Talk:NLAW

Not effective

In this video a Ukrainian soldier says that both Javelins and NLAWS are over-hyped and explains why...

https://t.me/ukr_leaks_eng/268?embed=1&mode=tme — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.94.74 (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I shall take the *Hundreds* of videos of both weapons working against a myriad of armoured vehicles as proof otherwise. 46.208.194.232 (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Considering the NLAW went into production in 2008 I doubt the delivered examples are older than 20 years... Also Using a video of a captured Ukrainian serviceman ignoring all the other videos were Ukrainian servicemen which aren't POWs say the opposite. 94.137.127.145 (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

ARMA2

It used in ARMA2 game, but has non-realistic characteristics.--Специализация (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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/mbt_law/

  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 ^Notify_Online 10:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MBT LAW. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131103102837/http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&URL=/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040708/text/40708w16.htm to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/cgi-bin/newhtml_hl?DB=semukparl&URL=/pa/cm200304/cmhansrd/vo040708/text/40708w16.htm#40708w16.html_spnew3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MBT LAW. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100622095837/http://www.saabgroup.com/en/Land/Weapon-Systems/support-weapons/NLAW-Next-Generation-Light-Antitank-Weapon/ to http://www.saabgroup.com/en/land/weapon-systems/support-weapons/nlaw-next-generation-light-antitank-weapon/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 13:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Please help with updating the map

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have made an updated version of "A map with MBT LAW operators in blue", but I don't know how can I update an existing image. Or should I upload a new one and replace it in the article itself?

I have no idea about all that copyright stuff, and it's somewhat confusing. I just took an existing original one and painted additional area in colour to be in accordance with the current state of things and with the page content.

Here's the image: https://imgur.com/9lSWSUY

If someone could update it, I would be very grateful.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBlack1800 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Add user Ukraine?

Seeing this reported, but does anyone have a RS? 212.139.116.58 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Add Russia?

The Russian military and proxy militias in Ukraine have now captured quite a few of these units. -2003:CA:872C:5056:A89B:14B3:E99F:7F23 (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

If they didn't buy them, they aren't an Operator. BilCat (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

They captured them, so they are operator now, like it or not. BobNesh (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The Express is an unreliable source. Capture does not mean user. (Hohum ^@) 15:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Taliban captured recently US made weapons and they're now listed as users/operators. The so-called Free Syrian Army also captured some Syrian Arab Army weapons and they're also listed as users/operators. Are Russian sources with pictures and videos of captured NLAW reliable source? BobNesh (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Pictures 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. Again, capture doesn't mean use (captured items might be destroyed or already disabled/spent, sent for analysis, or just stored - also, use typically requires training). We can only say user if a source supports it. (Hohum ^@) 19:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

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 missiles are already given to and used by pro-Russian forces against Ukrainian armour. But pro-Russian sources aren't good enough for Wikipedia, even when their claims are well documented by images and video material. BobNesh (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

lmao, why then ukraine listed as operator of ak12, they also didnt buy them, they also a war trophies, typical hypocrisy double standards, just a shame that wiki becomes propaganda tool 109.105.172.99 (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

There have been multiple edits by User:Ivexxl (talk) which have been reverted by User:BilCat (talk) regarding the addition of the Donetsk People's Republic to the list of NLAW users because they have captured a number of NLAWs.

Russia is currently listed as a user because they have also captured a number of NLAWs. If the DPR cannot be listed because users must purchase or have the units donated to them, it follows that Russia should not be listed as a user either, as the NLAWs they have in their possession are a handful of units captured from Ukraine's armed forces.

Either list both or don't list either of them.

Discuss.

Xiongu (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear Xiongu I agree with you. What does the user mean? The one who is using or one who has purchased something.

Continue discuss Ivexxl (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I've currently removed the DPR as a user following the removal of Russia.

All the sources that have been provided don't actually make any claims that the captured NLAWs have been used by the DPR or Russia, and thus we can't just say they are using them. As a compromise, the fact that the units have been captured have been kept in the Combat history section.

If other equipment/vehicle pages are listing countries as users just because they captured some without any evidence of use, I would say that this is incorrect and those pages should also be changed.

