It seems that recently a new shoulder-fired anti-tank system has been revealed by the Russian SPE as part of the recently introduced massive re-armament program. It is designed to be very portable for rapid-deployment purposes as well as able to penetrate all modern armor.

Meet the RPG 30. Tank and armor discussions welcome

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11...-abrams-killer/

Hmm, pretty clever!
Not guided tho, so suppose it will be difficult to use on distance >600m, and even more so against moving targets, as you depend on both projectiles hitting more or less the exact same spot to have the desired effect...
Would like more data in "normal" english on this one, definately an interesting concept!

Tanks won't be obsolete. They'll simply adjust themselves accordingly.

I think tanks have been obscelete for the past 20 years and will continue to be so. The rules of combat are constantly evolving and changing, tanks today are mostly used as "police" weapons, as such to intimidate rather than serve practical purpose. An example being of how Israelis use their tanks on the streets to chase away unruly mobs of Palestinians.

All over the world there are more and more methods to counter these slow-moving behemoths and less and less practical purpose for them on the battlefield.

If anything IFVs will be taking over the role of tanks as infantry support. I.E. BMPs etc..

It's funny that Russians finally having developped a proper anti-tank weapon made you state that. It sounds like you are saying, new RPG-30 = the revolution. From now the tanks are obsolete. The end.
But what about the others. Where have you been or how have you managed to ignore Javelin, Eryx and others that have been around for a long time? No offense of course.

People have been saying they're obsolete since the Attack helicopter reared it's ugly head. The fact of the matter is, as you pointed out, it's a very intimidating weapon in addition to being highly lethal. Until I see portable infantry lazors that can destroy a tank in one hit, I think I'll keep my chips with the big behemoth.


"For every action there is an equal, yet opposite reaction."

Expect newer forms of armor, countermeasures, and the like.

ever heard of for example Kornet? far better than javelin from early 90´s

The job of the tank has been taken over by IFV's and helicopters which are easier, cheaper, faster and can be deployed in greater numbers anywhere in the world than MBT.

However the psychological impact of seeing a tank can never be underestimated, even in POE2 when your a troop and you see a tank coming you run and same applies in real life, however MBT are on there last legs modern warfare doesn't have much need for them. The challenger 2 tank will probably be the last new tank to be developed.

Dont forget about BMP-T /BMPT which has better more armament than a BMP (and of the same class) and has armor protection of a tank- eliminating the problem of tank support being lightly armored easy target.

Depends on what you're looking for in a missile. Kornet is laser beam riding. Javelin is heatseeking. Kornet is laser-beam riding.

Javelin gives a 'shoot n' scoot' ability, but it takes some time for the target system to cool.

Kornet allows attacks without a target sensor cooling down, but the soldier has to ride the missile to the target, increasing the danger to himself.


Really, the TOW is a more appropiate comparison, just my

Being a former tanker myself I may be kinda biased but most of these statements are just not ture.

While IFVs may be cheaper to produce than tanks, attack helicopters (which Im quite sure you had in mind) are definately not. An Apache costs about 10 Mio. US Dollars (speaking of the A model without the fancy longbow rader. The D model cost twice as much, mind you), a brand new Abrams "just" about 4.3 Mio. Also, helicopters are definatley not easier to operate than tanks. Yes, A chopper is very fast a agile, that is for sure. But it is also highly vurnable to all kinds of weapons. Now one could say the Apache is protected up to 23mm caliber in its vital components, but if I recall correct I've read about a Apache which had been downed by small arms fire in Iraq quite some time ago.

Of course MBTs are not invurnable and can be knocked out as well by rather cheap weapons (e.g. a single RPG7 when hit in the right place). But when compared to IFVs and AHs they are way better protected.

About the deployment I have to agree with you. Their heigh weight (up to about 70 tons) does indeed handicap their employment overseas when Cargo planes are the only option.




