Talk:Spike (missile)

Fourth Generation?

I've never heard of 4th gen ATGMs. The latest is the third generation after manual guidance, SACLOS and now, Fire and Forget. If this 4th gen is a marketing designation, it should be removed. ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 01:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. RaptorR3d (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC) but its still here96.238.129.49 (talk) 09:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Price?

That price of $4000 per missile and $6000 per launch unit is surely wrong. The reference page has probably confused the Rafael's Spike and the US shoulder-launched Spike(http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=887). The real price is a lot higher as for example Spanish Army paid $424.5 million for 2,600 SPIKE-LR missiles and 260 launchers missile systems (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/spike-missiles-for-spain-04420/). I was told in the Finnish army (I was a gunner in a Spike team) that the price is around 80,000 € per missile and 400,000 € per launch unit.(http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=887) (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/spike-missiles-for-spain-04420/) --Insssi (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Intended price was $5000; according to a now 10 year old article the intended price was $10 000 for combination launcher + missile. However the acquisition costs for Italy was about 1 million euros per launcher and 10 missiles, which is the usual ratio. However that's just what they're selling them for, who the hell knows what the manufacturing cost is, and moreover they charged the Spanish more than they charged the Italians. Ancholm (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Spike/Gil not with Mexico

Folks,

I have checked various sources and none indicate that Israel has sold either the Spike or Gil to Mexico. As reports that Mexico has taken delivery of the Javelin. I have not removed that reference because maybe the person who did post that entry has information that has not been made public.

Jackehammond (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Price of Gil/Spike

Folks,

All reports indicate that many nations have adopted the Gil/Spike because it is far cheaper than the US JAVELIN. The last reports state that the JAVELIN missile is approximately $153,000 each and the launcher unit is approximately $200,000 to $250,000.

Jackehammond (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Mis-information and deletions, etc

Folks,

I am not going to get these cat fights and other silly games. I have been on the internet and have found they are not worth.

But for some reason, someone want to keep changing things back to miss information that will probably go around the internet as fact in future conflicts.

But for the record, the Israelis designers have stated they used the Hughes AAWS-M candidate as their concept for the Gil/Spike.

And Mexico has not adopted either the JAVELIN or the Gil/Spike.

And in no way shape or forum is the Russian 9M123 Khrizantema or US SRAW similar to the Gil/Spike or the Kornet as some claim. Their guidance systems are totally different and not related.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message.

Jackehammond (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Jack, I've mostly fixed the article but the part about the Hughes AAWS-M is still confounding me, care to help me a bit here? *grin* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  

• Dave, I know you are not a fan of forums, but this "article" I put together a long time ago explains the US Army's AAWS-M program which resulted in the Javelin. That program included three proof-of-principle systems. One was by Hughes Aircraft-Missile Division which used fiber optic guidance and a FLIR seeker. Hughes Aircraft had earlier developed the first Fiber Optic proof of principle using a converted TOW missile launched in the vertical mode. ALL of today's 3rd generation guided antitank missiles use technology and concepts developed by that 1980s US Army AAWS-M program (ie the famous Russian Kornet antitank missile system is based on the Ford Aerospace AAWS-M candidate). The Japanese even used a paper study "offered" to the US Army by one major defence contractor for the AAWS-M proof of concept contest to develop a much cheaper fire and forget antitank missile!!! The Israeli SPIKE is nothing more than a development of the Hughes Aircraft AAWS-M proof of concept candidate (check the photos of the Hughes AAWS-M control unit and the one for the Spike - notice something?). Just as the MAPTAS is nothing more than a development of the TOW with the wire guidance replaced with laser beam riding. It is a lot like the German Mauser rifle in the late 1980s and 1900s. Everyone and his mother developed versions of the Mauser for their armies (ie the US Springfield is a Mauser development although the US Army did the right thing and paid a royalty fee to the Germans) but everyone claimed that their new rifle had nothing to do with the German Mauser. If you have a chance check that "article" out and scroll down through the sections. At the four of fifth section you will see the photo/brochures that the three firms that won the AAWS-M proof of contest contracts, including three by Hughes Aircraft. The Israelis probably thought none of those brochures and photos still exists. But I have some very old files. GRIN Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  