Xiongu (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There are a number of Russian language sources which show that DPR & LNR forces are already training with the NLAW and Javelin missile systems: https://www.politnavigator.net/bojjcy-dnr-vzyali-na-vooruzhenie-trofejjnye-granatomjoty-nlaw.html https://ren.tv/news/v-mire/951722-voennye-dnr-nauchilis-primeniat-trofeinye-granatomety-vsu https://ok.ru/video/3490553268868 https://novorosinform.org/desantniki-rf-pokazali-zahvachennoe-oruzhie-kotoroe-peredadut-ldnr-91792.html https://iz.ru/1303516/2022-03-11/narodnaia-militciia-dnr-obnaruzhila-v-novotroitckom-protivobunkernyi-granatomet-ssha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alhl589Mhwg https://twitter.com/mod_russia/status/1503748152238694418 BobNesh (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd say add them but note that they are using captured examples.--Blockhaj (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why some editors (I'm assuming it's more than one) seem obsessed with adding Russia, but it's pretty obvious that the section is intended as a list of operators - not just militaries who've come into contact with them via one means or another. All militaries will recover enemy equipment if it's considered of interest, but that doesn't make them a user. Obscurasky (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Since they have been added to the map the reason why (or perhaps why not if it changes again) should be mentioned in the article. 149.20.204.237 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

A well referenced account is included in the 'Combat history section. There's no need for it to be included again under the 'Operators' section. Obscurasky (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Meaning of MBT LAW / NLAW

• Based on this 2002 source, it appears that the original MBT LAW meaning was Main Battle Tank and Light Armour Weapon.
• Based on this primary source (accessed per this signature's time/date) specifies that NLAW stands for Next generation Light Anti-tank Weapon.
• This conflicts with the current naming used on the page of Main Battle Tank and Light Anti-tank Weapon (MBT LAW) - note how it seems to have combined the two different terms.
• Suggest finding additional sources to confirm authoritative naming for both MBT LAW and NLAW (and maybe the two terms shouldn't even be used interchangeably like they currently are?).

MHLoppy (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The only source I have seen that refers to the NLAW as the "MBT LAW" is army-technology.com, which is on {{Wikipedia:BLACKLIST}} as of April 2015. Everyone else, including the official websites of the British and Finnish armed forces, and the manufacturer SAAB AB refer to it exclusively as the NLAW.

Xiongu (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

With regards to it being called the MBT LAW, this source specifically says "Main Battle Tank Light Anti-Armour Weapon (MBT LAW) (formerly NLAW)". I'm not sure what's up with the terminology of NLAW vs MBT LAW. I'm really struggling to figure out, at a glance, which sources are adequately reliable vs not though. Leafing through search reuslts, I've noticed there's a 2013 Wikimedia Common photo that refers to it as the MBT LAW as well.

In any case, my original comment was more intended to be about what both MBT LAW and NLAW actually stood for. The current version of the Wikipedia page is saying that MBT LAW stands for Main Battle Tank and Light Anti-tank Weapon, whereas most external sources say that MBT LAW stands for Main Battle Tank and Light Armor Weapon. MHLoppy (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@MHLoppy: It's a little bit confusing indeed; the weapon which SAAB entered the UK NLAW-programme with in 2001, was called MBT LAW - it seems like, internationally, this weapon got its name from the programme (NLAW) whereas in the UK, its designation is actually still MBT LAW, according to both the SAAB's website and your source. From what I've found, there are a few valuable sources to look at here:

• First off, we've got the blacklisted site https://www.army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/ (I've requested this article to be whitelisted) claiming that MBT LAW stands for "Main Battle Tank and Light Armour Weapon" (and the NLAW-programme "Next-generation Light Anti-tank Weapon").
• Another source only mentions that the weapon was called MBT LAW, but writes the NLAW-programme as "Next Generation Light Anti-Armour Weapon" but then the weapon itself as "Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon".
• Your source claims that MBT LAW stands for "Main Battle Tank Light Anti-Armour Weapon".
• Two old SAAB videos from around the trials in 2001 one and two, calls the NLAW-programme "Next Generation Light Anti-Armour Weapon" while the weapon itself is called "MBT LAW" - since MBT LAW is written in the same context, is the 'LAW' in 'MBT LAW' then also 'Light Anti-Armour'? However, the SAAB website calls the weapon "Next generation Light Anti-tank Weapon", but, as previously noted, claims it's known as MBT LAW in the UK.

