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.

 Data Photos Photo 1458
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.

Abrams Rpg
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

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


  • R.A.W.

    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.

  • R.A.W.

    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!

  • Nick Pacific

    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?

  • jdun

    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

  • Regolith

    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.

  • R.A.W.

    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”.

  • Old Tanker

    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.

  • Typhoon

    “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!

  • jdun1911

    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

    “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!

  • Doorgunner

    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…

  • Simon

    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… 😉

  • Mongo

    Why is everyone calling this the RPG-30 when the news report linked says the name is RPG-32?

  • Bob

    Is this true that RPG-29 destroyed a challenger-2 in Iraq?

  • Crusader_yn

    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

  • Crusader_yn

    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.

  • RaiulBaztepo

    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

  • Mat

    From the pictures it quite obvious that the main round has a tandem warhead ,and as some already sugested tanks are very well protected only at the front sides and rear are much thiner rarely above RHA 200mm on the hull and 400mm RHA on the turret top side might have only around 100mmRHA and can readily be defeated by well placed shot. And the purpose of this weapon is to counter active protection by trigering it prematurely. And remember most other vehicles IFV,APC,MRAP etc are realy thin skined few having RHA over 30mm(only frontal arc the rest might only be RHA15mm or less )so even most ancient shaped charge(second world war panzefaust could kill any IFV OR APC without addon armour) can easily cut trough them if it makes it to the main armor(active protection,slat armor,reactive armor all there trying to prematurely detonate shaped charge and do so at light weight ).Shaped charge armor cuting potential is so great 300-1300mmRHA(1-4 feet of solid steel imagine the wight) that it totaly unpractical to try countering it only with iron armor

  • Mat

    warhead is a tandem shaped charge a before bashing around how its no good as it doesn’t best RPG7’s penetration , RPG tandem head PG-7VR can cut more than 600mm-770RHA after cutting trough reactive armor that is 2+ feet of solid steel ,that is like cutting 10 times the thickness of an Bradley IFV hull armor and more than enough to disable any MBT when hit at the side rear or top,but shaped charge is only efective when hiting at close to right angle ,so any stories of RPG bouncing of armour are just bad hits where the shaped charge didnt hit at good enough angle and not some super armor capable of withstanding it.

    That is why now days virtually every APC,IFV,MRAP,MBT caries some sort of add on kit to ensure that RPG doesn’t hit the main armor ,armor penetration of an shaped charge is many times more of any IED only the EFP IED’s that are basically shaped charges come close. Only real protection is keeping it away from the main armor ,if that fails only the MBT if hit on a frontal arc can survive no other whicle.

  • RedPower

    Well, there are apparently many misconceptions here, I’ll list some.

    Depleted Uranium is not impenetrable. It certainly adds to a vehicle’s protection but it is not impossible to penetrate.

    The thickest armor of any tank is in it’s Mantle, where the tank gun is joined to the turret. That is not the most likely point of impact. The most likely point of impact for most tanks is their Glacis. According to this website:


    The RHAe against CE projectiles for the M1A2 is 500-1000 mm.

    Stated penetration figures of the likes of the RPG-29(and most likely the RPG-30) are usually around 650-750 mm of RHAe. However, that is not proven in combat. What is proven in combat, however, is that the RPG-29 can and DID penetrate the Frontal Armor of the Abrams before and it also penetrated the frontal armor of a Challenger 2.

    Anyways, this system was designed to use against(most likely), Trophy equipped Merkava IV tanks and Quick Kill equipped Abrams tanks.

    There was a guy who was discounting the possible danger of a RPG-30, I must disagree. The latest Russian Anti-Tank weapons are just starting to trickle into the Middle East. And, they have proven their worth and have supremely out preformed other AT platforms. That could be seen by the ATGM, “Kornet”, being used to disable M1 Abrams during the 2nd Gulf War. RPG-29s have been used(as I stated before) in disabling tanks from Merkava IVs, Challenger IIs, and M1A2 Abrams.

    Thus, I will conclude that the latest Russian RPGs can and will defeat Chobham Composite Armors, but that is not the point of the RPG-30. The point of the RPG-30 is to bypass a tanks’ APS systems. And yes, people have lugged around a 20 kg weapon to a distance of 200 meters from an Abrams. It’s not that difficult.