• Jack, I've seen the photo before and was wondering why it seem so familiar when compared to the LCU of the Spike... I also noticed they differ only in the way that the optics/sights were arranged in, the Hughes AAWS-M has the TI on top and sights below while the Spike's LCU had it arranged in reverse. Not to mention that the missile body and weight, are identical as well. If I may ask, do you seriously think that there is a possibility that RAFAEL had gained some insight into the AAWS-M program prior to designing the Spike? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  

Dave IMHO YES. It is to much to believe Israel came up with all that on their own (just as it would be on the MAPTAS). Remember for a while Israel got suspended from IR technology conferences over using technology they were told about and either not paying royalties or passing them on to countries the US did not wish them to (South Africa and China) or even both. BTW, there is a dispute about whether weapons like the Javelin and Spike are 3rd or 4th generation. I am of the opinion they are 3rd generation (ie manual guided to line of sight wire guided antitank missile; semi-automatic line of sight guided antitank missiles; today's self guided and laser homing/beam riding antitank guided missiles. Those that believe there is four generations insert tube launched antitank missiles after the 2nd generation. Just curious. You keep the vandals and barbarians under control - GRIN!?!? Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Dave I notice you use the term LCU (ie launch control unit). Is that the term that Israel uses in its brochures, etc? The most common term today is CLU (ie command launch unit). Just curious. - Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Jack, I stand corrected after looking through EuroSpike GmbH's webstite. BTW, the latest member - Mini Spike is a tad too similar to the NAWC/DRS's Spike missile in concept, wouldn't you agree? *grin* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 08:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Rafael unveils new long-range Spike missile

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/25/335463/rafael-unveils-new-long-range-spike-missile.html Rafael is also offering the weapon for export, starting with the Spike family's existing 18 customers. --Flayer (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Mini-Spike (not to be confused with Spike SR)

http://defense-update.com/photos/mini_spike.html --Flayer (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Azerbaijan order for Spike

Folks,

Azerbaijan has been listed a few times as a user of the SPIKE on this WP article and then reverted. While I do not have a reliable source, Azerbaijan in the last few years has placed huge arms orders with Israel. Artillery rockets and UAV systems from Israel being shown on military parades in that country. So their might be something to there claims and it is not being listing as a matter of vandalism. But again, it is only rumors.

--Jackehammond (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)Jack E. Hammond

.

• Don't think so, Jack. All I've got from SIPRI's database is the Israeli delivery of Aeronautics Aerostar UAVs, Elbit Hermes 450 UAVs and the LAR-160 based Lynx MRL with an associated order of EXTRA SSMs (similar to MGM-140 ATACMS) to Azerbaijan. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  

• Dave Well, your info is even better than mine. Mine says that the Hermes 450 was being negotiated. My comment was basically there is no verifiable source, but considering how large the orders are from Israel of late there maybe a good chance they have also ordered the SPIKE for Round #3 with the Armenians and the editor was not stating it as an act of mischievousness and that while it should be reverted we ought to cut him some slack as he/she probably posted it in good intentions. Just as ole Jack use to step into a pile of manure with good intentions as a newbie -- ie remember when you had the rope and was just looking around for the mob and a tree with a good stout limb, till you discovered that I was the WP village idiot for that month. <GRIN> Jack Jackehammond (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  

• Jack, according to the arms transfer list from SIPRI database... Israel delivered 4× Aerostar UAVs in 2008 (ordered in 2007); while the 10× Hermes 450 UAVs ordered are currently being negotiated by Azerbaijan since 2008; as for the 6× LAR-160 LYNX MRL (ordered in 2005, delivered in 2006) and the 50× EXTRA SSMs (ordered in 2005, delivered between 2008-2009), it is a done deal. Interesting thing to note because the list was lasted updated around June this year, and I've noted that no SPIKE ATGM had been ordered or delivered from either Israel or German production line. BTW, I swear I didn't view you as a village idiot, just a clueless newbie and that is a big difference between you and him. *grin* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

DRS Spike

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Strange noises coming from the smelly sock - HupHollandHup (talk · contribs), of a BLOCKED editor - NoCal100 (talk · contribs). Bagged, tagged and adieu, bye bye, ciao, c'ya~!