While the traditional area of operation may have changed after the Cold War ended the MBT sure has not lost its usefulness. Like any other war machinery adjustments and improvements have been made and will be made to adapt to the changed conditions. Let me just mention hard- and soft-kill systems, urban survial kits and new amunitions for example. The tank is a multi-role capable vehicle, no matter whether it's task may be killing other tanks, breaching through enemy lines opening up the areas beyond, supporting infantry (even in urban enviroments), recce missions, perimeter-defence, checkpoint participation or just simple show of force (PSO).

I highly doubt tanks will die out anytime soon. I just think their primary purpose on the battlefield (fighting other tanks) has shifted to a more multi-role capablity.

Ragards

RPG were and are unguided- guidance systems not only cost something but they take weight also. Only after very powerful AT weapons would be spread world wide, then surely there would be either new material armor would be made or just some protection system.

Tanks today are versatile. When saying that you should think about their ammo. AT missiles- capable of shooting helos, then´fused´rounds which explode in mid-air so most of energy doesnt end up in ground, but instead covers bigger zone- usable not only against infantry but also helicopters. So its not only AT weapons that evolve, its also the tank that tries to counter their counters.

Actually systems like this are designed for even shorter range then that. This is a disposable tube after all.



You seem to have skipped over the point of this system ... Just as Russianlynnxy failed to recognise that this weapon is only designed to deal with a specialist problem.

Of course, the weapon itself reflects the trend in Russian rockets but thats not what RL was saying.

The Russians have simply been ahead of the rest of the world in anti tank rockets AND in defences against them for more then 50 years. There is no argument there.

However ... this weapon is not as the article describes, designed to defeat ERA. It is designed to defeat the newer generation of ERA and is the first weapon in the world for this purpose. The newer generation of ERA, only in service on newer Russian tanks and some exported models in India can defeat even sabot's or tandem warhead missiles because of the complex way it is designed. (see the strange shapes on the front of a T-90 turret).

The only way to defeat ERA like that is to hit it twice. And to hit a moving tank twice in the same place is nearly impossible unless you're firing from the same point in a very short space of time. So this weapon fills that gap ... the Russians can now blow up their own tanks if they need to with ease. I guess now they'll be more keen to export them ^_^ My bet is they soon come out with a new model of tank with an even newer system of ERA.

Oh and for all you pro-american anti-russian types on the boards who're going to jump on every sentence here; consider this ... this RPG-30 actually has inferior penetration to the RPG-29. Why? Because its designed to kill T-90's and upgraded T-72's and T-80's not NATO tanks. The RPG-29, introduced in 1989 has damaged every major Western tank except for the Leopard and Leclerc EVERY time its hit them in the front. Thats with or without ERA ... although none to my knowledge had active defence systems. Oh and it hasn't been fired at the Leopard or Leclerc yet.

And ... before you go 'well its still not a guided weapon, its not good at long range'. There are plenty of guided man portable systems in operation in Russia ... and any tank that gets hit by one of them is gonna be soon for the scrapheap ... because they're all far larger and therefore more powerful then their light-weight mobile infantry counterparts.

The point that a low-cost weapon can knockout a high cost weapon system/vehicle seems kind of moot. After all a bullet that costs pennies can put down a soldier that governments spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in training, gear, medical, food, etc.

You realise the whole argument is as ridiculous as saying machine guns are obsolete now that we have tanks?

It's all rubbish, we just start using them in a new way.

In reality tanks are a waste of money for any nation who considers war with the USA, because the aircraft do the heavy lifting and then the USA sends in tanks to mop up the left overs.

Just as an example, weren't we the ones spouting off in the 50's about how AA missiles made aircraft obsolete? And look how that turned out.



The only way the tank will ever become obsolete is if every infantry man had POWER ARMORZ.

But they don't.

Just as an example, weren't we the ones spouting off in the 50's about how AA missiles made aircraft obsolete? And look how that turned out.



The only way the tank will ever become obsolete is if every infantry man had POWER ARMORZ.

But they don't.

