RPG-30 unveiled: The latest in RPG technology
The Russian State Research and Production Enterprise (SPE) have unveiled the latest RPG, the RPG-30. The system has been designed with one purpose: to bypass Western (and no doubt Chinese) active protection systems and possibly reactive armor.
Cut-away RPG-30. Photo from ARMS-TASS.
It uses a very clever system. A small rocket is launched from a secondary tube (mounted on the side of the main tube) moments before the 105mm PG-30 round. The smaller caliber round activate the active protection system early (and possibly detonate reactive armor) allowing the PG-30 round to smash through the armor plating. A simple and clever idea.
RPG-30 vs M1 Abrams. Click to expand. Image from WAFF.
The system weights 10.3 kg (I think that is unloaded).
ARMS-TASS reports (translated using Google):
MOSCOW, Nov. 19. (Korr.ARMS-TASS). A leading global developer in the area of munitions, the State Research and Production Enterprise (SPE), “Basalt, completed the development and testing of new anti-tank rocket RPG-30. This system is anti-tank weapons capable of overcoming any active protection systems (KAZ) vehicle created so far in various countries.
As explained korr.ARMS-TASS military experts, RPG-30 is designed for single use and represents a double device. In the large-diameter cylindrical container placed tandemnaya cumulative anti-grenade PG-30 caliber 105 mm. In the container of smaller diameter, located below, is a special projectile - a false goal. His appointment - to activate when podlete means of active air defense and create conditions for smooth penetration to the goal of the primary means of destruction - PG-30.
…
According to the military representative, the test program RPG-30 is fully completed. There are currently waiting for the RPG-30 by the Russian army and its inclusion in the list of No. 1, allowing the delivery of the product for export.
Looks like Western tanks could be in trouble. I expect Hugo Chávez will be all over this once it is approved for export.
Russian media report.
Hat Tip: WAFF
Huh. Some early photos of the weapon had some folks speculating that the secondary tube was some sort of spotting rocket. I guess not.
So, I suppose we’ll all have to wait for an explanation of how this is better than a tandem charge warhead.
R.A.W., it looks similar in size to the PG-29V tandem rocket. Instead of sharing the space with a 1st stage armor defeating charge, they can pack more explosives into the main charge. This is just a guess.
That’s as good a guess as I can come up with.
Interesting that in the cross section, the main warhead looks like it might be some sort of tandem warhead too. If that oblong lump in front of the main charge isn’t a reactive-armor defeating charge, then I suppose it could be a standoff charge, but it’s a huge standoff charge in that case. Is there any sort of reactive armor that has more reactive armor underneath?
Conventional wisdom is that shaped charge performance is essentially a function of warhead diameter, so I wonder why they’re using a 105mm weapon when the 125mm RPG-28 exists.
This one’s a real head-scratcher!
Maybe it’s a matter of the second tube making a potential 125mm weapon unwieldy for the operator.
Except I don’t see the Abrams in reactive armor all that much. Or at all if I’m remember correctly.
I wonder how the impact points are supposed to line up properly?
The M1A1 does not use reactive amour, that was the older model M1 and the Marine M60A4 that used it. The M1 uses depleted uranium armor, which is virtually impenetrable by most other weapons systems. The M1A1 also has a gap between the layers of homogeneous rolled steel, which is used to diffuse shape charged weapons like the most anti-tank weapons employ.
This leads me to believe this weapon will do little against the harden areas on the M1A1 tank or the older M1 tank. I also doubt it will do much against the British Challenger II, which uses a similar design to ours.
Gentleman, thanks for the correction about M1 armor. The Leopard 2 also does not use reactive armor. Makes me wonder what the point of this system is?
Unless there is more to it than the Russians are letting on?
