Talk:FGM-148 Javelin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warhead weight[edit]

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)[reply]

Removed reference[edit]

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)[reply]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

.


Beware of Unreliable Sources[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

.

Ghost Recon[edit]

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)[reply]
"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[reply]

Javelin VS old T-54/55s and T-62s[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:NZ Javelin wn06031149tn.JPG[edit]

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)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jav-Launch.JPG[edit]

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)[reply]

Call of Duty 4 - popular culture refferences?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
True dat. Thanks man Paul5121 (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROC/Taiwan[edit]

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)[reply]

Development Test and Evaluation (DT&E) paragraphs[edit]

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.

Last sentence of Disadvantages doesn't make any sense[edit]

I agree. I think it may be saying that a hit from a Javelin doesn't reliably kill a tank - but I may be wrong. The sentence certainly looks like it was written by someone with an inadequate knowlege of English. Roger (talk)

As tanks has reactive explosive armor to defend against incomming missles, basicly they would explode the outer layer of the tank before inner layer gets blown away, Javelin actually has dual type of impact. First it will actually explode outside, then use molten copper to penetrate inside the tank (raising on the same time the inside of the tank to over 4000 celciusinstanteinleusly), not to mention, it can be used as direct, or balistic range, making it hit the thinner topside armor instead the heavy sides, how it is not effective tank killer? [1](80.186.62.54 (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

References

  1. ^ Future Weapons : No escape

Incoherent[edit]

This article is almost obnoxiously detailed. Every section needs to be cut down to clear, concise thoughts. I already did this with the Propulsion section, which previously included sentences like "The launch motor initiator ignites the launch motor igniter, which then ignites the launch motor propellant grain." This is confusing and overly detailed. It could be covered by simply saying, "When the missile is fired, an igniter starts the launch motor." Even then, we're only interested because of the design of the igniter, which is mentioned later. Aubri (talk) 02:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Incoherent" and "obnoxiously detailed" is not the same thing. The detail does not make it incomprehensible to someone with good English reading ability, thus the "Incoherent" tag is not correct. Roger (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was the closest one I could find. Which tag should I have used? Aubri (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE> The JAVELIN has not been bought by Mexico. Many have made this report based on identification of the MILAN launchers on Mexican armored vehicles in parades. JackEHammond


.

Within a building?[edit]

At one point in the article it says that the Javelin can be fired from within a building but at another point it says the Javelin can't be. Does anyone have a reference to fix this contradiction? Noha307 (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Never mind, I read the article wrong. Noha307 (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, the Javelin can easily be fired within a building. That was one of the two big reasons that the weight of the Javelin went through the roof. Ford Aerospace had no problems meeting that standard as the missile was fired horizontally and could coast before the sustainer motor kicked in, but not so the TI and Hughes candidates which are fired at an approximate 45% angle. Hughes Aircraft solved the problem by having an inboard gas generator on the missile frame that blowed over the four control surfaces at the rear; Texas Instrument uses thrust vectoring shortly after launch till speed is obtained where the flight controls can guide the missile. The two items the US Army added at "the last minute" which had they not would have kept the Javelin weight and cost a lot less than it is today: 1> Soft launch and 2> the requirement that the command launch unit have a separate IR day/night sighting ability -- ie the US Army told TI and Hughes originally stated they would settle for the gunner obtaining and locking the target using the missile FLIR seeker. Really caused a cat-fight behind closed doors between the US Army and TI/Hughes (the Marines said they would settle for the lighter option, and the US Army told them to shut up and stay out this dispute). Here is a photo of the original TI AAWS-M candidate before the US Army added those two requirements. You can easily see why the weight and size of the control unit went out of bounds. But at that time, the main threat was a war with Russia, and the US Army wanted the ability for non-armored/mechanized -- ie light infantry -- to have a 200% antitank capability. Today, those two features are not that important. But then, no one expected the USSR to eat dust so fast. Btw, the Japanese adopted the TI concept -- before the big change was ordered -- for their first 3rd generation antitank missile. It is a lot lighter and a LOT cheaper. The production units even looks like the photo. Btw, apologizes for the small size of the photo. I scanned it from PR material given me by TI and back then everyone was still using telephone connection speeds - ie yes I am old. <GRIN> --Jackehammond (talk) 09:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • FM3-06.11 says it's safe to fire such weapons indoors, even in scenarios where they cause structural damage to the building in the process. 7-5 section b, part 2. Javelin just requires less preparation work to be performed on the structure. Herr Gruber (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag templates[edit]

