HJ-10 anti tank missile

I believe the idea is to keep everything hidden and protected. You can have recon whether it's a helicopter or team on the ground looking for the target. They acquire the target, send the info back or target a laser, and the hiding launcher pops-up and fires from an unexposed position and distance. You ever watch Firebirds? Basically you can have everything hiding behind a hill crest. The only thing exposed would be the electronics on top of the recon helicopter peering over the crest seeing and targetting everything. And then all the attack helicopters just fire ATGMs from behind over the crest.

I wonder if they can just lob these missiles at towards a general direction and then after certain distance and height it can then be guided by another party.

That way neither the firer nor the targeting team needs to expose themselves.

no_name said:

I wonder if they can just lob these missiles at towards a general direction and then after certain distance and height it can then be guided by another party.

That way neither the firer nor the targeting team needs to expose themselves.

Click to expand...

It can be done but not exactly in the way you describe.

Israeli Spike fires in a high trajectory profile. The firer either can fire and forget or fire and track . for the latter all the firer needs to do is to hide behind the slope and update the target accordingly as the missile is flying towards the target.

I hope the PLA invests heavily in the HJ-10... they need a weapon that can take out armoured vehicles at long range. The success of Hellfire, and more recently in Libya with the British Brimstone demonstrates this very well.
Currently the range of HJ-10 is under 10 km and only has SAL guidance... future variants need to have MMW radar guidance either as a replacement or concurrent with SAL and the capability to be installed on higher, faster flying platforms apart from uavs and helicopters.

Honestly I don't know what is keeping the PLA from deploying the missile yet -- if they're offering it for export then it should be ready for the home crowd. Unless they're unsatisfied with HJ-10s performance and is waiting for something else or a more capable variant to be developed before placing mass orders, and currently using chopper based HJ-8 as a stopgap?
-sigh-

Why does the PLA so desperately need the HJ10?

The main user of the HJ10 would be the WZ10 and maybe even the Z19. Apart from those two, not yet mass deployed platforms, there isn't anything else in the PLA (other than the truck i guess) that desperately need the HJ10. The HJ8/9 are adequate for their roles now, and in the near future.

You have to understand that the PLA's primary anti-armor tactic still follows the old soviet doctrine of massed heavy artillery and MLRS strikes, followed up by their own heavy armor.

And when you look around and potential opponents, there is nothing anywhere near China that the PLA's current heavy armor and/or HJ8/9 cannot handle. The only possible exception would be US Abrams in South Korea, but that is ideal territory for the PLA's preferred mass artillery tactic anyways.

A fancy new ATGM would be nice, but isn't exactly high on the PLA's 'to get' list atm.

Yeah I'd imagine low priority. If anything, they would like something man portable so the marines can take out ROC tanks and AFVs.

RedMercury said:

Yeah I'd imagine low priority. If anything, they would like something man portable so the marines can take out ROC tanks and AFVs.

Click to expand...

ROC tanks and AFVs are so hopelessly outdated, modern RPGs can probably take them out reliably enough. Besides, Chinese infantry, at least the primary combat divisions, are all mechanized, so the marines will be relying on their IFV mounted ATGMs, and their own amphibious light tanks to take out hostile armor. With the LCAC coming online, even PLA heavyweights like the Type 96 and 99 will be able to get ashore in reasonable numbers from the offset. Those will totally obliterate any RoCA armor they might face.

In a Taiwan scenario, it is the RoCA who will need all the anti-armor they can muster, and any RoCA armor will be taken out so quickly, any light ATGMs the PLA might deploy will probably just get used against bunkers and other urban targets, like the US is doing in Iraq and 'stan with their Javelins. It would be a complete waste, as the humble RPG does the job just as well for a tiny fraction of the cost.

Yup, they are still using Cadillac Gage APC with gasoline engine and thin armour. That thing will burn like bonfire

plawolf said:

The HJ8/9 are adequate for their roles now, and in the near future....

... there is nothing anywhere near China that the PLA's current heavy armor and/or HJ8/9 cannot handle. The only possible exception would be US Abrams in South Korea.....

Click to expand...

Out of thirst of knowledge rather than "defending anyone" - do you have details that HJ9 (might) "have probelms" to deal with Abrams?

Not to mention "the HJ9 operator might get knocked out by M1 BEFORE the ATGM hit the target" kind of universal problem, and not to mention M1A2 MIGHT get more ERA armour attached to the main armour" kind of "proud demoralise" assumption among USA troops - HJ9 can handle M1A2 front armour, or not? (9, not 10, HJ9 itself!)

I surely do not want to heard from "G.I.JOE defender" kind of forum member's reply, so I humbly ask you for a non-biased answer.

Hendrik_2000 said:

Yup, they are still using Cadillac Gage APC with gasoline engine and thin armour. That thing will burn like bonfire

Click to expand...

Don't know which side you are speaking, but un-biased speaking, when the AT capability for both side, are all 一炮一个 one shot one kill, it really do not matter that much of how fancy the ATGM he is using.

Considering the PURE NUMBER of ATGM firing platforms of each side, I don't see any favoring for the PLA's enemy.

Red___Sword said:

Out of thirst of knowledge rather than "defending anyone" - do you have details that HJ9 (might) "have probelms" to deal with Abrams?

Not to mention "the HJ9 operator might get knocked out by M1 BEFORE the ATGM hit the target" kind of universal problem, and not to mention M1A2 MIGHT get more ERA armour attached to the main armour" kind of "proud demoralise" assumption among USA troops - HJ9 can handle M1A2 front armour, or not? (9, not 10, HJ9 itself!)

I surely do not want to heard from "G.I.JOE defender" kind of forum member's reply, so I humbly ask you for a non-biased answer.

Click to expand...

The HJ9 is reported to be able to penetration around 1200mm of RHAe. The M1A1/A2 are reported to have a front armor equivalent to 1320-1620mm of RHAe.

If those numbers are correct, then its easy to see how the HJ9 may not be sufficient to effectively counter Abrams head-on.

Although it should be noted that from battle experience of the first gulf war, many M1A1s that were struck (often by fellow Abrams ironically) but not penetrated were mission killed or destroyed by subsequent internal fires. So a weapon is by no means useless against a tank just because it cannot reliably punch through its front armor all the time.

However, there are also many cases where M1A1s were struck by enemy and/or friendly fire and continued to operate normally, so it really is down to a case of luck to stop a tank with non-penetrating hits. As such, in order to effectively counter an enemy tank, ideally you would want ATGMs that can be counted on to reliably penetrate said tank no matter which direction you are attacking it from.