The upgraded M1A1 TUSK does use reactive armor. The M1A1 uranium armor is not impenetrable. There are many M1A1 in Iraq and Afghanistan that was disable by RPG. You can do a search like “M1A1 disable RPG” on google. In fact there was a show on Discovery or Science channel that show a crap load of M1A1 waiting to be repair/rebuilt because of damage sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan. The M1A1 production line has been close so if a M1A1 is unsalvageable that’s one less tank in the US military.
As a rule of thumb firepower will defeat armor.
Anyway the Russian and other US hating countries is either in a depression or going there next year. The great US consumer buying power or in this case the lack off has already destroy the Great Russian Empire economy.
Oil is below $50. Most oil rich nations that priced oil at around $100 can’t pay their bills now. Hugo Chávez can’t keep the lights on and isn’t able to feed his own people. Wait till next year were oil price will be below $30.
The US consumers is the most powerful force in the entire Universe. Fear us.
Wikipedia now has a page on the RPG-30 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-30 ) that states it can penetrate:
600 mm of Rolled homogeneous armor
1,500 mm of Reinforced concrete
2,000 mm of Brick
Steve: which means it’s unlikely to be able to defeat the turret and crew compartment of a non-reactive armored M1A1, as it’s armor is equivalent to about 950mm of RHA vs. kinetic energy rounds and about 1500mm of RHA vs. HEAT rounds.
Two successive hits in the same area might penetrate, though. And if it gets hit in one of the less protected areas such as its tracks or engines where the RHA equivalent is only around 610mm, it’d probably be dead in the water for a while.
Of course, that’s if Wikipedia got its capabilities right.
What’s really odd about those specs from wikipedia, if they are correct, is that the RPG-30 doesn’t have appreciably better performance than the RPG-7!
R.A.W., I think those figures come article comes from the Russian article I linked to. The translation was so spotty I could not understand what the number related to.
jdun, sorry I accidentally deleted your comment instead of replying.
jdun’s comment was approximately: “Wikipedia is junk and basically written by 14 year olds”.
The main rocket does look like several other Russkie ones with a 105mm main HEAT charge and an approximately 30mm precursor charge. See the better known PG-7VR for comparison. The precursor is indeed intended to detonate explosive reactive armor, and may have to multi-hit capability against ceramic arrays.
The little rocket is to decoy active protection systems. Not enough detail given about how much delay between the two projectiles leaving, or what their velocities are. If the delay is very long, the shooter has a tough job keeping his sights on the target throughout the delay period. An opponent would probably be better off to just volley multiple rounds of unitary projectiles. Viability of this system depends on the counter-measure it goes up against. Systems which intercept close-in could probably be defeated, but systems which actually send an interceptor out to the incoming threat could get a two-fer.
“Wikipedia is junk and basically written by 14 year olds”
Heh, sorry must have a bad writing style but yes the figures come from the same article as steve used.
“What’s really odd about those specs from wikipedia, if they are correct, is that the RPG-30 doesn’t have appreciably better performance than the RPG-7!”
It wouldnt since the latest PG-7VR rounds were made avaliable the RPG-7 has remained competitive with modern developments in shaped charge design.
“Not enough detail given about how much delay between the two projectiles leaving, or what their velocities are.”
The delay was stated in the article as 0.2 - 0.4 sec so it shouldnt effect aim drastically, strangely enougth this is exactly the inter-shot reaction time for the ARENA-E. The velocity of the two projectiles should be the same over the effective distance to ensure the correct delay is retained.
All modern and prospective APS I have seen tend to defeat the incoming round at a similar distance from the target so the weapon should be effective against most or all systems. I imagine every system will need a recovery time to allow debris created by interception to clear for the next target engagement.
My critisism is the poor range which is definately a step back to the RPG-7, just 200 m, the main round is most likely the Vampire’s PG-29V which is effective up to 500 m, though at this range the precursor rocket would probably be inaccurate or lose too much velocity to be effective.