Judging from this, it seems like the current "Main Battle Tank and Light Anti-tank Weapon" should be changed (like you're saying, it's probably a weird combination) to either "Main Battle Tank and Light Armour Weapon" or "Main Battle Tank Light Anti-Armour Weapon" (I think the last one holds the most support judging from the sources above; maybe even with an 'and' to distinguish the space in MBT LAW). NLAW should be "Next generation Light Anti-tank Weapon" according to SAAB (and the title of the article), in my opinion, without the capital G as is currently written in the lede. Or we could just have only NLAW displayed in its fullest "Next generation Light Anti-tank Weapon", and keep the UK "MBT LAW" and Sweden "RB-57" but have their full designations (with all their alternatives) written in footnotes instead; this would also shorten the lede. Imonoz (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

"RD cost" ?

For the USD price, the article gives it "including RD cost". What is "RD cost"? RD isn't defined here, or it seems in the Deagel ref given. If we mean "research and development" we should say that (and link it, and reference it). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 14:43, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed the RD cost due to it not making sense, plus the fact that the source didn't have the figure anywhere.

Xiongu (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Anglo-Swedish

While the system was developed in Sweden by Bofors, manufacturing takes place entirely in the UK, and the overview section makes multiple mentions of the system being a collaboration between British and Swedish companies, as well as the British Ministry of Defence. As such I think the term ‘Anglo-Swedish’ is an appropriate description of the weapon, rather than just ‘Swedish’ or ‘British.’ 2A02:C7E:2C10:4900:CDE:1729:2A04:1CBD (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Concur. Further, the source being used by another IP to exclude the UK does mention the UK's involvement, and is an unreliable source, as it is self-published amd accepts user submissions. BilCat (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

First off, the author of this article is clearly stated further down, being Miguel Miranda, one of the 5 core-members of Military-Today; this is not a "user submission", and absolutely not by me (I also added 2 other sources, for the record). Secondly, this is not the only self-published website used here, but one of few that actually specializes on weapons. Thirdly, Military-Today is widely used on weapon-related articles on Wikipedia, such as: BTR-80; Peugeot P4; BMPT Terminator; GAZ-66; MILAN, and many more. While Thales is mentioned in the M-T article, it is not listed as a country of origin, so this is not a question of having forgotten. Furthermore, it claims that this weapon is Saab's product—information that is not yet stated in this Wikipedia article (where exactly in the infobox should we list the supplier/owner?) Also, my agenda was not to remove the UK from origins, it was to cite as many figures in the infobox as I could; the UK just happened to not be listed as one (and would thus be unsourced). As we know, mostly UK companies, but also an American company (Raytheon Technologies), took part in the manufacturing process; should we include the US in place of origin too? And finally, why aren't neither SAAB nor Thales mentioned in the lede, and who's the developer and who's the manufacturer? Why is it better to be less specific and just write "joint British-Swedish", than to involve the companies and their involvement? 81.224.71.102 (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Guidance system

What type of guidance system used by NLAW? The Gentle Daffodil (talk) 03:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I added the information.The Gentle Daffodil (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Use of the NLAW by Saudi Arabia and in Yemen

The Royal Saudi Land Forces are currently listed as a user of the NLAW, and the infobox says that it has seen use in the Yemeni Civil War (2015–present), Saudi Arabian–led intervention in Yemen, and the Houthi–Saudi Arabian conflict.

None of the above claims have any references to back them up, nor are they mentioned anywhere else in the article. A quick search failed to turn up any reliable-looking sources except for this Forbes article, which simply name-drops Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and looks like a possible case of circular reporting via Wikipedia.

Incidentally, this same article is also used as a source for the name "MBT LAW", which is noted in the edit which added it to also have a chance of being circular reporting as well.