Qualify 'any'

At the moment the US air forces are not looking so capable. Their only truly capable fighter aircraft are the F-22's ... the Hornets all being lame ducks, the F-15's being grounded* and the F-16's also having issues. And even the F-22's don't have all flight systems online yet and only account for a few squadrons. Hell in their present state France would stand a chance at an equal fight in the air in a hypothetical conflict with the US.

*not that they would be grounded if it came to a war serious enough to risk pilots lives

In that sort of scenario, tanks become quite relevant ... especially if you have a good point defence system like the Tunguska or Gepard. Sure, you're going to lose eventually. The quantity and quality of the Abrams puts the end result of any major armoured conflict in the USA's favour but with a good use of strategy and the advantage of either home ground or screwed mission rules (eg. don't cross that border or w/e) you could use your tanks very effectively, even if not as effectively as the opponent.

By any, I mean any.

Despite their chest beating Russia is still a second-tier nation with no money. Especially now the price of oil is just US$50 a barrel and the Russian stock exchange has lost 75% of its wealth. They are powerful only because they have nuclear weapons and are belligerent toward their small neighbours, and if you really think China is any better right now you are kidding yourself. In 30-50 years China will have the worlds largest air force, but right now,they are no competition either, and would rather spend the money they do have on resources and city-building.

The simple fact is in conventional warfare the USA still has no competitor, and the most important reason for that is the strength of their air force. Russia cannot afford to deploy or maintain all of their fighters, and neither can China. And despite your claims about the fitness of the USAF's air craft, they still have a ****-tonne of them which are maintained, deploy-ready and the USA can and does use them.

So as I said, any nation who fields tanks against the USA is only asking for them to be turned into smoking hulks.

[EDIT] I mean, we hear these same things all the time - "Russia has this great new weapon designed to reduce American technological superiority", but these things always work out to be useless.

Anyone remember how well the state of the art GPS jammers the Russians sold Saddam right before the 2003 war worked out? I remember everone making a huge deal about how advanced they were and how the Russians still had advisers in Iraq showing the Iraqis how to deploy them, and how the GPS-guided bombs the USA uses would be rendered useless.

What happened? The Americans tracked down the jamming signals and bombed the jammers within a day of them being switched on. Utterly useless, and a whole lot of anti-American superiority rhetoric based on rubbish.

Migod, you really have misread modern warfare haven't you. For starters, just a few hours ago in another thread we have Pheonix telling us how useless most of their gear actually is and that the important thing is that it looks shiny even if it doesn't work.

Then you go on about how Russian gear, despite its reputation as being incredibly reliable never works as advertised.

Besides, you completely misunderstood me ... I wasn't talking about gear, I was talking about the current states of different forces around the world.

For starters; the US militaries acquisition budget for the last 15 years has been SMALLER then China's when measured in purchasing power. For second, Russia caught up and surpassed them 2 years ago. For third ... MOST of the USA's recent acquisitons have been the replacement of gear worn out by war & gear they should have had in the first place going into Iraq and Afghanistan ... which the Russians have been busy fielding for the last 28 years!

Back to air-forces; the 2 most recent combat capability upgrades the US air forces have had are the introduction of AESA radars and the introduciton of the F-22A.

The AESA radars are MERELY a catch up system to a 1970's Russian system ... except in the case of the F-22A's special high powered ubered $100million a pop version ... which can't be kept turned on for more then 40 minutes without frying itself!

On top of that, both the F-15 and F-22 ... the 2 premier air superiority fighters of the USAF have structural issues which effect the MAJORITY of aircraft.



And furthermore ... oh yes it gets even worse! As of mid 2006 USAF flight times were reduced dramatically in order to afford the acquisition of the F-22A. In fact, the average flight time of a US military pilot is now half what the Russian and Chinese pilots see.