    Finally, Wikipedia is not edited by 14 year olds, if it did, they’d be shut down by now by the spam of genitalia on every page. In fact, most Wikipedia articles are well sourced and contain 10+ sources per page. The M1A2 Abram’s page for example, has 59 sources. You can trust what’s written on a Wikipage if at the end of the sentence contains two brackets and a number. Click that number and it’ll scroll down to the Reference list and highlight the source of that sentence.

  • Profi

    “Well, there are apparently many misconceptions here, I’ll list some.”

    Agree! So I’ll try to explain your nonsense.

    “Depleted Uranium is not impenetrable. It certainly adds to a vehicle’s protection but it is not impossible to penetrate.”

    This is completely unimportant fact here because…

    “The most likely point of impact for most tanks is their Glacis.”

    …the most likely point of enemy projectile hit is frontal TURRET armor, not glacis one. About 70-80% of all hits are scored here. On the other hand frontal turret armor thickness of modern Western tanks is about 1000-1500 mm of RHAe against HEAT warheads.

    “Stated penetration figures of the likes of the RPG-29(and most likely the RPG-30) are usually around 650-750 mm of RHAe. However, that is not proven in combat.”

    Actually RPG-7VR/27/29/30 tandem warheads penetration is about 600-650 mm behind ERA simply because all of them have 105 mm caliber. This is of course much less than frontal turret protection of Western tanks so modern Russian RPGs cannot destroy them firing from frontal arc except very improbable lucky hits.

    “However, is that the RPG-29 can and DID penetrate the Frontal Armor of the Abrams before and it also penetrated the frontal armor of a Challenger 2.”

    First LOL! Actually RPG-29 round penetrated frontal LOWER GLACIS armor of Challenger 2 which is much much thinner than its upper glacis and turret armor.

    “Thus, I will conclude that the latest Russian RPGs can and will defeat Chobham Composite Armors…”

    Second LOL! Now Russian ATGMs and RPGs cannot defeat frontal armor of modern Western tanks like M1A2, Leo-2A6, Challenger 2, Merkava IV except much less probable hits in small areas of so called weakened zones. This is mainly due to basic fact that Russian anti-tank weapon is at best 15-20 years old – also those types marketed today as “brand-new” designs being often simply once abandoned and now reintroduced Soviet era designs.

    “The point of the RPG-30 is to bypass a tanks’ APS systems.”

    Third LOL! This weapon is especially ridiculous and worthless. Why to successfully penetrate APS defense if its main warhead cannot penetrate frontal armor of Western tanks???

    “And yes, people have lugged around a 20 kg weapon to a distance of 200 meters from an Abrams. It’s not that difficult.”

    Yeah, it is simply idiotic! Basic concept of Russian RPGs as short range frontal attack HEAT weapons is outdated and was abandoned by Western weapon manufacturers many years ago due to prohibitive mass increases trying to catch decreasing penetration power. Now similar Western designs feature top-attack warheads and much more advanced targeting systems while old ones are used only to destroy enemy fortifications, bunkers and so on – but not tanks!
    Look at NLAW and SRAW concepts – they both can destroy every tank at greater distances because they hit much thinner upper turret armor using EFP or tandem HEAT warheads. In the same time their weight is about 9.5-12 kg. So why soldiers are to carry weighting 15-20 kg Russian “modern” RPG (this is actually weight of light Western fire and forget ATGMs possessing 2.5 km range!) if they can get much more effective and portable Western RPG equivalents?
    A historical note: 35 years ago RPG-18 can destroy almost every tank weighting only 2.5 kg…

    As one can see outdated Russian anti-tank weapons can be now effective only against…outdated Russian tanks! 🙂

  • GarryB

    Thinking Russian anti tank weapons are all revived Soviet designs and can only kill Russian tanks is like Allied beliefs that WWII Japanese planes were made of paper and couldn’t be flown in the rain, or the widely held western belief that the only Soviet fighter aircraft was the Polikarpov I-15 and I-16 series, or the German belief that the best Soviet tank in service in 1941 was the T-26.