What is the point of directing users to go read about DRS SPike, and giving them a link to that article, when that article does not exist? If there is enough verifiable information for an article about the DRS Spike, go create that article, and then a "see also" would make sense. Right now, you are just adding noise. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct no need to list a link that goes no were...I have removed it.Moxy (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2010 (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.

SPIKE: 3rd Generation or 4th Generation - actual classification makes mud like crystal clear spring water!

Folks,

In the last decade there has been a dispute -- which has spilled over to Wiki -- as to whether the Spike family are 3rd generation or 4th generation antitank missiles. The answer is they could be either.

To wit, 1st generation antitank missiles used manual command to line of sight guidance, where the gunner lined up the missile with the target using a joystick. 2nd generation antitank missiles used semi-automatic command to line of sight where all the gunner had to do was keep the target in the cross hairs and the missile was guided by the control unit to that cross hair point of the gunners sight. Now this is where it get's tricky and experts start calling each other's mothers names. Some consider 3rd generation antitank missiles as antitank missiles that are fired from tube containers which use 2nd generation guidance. Some agree and some don't. Those that don't agree, state a 2nd generation antitank missile is any missile -- tube launched or those with fixed fins launched from rail -- that uses semi-automatic command to line of sight. They state that 4th generation antitank missiles use some kind of fire-and-forget homing (eg like the Sidewinder which uses IR) or laser beam riding guidance. No matter if they are tube launched or from rails. And what makes the argument worst is the Hellfire is not considered a 4th generation antitank missile and it is fired from a rail but uses laser-homing! Then you have the Israeli MAPTAS which is a TOW missile with laser-beam riding and it is considered either a 2nd generation or a 3rd generation. Then you have the British Swingfire. It is tube fired and uses 2nd generation semi-automatic command to line of sight guidance for the first 100 yards AND then switches to 1st generation manual command to line of sight guidance till impact.

So folks, have fun figuring out whether a new missile design is 3rd or 4th generation.

Jack E. HammondJackehammond (talk) 07:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Army of Azerbaijan has the SPIKE

Folks, This page for what ever reason is known for cat-fights between editors. But FYI Azerbaijan has acquired the SPIKE anti-tank missile. Most likely from Israel. The November 2010 issue of Military Technology page 123 has a photo of the senior commander of the armed forces showing a display of equipment used by that army during a military exercise to the president of that country last June 24th, 2010, and one of the weapons was a Spike launcher. Now maybe Azerbaijan has acquired only the Spike launchers, but it is highly improbable in my opinion. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Specs

what is the weight of the Spike ER? the article says "weight in canister" does that mean the missile AND the canister combined? can someone find an image of all the missiles side-by-side for comparison? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.129.49 (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Latvia

There are numerous sources about Latvia having Spikes, including an article from Jane's. What's the problem with it? Flayer (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Official source: [1] Flayer (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• No problem, just that you have provided a lot of unverified sources/informations prior to this link you've provided above, not my fault that you screwed this up. If it makes you feel any better, I'm the one cleaning up for you so quit making noises already. :) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• BTW, I would like for you learn from some other examples of primary and secondary source, take a good look at South Korean entry and you should be able to see that there is a Korean Central News source and another from Israel, both of which are journalistic in nature. Hence, no dispute. If you tell me that Janes's has cited Latvia for possession of SPIKE ATGM, please quote all the relevant details here so we can verify the authenticity. That said, if you can find the actual paper source of Jane's, I'll accept it but that is only if the ISSN, issue number, page number, title and author are listed clearly; or else, stop wasting our time. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you are wasting my time, but don't worry, I have enough time. Jane's:

... in its work on a networking capability for ground-launched versions of its Spike anti-tank missile family (variants of which have now been selected for service in Chile, Czech Republic, Finland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands

Appears here. Flayer (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• To be clear and fair, while I'm acting accordance to WP:Verifiability, you are subjected to WP:Verifiability#Burden of evidence to provide proof when re-adding controversial/disputed material. In the final analysis, it is you Flayer who is wasting our time. Get it drilled into your head for Israel's sake, please. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Turkey

