Neil Gibson

Please note that as I couldn't see the projectile noses they may be 3VOF15 or 3VOF30 rounds & not 3VOF6. These respectively use the 3OF8 & 3OF24 projectiles. The former uses the AR-30 deep-intrusion prox fuze & the latter is a 2-part nose improved version.https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1499361168590258178 …

This has been tweeted by the very good below source & many othes. What people may not have noticed is that none of the rockets would seem to be fuzed. So, thankfully, in its present state its slightly impotent.https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1498717061496852484?t=TjMRcnAiqazpcaNQntGaqg&s=19 …

For note, Rockeye I was the MK 12 MOD 0 system. This was based on a different dispenser bomb & submunitions. The 96 submunitions it carried were based on the MK 5 MOD 0 HEAT warhead of the 2.75” FFAR, to which a MK 250 MOD 0 impact fuze & a fin-stabilising unit was added.

Secondly, the Rockeye (ROCKEYE) codename really refers to the bomb itself. The MK 118 series of submunitions (MOD 0, MOD 1& VECP) are however commonly tagged with the same codename, even within official documentation.

It is common to refer to both the bombs & the submunitions as Rockeye (ROCKEYE), but in reality, this is incorrect. Firstly, it is Rockeye II (ROCKEYE II) & not Rockeye (ROCKEYE), or Rockeye I (ROCKEYE I).https://twitter.com/Oded121351/status/1491352365471268867?s=20&t=9bqSMaY80fdxMwjsm0KZHg …

Just to note, for use in the testing program it would seem that their inert warhead system has been replaced by a telemetry system. This can be ascertained by 'W/ TM' at the end of their MDS (Mission Design Series) ATM-179B designation & TM at the end of their part number (P/N).

Do I bother to tell them they are actually ATM-179B practice/training (inert warhead system, but live motor) & not AGM-179A combat (live warhead system & motor) missiles? Nah, I doubt anyone is all that bothered what they actually are!https://twitter.com/Defence_blog/status/1488450462894505989?s=20&t=zdaiF1imI7zmQQZS_7Zmww …

Thirdly, ATGM’s velocity is not constant. For the TOW it's pushed from the tube by the boost motor, then accelerated by a flight motor for a short time, its burnout occurring after ≈1.8s. After this it coasts, its velocity decaying all the time. The velocity after 6 s ≈200 m/s.

Secondly, the person is making the assumption that launching of the ATGM is after the tank’s main gun is fired. Unless there’s another video where both the tank & ATGM firing point are visible, there’s no way to know who fired first.

There are 3 main things wrong with this Tweet. I would reply in-Tweet, but limited text length makes doing so pointless. As such here’s a separate string with each comment covered separately.https://twitter.com/AdamBikewrench/status/1473769651075125252 …

Known errors: I put President instead of PM; there's at least 1 rogue comma; It says bend instead of bent in 1 annotated image. Final note the damage in the 1st Tweets image's don't marry up with what you'd expect from a shaped charge warhead of that size functioning correctly.

All technical analysis is my own, though most images are via: https://twitter.com/CalibreObscura/status/1457317210167328770 … https://twitter.com/AuroraIntel/status/1286300306331009029 …https://twitter.com/no_itsmyturn/status/1412091154766696450 …

Now armed an impact with something should allow the firing mechanism to initiate a detonator in the rear of the warhead. This would initiate the warhead's explosive. The detonation wave produced collapses the liner to produces a thin highly penetrating hypersonic metallic jet.

The Nov & July 2021 munitions don’t require the tail fin stabilisers of the July 2020 munition, which requires this due to its stubbier design. The addition of the rear section, which is presumed hollow, shifts the CoG & also increases the munitions' length.