    That sort of thinking is going to get “western” soldiers killed…

    BTW if you are going to take the time to sneak to within 200m of an Abrams… which really depends on the terrain but most of the time is certainly possible… why would you aim where the armour is thickest?

    The RPG-30 is designed to get through an active defence system… and assuming they have done the mathematics right and it does get through one of the effects of an active defence system will be to reduce armour to make the vehicle more light weight, so an RPG-30 should have an excellent chance of breaching an active defence system and penetrating the side or rear armour of any tank ever made.

    They have managed this in a light disposable weapon.

    The RPG-32 is a unified launcher that can take 4 types of rockets, two in 105mm calibre (HEAT with precursor charge, and HE thermobaric) and two in a smaller calibre with a lighter rocket… something like a 72mm rocket in HEAT with tandem charges and a HE thermobaric warhead to deal with everything from small enemy positions and APCs through to larger bunkers and MBTs.

    Sounds like they will be able to issue thousands of launchers and rockets for the price of one Javelin.

    The Javelin on paper looks much more capable but the Russians use METIS-M missiles for that role so it is not really comparable with cheap unguided weapons.

  • Speaking as a computer programmer, this is a very clever and no-doubt expensive solution that will be useless in about…oh wait, it probably is now.

    Not due to any failure of the warhead, lack of penetration power, or superior armor protection.

    Because it’ll take about 20 seconds to add a few lines of code to the targeting system that if there are two primary returns along the same inbound vector, engage the trailing one, and/or weaker return (just in case they decide to get frisky and randomize which rocket fires first)

    So much for defeating APS. Now, they will no doubt begin manufacturing a revolutionary RPG-40 with THREE tubes!


  • Crusader_yn

    I’m so amazing this article still alive, and aslo glad to seen so many replys. Since I leave a reply almost 2 years ago…..I have to say the english is not my first language so I try to post as simple as I can to avoid many grammar mistake.

    OK. First I want to say the RPG30 is definitely not state-of-the-art technology even at 2 years ago. I remember at that time I also found a Company Homepage called “IBD Deisenroth Engineering” which is focus on Nano Material & Modularization Protection System. Their most advanced protection production, known as AMAP-ADS has already Installed on the SEP Platform and LMV 4X4 armored vehicle and Leopard Evolution Tank. The advantage of this protection system lies in adapt focused energy beam rather than mechanical turret launcher, which mean the system as extreme short reaction time, only a radius of 10m is required in order to detect and defeat an incoming threat.

    The most intresting thing is you can found a data table from IBD website which carry on a contrast between those ADS system currently developed in the world. The table show apparent advantage of reaction time and multi-hit contrast other system. It also point out that the AMAP-ADS is only system can deal with rpg-30 presently.(Notice: the article time labal is 2009…)and you also can find a video about a live-test successful defeat of 2 RPG-7 two rpg-7 rounds which aim at the same hit point
    to demonstrated systems multi-hit ability.

    At the last, I have to admir the German’s technology and intelligence.they once manufacture the most warmachine in WWII, suffer heavy burden in post-war reconstruction & country divide in cold war period they still can build these miracle…

  • Crusader_yn

    BTW after challenger2 Tank disable accident, British have already replace the reactive armor to passive composite armor….. Abrams also upgrade
    with TUSK(Tank Urban Survive Kit), some reactive armor similar as Bradley
    IFV addon reactive armor kit, to enhance side protection against rpg-7
    weapon. And then they push out new TUSKII version at 2010.

  • ildar

    2Orion: both missiles have same radiological signature.

  • GarryB

    @Orion, in modern combat Russian tactics will actually be very similar to Chechen tactics used against them in Chechnia.
    The Chechens learned the Soviet method of guerilla warfare against tanks which is of course centred around a machine gun team and sniper team to deal with any infantry protecting the tank plus a dozen RPG teams for each enemy tank.
    You talk about German APS technology moving on but ignore that the Russians could be moving on with their technology too.

    There are all sorts of EM jammers, chaff, and other methods of defeating APS systems.

    Currently the Russians are completing development of fire and forget seekers for their Kornet and Krisantema heavy AT missiles, and a new missile called Baikal will be ready by 2020.
    In addition to these there is the Metis-M portable system and a huge range of unguided RPG based alternatives.

