# RPG-29



## tomahawk6 (27 Apr 2006)

The RPG-29 is being smuggled into Iraq from Syria. The weapon has a tandem warhead capable of penetrating the slat armor of a Stryker for example. In the face of this Army procurement managers have decided not to field the Israeli TROPHY system which can defeat this type of weapon. Makes me want to order the Colonel that made this decision to Iraq and ride a Stryker for 30 days, maybe he would change his position.

http://www.rusarm.ru/p_prod/army/rpg29.htm


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Apr 2006)

Man-Portable Tandem 105mm HEAT?

As the rest of the information you posted makes clear - it isn't just the Strykers that are at risk.  Perhaps the good Colonel has a better suggestion than TROPHY?

Only down side I can see is 11.5 kg for launcher plus 6.7 kg for one round plus sights (mechanical and optical/day as well, possibly, as a night system) plus the weight of the pack-frame.  The gunner and his pack-mule/assistant better have broad backs and the gunner might want to be pretty sure of being right the first time.  On the other hand in the urban fight with good supply lines and discrete targets it would seem likely to be a major problem even if it only had a range of a couple of city blocks.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Apr 2006)

Coincidentally I saw this at defense-aerospace.com after reading your post, tomahawk6.

Could one thing be connected to the other?  Although 





> ....the APS sub-system components to begin current force integration and qualification by the end of 2008.


.  Wouldn't that put fielding out into 2009/2010?



> Active Protective System for Army Future Force
> 
> 
> (Source: US Army; issued April 26, 2006)
> ...



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16882086.1133972074.Q5cKasOa9dUAAFC2ZcA&modele=jdc_34

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Apr 2006)

Yes thats the crux of the story printed in this week's Army Times.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Apr 2006)

Perhaps some SOF types shouldsay hi to Syria.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Apr 2006)

Perhaps I should look at subscribing to Army Times.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Apr 2006)

I enjoy the Army Times and the monthly Army magazine. The RPG-29 story is a subscriber only article but I will try to post key excerpts.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-1722465.php



> The Army’s stance could pass up an opportunity to field the Trophy active protection system, now in final testing by the Defense Department’s Office of Force Transformation. Instead, the Army is pursuing an alternative system that won’t be fielded until 2010 or later as part of the Future Combat Systems, Defense Department sources said.
> 
> “It is not as simple as grabbing something off the shelf and employing it,” said Army Col. Charles Cotteau, Army project manager for FCS Manned Systems Integration.





> he new enemy weapon that has surfaced in Iraq is the RPG-29, a powerful anti-tank munition with two warheads. Sources said the Hezbollah terrorist group is smuggling the weapon into Iraq from Syria, which resumed arms purchases from Russia last year. Israeli intelligence sources confirmed that the RPG-29 had been used by Hezbollah fighters in Israel in late 2005.
> 
> The RPG-29 is designed to defeat explosive reactive armor, metal boxes that detonate to disrupt the effects of incoming weapons; and slat armor, bolted-on cages that are designed to keep weapons from hitting a vehicle’s hull.





> The Trophy system has been under development in Israel ever since guerrilla RPG attacks exacted a heavy toll on Israeli armored vehicles in Lebanon in the 1980s. Officials said weapons such as the RPG-29 have forced the Israelis to look to high-tech means instead of thicker armor, to protect their vehicles.
> 
> The Trophy system is composed of four radars, two launchers and a control unit. The radars pick up a threat up to 1,000 meters away and determine whether it’s a tank round, RPG or anti-tank missile. At the appropriate distance, a launcher fires oversized buckshot that shreds the incoming round or missile.





> In an e-mailed response to questions about Trophy, Army spokeswoman Maj. Desiree Wineland said, “The Army is looking at how to rapidly field the best available material solution to a valid requirement. We have an acquisition strategy that will allow us to field a best-of-breed active protection system solution across the Army — meeting the valid APS requirement, while at the same time supporting commonality and reducing the logistics and training impacts across the Army.”
> 
> But the near-term FCS active protection system is not expected to begin production until 2010 at the earliest, said Col. Donald Kotchman, of the Army’s Ground Combat Systems office. He said the Army will give the systems first to Abrams tanks and the Stryker Mobile Gun System, vehicles that spearhead urban attacks.





> To save time, OFT asked Israel to ship one of its three Stryker vehicles fitted with Trophy to the United States for testing. That move shaved a month off the program. In testing over the past eight months, U.S. officials have proved Israeli claims regarding the vehicle’s effectiveness, which has been demonstrated in some 150 inert and live rounds.
> 
> Army officials, from senior officers to evaluators, contend they won’t clear Trophy for deployment. In fact, they now want to retest the Stryker to make sure the weight of the various OFT add-ons doesn’t threaten soldiers.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Apr 2006)

> “It is not as simple as grabbing something off the shelf and employing it,” said Army Col. Charles Cotteau, Army project manager for FCS Manned Systems Integration.



Probably true if you have invested billions of dollars to solve a problem and somebody has solved it cheaper and faster by tackling from a different angle. 



> In an e-mailed response to questions about Trophy, Army spokeswoman Maj. Desiree Wineland said, “The Army is looking at how to rapidly field the best available material solution to a valid requirement. We have an acquisition strategy that will allow us to field a best-of-breed active protection system solution across the Army — meeting the valid APS requirement, while at the same time supporting commonality and reducing the logistics and training impacts across the Army.”
> 
> But the near-term FCS active protection system is not expected to begin production until 2010 at the earliest, said Col. Donald Kotchman, of the Army’s Ground Combat Systems office. He said the Army will give the systems first to Abrams tanks and the Stryker Mobile Gun System, vehicles that spearhead urban attacks.



