So this may be an upgraded sensor for the digital NVG? Like the ones ADNV displayed? I feel it might be much more worth it to simply go the extra step and incorporate thermals for thermal fusion. Simply because thermal is a way bigger force multiplier, and they have the networking and NVG capability already.
Infantry Combat Equipment (non-firearm): Vests, Body Armor, NVGs, etc.
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
The single tube digital imager is also very light and looks fragile, and part of it is probably the actually device itself is not too heavy. However I also wouldn't be surprised if they were not designed or intended to have the same robustness as more proper NOD mounts elsewhere.
Overall the PLA just places relatively low value on infantry force multiplier capabilities or equipment. They're equipping infantry a little bit better than a few decades ago, but they probably continue to experience relatively low/finite funding and they are putting it into higher yield capabilities even if one thinks about the ground warfare domain only (e.g.: tube and rocket artillery, networking, recce assets). To be honest I can't really fault them on that.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I would certainly agree that the PLA mounts are designed for less weight and ruggedness as traditional western mounts.
However, I think it would be a bold and highly illogical claim that the PLA mounts are fragile/inadequate due to penny pinching.
For starters, the PLA are infamous for having extremely high reliability and durability standards for their infantry gear. So it would be extremely out of character for them to significantly deviate from that when it comes to NODs mounts.
Secondly, the PLA’a digital monos are actually not that cheap. The civilian version’s prices are on par with gen2 IITs. And when you see how much even very high quality knock-offs of western style mounts sell for on Aliexpress, it’s hard to see how much they would actually be able to save compared to using western designs built in China, since the lion share of the price of genuine article western mounts are profits, the mounts themselves are just machined allow and doesn’t cost that much to make.
Any tiny cost savings would absolutely not be remotely justifiable if it made it more likely for the digital NODs to be damaged or lost in the field. I would not be surprised at all if the PLA’s mounts actually costs more to make than western models since its design would require tighter manufacturing tolerances and potentially more expensive base materials (titanium perhaps?) to achieve high reliability and durability requirements.
Lastly, I think we need to make a clear distinction between appearance and reality. Western style mounts like the popular Wilcox actually have deliberate weak points built into the design as part of their break-away safety feature. So if you get your NODs caught by something with high force, the mount will break before your neck.
This last point is potentially a major reason for the big difference, as I feel western mounts are basically massively over-bulked for primarily psychological purposes. All that solid metal feels reassuringly solid in the hand, but with break-away features, just how necessary is a lot of that bulk and strength?
I wouldn't say that is the case as a blanket statement.
There are certainly lemons in cases of infantry gear procured by the PLA including in recent history.
"Not cheap" I suppose is relative. I doubt those say, binocular digital night vision devices cost $10,000 USD like what a set of binocular NODs would go for.
Considering the relative lack of emphasis of medium to high end infantry equipment that the PLA places, I think a safe null hypothesis/operating assumption for this sort of equipment, is that if something looks like it is not very effective then it probably isn't. If there is evidence to the contrary afterwards on a case by case basis, then it can be considered.
But the idea that they would invest substantially in a mount which is higher end than what western militaries have, with "tighter manufacturing tolerances" and "more expensive base materials" doesn't really pass the smell test, all for digital night vision devices whose performance is questionable at best in a modern warfighting environment.
And the idea that western NOD mounts are bulked up for "psychological purposes" is also rather silly considering how thoroughly they have been utilized in infantry intensive warfighting scenarios.
There's nothing wrong to acknowledge that the PLA's infantry equipment remain backwards and behind many western military forces. That makes sense because the institutional procurement priority just isn't there, and the PLA as a whole and including the PLAGF are focused on higher yield hardware. But the idea that somehow the PLA have come across some unique, new, lighter weight solution or outcome that other leading edge military forces with much better funding per soldier, and more recent/applicable experience in high end infantry combat, just doesn't seem right to me. It is much more likely that the PLA are just not taking it very seriously and going for a cheaper or half baked solution that is never going to be procured at scale anyway.
Chinese Marines at the Zhuhai Airshow.
They're trying a bit hard, and in all of the unnecessary ways as well (all equipment we've seen before which is fair, but done up to look too clean, with cloth coverings over the parts of the rifle which you probably don't want to wrap up like the collapsing stock control and the handguard, retaining a high vis national flag on their vests, their vests continuing to be not proper plate carriers, and still stowing the digital monocular NOD as well).
I suppose at least most of them seem to have an optic and their boots are done up without loose laces.
I always wonder just what echelon or readiness of troops they organize for these dog and pony shows.
Why do I think it may very well be worth it to at least spend a decent amount of effort and money to improve the ground force's infantry capabilities, to a better standard than what it is currently (doesn't have to be state of the art level)? Even though it's not the top priority compared to the air force, navy, etc, at this state if war does occur, it doesn't seem to favorable to still have these massive flaws. After all, it will still remain infantry which holds the ground force together. It will take time to get the training, equipment and expertise up to an adequate standard.
It's annoying to see they want to avoid the acceptance of spray paint on Firearms, these wrappings are as useless as the UCP. They create more problems than serve as useful utility for blending.
Same goes for those ridiculous looking nods get rid of them and invest in latest gen dual tube nods.
With what budget and from where? Will those also have the communication capabilities of the digital nods and if so, what's the price? Your post sounds like something taken straight out of reddit.