    As a minor correction Modern tanks have their heaviest protection on their front 60 degree area but even from directly in front the tracks and optics are all vulnerable.
    Armour protection might stop a penetrator able to penetrate a metre of steel, but a large bomb can easily kill the crew without penetrating the armour.

    Keep in mind the Vietnamese beat the French and the US because they were supported by a superpower. The Afghans beat the Soviets because they were supported by the Saudis and the USs money.

    Current western casualties are low because there is no superpower providing their enemies with ATGMs and MANPADS.

    The west should be thankful for that rather than arrogant at the performance of their “invincible” tanks and the inferiority of Russian weapons because their “invincible” tanks have faced very little of the current Russian anti armour arsenal.

    The Russians had self forging fragment armed top attack munitions launched up to 90km to a target using MMW radar guidance in 1987. In the early 1990s they added a simple IR sensor that could tell the difference between a burning tank and a large flat rock and a tank with its engine running.

    With Armour in Nakidka kits a Javelin operator will not get and IR lock from the side so it matters not what sort of penetration it has in top attack fire and forget mode it has.

  • GW


    “This weapon is especially ridiculous and worthless. Why to successfully penetrate APS defense if its main warhead cannot penetrate frontal armor of Western tanks???”

    So it can penetrate the rear or side armor of western tanks. Derp.

    @Everyone, it’s going to be listed on Rosoboronexport, so it’s fair game to say the RPG-30 was developed at least partially for export. It’s also a fact that modern radar-based APS’s are lighter and less expensive in the long run than ERA. To explain further, radar-based APS’s are a substantial initial investment, but less upkeep cost than ERA, which must be replaced after every use. Additionally, the price of radar-based APS’s is only going to go downward once they enter mass production and the current gen is replaced. This will foster adoption by the smaller armed forces of the world. Keep in mind that nearly all APS’s are capable of defeating top-attack warheads, so there is a high probability of future nations needing a means to deal with their neighbors new protective systems from an infantry standpoint. There is also the fact that most of what were previously considered “third-world” countries use modified versions of dated equipment to fill out most of their armored units, it is safe to assume that in some countries ERA will be replaced with Arena-type defensive systems sometime in the near future, but the vehicle it is attached to will not be replaced. So it’s penetration is more than adequate. Though the RPG-30 is still very capable of dealing with ERA, so therefore I believe that Bazalt designed it mainly for export for use in a mixed countermeasure environment.

  • GW

    Furthermore, due to the lightness of these new gen APS systems and lack of an armour requirement, they can be mounted on lighter armored vehicles such as IFVs, which are vulnerable to the RPG-30 from any direction.

    @mods, could you combine this with my other post please? :3

  • sounds like a bunch of civilians talking out their asses after playing too many fps. how many have deployed on tanks or even specs on it? lucky for us the defense of our nation is in the hands of professionals who actually know their jobs. if we can get disabled by a bouncing betty, first hand account, but complete the mission. we never patrol alone so when you see one sep tank, the rest of the company can see you as well

  • Amir


    I wanted to bring some details to the theme. First of all, GarryB said the right thing about antitank tactics, there won’t be single AT-team against the tank, there will be at least half-dozen with support of anti-infantry squads. Second, modern AT-launchers like RPG-32 “Hashim” (named by co-developer, Jordan) are made for the close-combat, city battles. And it’s charged wieght is only 10kg, reloading acceptable, range of 700 metres. Tactics is simple, first hit against chassis or back of turret to disable the movement, then suppressing the infantry with destroying tank through back armor until detonation.

    In the open fields there are many more proved ways to destroy tank, like “Fire-and-forget” Reflex (AT-11 Sniper by NATO classification) rockets which can be shot from Russian tanks from the range of 5km (laser-provided targeting, it simply hits the top of tank, ignoring frontal armor and dynamic protection systems, 1100mm penetration, close to zero chances for modern tanks to endure it). System is also copied to mobile version of “Kornet” (AT-14 Spriggan) and allows to fire from 5 to 10 rockets before old-school tanks like Abrams or Merkava move into their firing range (2-2.5km).