So here's the status of forces;

USAF

F-22a's - can't operate far from base, can't perform high g maneouvres without serious overhaul, can't use radar effectively
F-15's - grounded
F-16's - not up to date, can't operate far from base thanks to design, sharing aircraft with F-15 pilots
F/A-18's - in operation, poorest design of the bunch


Russia

Su-27's - Recently upgraded, operating effectively, pilots getting more flight hours then in last 16 years
Mig-29's - operating effectively, pilots getting more flight hours then in last 16 years, some can't operate far from base thanks to design
Mig-31's - Recently upgraded, operating effectively, pilots getting more flight hours then in last 16 years, 1 in 4 currently not air-worthy
Myriad of outdated designs - airworthy, battle proven, not worth using until the enemy air force is beaten



Now lets note 2 significant factors here; Su-27 & Mig-29 > F-15 & F-16
F-22a =\= functioning weapons platform



The SAME story applies to China, India, France and I dare say even Britain, Germany and Japan. Each and every one of those air forces has a functional set of fighters that is a match for the small amount of functional F-22A's and redundant F-16's.

I'm just gonna throw my 2 cents out there.

The technology of America, Russia, China, etc. doesn't count for anything, it's all about the person who is using it.

Wikipedia already has some info on the RPG-30.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-30

I dont know much about such weaponary but this RPG has only 200 meters effective range.It seems a bit little to me.I saw on wikipedia that RPG-29 has a 500 meters effective range.

Other than that Phoenix said it quite well.Its not all about technology (though it still matters) but you also need good and experienced soldiers.

I thought this was about tanks and anti-tank weaponry, not an airforce pissing contest.

That means you, Freeb and Aug.

I will, however, say this:

1. F-15s were cleared to fly already.

2. F/A-18s are at least equal to MiG-29s, though I must admit the MiG-29 is a much better looking aircraft.

3. Why on earth does it matter who has the better aircraft? They'll never face each other (at least, not with their home countries VS each other.), so this whole argument seems moot, at best.

Thats a very solid point and to be honest, on the ground the Russians just proved themselves to be a little incompetent. They had rather large casualties against Georgia considering the odds ... 79 KIA I believe, when the USA had just double that vs. Saddam in 1990/91 ... and Saddam > Saaksvilli.

I think they still haven't got a well trained infantry core in their military and no matter how big your guns are, no matter how long you've been equipping them with modern weaponry ... that is still the most important part of your military.



I already pointed out the short effective range I think. The reason for the disparity between the 30 and 29 is the 30 is designed as a cheap throw-away weapon ... possibly also for quick manufacture ... as a method to counter the threat of the new generation of ERA.

Its the general Russian pattern; they build a weapons system and then export it once they've built a weapon that can defeat it and so on and so on.

Now though, its a little more rapid. The T-90 was already overseas in Indian service when this thing has come into being and its hardly an effective counter. But at least it suits with the throw-away nature of most Russian infantry units.

Sure they've got their elite divisions that are well trained, combat hardened and probably far better equipped then the rest (eg. an-94's and RPG-29's.) but the majority are probably relying on surplus equipment and I believe stuff like the RPG-27 or RPG-7 ... much cheaper anti tank weapons.



You're right, but they almost all have a defective control surface. I'm not sure what this will mean for USAF operation of the aircraft but I suspect it either means they no longer use that or they have flight envelope restrictions.



Sorry, but I have to respond to that; This is simply not true. The F/A-18's have worse range, payload, speed, radar, accelaration, agility, redundancy and many other capabilites when looked at next to the Mig-29. The 1 advantage they have is that they are of a more unified standard meaning more F/A-18's operate with AMRAAM's then Mig-29's operate with R-77's. HOWEVER ... where Mig-29's operate with R-77's they are superior yet again as the RAAF and RMAF will tell you.

Oh and the Mig-29OVT, the version which nearly matches the F-22A in air combat abilities is actually cheaper then an F/A-18A without AMRAAM capabilities ... but thats beside the point.

Look at it this way: RPG-30: Panzerfaust - RPG-29: Panzerschreck.

Just a quick question, how many OVT are out there? Last I heard there was only six, and they're used on Airshows.


Anyway...

Aero wins.