Turkey is listed in "Under evaluations" section. Apparently Turkey is no longer evaluating Spike. They definitely were evaluating Spike. Is it worthy? Should we list all states that were evaluating Spike but never ordered/received it? Like:

• Czech Republic - In February 2006, the Czech Republic selected the NT Spike as part of a package to arm its newly ordered Steyr Pandur light armored vehicles. A total of 234 Pandur II were ordered at a cost of $1.02 billion with delivery in 2007-2010. A portion of the fleet will be fitted with the Rafael Samson remote control weapon station which has provisions for the Spike missile launcher. In December 2007, the Czech government cancelled the program, so presumably the missile order will be cancelled as well.
• Turkey - In January 1998, a partnership arrangement was announced between Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI) and Kamov Helicopters in Russia to market the Ka-50 attack helicopter in the current Turkish competition. One of the optional armaments being offered for the Ka-50 is the NT-D missile. Turkey has also examined the use of the Spike from its Cobra light armored vehicles.
• United Kingdom - In February 2001, the British MoD awarded two contracts valued at $8.8 million for a yearlong assessment of the Javelin and Spike/Spike-MR. The Spike was being offered by Rafael teamed with Matra Bae Dynamics (now MBDA) while the Javelin by a team of Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. The UK would like to field a light weight antitank missile system for its Joint Rapid Reaction Force by 2005. In February 2003, the British MoD selected the Javelin.
• United States - The Spike was offered by Rafael as a possible contender in the US Army JAWS missile program in 1996, now called FOTT (Follow-On-To-TOW). The offer was rejected but there have been suggestions that the missile might be test as part of US Foreign Comparative Trials.

Flayer (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Please do so, nothing against the rules for adding those bits. As for the proper header/title, "Under evaluation" is fine... no need to add needless words and thereby create confusion for the ordinary readers. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 10:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Spike MR/LR difference

"The medium, long and extended range versions of the Spike also have the capability of "Fire, Observe and Update" operating mode." I had corrected an error by removing the medium variant of the missile from that sentence and was accused of vandalism for it.

The only significant difference between the MR and LR variants of the Spike/EuroSpike is that fiber-optic data link which allows that "Fire, Observe and Update" capability. It also enables the missile to be used at its maximum range of 4,000 meters. The MR variant of the missile lacks that data link and thus is limited to a 2,500 meter range by the CCD/IIR seeker. This information can be confirmed by company brochures and other sources.

Hopefully this will eventually make it through Wikipedia bureaucracy and be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.61.221 (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2013 (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/gill/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cobra/

  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 10:05, 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 21:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)== Spike NLOS acquisition ==

Spike NLOS acquisition

I'm having difficulty sourcing the 1981 entry into Israeli service date for Spike NLOS. None of the cited articles (except for the IDF press release, which I could not access) have any corroborating evidence, with Haaretz reporting that the first major use was in 2006. Furthermore, a 1981 entry into service date does not correlate well with a derivative of a missile system that wouldn't even be on paper for 6 more years. Ckfinite (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Germany

"Germany

   Total 4,000 Spike-LR missiles,[21] 311 LR launchers on Puma vehicles.[28]"

Actually, Germany bought Eurospike, which is a modified Spike LR. I talked to the representative at the Eurospike booth on Eurosatory 2008 and he explained that they did modifications, including a different (IIRC coated) fibre-optic link. Spike was originally not designed for very low temperatures, so modifications make sense. Lastdingo (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Spike (missile). 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/20101128090521/http://rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?lang=2&fid=5080 to http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?lang=2&fid=5080
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081116122311/http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/6/606.pdf to http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/6/606.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406201744/http://www.rta.mi.th/tec-div-ord/pdf/%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%98%E0%B8%95%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B9%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%96%E0%B8%96%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%87.pdf to http://www.rta.mi.th/tec-div-ord/pdf/%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%98%E0%B8%95%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%B9%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%96%E0%B8%96%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%87.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027124215/http://www.navsea.navy.mil/NewsView.aspx?nw=NewsWires&id=166%2F to http://www.navsea.navy.mil/NewsView.aspx?nw=NewsWires&id=166%2F

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) 00:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)