Talk:FGM-148 Javelin

message: 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)
thread_title: Warhead weight

message: 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)
thread_title:  Beware of Unreliable Sources and JAVELIN range 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Beware of Unreliable Sources

message: 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)
thread_title: Ghost Recon

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Javelin VS old T-54/55s and T-62s 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NZ Javelin wn06031149tn.JPG

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Jav-Launch.JPG

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: True dat. Thanks man Paul5121 (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call of Duty 4 - popular culture refferences? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ROC/Taiwan 

message: 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? Future Weapons : No escape(80.186.62.54 (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last sentence of Disadvantages doesn't make any sense 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: It was the closest one I could find.  Which tag should I have used? Aubri (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherent 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Within a building? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Flag templates 

message: 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)
thread_title: Redeployability of the launcher

message: 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)
thread_title:  Price Tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Two points 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Less propaganda please..... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on FGM-148 Javelin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120906022202/http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/01/12/39498323.html to http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/01/12/39498323.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Citation Need" first paragraph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/JAVELIN.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rttc.army.mil/whatwedo/primary_ser/insdev/jets.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/ncs/documents/content/rtn_ncs_products_scanning_jave.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.army.cz/avis/areport2005/ar2str.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_news/pressreleases/02pressrelease/072402_JAVELIN.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716024800/http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/Taiwan_08-70.pdf to http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2008/Taiwan_08-70.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080303111944/http://www.gnn.gov.uk:80/content/detail.asp?NewsAreaID=2&ReleaseID=165224 to http://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/detail.asp?NewsAreaID=2&ReleaseID=165224
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160815204549/http://missilethreat.com/javelin-missile-hits-targets-beyond-current-maximum-range-during-tests/ to http://missilethreat.com/javelin-missile-hits-targets-beyond-current-maximum-range-during-tests/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304024018/http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/javelin.htm to http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/javelin.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/systems/JAVELIN.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407085733/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013PSAR_13/hicks.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2013PSAR_13/hicks.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304003733/http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Tuesday14015schlabach.pdf to http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Tuesday14015schlabach.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070324155053/http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/07/bahrain-requests-160-javelins-60-clus/index.php to http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/07/bahrain-requests-160-javelins-60-clus/index.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306075004/http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=3887 to http://www.defenseworld.net/go/defensenews.jsp?id=3887
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1471.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113020320/http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/india_will_purchase_8_000_israeli_spike_anti-tank_guided_missiles_and_300_units_of_launchers_2610142.html to http://www.armyrecognition.com/october_2014_global_defense_security_news_uk/india_will_purchase_8_000_israeli_spike_anti-tank_guided_missiles_and_300_units_of_launchers_2610142.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.missilesandfirecontrol.com/our_products/antiarmor/JAVELIN/product-JAVELIN.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is it really that expensive? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Beware of using 15 year old references 

message: What does the acronym FGM mean? Thank you, Maikel (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Wow, thank you! Maikel (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: FGM

message: 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)
replies: text: Nor should there be, this is an encyclopedia not a technical manual. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  no detailed explanation why electricity batteries are needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: No. BilCat (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: There are a number of Russian language sources which show that  LNR & DPR forces are already training with the  Javelin and NLAW 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) 18:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Add Russia and DPR/LPR as operators? 

message: 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.:252 —Michael Z. 18:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum range 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removal of cited material 

message: 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)
thread_title:  did isis use javelins? 

message: Missile diameter is 127 mm, not 142 mm.
https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-item/javelin/
216.165.196.231 (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  missile diameter corrected