About Lahat.

Similar to the force protection Lahat concept, the 'trigger' will be activated by the supported unit, where the infantry calling for support will command the launch and designate the target to be attacked. Each vehicle could support units beyond line of sight, at ranges of up to eight kilometers, using anti-tank or multi-purpose missiles depending on the effect required. The missile unit could also attack targets within line- of -sight autonomously using its own sensors.
http://defense-update.com/products/l/lahat.htm

Fuchs said:

The Soviets restricted their repertoire because of fear.
Isn't this more safe when Su-25 and Mi-24 can't attack your unit from 50-500m? They have to go much more higher and their efficency drops considerably.

I have a different interpretation of what you think about: You seem to think in terms of attrition - actual destruction, not tactical (psychological) effect.
Idea about possible destruction is the basis of deterrence. If you don't have strategic depth, safe heavens, armoured back up, artillery formations, very limited resupply possibilities (dumb munition vs smart munition) etc; you just need to pack the power to small units and consider weight per kill variable.

I can instantly provide you a rather long list of effective countermeasures to every kind of battlefield missile - even to hypervelocity missiles.
It is about learning curve, TTP's etc. You just have to be flexible and find gaps

SethB said:

Dumb shells have a future. How much of one is more related to the fate of artillery in general rather than the shells in particular.
It depends on METT. If you manage to ask from Taliban, would they like to change their RPG's to NLAW's and Javelins and Chinese missiles to Spikes, Lahats, Nimrods, what they would say? Would you carry across mountains 1000 kg of iron or 1000 kg of gold?