    A little offtopic:
    I live in Russia and see all this Cold War going on no matter the pacts. Countries develop more deadly weapons, China made the biggest army and building 5-gen aircraft, India made 5k-kilometres nuclear rockets. I’ve been to many West Europe countries and may tell that every Force block brings the news in different way how the politicians want it, please don’t be so stupid to believe news in your country (or any else). In USA there is very funny politician, McKein if I’m right, who dreams of all Asia (including Russia and China) scorched to desert, and has many followers. We have the same here, Zhirinovsky. It’s all the games of money and power, don’t be the brainless bots in it. Civilians and soldiers don’t win the war, only dirty businessmen.

    • Dave

      I agree with all that you said, the cold war never ended and people need to realize this. We live with security bought with time and debts (why would you destroy a country which is paying you back due to the debts it owes you). While I think a nuclear threat is minimal except in the case of crippling electronic systems or terrorism, there are many other closer threats out there.
      I don’t think McCain is really a problem because he really was a fool that the old republicans elected. No one, democrats or republicans really follow him. He is like a republican version of Kerry. Who we really need to worry about are the democrats who believe in the one world order. They want to unite all countries no matter the cost and this will, in my opinion create complex treaties and ties between superpowers to the point where we get the same situation as WW1 if one small country goes to war with another soon all the superpowers are sucked into it.

  • Crusader_yn

    @GarryB: At least one thing I agree with you, the Vietnamese beat the French and the US because they were supported by a superpower. The Afghans beat the Soviets because they were supported by the Saudis and the USs money.
    I have no meaning to ignore ability of ATGM, in contrary I worry about it,so I corcened more about Modern Armour development and Survibility, I like review Armor Warfare and I believe futrue Armour Survibility will more depend on Stealth,APS,Reactive Armour(explosive or Non-explosive type)tech.
    @Amir: You talk a lot future Russian missile tech but you have to know the protect tech will also improving. I have read an article about russian NII Stali campany new ERA technology which provide anti-tandem shaped charge ability. And newest model named “Relikt” has already integrate on T-90S tank, and I also found some exciting video from Military Photo Forum about New reactive armour test process, looks like they not only use old PG-7M ammunition also use new PG29V and 30mm cannon do the test! Not only Russia also Ukraine annouce their new OplotM tank adopt similar ERA tech against tandem anti-armour threat…
    if you concerned about two Iraq war(1996 & 2003) you will found western armour protective ability was much improved, in the first iraq war, most light armour vehicle only withstand beneath 7.62mm AP, and have no chance survival even old rpg single warhead, After 2007, most M1a1/a2 tank,and IFV in Iraq already equiped with new ERA,NERA Light compostie armour provide full protection against 14.5mm AP became standard.
    other wheeled LAV adapt cheep Bar(made by aluminium alloy or super strong fiber) Armour. Isaril learn a hard lesson during Lebanon conflict so they soon integrate their APS on MekavaIV Tank, although this system is no good against RPG30 type, but it should be second APS apply in actual combat(First should be Soviet dozen-1 equiped with T55 tank in Afhanistan but there is little source to find more detail….)
    In contrary situation, Due to IED&EFP made much higher casualties rate than RPG, so western focus on anti-explosive device protection. Despite there are some incident about some MBT damaged by newly RPG29, but due to little rate, they’re not make serious couter measure like Isaril….I believe if there have massive operated newly RPG, they will soon find some way to protect their troops(i.e. import new add-on Armour/APS from foregin country).
    A minor correction: MekavaIV also have gun fire LAHAT Missile. You said AT-11 sniper(9M119M Refleks) have top attack ability? I found the resouce only say its a Laser guide ATGM, 5km range,Tandem Warhead….

  • Would you mind if I reference a few sentences from your post? I’m researching for project for highschool. Thanks!

    • Crusader_yn

      Hello,thank u for noticed my comment, I think it is quite old thread since the last comment I posted on several months ago. You can feel free to reference any content of this discussion, despite I counldn’t promise all information below was 100% accuracy. BTW, many information from my post or others most come from internet source, you can search those resouces by google or any other search engine. Many military forum also provide massive resources that u can use in your project.

  • bpnxepqfrr

  • Brendan, i read all your posts, and i’m really loving your contributions so far.:)