RGW90 would be nice. We've seen a few clips of it used in Ukraine to good effect.

The Ukraine thread is so long I've loathe to look for it now, but I recall one being used in Azovstal to good effect. Dude pops out of a doorway, lines up and pops an armored vehicle in a matter of seconds with one.

The downside to the system is the weight; at 19.5lbs its not much lighter then the M4 CG or the Spike-SR.

RGW90: 19.6lbs

M4 CG loaded shell + Aimpoint FCU = 24.91lbs (or 18lbs unloaded)

Spike-SR: 22lbs 

gatnerd said:

RGW90 would be nice. I recall one being used in Azovstal to good effect. Dude pops out of a doorway, lines up and pops an armored vehicle in a matter of seconds with one.

Yes!  https://youtu.be/X0q7UMtqsH4?t=5

hmm, what about MATADORito, aka RGW60?

I dunno.  RGW60 is heavier and longer than M72 LAW, and has a 60mm warhead versus 66mm.

Does RGW60 deliver the performance required to make it capable of being the US Army's IAM?

stancrist said:

RGW60 is heavier

That depends on the exact type. The RGW60 HEAT and HEAT-MP is as heavy as a modern M72 versions with HEAT/AT warheads which also have the FFE feature.
The RGW60 HESH and ASM are somewhat heavier.
Penetration performance and range also is about the same.

The RGW60 is intended to be lighter thus easier to carry than the RGW90 which is more powerfull and offers significantly more effective range. The LRMP version has an effective range over 1000 m. It also features an airburst mode.
If I had to guess this is what the US are going for. This offers anti structure capabilities as well as anti defilade capabilities. While it is not exactly light its light enough to be carried in addition to the standard armament and the reloads can be distributed. A unit equiped with it has significant reach and can counter a wide range of threats.

schnuersi said:

While it is not exactly light its light enough to be carried in addition to the standard armament and the reloads can be distributed.

Reloads?  I thought the RGW is a single use, disposable weapon, like the AT4?

stancrist said:

Reloads? I thought the RGW is a single use, disposable weapon, like the AT4?

Not exactly.
As far as I know its like Panzefaust 3. The weapon is actually the firing mechanism with grips, shoulder stock and sight. The loaded tube is the munition. Only the tube is discarded. The firing unit or weapon is reused. Clipping on a new loaded tube is very simple and quick.
Reloads are additional loaded tubes.
At the very least depending on version the sight with FCS is detachable and reusable. So a "reload" would be the loaded tube, with firing mechanism. There might be versions that are intended to be discarded completly after use like AT4 or M72. The RGW system is quite flexible and can be tailored to customer demands rather easily.

schnuersi said:

As far as I know its like Panzefaust 3. The weapon is actually the firing mechanism with grips, shoulder stock and sight. The loaded tube is the munition. Only the tube is discarded. The firing unit or weapon is reused. Clipping on a new loaded tube is very simple and quick. Reloads are additional loaded tubes.

Thank you for that explanation.  It clears up a misconception I had about both RGW and PzF3.

Previously I had not read or seen anything about the RGW having a separable fire control unit.

I have never seen any photos or videos showing RGW loaded tubes without the FCU attached.

The RGW's FCU (with the simplest optic) looks rather crude and cheap, as if to be disposable.

All the videos said RGW is disposable.  Even DND said so.  https://youtu.be/U3jNPrk7CrI?t=55

As for Panzerfaust 3, I always thought it loaded like the RPG, with a rocket inserted in the front.

I never came across any video or photos of loaded launch tubes for PzF3 without attached FCU.

After reading your post, I did a lengthy search and finally found a photo of an unattached tube.

P.S.  Forgive me, but I can't resist the temptation to make a half joking response to your remark that the FCU is a weapon.  To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee:

This is not a reloadable weapon.

THIS is a reloadable weapon.  

Also I imagine if used in a Reload fashion (ie 1x firing unit, multiple spare rocket tubes), it would lose the main advantages over a M4 CG. 

The advantages of disposable AT are

-Weapon can be tossed after firing

-Anyone carrying the thing can fire it, allowing for salvo / distributed fire

-Individual weapon, not crew served

....

Given the weight of RGW90, but the modest size of the little 'launcher' stock, I assume the reload rockets are ~15lbs. So someone carrying a spare 'reload' could carry 2x CG shells for the same/less weight.

...

Im not sure if a 90mm would be powerful enough to be worth it over the CG. Whereas at least the Pzf3 is an insane, battleship kill RHA penetrator.

gatnerd said:

The advantages of disposable AT are

-Weapon can be tossed after firing

Like this?  

YouTube

MATADOR Rocket launcher and M320 Grenade Launcher