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

Please rate this comment: 1  0

“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.

Please rate this comment: 1  0

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.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

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…

Please rate this comment: 0  0

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!

Orion

Please rate this comment: 0  0

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.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

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!

Please rate this comment: 0  0

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:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

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.

Please rate this comment: 1  0

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.

Please rate this comment: 0  0

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

Please rate this comment: 0  0

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…

Please rate this comment: 0  0

Looks more like it’s intended to engage another nation’s AFVs, one which is typefied by vehicles such as the Merkava…

Please rate this comment: 0  0

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!

Please rate this comment: 0  0