An evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of both systems has taken place with regards to: tactical factors, technical factors, logistical factors, and financial/commercial factors. The most important considerations are mentioned below.

The DRAGON satisfies the tactical requirements concerning effective range; the MILAN has a somewhat greater range, but is only effective at ranges above 500m as a result of its guidance system. As operational considerations dictate that tanks can be engaged at ranges below 500m in approximately 40 percent of situations, a strong operational preference is given to the DRAGON, which can provide an important contribution to the “intensification” anti-tank fire.

As the gunner is to maintain a line of sight with target using his sight, it is important the system’s firing signature (dust, smoke, flash) is minimal. The [enemies’] possibility of recognizing the firing position and engaging the gunner during the time of flight, is minimal as such. As such, it is also important the firing position can not be deduced from the rocket’s smoke trail; furthermore such a smoke trail limits the gunner’s vision. The MILAN’s firing signature is greater than that of the DRAGON, which is mostly to be blamed on the type of powder used by the gas generator, which launches the rocket. As a result of differences in propulsion between the two weapon systems (the MILAN employs continuous propulsion, the DRAGON a discontinuous propulsion using a maximum of 27 bursts from the rocket’s sides) there is also a clear difference in smoke trail between the two systems, to the MILAN’s disadvantage. Gunnery training requires, as a result of the DRAGON’s bipod mount, a greater number of practice rounds than the tripod-mounted MILAN. The training period for the MILAN is therefore somewhat shorter. Night sights for the MILAN are still in development and are expected mid-1982. At the moment, night sights for the DRAGON can be supplied.

Preventative maintenance for both systems shows a large number of differences between the two. Whilst the aiming/tracking device for the Dragon is to be tested every 90 days, the MILAN is to be tested every 14 days. This is mostly the result of the need to align the sight (optics), tracking device (infra-red), and launch tube with one another. The DRAGON requires only the optics and infra-red tracker to be aligned; due to the weapon’s mechanism, they are always in line with the launch tube and therefore less vulnerable to tuning. As a result of the high cost of MILAN testing equipment, part of basic maintenance must be outsourced. The option of commonly maintaining equipment through the NATO Maintenance and Supply Agency has been investigated. The high rate charged by the MILAN’s producer currently stand in the way of this option. For the DRAGON, all maintenance can be performed with the Netherlands Armed Forces and at a limited costs.

The purchase of the DRAGON system involves approx. ƒ 78 million; acquiring the necessary MILAN systems requires ƒ 190 million. Yearly recurring costs for each of the systems in terms of required practice rounds, spare parts, etc. are ƒ 11 million for the DRAGON and ƒ 14 million for the MILAN. The actual adoption of the DRAGON system will take approximately three years after placing the order, whilst the MILAN will take approximately four years. Principally, both systems allow for offsets. Negotiations have been taking place by the Ministry of Economic Affairs.