Jump to content

How Can Infantry Potentially Combat Aps Equipped Vehicles?


Recommended Posts

 

 

 

One reason why we perhaps do not see a scramble for RPG-30 clones is that few nations think that RPG equipped infantry are suitable for use against armor in general - i.e. they retain RPG for use against ACP and light vehicles and in their doctrine rely on other solutions for defeating armor - eg. air or ATGM or armor.

One happy customer would be Hezbollah. But we don't see them buying those either.

Bazalt MAY have had access to Drozd and just maybe to Arena, so it could try to fool them. But since 2008 no update to the RPG-30 was made. No real mention of it in many years.

 

Rafael announced back in 2012 that the RPG-30's design is not suitable to defeat Trophy, and since then it was improved quite a lot.

What is the supposed defeat mechanism ? The simplest is simply making two intercepts and most systems should be able to do this. But then the APS interceptors are depleted quicker.

 

Another possible counter to APS is to have some sort of semi automatic dummy launcher, i.e shooting lightweight but high RCS dummies to deplete the APS rounds.

 

Specifically for Trophy, the defeat mechanism is MEFP. So 2 rockets flying on the same trajectory with only a slight offset, should be defeated with one interceptor. That is something confirmed by Rafael, and Rafael's reputation on marketing accuracy is quite high.

 

Such defeat mechanism can also be added to grenade based APS.

 

Second, it's not only the RCS that matters, but the exact shape, trajectory, speed, size, and possibly more. The RPG-30 is limited to 200m because the small rocket cannot ballistically match the larger rocket beyond that range.

 

Sure it can make itself appear bigger to the radar, but if its shape is all fucked up, it's not going to light up as a threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I thought the second projectile arrives at some significant delay - even just 5m behind should be enough to make a single intercept of both seem infeasible.

The Russians claimed that the minimum distance for separate intercepts is 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.

 

 

"The RPG-30 was unveiled in 2008 by the State Research and Production Enterprise Bazalt as a modern anti-tank grenade launcher, designed to address the threat of active protection systems on military vehicles. Active protection systems such as ARENA-E, Drozd and Trophy defeat anti-armour ammunitions by destroying them before they reach the vehicle. The RPG-30 is a response to the introduction of these systems. It has cleared its testing program and is waiting to be included in the Russian state arms procurement program as of November 2008.

The RPG-30 shares a close resemblance with the RPG-27. It is a man-portable anti-tank rocket launcher with a single shot capacity. However, unlike the RPG-27, there is a precursor round with smaller calibre in addition to the main round. This precursor acts as a false target deceiving the APS into engaging it and opening the main round (following the precursor with a delay in the 100 ms range) a clear path to the target while the APS is stuck in the 0.2 – 0.4 second delay which it needs to start the next engagement. The PG-30 is the main round of the RPG-30. The round is a 105 mm tandem shaped charge and has a range of 200 meters and a stated penetration capability of more than 600 mm RHA"

quote source: Strategie & Technik, Autumn 2009, English Ed.

https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2008/11/rpg-30-offense-vs-defense-spiral-grows.html

 

0.2 seconds against two 125 mm HEAT rounds would be much more than 150 metres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I thought the second projectile arrives at some significant delay - even just 5m behind should be enough to make a single intercept of both seem infeasible.

The Russians claimed that the minimum distance for separate intercepts is 0.2 to 0.4 seconds.

 

 

quote source: Strategie & Technik, Autumn 2009, English Ed."The RPG-30 was unveiled in 2008 by the State Research and Production Enterprise Bazalt as a modern anti-tank grenade launcher, designed to address the threat of active protection systems on military vehicles. Active protection systems such as ARENA-E, Drozd and Trophy defeat anti-armour ammunitions by destroying them before they reach the vehicle. The RPG-30 is a response to the introduction of these systems. It has cleared its testing program and is waiting to be included in the Russian state arms procurement program as of November 2008.

The RPG-30 shares a close resemblance with the RPG-27. It is a man-portable anti-tank rocket launcher with a single shot capacity. However, unlike the RPG-27, there is a precursor round with smaller calibre in addition to the main round. This precursor acts as a false target deceiving the APS into engaging it and opening the main round (following the precursor with a delay in the 100 ms range) a clear path to the target while the APS is stuck in the 0.2 – 0.4 second delay which it needs to start the next engagement. The PG-30 is the main round of the RPG-30. The round is a 105 mm tandem shaped charge and has a range of 200 meters and a stated penetration capability of more than 600 mm RHA"

https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2008/11/rpg-30-offense-vs-defense-spiral-grows.html

 

0.2 seconds against two 125 mm HEAT rounds would be much more than 150 metres.

 

Right so intercepting both with a single warhead seems totally impossible. It would perhaps be useful to be able to add variable delay and also even add some randomness to it, so that the typical flight profile is less uniform.

Edited by KV7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe some fuzes might be triggered if they pass through a place where there was an explosion just 0.2 seconds earlier?

 

Standoff distance is important for HEAT, and I have been told that some ATGMs use proximity fuzes. That could be optical, RF, electrostatic...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's still the issue of whether the system can discriminate the decoy rocket from the real, based on size or configuration. If it can't then it would be easy for the decoy rocket and the real one to be more than a couple of metres apart and for the LAW to still hit. In actual fact, from an engineering perspective, it would be much harder to ensure that they were within two metres of each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's still the issue of whether the system can discriminate the decoy rocket from the real, based on size or configuration. If it can't then it would be easy for the decoy rocket and the real one to be more than a couple of metres apart and for the LAW to still hit. In actual fact, from an engineering perspective, it would be much harder to ensure that they were within two metres of each other.

That's an issue, which I have already addressed. Modern radars can measure the size and shape of the incoming projectile, and determine whether it's real or a decoy.

 

In order to get only a 5 m separation, the delay needs to be ~ 40 ms. At the stated 200 ms delay the separation is 24 m.

 

MEFP are capable of traveling a long distance, which is why some concerns were raised about safety of Trophy, although they were quickly answered.

The stated delay is an alleged delay of APS, not between the projectiles. It may be inferred that way, but it's not certain. Either way, it's not an obstacle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...