I applied the wiki flag templates to the users section. They are simpler to use for editors that aren't familiar with the country codes. In addition, this is more consistent because most other weapon articles use the wiki flag templates, not country codes. ROG5728 (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger I have checked all the flags with out references and found only one that was not listed: Saudi Arabia. My reference to the TWDA 2010 only confirms that those countries have ordered or received the Javelin - ie not the statements post by others that so many launch units and missiles ordered. Just so there is no misunderstanding if someone comes along later and claims that X-country did not order that many or that it ordered more than stated. The one exception is France and the numbers they ordered recently, which even took me by surprise and I checked out with a private source. France did order the Javelin for Afghanistan in the number stated. It seems the launch unit itself with its excellent night and bad weather over watch ability is in high demand. The missiles are just icing on the cake. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redeployability of the launcher[edit]

What i havent seen is the information of the launcher mechanism itself... Is the launcher redeployable itself or is it the case, you fire it once and receve and huge cheap paperweight? Can you reload the launcher with secondary missle? (80.186.62.54 (talk) 10:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The missile container is disposable after the missile is launched. The control unit is reusable -- ie and it is very, VERY expensive. Jack

--Jackehammond (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Price Tag[edit]

Any reliable info on the price tag? The figure in the article appears to be wrong,

one of the more reliable figures is "Each launcher costs: $143358.03. Each missile costs: $86014.80." that is mentioned on several pages on the internet.Egh0st (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two points[edit]

Firstly this article is massive. Not that I'm complaining at the wealth of information but maybe someone should look at splitting some of the segments off into separate articles or even trimming some information. Secondly, I have a suggestion for MORE content; [Translate of AftenPost wikileaks Javelin Article]. Perhaps the rust problems could be added to the disadvantages list with some note about the longevity of the system in storage being a problem. This is obviously a factor for some operators who go a long time between conflicts / acquisitions.--Senor Freebie (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Less propaganda please.....[edit]

Like all US produced product Javelin has more bark then bite. Going out and attacking blowing up 60 year old Soviet tanks or even worse bad copies of Soveit tanks, and then declaring the superiority of american machinery is very stupid, and could prehaps entertain kids and idiots who have no understanding of what they are seeing. I see it all over the place and it's sad. Javelin is a good system at best maximum range is 1500-2000m. At this range many problems exist as the processor uses terrain to ascertain where the target is, many confusion systems can be made to make the missile miss the target if it doesent do it by itself. With comparison to Russian Kornet E which has a range of 5,500m or 5.5km with deadly results showin in Iraq where Abrams were DESTROYED not disabeled,along with the Bradleys. Again the war of the words destroyed and disabeled are very different words. American military tends to use disabeled alot instaed of destroyed, due to the impact the last word has.

Merkava4 tanks which is probably the best armored tank in the world at the moment according to Izraeli sources has been hit by Kornet E and destroyed along with Marks 3 and 45 other izraeli tanks during hezlobah/izrael conflict. Again words "disabeled" here will be used more then Destroyed because of the effect it has. Furtehrmore Korent E gives the operator an opprotunity to change the trajectory of the missile for whatever reason and this cannot be done with Javelin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.94.73 (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/javelin/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FGM-148 Javelin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Citation Need" first paragraph[edit]

The footnote item 9 covers the "citation needed" someone added to the end of the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.131.146.228 (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on FGM-148 Javelin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on FGM-148 Javelin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that expensive?[edit]

Under disadvantages the FGM-148 is said to cost about $204,000 in 2004 for the Missile and CLU, With the Missile costing 78,000$ a piece. and the CLU costing 126,000$ Apparently that's considered costly... But in comparison to the other purpose built anti tank missiles in the US military arsenal. I found the cost for the M220 and a BGM-71 TOW missile was about 150,000$ for the launcher and 30,000$ a piece for the missile. And vehicle and air to ground missiles like the AGM-114 cost 117,000$ a piece (along with an aircraft that cost a few million to build and a few thousand for every hour of flight) and about 120,000$ for the AGM-65 Maverick (with similar platform costs). I couldn't find any reliable source on the cost of similar missiles like the SPIKE or Kornet compared to the Javelin but i doubt the Javelin is extremely expensive within the context of ATGMs. It seems like a conclusion that someone would come to without being very knowledgeable on the subject and just looking at the big numbers.


