Chinese ATGM discussion

SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
LCR34 said:
At this point, stop beating a dead horse with HJ-11. They have HJ-10 and 12.. work on it like the Israeli Spike-SR/ER/LR/Nlos etc etc. Consolidate the ATGM into one large family with some shared components, and the logistics guy will thank them later.
Click to expand...

Realistically-speaking, the HJ-10, HJ-12, and HJ-16 will not trickle down to all PLA units, just like how the QBZ-191 will never equip 100% of their troops and how the J-20 will only be delegated to frontline units. They will need something that is cheaper than the HJ-10/12/16 and yet can replace the obsolete HJ-8/73, and that's where the HJ-11 comes into the equation.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
SinoSoldier said:
Realistically-speaking, the HJ-10, HJ-12, and HJ-16 will not trickle down to all PLA units, just like how the QBZ-191 will never equip 100% of their troops and how the J-20 will only be delegated to frontline units. They will need something that is cheaper than the HJ-10/12/16 and yet can replace the obsolete HJ-8/73, and that's where the HJ-11 comes into the equation.
Click to expand...

I don't think we have anywhere near the kind of information to make that kind of call yet, given "never" is a long, long time.

There is also a difference between various systems not proliferating to all units by design, due to deliberate the cyclical nature of force structure modernization (e.g. not every fighter brigade, even once transitioned to 5th gens, will be equipped with J-20s because other fighter aircraft of that generation or beyond will cycle through the orbat), versus going for a deliberate high-low mix (e.g. procuring a mixture of ZTZ99 and ZTZ96 family tanks at the same time, in large scale).

And the other option that other people have raised, of HJ-11 being merely a limited scale procurement in a vein of ZTZ98, is also very much there as well.

In the case of HJ-11, we do not know which of those options is true, and I don't think there's any basis to push strongly for any of those claims just yet.
 
SinoSoldier

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Bltizo said:
I don't think we have anywhere near the kind of information to make that kind of call yet, given "never" is a long, long time.

There is also a difference between various systems not proliferating to all units by design, due to deliberate the cyclical nature of force structure modernization (e.g. not every fighter brigade, even once transitioned to 5th gens, will be equipped with J-20s because other fighter aircraft of that generation or beyond will cycle through the orbat), versus going for a deliberate high-low mix (e.g. procuring a mixture of ZTZ99 and ZTZ96 family tanks at the same time, in large scale).

And the other option that other people have raised, of HJ-11 being merely a limited scale procurement in a vein of ZTZ98, is also very much there as well.

In the case of HJ-11, we do not know which of those options is true, and I don't think there's any basis to push strongly for any of those claims just yet.
Click to expand...

Of course we don't have information as to what the force structure is when it comes to these ATGMs, but historically speaking the PLA has always gone for a hi-lo mix of HJ-9/8 and HJ-73s. The HJ-8/9 has been in service concurrently with the HJ-73 long enough to indicate that this isn't just due to the cyclical nature of weapons deployment within the PLA.

So I'd expect a similar arrangement with the HJ-10/12/16 being the "hi" and less-capable HJ-11 or even HJ-9 being the "lo" in the equation.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
SinoSoldier said:
Of course we don't have information as to what the force structure is when it comes to these ATGMs, but historically speaking the PLA has always gone for a hi-lo mix of HJ-9/8 and HJ-73s. The HJ-8/9 has been in service concurrently with the HJ-73 long enough to indicate that this isn't just due to the cyclical nature of weapons deployment within the PLA.

So I'd expect a similar arrangement with the HJ-10/12/16 being the "hi" and less-capable HJ-11 or even HJ-9 being the "lo" in the equation.
Click to expand...

I really don't think there's a basis to make confident predictions like that given even "past" PLA trends of what is considered to be cyclical or concurrent, among every service, was all done under the context of quite significant budget limitations and prioritization.

In context of the emerging PLAGF going forwards (one that is not only still undergoing modernization, reorganisation, and also starting to enjoy more funding at last), we don't know if there will be a "lo" element of PLA ATGM TOE in context of technology, and even if there is, we don't know if it will be HJ-11, or perhaps even a continued iteration of HJ-73, or something else entirely.


Given all that, in context of the lack of evidence of widespread HJ-11 proliferation, and unclear PLAGF TOE standardisation for man portable ATGM systems, isn't the most reasonable conclusion that we can't make a confident claim right now as to HJ-11's status?

This cuts both ways -- I.e. it is as much of an overreach at this stage to suggest HJ-11 will/has enter service in a meaningful way, as to suggest that it will not/has not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top