I was pretty sure there was only 1 and that it was technically a modified Mig-29M. Mig is actually looking pretty sad these days given Putin's preference for the more high profile Sukhoi. They have surely done something amazing with the AESA, OLS and 3d TVC but these are I think all sub-contracted technologies that probably would've ended up in the next exported Sukhoi anyway.

But the point still stands, a Mig-29ovt is cheaper to buy then an F/A-18A ... and given a Fulcrum A would eat a F/A-18A for breakfast thats a pretty startling way to look at it. Gear your plane out with the latest upgrades, putting it 'best in class' in most areas and you STILL are cheaper then the plane you can beat without any of the upgrades. It doesn't get any more stark then that.

The way I see it, the primary means of defeating ERA is - and has been for quite some time - the tandem warhead.. This secondary rocket is designed to confuse the ACTIVE protection systems, not destroy the reactive explosive tiles! In effect, the APS (for example ARENA) will shoot down the first rocket, and then not have time to aquire the next rocket, which follows some tenths of a second behind?

Therefore it will be adapted to fire protection shells in bursts.

F-18 is more flexible aircraft.

You're forgetting the new generation of era which deflects upwards in layers rather then outwards ... that stuff is supposed to be tandem proof.



touche ... you're right ... when compared to the Fulcrum A

First the RPG-30 is nothing more than a RPG-27 that includes a counter to "hard kill" active protection systems. It certainly does not mean the death of the tank, especially when you consider only a handful of designs have such systems. At the moment Israel's Trophy is the only design entering large scale use. The RPG-27 is nothing more than a single shot RPG-29. Neither of which can penetrate the frontal armor of the M1A1HC/M1A2 Abrams. The reason for the longer range of the RPG-29 is probably just due to a better sight for the reusable launcher. Newer active protection systems will be able to defeat the RPG-30, but newer weapons will be able to defeat those and so on.

ERA can be countered by tandem shaped charge weapons, or capable enough APFSDS ammuntion. Top attack designs can also avoid the heavier ERA as well as the heavier armor. No tank will ever be indestructable but they don't have to be.



I don't know what you heard but I believe only a handful of the F-15A-D fleet suffers from such a part problem, as a friend of mine joked it was those aircraft built on Mondays and Fridays. Either way F-22As will at least be replacing part of the fleet. F-15Es don't have this problem.



THAT is simply not true. Anyway I take it you are comparing the Mig-29SMT or Mig-35 to the FA-18E or FA-18F. Either way their range is rather similar, some 2000+ KM. The agility wise they are also rather similar. The FA-18 family has always been somewhat close to the Mig-29 family in this regard. Of course thrust vectoring would give either one an advantage. The Mig-29 probably has something of an advantage in speed, but I doubt it has one in acceleration. When it comes to radar and payload I don't know why you think the Mig-29 is superior but I would side with the Super Hornet. All figures for it's payload are higher anyway. The USN would beg to differ when it comes to their FA-18Es. I am sure the RAAF's first Super Hornet pilots might too.



What pricing are you looking at? Also the Mig-29OVT could only hope to nearly match the F-22A in maneuverability. Yet far more than that decides air-to-air fights.



That is utter nonsense. Our AESA radars are not some sort of catch up. The only Russian fighter with an phased array radar until recently was the Mig-31 anyway and that design was more comparable to other radars of the 1980s than current phased array designs.



Where did you get such figures? On average USAF pilots are much better trained. Plus despite the whining of congressmen the F-22A can't be blaimed for USAF cost cutting measures.

So here's the status of forces;



F-22As can operate far from base as seen by their patrols intercepting Russian bombers, they can perform high-g maneuvers, and they can use their radar effectively.
F-15s are no longer grounded, and can handle most of Russia's Flankers. Only Russia's handful of Su-35BMs would have a clear advantage.
F-16C/D Block 50/52 aircraft are certainly not outdated. Yes there are many older Block F-16s in service, but we have a huge number of F-16s. Yes the F-16 does not have a great range, but that is due to it's original role. If we needed to we could get a F-16E/F type upgrade which has CFTs allowing for a greater range.
FA-18s are USN and USMC aircraft and are not a poor design despite many critics. The Super Hornets are up their in quality with our F-22As and upgraded F-15Es.