ThirstySexpert (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of using 15 year old references[edit]

The reference for the Javelin missile's price is way off. A Google search of up to date fiscal year unit cost, which I will link in a future post, shows the missile to cost significantly more per unit. In acquisitions of military technologies prices can fluctuate, sometimes severely. 15 year old sorces are too old unless production ended soon after that date. Stevenyeadon (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FGM[edit]

What does the acronym FGM mean? Thank you, Maikel (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a designation. See 1963 United States Tri-Service missile and drone designation system for a list of the designation codes. Basically, F = Portable, man-carried (I've no idea why an F!), G = Surface-attack, meaning the target is on the ground, and M = Guided missile. BilCat (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you! Maikel (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no detailed explanation why electricity batteries are needed[edit]

There is no detail explanation of the battery life and of the total weight of these batteries (neither in French Wikipedia) --Wisdood (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nor should there be, this is an encyclopedia not a technical manual. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Russia and DPR/LPR as operators?[edit]

The Russians have now captured quite a lot of these units and distributed them to the proxy militias of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. -2003:CA:874F:BB64:FD2D:4813:509E:C2ED (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. BilCat (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! Since Ukraine is already listed as the operator of BMD-4 just for capturing it, we should avoid double standards and add Russia as operator. Even Twitter post is used as good source on BMD-4 page. On the other hand, captured Western anti-tank missile systems are already given to and used by pro-Russian forces against Ukrainian armour. BobNesh (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. Ad-hoc users aren't usually listed. The BMD-4 appears to be an exception. They aren't legal users, have no warranty, etc. The double standard is listing Russia when other captured-item users or thieves aren't listed. BilCat (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, yes. The so-called Free Syrian Army was listed as user of the weapons they captured from the Syrian Arab Army. The Taliban are listed as operators of American gear that they captured last year. They also aren't legal users (whatever that means), they also don't have a warranty. Javelins aren't looted, they're like NLAWs, prize of war. BobNesh (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainians have no warranty neither as they are receiving equipment made in 2000-2005, while the warranty period is 15 years. 89.179.65.214 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of Russian language sources which show that LNR & DPR forces are already training with the Javelin and NLAW missile systems:

BobNesh (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures and video aren't good sources since they need verification of authenticity and interpretation by an expert - i.e. a reliable secondary source - like a respected military analyst, etc. Capture doesn't mean use (captured items might be destroyed or already disabled/spent, sent for analysis, featured in propaganda, or just stored. We can only say user if a reliable source says it. Twitter and youtube videos don't make that grade afaik. (Hohum @) 20:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User is some one who possesses the item and has an ability to use. Russians own it and can use it. They even got a Russian MoD's issued Javelin Operator's Guider. Don't try to argue obvious facts. 89.179.65.214 (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]



51:15 / 51:43


xd https://rutube.ru/video/92f91afe5c3243e42754f64dec28f93e/ FGM-148 Javelin three shots from Javelin to YouTube) from two bloggers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.15.113.31 (talk) 09:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum range[edit]

Anyone have a source for the minimum range (the missile has an arming delay to prevent blowing oneself up with it). I found a 1997 source that gives the range as 65–2,000 m.[1]:252 —Michael Z. 18:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of cited material[edit]

Nanev1976 (talk · contribs) has now twice removed material about the popular reaction to the deployment of the Javelin in Ukraine that is supported by numerous citations from reliable sources. Instead of reverting them a second time, I will invite them to bring the discussion here. — The Anome (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

did isis use javelins?[edit]

I saw a article of this but I don't know how credible it is - https://www.businessinsider.com/isis-javelin-2017-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheerio fujisaki (talk • contribs) 06:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Russia, Iran, DPR, and LPR to operators[edit]

Just because there is no videos showing the javelin being used in combat by Russia or Iran, they have still captured it or have it in their inventory which means that it should be added. Just like the BMD-4 page and others, Ukraine is listed as an operator even though they aren’t confirmed to be using it in combat. Just by the fact it’s captured, means it should be featured.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1123241859

No double standards please!!! 2600:1014:B053:C79E:508A:9191:3632:C322 (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is stopping you from adding them yourself, provided that you cite reliable sources to verify that it is used by the countries in question. Loafiewa (talk) 20:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IP: Captured equipment does not an operator make, neither does incidental use, especially with small firearms. We need reliable sources that report the systemic use of such equipment. Russia isn't going to order more Javelins when they run out of captured ones, so they really aren't an operator. BilCat (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if you think that, then that applies to ukraine as well
"Ukraine isn't going to order more T-90s when they run out of captured ones, so they really aren't a operator" Cheerio fujisaki (talk) 19:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general, yes, but the circumstances may differ in that case. There are cases where it would be added, but so far that hasn't been shown here. What is needed is multiple reliable and neutral sources that treat those nations as operators. BilCat (talk) 04:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

missile diameter corrected[edit]

Missile diameter is 127 mm, not 142 mm.

[2]https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/javelin/

216.165.196.231 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FGM-148_Javelin&oldid=1219032079"