's one of the perplexing things in all this," he said of the lack of movement on the missile project. "We thought Canada's role in Afghanistan would have put pressure on this to move forward ASAP."

The sensors on the Spike system can also be used for surveillance of targets.

British and Australian soldiers in Afghanistan are equipped with Raytheon's Javelin. The British troops have also used the heat-detection sensors on their Javelin systems to monitor insurgents.

The Canadian military focused on the Spike and Javelin missiles as weapons that could meet its needs for equipping troops with what the Armed Forces is calling an advanced lightweight anti-armor weapon system. The $194-million project would provide missiles that could be carried by light ground forces and be used to destroy tanks, trucks and bunkers.

But some defence analysts questioned the need for the program, noting the missile systems are mainly to deal with armoured vehicles and tanks, something unlikely to be encountered on battlefields in Afghanistan.

The project has also faced a number of delays. A defence review ordered by the Liberal government several years ago derailed the plan to acquire the missiles in late 2004.

Then, bids for the program were submitted last summer and the Canadian Forces expected to sign a contract with the winner by this month. But the government decided the two firms did not meet all of the procurement requirements and the competition was cancelled.

Public Works spokesman Mario Baril said the department still wants to move ahead with the project "in an expeditious manner," but it's not possible at this point to detail when that will happen. Deliveries of any missiles would take place over a two-year period from when the contract is signed.

Defence industry representatives, however, say they don't see a contract awarded until next year at the earliest. Others have suggested the project might be cancelled or restarted from scratch, prompting more delays.

Raytheon officials have said they remain interested in the project and are awaiting details from government on how it will proceed.

Smith said the European consortium offering the Spike missile remains committed to the Canadian market.

The Tories are currently preparing to move ahead on a number of big-ticket equipment items for the Canadian Forces, including the purchase of a fleet of C-17 transport aircraft. New army trucks as well as supply ships for the navy are also on that list. Estimates of the cost of those programs have gone as high as $8 billion, but government officials have stressed that no decisions have been yet taken...''
---


----------



## AmmoTech90 (10 Jun 2006)

> Public Works spokesman Mario Baril said the department still wants to move ahead with the project "in an expeditious manner," but it's not possible at this point to detail when that will happen. Deliveries of any missiles would take place over a two-year period from when the contract is signed.



Absolute BS.  In my opinion PWGSC is the organization that has held up procurement of this item.

D


----------



## ArmyRick (11 Jun 2006)

I agree. The CF should have its own procurement system that puts the soldier first and lose these public works clowns (who know what about soldiering?) out of the defence procurement picture.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 Jun 2006)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I agree. The CF should have its own procurement system that puts the soldier first and lose these public works clowns (who know what about soldiering?) out of the defence procurement picture.



Is this not on Hillier's agenda?  If not, it should be....When delayed procurement can cost lives, it's time for him to start throwing his weight around.


Matthew.


----------