Xiongu (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the Saudi Arabia user and Yemen conflict claims from the article. Xiongu (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 16 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Next generation Light Anti-tank Weapon → NLAW – I have noticed that many similar weapon-articles uses the abbreviation; such as M72 LAW, FGM-172 SRAW, LAW 80, FGM-148 Javelin, MPATGM, etc (look here). Furthermore, most of the NLAW Wikipedia-articles in other languages uses the abbreviation "NLAW". I suspect that it's also more common for someone to type "NLAW" into Google, etc, and not "Next generation Light Anti-tank Weapon" (if that even matters) - it's even more problematic to have the full name as title, since there's also the "Next Generation Light Anti-Armour Weapon" version of the name. I guess one downside of having the abbreviation is that it is easier to confuse it with another weapon; but that's why the article already says "Not to be confused with M72 LAW", right? I'm of course willing to fix all the redirects a move will cause, if it goes through. Imonoz (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that having the page title be NLAW rather than the full name is a good idea. As you mentioned, articles covering similar weapon systems are generally titled with the abbreviation, and whenever anyone mentions the weapon they almost invariably just call it the NLAW.

Xiongu (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Yep. Schierbecker (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support - yes the full name can be put in bold in the lede. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose 1) as unncessary - NLAW already redirects to this article and Bing and Google bring up this article if you search on "NLAW", 2) Other language wikis have no bearing on naming policy for EnWiki.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Suppose per WP:COMMONNAME. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The common practice in English is to mention the full text first, followed by the abbreviation. Then use the abbreviation for the rest of the text. There is a redirect that links here so it makes no difference to those searching for the article.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I do think that it is slightly problematic when there are two possible names for the "NLAW"—"Next generation Light Anti-tank Weapon" and "Next Generation Light Anti-Armour Weapon" (both supported by reliable sources; e.g., the latter by the British Major Projects Report)—but only one of them is used in the title. Would it not be better to just go for "NLAW" in this case? Imonoz (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The relevant policy is MOS:ACROTITLE. Acronyms are not prohibited. We have pages like NASA. Schierbecker (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Suppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME. BilCat (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Google News results for the last week:
  • "NLAW" -Wikipedia when:7d 21
  • "Next generation Light Anti-tank Weapon" -Wikipedia when:7d 7
  • "Next generation Light Anti-Armour Weapon" -Wikipedia when:7d 1

   —Michael Z. 15:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Clearly now the common name Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Холодноярівська піхота знищила російський танк Т-80 03.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Units produced

As you might have guessed, the 10,000 produced NLAWs (Deagel) is most likely not enough. According to the German article, 24,150+ units has been produced; the source used is Sipri (check Sweden and the UK as suppliers; 2002-2021; missiles - and you will get the data on a file). My question is, how do we cite a source when there is a file to download? I would like to swap the old "10,000+" number for "24,150+" according to German article/Sipri (+ the source for Indonesian units), but I don't know how to properly cite the source. I would appreciate your help. Imonoz (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Top attack picture

The Finnish NLAW top attack picture is just fireworks, not a genuine warhead explosion. I took that picture, and the BMP was not damaged with audience less than a hundred meters away. Should this be made more clear? MKFI (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps something like "Finnish soldiers using fireworks to demonstrate the OTA-mode on a BMP-2" could work in this article? Maybe this should also be made clearer in the original file information too. Imonoz (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I have edited the file description. MKFI (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Place of origin

Is not Switzerland, that is claimed in the infobox. It was designed by Swedish Bofors for Swedish and British needs, and it is mainly manufactured in the United Kingdom. I found no sources that really maintain that Switzerland does anything more than buying and using the weapon. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 10:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

They now make the warhead, probably as part of the purchase agreement, but that doesn't make them an original nation. And if they're blocking export to Ukraine, they probably won't make them for much longer. BilCat (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

See https://www.srf.ch/news/international/waffenlieferungen-an-ukraine-schweizer-gefechtskoepfe-gegen-russische-panzer regarding the legal status. Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about whether Switzerland is an originator of the weapon - the warhead is a pretty key component, but they aren't the designer or leaders of the joint venture.

In the short term, the block probably won't make much difference, as countries are likely sending their oldest, soonest to expire inventory, and will buy new inventory to restock. Also, the Swiss position may change according to the flow of politics.

