Chinese ATGM discussion

D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
Bltizo said:
Missiles like MMP and Spike are also designed to be fired from a tripod, however they are still considered to be man-portable. There is a reason why the likes of MMP and Spike and Javelin often compete for the same ATGM competitions and tenders.

The combined weight of MMP is 15kg (missile in tube) and 11kg (tripod and launch unit) for 26 kg total.
The combined weight of the equivalent range Spike MR is 13kg (missile in tube) and 13kg (tripod and launch unit) for 26 kg total.
The combined weight of Javelin is 15.9kg (missile in tube) and 6.4kg (launch unit) for 22.3 kg total.

Javelin is slightly lighter than both of those systems yes, but you still ultimately need to set up all of these systems as well.
The extra step of having a tripod as part of the launch unit for MMP or Spike does not mean they aren't "man portable", and there are only a few types of terrain where a Javelin can be fired that MMP and Spike cannot.


In any case, this new PLA ATGM clearly isn't intended only for NLOS use -- if it functions anything similar to MMP, it will be capable of both NLOS and line of sight engagements.

Basically, I don't see anything that Insignius wrote which is incorrect -- this is essentially a slightly larger, longer ranged Javelin type ATGM with NLOS and offboard targeting capability added in addition to standard/traditional line of sight engagement capability.
Click to expand...
Except that to obtain a NLOS capability for the Spike, the weight was bumped up to 75kg. Which is almost impossible for it to be fired in the same manner like a Javelin (prone, sitting or from the shoulder).

What I am stating here is that the new ATGM design suggest that designed to be fire almost exclusively from a tripod mode, the aiming system depicted does not allow for hand held operation like the Javelin does, it is more like the Kornet ATGM in that regard.

It might be that the PLA intended for the missile itself to be available in both conditions but requires the swapping out of the aiming systems to achieve that just like the Spike.
 
by78

by78

General
Viktor Jav said:
View attachment 70928View attachment 70929

Can the new ATGM do this ? See what I also did there ? Nice try but no cigar.
Click to expand...

But the burden of proof is on you, isn't it. You implied that it couldn't based on rather limited available footage and imagery, which was quite a leap of logic. It would have been better to reserve judgement, for the absence of evidence is not evidence of its absence, especially for a weapon platform so new and about which we have so little information.

See what I just did? That was called having things explained to you (again). :p
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
by78 said:
But the burden of proof is on you, isn't it. You implied that it couldn't based on rather limited available footage and imagery, which was quite a leap of logic. It would have been better to reserve judgement, for the absence of evidence is not evidence of its absence, especially for a weapon platform so new and about which we have so little information.

See what I just did? That was called having things explained to you (again). :p
Click to expand...
Wrong the burden of proof is on you to proof that this new ATGM is capable of the type of firing mode that the Javelin or the HJ-12 is capable off.
"You implied that it couldn't based on rather limited available footage and imagery, which was quite a leap of logic. It would have been better to reserve judgement."
So bascially, we don't see it and we have no visual proof of it, but it might exist so that is valid argument. Never mind the fact that current pictures shows that is not capable of that.
That is some fine mental gymnastics there.
 
by78

by78

General
Viktor Jav said:
Wrong the burden of proof is on you to proof that this new ATGM is capable of the type of firing mode that the Javelin or the HJ-12 is capable off.
"You implied that it couldn't based on rather limited available footage and imagery, which was quite a leap of logic. It would have been better to reserve judgement."
So bascially, we don't see it and we have no visual proof of it, but it might exist so that is valid argument. Never mind the fact that current pictures shows that is not capable of that.
That is some fine mental gymnastics there.
Click to expand...

Strawman fallacy. I never said it could be shoulder fired, but merely that the possibility of being shoulder-fired should not be dismissed based on the very limited imagery and footage. It is a new platform about which we know little (including its weight), so the mature and prudent course of action is to say that whilst it has been seen to be fired from a vehicle as well as mounted on a tripod, it is not known whether it could be shoulder-fired. That brings me back to my original reply, which served as a demonstration of how a tendency to make undisciplined assumptions based on limited evidence can lead to wildly incorrect conclusions.