In another five years the F-35 will begin to enter service too, unless some idiot politicians who think we don't need a strong military decide to cancel that and additional F-22A purchases.

To be fair I do believe I came up with this idea first (except it was a tank round)

Placing a HEAP round on top of a SABOT round?

Cool idea, you could probably earn money on selling the idea to US Army, if it hasnt been tested/cancelled before your idea.

interesting! Patent it :-)

but... won't the heap explosion adversely affect the impact of the dart? Like ricochet it, or decrease it's speed?

RPG-29's have defeated the Challenger 2's frontal armour which is superior to the M1 series armour by virtue of being heavier and of better composition. The effect was a soft kill ... the tank was disabled as the crew were injured and disorientated. They also defeated Merkava 3's and 4's which are in the same ball-park. And this is without the skilled operation of trained military personnel.



You misunderstand ERA ... APFSDS ammo defeats most ERA because most ERA systems require the time it takes for a HEAT round to detonate in order to 'push off' ... this completely defeats HEAT rounds because their penetrator has to re-enter the armour of the tank. However 'capable enough' ERA can defeat sabots if it is not simply designed to push off. Sabots use kinetic energy to enter a target and as ERA panels are generally so thin, as the round enters the panel and the panel pushes off all it does is slightly vibrate the penetrator. However with Kontakt-5 the panels are significantly thicker and lift upwards twisting the entry of the penetrator as it goes in ... massively increasing the amount of energy required to enter the same amount of armour. At best estimate the increase is triple but during testing T-90's have been hit at near point blank for a modern tanker, 500 meters, with 125mm APFSDS rounds that haven't penetrated. Of course the Kontakt-5, being quite heavy only covers key parts of the tank.

This new generation of ERA also defeats tandem warheads because the panel moves slower and with more force, and will therefore catch the penetrator ... since there is no large delay between the 2.



A handful of the F-15A-D fleet = 100's of aircraft.
The F-15E's make up a tiny proportion of the USAF and an even smaller proportion of its air to air capability since they're not agile in the slightest.



For the same mission the F/A-18E can fly around 600km and the Mig-29SMT can fly about 2,000km. Add fuel tanks and that goes to about 900km and 3,000km. An F/A-18E can only go 2,000 in a one way trip (eg. a ferry mission) with no payload, 5 fuel tanks and an inflight refuel. While the Mig-29SMT can go 6,000km with payload, 3 tanks and 1 refuel ... and then get back to base. Check what ranges you're reading before you try and act like you know what you're talking about.



Incorrect again, agility is determined by the amount and type of control surfaces you have as well as the thrust and acceleration you have available (which is in turn influences by fuel).

The original hornet which is comparable in weight the Fulcrum has 11,000lbf dry thrust while the Mig-29OVT has nearly 24,000lbf of dry thrust. That means that when they push their throttle stick they have TWICE the power coming out of their engines. Thats why, which you begrudgingly admitted, Fulcrums are faster (Mach 0.8 faster to be precise) and thats also why they are FAR faster at gaining speed and making turns without losing speed. This also explains why they can fly further on less fuel with more payload as they're not straining their engines as much. Which means that when it comes time to fight they're better armed and can make more aggressive maneouvres ... at higher altitudes and higher speeds.



The original Fulcrum > the original Hornet
The Phased Array Fulcrum > all Hornets
The AESA Fulcrum > The Phased Array Fulcrum

Their radars simply have more kw's of juice which means that they have longer range which means that they're better. Simple as that.

Besides, the Fulcrum now has the OLS which means they can detect the Hornet at roughly the range of the AMRAAM without even turning on a radar (a massive electronic warfare advantage).



The prices the USA gave Australia, one of their closest and best allies and the prices the Russians gave Malaysia a country they don't even care about that isn't even friendly with them.

