Checking to the Anti-Tank Threat

[Kirkhill]

Russia to Dominate $5.33B Anti-Tank Market Through 2014

Posted 08-Dec-2005 13:50 | Permanent Link
Related stories: Industry & Trends, Missiles - Anti-Armor, Other Corporation, Projections & Assessments, Russia

RPG-27In its annual analysis, "The World Market for Man-Portable Anti-Armor and Bunker Buster Weapons," the Forecast International Weapons Group (FIWG) expects the market will produce nearly 1.9 million weapons, worth $5.33 billion, through 2014. The group sees the role of a man-portable anti-armor and bunker buster weapons morphing from a dedicated anti-tank weapon to a general-purpose fire support asset for light and medium forces. Russian RPGs under the auspices of the Rosoboronexport will dominate, but European firms are likely to grab the high end.

FIWG estimates that RPGs, mostly the advanced RPG-26 & RPG-27s, will account for over 68% of production and over 51% of the total market value through 2014. In contrast, the combined output of the leading European players will provide only 13.96% of all man-portable anti-armor and bunker buster weapons production, but account for over 33% of the total market value through 2014.

Talley Defense Systems, who makes the LAW and SMAW, was the sole U.S. player to have any discernable impact on thisforecast. They were estimated to account for 5.14% of all production, worth 5.26% of the total market value, through 2014. Surprisingly, the People's Republic of China also had virtually no impact on the international market, and NORINCO was noted as will contributing less than 1% of total production and market value with its Type 69 line. See official release; note that this is a subscribers' report, and requires contact with an FI international sales office for a full copy.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/

RPG-26, RPG-27, RShG-1




RPG-26 RPG-27 RShG-1
Calibre, mm 72.5 105 105
Type anti-tank anti-tank assault
Weight, kg 2.9 8 8
Aiming range, m 250 200 200
Armour penetration, mm 500
Max obstacle penetration, not less than, mm:
homogeneous armour after ERA penetration (normal) 750
reinforced concrete 1,000 1,500
brick 1,500 2,000
log-and-earth 2,400 3,700
Operational temperature range, °C ±50 ±50 ±50
Length, mm 770 1,155 1,155



The portable RPG-26 and RPG-27 RLs are disposable weapons with single-stage HE (RPG-26) and tandem HE (RPG-27) warheads designed to engage:

tanks at any course angles;
self-propelled gun mounts and other armoured materiel,
manpower located in bunkers, permanent and log emplacements, light field fortifications and brick buildings.

Disposable RShG-1 uses single-stage thermobaric warhead efficient against manpower sheltered in confined spaces of up to 300 cu. m or in open terrain within a radius of up to 10 m.

http://www.warfare.ru/?catid=278&linkid=2199

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Interesting that gangs can get RPG’s, yet Canada has a hard time equipping our reserves with anti-tank weapons and ammunitions.

Actually the RPG would make a good weapon for the Rangers, lots of firepower for minimal weight, cost and a good selection of warheads. Plus I suspect being Russian designed will work in the cold quite well.

 

[pissedpat]

Actually the RPG would make a good weapon for the Rangers.

Are polar bears that much of a threat that we need to give the rangers RPGs? Their Lee Enfields seem to be good enough for them at the moment.

 

[Guy. E]

OOOOOOooooooooooo the WWF aint gonna like this one.

(if i knew RPG drills I would have something witty to say right now...)

 

[Thompson_JM]

Targets to your front. Large white Bear....

watch and shoo.....


HES COMMING RIGHT FOR US!!!

BLAM!

 

[geo]

For the time being, the rangers have no need for anything like the RPG

Notice how we never gave the rangers the C1?.... there's a reason why we didn't give seasoned hunters automatic & semi automatic weapons.... the Bears and everything else within walking distance wouldn't stand a chance.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It would make a good anti-sub weapon for surfaced subs, won’t sink it, but could damage ballast tanks and such. I realize they don’t need it now, but times are a changing, what the threat will be in 10 years might be very different. Training them on heavier weapons and keeping something like the RPG and 60mm mortar as part of their inventory could give a patrol some serious teeth at a minimal weight cost.

 

[Kirkhill]

Colin,  there is a perfectly good weapon currently in the system capable of performing that task: the Carl G.

It was used in exactly that role in the South Atlantic in 1982 when a platoon of Royal Marines holed a submarine at Grytviken, South Georgia.  (IIRC.)

 

[Guy. E]

That was regarding the Falklands war?

 

[Kirkhill]

That's right Guy

Edit to correct original error:  I got it wrong.  I just rechecked Max Hastings.  The Marines at Grytviken took on a Corvette with a Carl G as it came in to dock.  The submarine Santa Fe was damaged by helicopter attack (Wasps dropping depth charges and torpedoes).

My error and my apologies for the confusion.  Memory fade.

Cheers.

 

[Steel Badger]

Now if we only had enought to have 1 per platoon, I could consign the mock-ups to the bin and the PIAT back to the museum.



Sigh

The 84 and its associated (new ) ammo are quite good...just very very sparse in the Rsv world.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I remember they holed a corvette/patrol boat don't remember the submarine though

 

[Kirkhill]

You're right Ex-Dragoon.

See edit to my previous.

Cheers.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Kirkhill

Don’t get me wrong, I love the Carl G, but weight in a sled/ski doo patrol is everything. A RPG adds a lot of firepower for minimal weight penalties. It is also a simplistic system that requires little training and has a huge variety of ammunition for it. I Believe the Finns have been using them for this type of work.

 

[Guy. E]

Was not the General Belgato (sp) sunk by a British sub?

 

[big bad john]

Was not the General Belgato (sp) sunk by a British sub?

Yes it was.

 

[Kirkhill]

I take your point Colin.  Though maybe the question should be asked why we are conducting these patrols just with Skidoos.  I know we don't have many BVs but aren't some of them still running?  Are they not suitable for the environment? Can't we get them there or get them back out?

Assuming that the BV is compatible with the environment I would think that adding a pair of them as support vehicles to a Skidoo patrol might not be a bad thing.  Then that weight issue becomes less problematic.....OT I know.... :-[

 

[Guy. E]

We have BV 206's (?) in CFS Alert. I even think I have seen one in Winnipeg at the AF Base...

I think one of the main things are, if a skidoo breaks down, you can easely tow it to where you need to. If a BV goes for a fart, then you need to fix it or find a way to tow it (harder then a sled). Also, I don't think BV's can't go anywhere the speeds a sled can if it has to.

That being said, BV's can carry allot more weight tools and weapons.

Perhaps both would work good.

 

[NavyShooter]

With modern (guided) AT rockets costing LOTS of money....I don't know why we don't move towards something more low-tech like the RPG-7.  Costing a few hundred bucks a shot, we could let our guys practice with it a lot more than we could say, an Eryx, and while not as capable, it certainly would be a big boost to a small unit's fire-power without adding a huge amount of weight.

Ok, again, sailor weighing in on an army thing...but from that perspective, does it make sense? 

NS

 

[George Wallace]

Did you check your BackBlast Area before firing posting?  ;D