See what I just did? Having to explained things to you again (and again) can be tedious, but the pedagogical aspect of it is strangely rewarding. :D
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
by78 said:
Strawman fallacy. I never said it could be shoulder fired, but merely that the possibility of being shoulder-fired should not be dismissed based on the very limited imagery and footage. It is a new platform about which we know little (including its weight), so the mature and prudent course of action is to say that whilst it has been seen to be fired from a vehicle as well as mounted on a tripod, it is not known whether it could be shoulder-fired. That brings me back to my original reply, which served as a demonstration of how a tendency to make undisciplined assumptions based on limited evidence can lead to wildly incorrect conclusions.

See what I just did? Having to explained things to you again (and again) can be tedious.
Click to expand...
So basically Insignius claim that this ATGM is the reason why the PLA is not adopting the HJ-12 which we have no concrete evidence that they are or not doing so is to be taken at face value. While observations based on actual videos and pictures depicting how the ATGM is set up and depicted on it's capability and set up is to be discarded based on the possible notion that future development might change it, again without any concrete evidence whatsoever ?

I see what you just did, you are trying to be a prick and falling on your face.

You want evidence, the video shows that it's fired from a tripod. If you want to rebut that, show evidence that it can be fired from the shoulder, not some vague notion that "oh yeah, it might get that in the future."

At least for the HJ-12 we have both photographical and video evidence that it can be fired like the Javelin.



Starts at 2,50

If you can show proof that this new ATGM has this mode then I will gladly retract my statements.
 
AZaz09dude

AZaz09dude

Junior Member
Registered Member
In case anyone has missed it, the current year is 2021 and the PLA itself has declared it's "basically achieved mechanization"

If airborne/air assault or mountain units or special combat brigades or whatever are dissatisfied with the man portability of this system they should have no issue taking their pick from one of the endless number of alternative options provided by Chinese industries.

In the meantime I'm sure combined arms battalions are salivating just at the thought of a 16km range lock on after launch capable atgm.
 
Last edited:
by78

by78

General
Viktor Jav said:
Except that to obtain a NLOS capability for the Spike, the weight was bumped up to 75kg.
Click to expand...

Is this true? Or did you assume so? Non-NLOS Spike variants have much shorter max ranges, anywhere from one to 10 miles. Spike NLOS, on the other hand, is an extended range variant that weighs significantly more, being able to take out targets 16 miles away.

What evidence do you have that the addition of NLOS capability accounts for the additional weight?
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
by78 said:
Is this true? Or did you assume so? Non-NLOS Spike variants have much shorter max ranges, anywhere from one to 10 miles. Spike NLOS, on the other hand, is an extended range variant that weighs significantly more, being able to take out targets 16 miles away.

What evidence do you have that the addition of NLOS capability accounts for the additional weight?
Click to expand...
"Non Line Of Sight" is an ultra long-range version of the weapon (Israeli designation: Tamuz, תמוז), with a claimed maximum range of 25
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(16
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). It is a significantly larger missile than other Spike variants, with an overall weight of around 70 kg (154 lb 5 oz).
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I did also post data from the Rafael but it is barred by an error 403. So I can also post a link to the cache version
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Weight is 71kg, whether it is missile in the canister only or with CLU included I can't say.

I have searched the other variants of the missiles, which while are lighter have different and/or more generic tracking systems.

The Spike SR uses thermal and optical sights like the updated Gustav
The other either have radar, wire or optical tracking. The lightest I can find which is the Spike LR put's its weight at "less that 45kg". Which could mean it weights 44.9kg and it is still toeing the line.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Viktor Jav, by78 both please knock it off and being facetious and mutually misrepresenting each other's arguments.

Any further posts in this manner that is deliberately misconstruing the other side's arguments will be deleted...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top