Perfection takes time......meanwhile.....  What's that line about better, best and enemies?

Let's see here:

TROPHY, Dragonskin is it? and Stryker Brigade Lesson's Learned.  Is there a common thread here somewhere?


----------



## Centurian1985 (27 Apr 2006)

“It is not as simple as grabbing something off the shelf and employing it,” said Army Col. Charles Cotteau, Army project manager for FCS Manned Systems Integration.

Ive heard comments like this before, it usually is bureaucratic pomf meaning:

   If they figure out that it is as easy as grabbing it off the shelf, Im out of a job!
                 or
   If they figure out Im not a miracle worker, my promotion is screwed! And say goodbye to a larger staff!
                 or
   Damn! Now that cushy 2-year feasability study with conferences in Milan and Tahiti is out the window...


----------



## Shec (30 Jun 2006)

A visual on Trophy:

http://media2.foxnews.com/040606/040606_fr_tobin_300.swf


----------



## GAP (30 Jun 2006)

> Army officials, from senior officers to evaluators, contend they won’t clear Trophy for deployment. In fact, they now want to retest the Stryker to make sure the weight of the various OFT add-ons doesn’t threaten soldiers.



Sure sounds like the similar argument for the Humvee debacle. Everyone who is involved in these decisions should be required to serve 30 days with units it is being designed for PRIOR to and AFTER. I bet we would end up with something 2 stories tall and 12 feet thick


----------



## Spencer100 (1 Jul 2006)

I read that the trophy system was to be part of the MGS for the CF.  (sorry can not find the link)


----------



## Enzo (3 Jul 2006)

I watched the TROPHY video and a couple of thoughts come to mind. This is touted as _an invisible force_ (ok, that's FOX News, so insert grain of salt here) bit it seems to be more akin to a directed shotgun. What is the effective range of this system and how would it accomodate itself in MOUT. By this I mean: crowds, homes, etc. What of friendly forces standing/working nearby, etc? What is the danger to any bystanders? If the radar detects the threat and the TROPHY system itself is still behind cover (say a building as the vehicle approaches and intersection) is this taken into account?

I think that this is a promising system, I just want to know how I'd be affected by it if I was standing in approximately the same direction (but not in the line of) an incoming RPG.


----------



## GAP (3 Jul 2006)

There also would have to be a minimum speed the projectile is travelling for it to activate...probably not a problem, but a thrown rock blasted out the air could work against the hearts and minds process.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Jul 2006)

I believe the Israelis use TROPHY and they operate in an urban environment. If a vehicle is under RPG threat the crew cannot be constrained by collateral damage issues - the crew/vehicle take priority.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jul 2006)

> If a vehicle is under RPG threat the crew cannot be constrained by collateral damage issues - the crew/vehicle take priority.



This will be an unwelcome statement from a civilian sitting in the comfort of his home but unfortunately I am not sure that I can agree with you sir.  I believe the form is "Mission, Men, Machine, Myself".  Winning the hearts and minds IS the Mission.  Surely that comes first?

Cheers.


----------



## Enzo (3 Jul 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> If a vehicle is under RPG threat the crew cannot be constrained by collateral damage issues - the crew/vehicle take priority.



That's comforting, remind me not to ever stand near one of these things.  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jul 2006)

Kirkhill and Enzo

Your lack of experience in this realm shows here with your statements.

The Crew will have to do their utmost to 'protect' themselves and their 'vehicle' in order to perform their mission.  Guess what?  Collateral damage will happen with this system.  It is inevitable.  A dead crew, can not accomplish any mission.  Dead attackers and perhaps their accomplices, are of no consequence to the crew.  In war, the innocent sometimes are in the wrong place at the wrong time, and will suffer the consequences.  I think it should be recognized as a fact of life.


----------



## Enzo (3 Jul 2006)

GW, my experience is limited to certain areas and I don't recall ever saying armour was one of them, which is why I am trying to improve my knowledge base here. I understand the concept of collateral damage in wartime; what I'd like to know is what exactly about my questions raise concerns? These are situations that could arise in the field and if the system is indiscriminate in its application, then it is only prudent to determine the defense parameters prior to deployment. As the Infantry and other CSS personnel work in conjunction with armour in close proximity, then is it not reasonable to be aware of this in order to prevent the possibility of becoming collateral damage myself?


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jul 2006)

Enzo

They are a great concern.....unfortunately the crew of the vehicle in question, really don't have the same concerns.  The "Survival Instinct" is the factor here.  People working in close proximity to any Armoured Vehicle (not only Armour, but Mech Infantry, Artillery, and Engineer armoured vehicles) have to hold a 'healthy respect' for them and expect the unpredictable movements and actions that they take.  Never stand behind a Tank, as you never know when he will reverse......right over you.   The crew of the vehicle will worry first of their survival, then those around them.


----------



## Enzo (4 Jul 2006)

GW,

I'm on the same page with what you've said, and I'm not looking to become intimate with a tread anytime soon, but as this is a reactive system with an undisclosed range, then I'd like to know that if I'm 30m away, I won't end up minus a lid, y'know.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jul 2006)

George, I take your point.


----------

