Well everything is clear to me now; after users here had provided pics of operational Hermes
There┤s a big difference. There was continous research, and the beam rider of new generation Kornet-like missiles, is much weaker (hundred of times) than even the ones used in older systems, and was stated by KBP as new jam inmunity feature.
So that advertisement of yours, nice for old weapons, not for new.
I think I told 500 that beam riding such as Kornet only requires 1/240th of incident laser power & they are very prone to jamming simply because the brain of missile is facing rearwards towards the person controlling it & not to the target.
The Vikhr is a laser beam riding missile, which means it has a sensor in its tail looking back at the launch platform for its entire flight. Because the laser senser is looking directly at the laser emitter then the power of the emitter can be four orders of magnitiude less powerful than a laser designed to mark targets. (4 orders of magnitude is 10,000 times less powerful). Engaging a target at 8km range a laser target marker would have to reflect back to the launch aircraft... a range of 16km. A dark nonreflective target might not be able to be locked by such a system. For Vikhr this is not a problem. Also with the missile sensor looking back at the launch aircraft
it is not effected by jammers or dazzlers.
The other missile widely available is the Shturm/Ataka system which uses a radio command guidance system.
Regarding 500 claim
that beam riding missile is jammable via purposed LWS
see here: Why LWS is not effective in detecting laser beam riding ATGM? - Tanknet
so you see in case of a very low power laser designators(as are used in Metis/Kornet); without increasing sensitivity of countermeasures to detect them you can't know what is going to hit tank...but this increases false alarms; especially as you often put...in desert
Regarding other your repetitive account on cost
...i haven't got the answer to this yet:
In other words, it (kornet) does not contain complex and expensive electronic and mechanical components, whereas the onboard equipment of the ATGW-3/LR system incorporates the infrared homing head with the matrix PCC photodetector distinguished by high complexity and cost of manufacture which, in its turn, greatly influences the cost of the missile itself. Preliminary assessment shows that the cost of the Kornet-LR missile is three to four times lower than that of the ATGW-3/LR missile, i.e., at the same expenditures the Kornet-LR system can engage three to four times more targets than the ATGW-3/LR system.
...or if you really want to save soldiers life at ANY
cost; why don't give each soldier multi-million ironman suit; sure west is good at electronics (remember you said that)