Chinese ATGM discussion

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
If we take the Ukraine-Russia war as an example, I really don’t rate the value of guided rockets due to the high threat of MANPADs. You need to get much closer to use a guided rocket compared to a dedicated ATGM never mind NLOS missile, which is where the general trend is moving towards.
Rocket lobbing has proven itself largely safe in positional warfare(loss per sortie), and in maneuver warfare, the higher range doesn't compensate for situations when you just run into things/threats. Furthermore, it's much harder to produce legacy NLOS solutions at scale(Kh-39 is such a weapon)

The problem is that unguided rockets are not overly effective, and, more importantly, achieve meaningful effects only with salvo fire, meaning only one effective engagement per sortie.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Rocket lobbing has proven itself largely safe in positional warfare(loss per sortie), and in maneuver warfare, the higher range doesn't compensate for situations when you just run into things/threats. Furthermore, it's much harder to produce legacy NLOS solutions at scale(Kh-39 is such a weapon)

The problem is that unguided rockets are not overly effective, and, more importantly, achieve meaningful effects only with salvo fire, meaning only one effective engagement per sortie.

So instead of volley lobbing conventional rockets at extended ranges, you want to volley lob guided rockets?

You are much better off using UCAVs for low altitude CAS in the modern age. Manned fastjets should take on a different role more suitable to their specific strengths.

Which are mainly speed, payload and flexibility. I see drones acting as the workhorse for future CAS, with heavy twin seaters like the J16 hanging back acting as close controller and also QRF in the event of unexpectedly strong enemy presence or defences.

I struggle to see a role for the likes of the Su25 and A10 on the modern battlefield, because of the massively increased threat environment, and the availability of cheap and disposable unmanned platforms.

The only scenario I can see the likes of the Su25 and A10 actually having a worthwhile role to play is after the proliferation of laser and other energy based air defences.

Such defences will likely become a hard counter to drones and missiles of all shapes and sizes, but will likely have limited energy output that will struggle against the kind of heavy armour plating traditional CAS fastjets have. So an A10/Su25 doing a gun strafe might be the most effective means of taking out enemy laser and microwave CIWS and clear the way for drones to come in and do their thing again that doesn’t involve using high end systems like Iskanders.

But that is very much a niche scenario and even then the A10 and Su25 would be shoehorned into that role. If such laser based defences become a serious problem, the logical counter is to develop a heavily armoured drone with a giant cannon that can do gun kills on it without the massive risk to human pilots.
 

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
So instead of volley lobbing conventional rockets at extended ranges, you want to volley lob guided rockets?

.
Yes, honestly, why not.
Given the achievable cost of electronic pgk/interferometer solutions, I frankly don't think there is going to be enduring need for non-programmable/non-guided projectiles in either rocket or tube artillery for much longer.

If cheap ins(mems)/gnss shot can cost close to or even cheaper than mechanical fuse (which also had a painful cost curve during the turn of XXth century, and which is a very precise device that is much easier to get wrong!), why essentially not.

Will it be helicopter or drone using them is sorta secondary.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Yes, honestly, why not.
Given the achievable cost of electronic pgk/interferometer solutions, I frankly don't think there is going to be enduring need for non-programmable/non-guided projectiles in either rocket or tube artillery for much longer.

If cheap ins(mems)/gnss shot can cost close to or even cheaper than mechanical fuse (which also had a painful cost curve during the turn of XXth century, and which is a very precise device that is much easier to get wrong!), why essentially not.

Will it be helicopter or drone using them is sorta secondary.

And what is your objective in volley firing guided rockets? Area coverage or targeting specific targets?

In theory, adding cheap GPS guidance to rockets could allow you to volley fire at extended ranges while keeping the spread tight. So that is potentially viable as an update to traditional methods of deleting grid references to deal with dispersed soft targets.

But if you want to hit precise targets with volley fired rockets, your biggest issue is going to be targeting. Unless you are going to saturation attack against a heavily defended target.

If you volley fire 20 guided rockets, you need 10-20 sets of target co-ordinates/laser designators illuminating them to effectively use your guided rockets. Which gives you the Catch22 problem of how are you going to provide that close up live targeting data if your attack platform cannot get close enough and needs to volley fire at extended ranges? If you have 10-20 UAVs over the target, why don’t you spare yourself the fastjet extended range volley fire and just build slightly bigger UCAVs that can hit the targets themselves?

Rather than jumping through hoops to make guided volley fired precision rockets work, it’s potentially easier to strip back the rocket’s role to purely transportation. So instead of using guided rockets, maybe the better solution is to just use the rocket engines and re-purpose rocket pods as rocket deployed drone swarms. You strap as many automated FPV suicide drones as you can in front of each rocket engine, and you volley fire them to rapidly deploy drone swarms cover enemy positions from extended ranges and at speed.

Imagine having 40 rockets come over your position in a volley, but they rain 40-120 mini-drones that form a swarm and systematically hit every soldier and vehicle they come across even when hidden in cover.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
So, the ATGM we previously thought as HJ-16 turns out to be HJ-13 while the real HJ-16 looks very different compared to previous Chinese ATGM.

View attachment 139557

Looking back, seems like the shape of the HJ-16 was actually shown back at Zhuhai 2022.
Based on that launch pic, it looks like there are eight missiles on that vehicle (four common tubes each with a common lid, each common tube made of two missile tubes)

I wonder what kind of guidance it has, considering it is listed as one of the "NLOS long range" systems alongside HJ-10 and HJ-13 in that picture of the various ATGM families from Zhuhai this year (in terms of range of missiles in that category, it seems it is HJ-10>HJ-16>HJ-13)



52496399970_16bd13ec16_h.jpg
 
Top