Not that it's being proposed, but I don't think the warhead shipment ban should be mentioned (yet), it's essentially current affairs, and the effects aren't yet known. (Hohum ^@) 21:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is now exceptionally forbidden to re-export newly made Swiss weapon components to Ukraine or Russia as the reference states. As long as there's no alternate source, Switzerland must be kept as one of the origins. If a different version is developed and the original one is still made, Switzerland must remain. Someone removed Switzerland, which is wrong. Any component maker/developer can be considered an origin, not just the main contractor, especially if export is blocked. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The infobox instruction for "origin" is "the country or place where the weapon originated or was first manufactured." The ban has no effect on originator or first manufacture. (Hohum ^@) 22:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The warhead doesn't make Switzerland a place of origin. The source you've cited clear the places of origin. From the source:

Entwickelt hat sie der Rüstungskonzern Saab, die Endfertigung erfolgt in Grossbritannien. Sie gilt als eine der effizientesten Waffen ihrer Art. Und ist teilweise «made in Switzerland»: Der Gefechtskopf kommt aus dem Berner Oberland, hergestellt von Saab Bofors Dynamics Switzerland Ltd. Das Unternehmen bestätigt das auf Anfrage. (Emphasis mine.)

Since I don't read German, this is the Google Translation: "It was developed by the armaments company Saab, with final production taking place in Great Britain. It is considered one of the most efficient weapons of its kind. And it is partly "made in Switzerland": The warhead comes from the Bernese Oberland, manufactured by Saab Bofors Dynamics Switzerland Ltd. The company will confirm this upon request." (Emphais mine.) BilCat (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The ban does have an effect on customers or main contractors, new component stock cannot be re-exported to these countries for now. It's not even obvious that the warhead can simply be made elsewhere to avoid the ban, as it was likely developed in Switzerland (area of expertise). Trigenibinion (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Talking about the ban is a red herring, it makes no difference to what the template instructions require. (Hohum ^@) 22:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I would say the template instructions are wrong. One would likely have to add the US as origin to any non-ITAR-free item. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. I do support mentioning the ban in the article, as it is likely to have an effect. As to replacing the warhead, it's not like the principles involved are unknown to other manufacturers, or even to Swedish Saab. It may take several years, but anything can be replaced, given enough time. BilCat (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not mean that a new warhead could not be developed, I simply noted that avoiding the ban might not simply involve recreating the production line elsewhere. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it's generally done in infoboxes. Engines are very important to an aircraft, but the engine's country of origin isn't included in an aircraft's infobox, such as the Saab Gripen, which uses American engines (GE F404 and F414). We're not likely to change the infobox instructions simply to accommodate Switzerland on on article. BilCat (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems like WP:RECENTISM or WP:CRYSTAL to include the ban at the moment. Its wider effects are currently unknown, and the reporting on it is slim. (Hohum ^@) 22:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

In civilian planes a distinction between the airframe and engines is made, so that would be a poor example. A better one are all the American chips in European goods. As some things contain componenents from many different countries, I would say that when something is known to fall under export controls, it should be noted. It is not just about Switzerland. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Bills example was fine. I can't even make sense of yours. (Hohum ^@) 23:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The Gripen would be listed with US origin too because it falls under ITAR, not because it is a plane with American engines. Some ITAR-free items contain American components. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, export controls have never been used to determine "origin" in Wikipedia infoboxes, and shouldn't be. You're welcome to disagree, but the consensus here is against it. You can take up the issue at WT:MIL and WT:AIR, but I don't think you'll accomplish anything. BilCat (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Besides the export controls, the warhead is a major component of a missile. It is similar to your Gripen example. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It's an important part, but we don't list the country of origin for parts, just for the primary country were the whole product originates, as defined in the infobox instructions. That's generally the country of the prime contractor(s) and/or final manufacturer, in this case Sweden and the UK. BilCat (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

That was already mentioned and I said I think it's wrong before. If you want to buy an European fighter, first choice is Rafale, second Eurofighter, and third Gripen. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

However, a buyer can develop their own integrations on the Gripen E. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The Gripen engine is licensed built in Sweden, it is also a modified version of a GE engine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_RM12 so it is not directly relatable. Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the Gripen E has an all-American engine. Trigenibinion (talk) 00:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The F404, used in the Gripen A-D, is licensed as the RM12 and built in Sweden, but it still uses some American-built components. BilCat (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Should update users to include Russia, DNR, LNR

There are many photos and videos of NLAW captured by Russians in eastern Ukraine.