Typhoon, you did a great job on the article. You had not put it online when I wrote this blog post originally.
jdun, is welcome to his opinion but I think it is very informative
So lets wait and see what newest tank rolls of the lines. I’m sure some kind of counter measure will show up. But lets not forget that the RPG has a great track record of being used by people who are smart enough to blow themselves up when they hit the wall 10 feet in front of them. I see no immediate danger. And 200 yards…..just how do you get that close to an M1 with a rocket that size?
Its always easier and cheaper to circumvent protection that it is to implement it in the first place!
I stand by my statement that Wikipedia is junk. It’s a bunch of kids or people that are not experts post their opinions as facts. The creator of Wikipedia has stated that the information on Wikipedia should not be use on any research papers.
lets keep on topic.
“Typhoon, you did a great job on the article.”
Thankyou, its a shame Bazalt (the manufacturer) hasnt updated their website recently but I imagine some more stuff will become avaliable over time.
Joking aside jdun is quite right, wikipedia should always be taken with a bit of skepticism, people are always padding it with rubbish! But if written well it should provide a good summary and links to all the important sources, just dont quote it in your thesis!
Great blog by the way steve, well presented and informative!
Neat. As others have noted, I fail to see how it is an improvement over a typical RPG against a Chobham and/or DU armored M1 or Challenger.
Looks more like it’s intended to engage another nation’s AFVs, one which is typefied by vehicles such as the Merkava…
This is not supposed to be a threat to modern Western MBTs, it’s clearly a threat to the next generation of combat vehicles like FCS, which rely heavily on Active Protection and possibly ERA to achieve a similar level of protection to a 60-ton MBT for half the weight.
If this works properly, the decoy will defeat the APS, the initial charge will defeat the ERA, and the main charge will then defeat the much weaker conventional armour of the lighter vehicle. 650mm of RHA penetration will easily do that, so why bother increasing the size of the warhead?
Typical of the Russians to come up with such a simple solution to counter the multi-billion dollar APS systems developed by the West. Of course, that doesn’t mean it will actually work…
Why is everyone calling this the RPG-30 when the news report linked says the name is RPG-32?
Is this true that RPG-29 destroyed a challenger-2 in Iraq?
To jdunon 21 Nov 2008 at 9:33 am link comment
“The upgraded M1A1 TUSK does use reactive armor. The M1A1 uranium armor is not impenetrable. There are many M1A1 in Iraq and Afghanistan that was disable by RPG. You can do a search like “M1A1 disable RPG” on
…..”
That’s because modern tank focus it’s main protection on front area(about 90-120 degree), and other section is much more vulnerable than front area. for example:M1A2 front protection against Shape charge equal about
1200mm RHA, side only about 250mm and rear section is more weak.
T-90 also mounted ERA in 180 degree on front. So in urbanenviroment,the AT shooter can attack tank from 360 degree it has very high opportunity to ambush the tank that lack infantry acompany with.
TO R.A.W.on 21 Nov 2008 at 2:37 pm link comment
“What’s really odd about those specs from wikipedia, if they are correct, is that the RPG-30 doesn’t have appreciably better performance than the RPG-7!”
You should check the wiki about RPG-7 first, the original RPG-7(single warhead) only can penetrate 300mm RHA
To Bobon 25 Dec 2008 at 12:22 pm link comment
“Is this true that RPG-29 destroyed a challenger-2 in Iraq”
Indeed, that accident happened in Dec/2007. The insurgents attack the
british challenger-2 from front, the rocket hit the glacis hull plate then bounce off to the ground. Rocket explosion and penetrate the lower hull
slightly, the driver loss his feet finger……it is more like a lucky shot,the lower hull is much weak than the upper hull (front glacis plate of vehicle), and front turret so there covered by ERA, but that simple ERA couldn’t defeat tandem warhead of RPG-29 that designed to defeat this type armor.
Hello!
Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource!
PS: Sorry for my bad english, I’v just started to learn this language
See you!
Your, Raiul Baztepo