Also, the F-22A is heavier, in a similar thrust class, has a lower proportion of control surfaces, has inferior TVC and stunted intakes. Not to mention, as you just put it, far more then that decides air to air fights. The Mig-29OVT is a generation ahead in IR targetting. Sure, thanks to its radar signature and the F-22A's powerful radar its going to lose most engagements at range but its going to flog the pants off most F-22A's in a dogfight.



Define recently? Phased Arrays have been options on Russian planes for a decade longer then AESA's have been in the USAF and thats before you look at the Mig-31's 1977 introduction. That makes for a 25 year gulf ... where the USA did not have a fighter aircraft with a radar even close to the same class as the Russians.



Says you and a handful of hollywood directors. The rest of the world, USAF pilots, government officials, intelligence experts etc. know better. Do you really think that countries like France or Australia with similar pay-rates for pilots and larger training budgets per head don't get better results then your precious USAF? And thats long before you consider the fact that the Russians have been operating gear like helmet mounted sights, phased array radars and super-cruise jets for nearly 3 decades while the Americans have only introduced them in the last 5.



One of the best quotes of the day!



Even your best generals are saying you should can that project and just buy more F-22A's. Don't you even listen to them?

It must be silly old me, but wasn't this topic about TANKS, you know those bulky thingies with tracks?
Maybe the devs should create a seperate forum section called "Freebie's and Recon's pissing contest", so we can ignore that right away?

Eh? Should I respond to this in the pissing contest topic or this one? Either I don't have the time to respond to this until tommorow.

I think the message is clear. If you're going to respond about tanks remain here, otherwise go there. lol

Note: It was Augustus who raised the subject of planes.

I mentioned aircraft in the context of making tanks useless for countries who aren't the USA.

Precisely.

In the other topic I mentioned a Challenger 2 upgrade with a composite armor add-on replacing the ERA kit which is fitted to the lower front hull in combat zones. Here is a picture.



Also not the additional side armor panels, some slat armor, and the RCWS. Those things with the red and yellow caution sticker on them are rumored to be part of an IED jammer or something, but there are no details about it. When outside of Iraq or other combat zones the ERA kit is usually kept off for safety reasons. However the composite "toe" armor kit is more likely to be left on the tank, unless a dozer blade or mine clearing device is fitted.

It must be a pain to move something as heavy as that or those side panels.

Something we haven't discussed about ERA or active defence systems; when they go boom you don't want to be around em. I wonder if that effectively destroys the usefullness of late model T type tanks in certain roles. What roles is it most likely for infantry to be directly around a tank? Also, is there a safety issue for using tanks around civilians that is worth noting???

Well it can certainly be dangerous to any troops near the tank, as well as any civilians, but newer ERA panels don't fragment as much as old designs which improves things to some degree. Generally it is a risk countries that use ERA decide to take. For parades and other situations, I know it is the policy of some countries to remove the ERA. Since the Russian ERA setups are often more integrated into their tanks, I believe they usually leave it on, or replace the panels with inactive "fake" ones. I think this is mainly due to safety concerns, although it is very unlikely a panel would just explode randomly.

Regarding the RPG-30's effective range of 200 meters compared to the 500 meters of the RPG-29. This is probably the range at which the first projectile is at the right distance to confuse most APS setups. Beyond this range this first rocket (which travels at a somewhat faster speed than the main rocket) is probably too far ahead to fool any system. Plus it seems the main rocket used is of a slightly different design, with somewhat less penetration and total range. It is probably somewhat "hardened" so the blast which destroys the first projectile will have no effect on it.

I wonder if they ever do the 'random rock thrown at tank' test on ERA panels.

Yes.

They have to be hit by a heavy, high speed projectile.

My point was, how fast and how heavy does the projectile have to be? How's a car accident sound for a test? How about a really big rock, from a really tall building?

How big? Like wrecking ball size/weight? Hell, something that big might cause more structural damage then a tank round, of course, it wouldnt breach the interior though.