136.143.218.208 (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

"Users" on Wikipedia generally means licensed and legal operators who have purchased or acquired the item in question legally from the manufacturer or distributer. Captured weapons, especially small arms and small missiles, generally aren't included in that, for various reasons. We generally list such weapons in the body, but they shouldn't be listed as Operators or Users in lists. BilCat (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Wrong! Ukraine is listed as Kornet and BMD-4 operator just for capturing it. The Taliban didn't purchase or acquired the item in question legally from the manufacturer or distributor. Yet, they are listed as operators of various Western made military equipment. Iran will be added as NLAW operator as well, because they are now in possession of it as reliable Western sources say:

https://news.sky.com/story/russia-gave-eur140m-and-captured-western-weapons-to-iran-in-return-for-deadly-drones-source-claims-12741742

17:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC) BobNesh (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Well at least provide a link to the Videos, there is a serious attempt by Russian supporters to claim that lots of western equipment is being captured without any real evidence of this, Wikipedia is not a place for anyone propaganda. Even if a few 10s have fallen into Russianhands that not significant enough to make users of the type mentioned here.Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Because reliable Western (British) media source (Sky News) confirmed, Russia and Iran will be added as NLAW operators as well, because they are now in possession of it:

https://news.sky.com/story/russia-gave-eur140m-and-captured-western-weapons-to-iran-in-return-for-deadly-drones-source-claims-12741742

18:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC) BobNesh (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Surely there should be some difference made between a country fielding captured equipment(such as Ukraine using bmd4s and t90s in combat regiments) and a country capturing equipment only to send it back to reverse engineer it, I doubt any Russian soldiers will use NLAWs as suppose to Ukrainians which normally use any and all equipment they can get ahold of (then Ukraine should be cited as users of captured Russian drones (Orlan 10,Lastochka-M https://defence-blog.com/ukrainian-troops-capture-secret-russias-drone//)) or even cited as users of Russian EW systems captured(https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44879/ukraine-just-captured-part-of-one-of-russias-most-capable-electronic-warfare-systems).

Until there are videos of Russian soldiers firing NLAWS then they should not be cited as users even though it is known they have captured a few. 94.137.127.145 (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That link doesn't say either Russia or Iran are an operator, it says some have been sent to Iran, by Russia, probably to be used for reverse engineering. (Hohum ^@) 20:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC

NLAW

Most of the info on this wikipedia page is false. The description is about AT-4, an anti-armour non-reusable, cheap and light weapon. NLAW belongs to the most powerful ANTI-TANK MISSILE WEAPONS. Definately reusable and definately not shoot and leave behind. Since the range is 1000 m it's meant for guerilla warfare. It makes more damage than the Javelin but the Javelin has a range up to 2400 meters so with a Javelin you can set up a station and start fire. NLAWs and Javelins belong to the same group and they complement eachother. Both NLAWs and AT-4 are swedish inventions but I'm so tired of people misunderstanding and mixing the facts about them. 2A00:801:233:8700:622F:309C:8816:82E5 (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Provide something to support this because and provide some examples where the claims made in the article are not backed up with references. Otherwise it appears you don't know what you are talking about.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The description of the NLAW you are providing sounds like how the weapon works in Arma 2. The depiction of the NLAW in that game is inaccurate. In-game it lacks Predicted Line-Of-Sight (PLOS) guidance (only being capable of direct fire without guidence), and can be reloaded.

In reality, the NLAW is a single-use missile system. The launcher is discarded after use. The warhead has an inertial guidance system that allows the launcher to automatically 'lead' a moving target based on the rotation rate of the launcher in the last few seconds before firing.

Furthermore, the AT4 is not even a missile launcher, it is a recoilless gun with an effective range of only 300-500 m (although the 84 mm projectile can technically fly for 2.1 km - the NLAW's missile will self-destruct after about 6 seconds of flight time, after which it will have flown about 1 km).

Xiongu (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

IMU manufacturer

the reference to BAE Systems as provider for the NLAW IMU is incorrect. The designer and manufacturer of the unit (SiLMU01 is the company item designation for actual unit) is Collins Aerospace (now Collins Raytheon in its latest form) based in Plymouth, UK. Please UNDO changes to the correct version that was shown in the past. I was previously involved 'hands on' in the production process of the units for many years! See here for independent reference:

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/goodrich-inertial-sensor-for-anti-tank-weapon-system/ 77.103.121.211 (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)