PLA Small arms

Broccoli said:

More of the same... looks wise it reminds me a lot of AR-18.
[video=youtube;q1dUyaKbi_g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1dUyaKbi_g[/video]
[video=youtube;gtN30cUwl8E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtN30cUwl8E[/video]

Click to expand...

Not bad at all! Now try reassembling an M-60 machine gun (yes it's different than a rifle) under 2 minutes! Yes, I've done it before (so can anyone with lots of practice).

TerraN_EmpirE said:

not for the standard issue true but the exports is another story.
the fictional QBZ25 sure and of you play the game it actually comes pretty close to this modification.


Mickey mouse rules. The I don't care if it works so long as it looks good. But I beg to differ on two points.
one) in displays, on Hong Kong garrison open house QBZ95 rifles have been shown with a magnified optical gun sight. We have seen the same magified optic on CQ 311 type A carbines and on type 88 DMR we have seen variable power scopes.
in addition the Chinese digital soldier display seen at arms shows also have eotech sights, I happen to know that there are Chinese companies building not just knock off red dots but a number of real units. So I think its not so much a issue of availability. It think its money. The PLA is just not interested in spending the cash on the infantry.

Click to expand...

They are not, for sound reasons. For all that the PLA has seen a lot of budgetary growth in recent years it is still very short on cash (a lot of the so-called growth is recovery in nature from the painful slashes during the Deng years) with a thousand calls upon the military purse. A PLA infantryman without personal armour or a red dot sight-equipped rifle is still an infantryman and would serve in that role adequately. But a regiment without its own LH detachment or with old type 59 tanks is SOL. In that sense they prioritise the bits that makes a modern combined arms unit (the doctrine for which they are still exploring and modifying as they go along) rather than upgrade each individual component first.

Sucks for the poor grunt on the ground, but you can't say it's the wrong direction to take.

Anyone noticed that QBZ-03 based ZH-05 rifle seems to be very solid weapon for infantry soldier without all that 20mm grenade launcher computer belonging to OICW concept.

At this point Broccoli I think its dead.
last time we saw Zh05 was years ago. No photos of testing, no showings at the arms expos nothing since the brochure. My bet is that the Model we see in that is just a mock up but the engineers just couldn'tgwt it to work as wanted and perhaps like the XM29 the PLA found it to heavy and to pricy for use, perhaps they just didn't feel it fit PLA doctrine.
for whatever reason I think its a dodo bird.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

At this point Broccoli I think its dead.
last time we saw Zh05 was years ago. No photos of testing, no showings at the arms expos nothing since the brochure. My bet is that the Model we see in that is just a mock up but the engineers just couldn'tgwt it to work as wanted and perhaps like the XM29 the PLA found it to heavy and to pricy for use, perhaps they just didn't feel it fit PLA doctrine.
for whatever reason I think its a dodo bird.

Click to expand...

I think they should have stayed with that upgraded QBZ-03 they used as a basis for the whole ZH-05 system, it looks that ergonomics (ambidextrous) are better than in basic QBZ-03. All that 20mm OICW stuff is useless but certainly that upgraded QBZ-03 had potential.

Given the limited issue of the QBZ 03 the fact that its existing control set is identical to legacy weapons in Chinese inventory. I don't think they see the need.
as to the grenade launcher that's actually a fairly practical system. Though I suspect for the PLA integrating the air bursting capacity into a existing infantry grenade launcher like the QBL 06 or a variant there in might be the better option.

Or simply put, the OICW project isn't a priority, but more like a R&D project at this time, poking around their own land warrior concepts.

So called "Strategic Rifles" are in many ways a attempt at a all in one land warrior system. Range finder, laser designation, fused sensor optics, optical zoom, the ability to shoot around corners, even GPS and precision deployment of weapons both inside and out side of visual range.
The weight, power consumption and price though tend to push it out of the budget.
add to this the PLA seems more inclined to push Tank and artillery high tech Rather advanced infantry and the story becomes clear.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

So called "Strategic Rifles" are in many ways a attempt at a all in one land warrior system. Range finder, laser designation, fused sensor optics, optical zoom, the ability to shoot around corners, even GPS and precision deployment of weapons both inside and out side of visual range.
The weight, power consumption and price though tend to push it out of the budget.
add to this the PLA seems more inclined to push Tank and artillery high tech Rather advanced infantry and the story becomes clear.

Click to expand...

Well, digitalization down to wearable and/or handheld levels, is more difficult than that on vehicular level, especially in the power source department. In a way, I see OICW could only make a comeback when exoskeleton technology is realized to the point when body armour like those see in Halo saga are realized.

MwRYum said:

Well, digitalization down to wearable and/or handheld levels, is more difficult than that on vehicular level, especially in the power source department. In a way, I see OICW could only make a comeback when exoskeleton technology is realized to the point when body armour like those see in Halo saga are realized.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. When the US Army cooked up early land warrior working prototypes back in the 1990s they were basicly wearing a computer tower in a pack frame that tipped the scale at 40+ pounds. Today almost every feature is found in a commercial smartphone technologies available off the shelf. The only parts that still lag are individual fused sensors but even that's making leaps. The US Army is already issuing fused sensor night vision to troops. The all in one mode I think has been proven to be the primary failing by breaking up the individual components and focusing on there miniaturization and battery life extension, factoring in commercial trends and development the issues become less severe.
Lithium Ion batteries are getting better every year true for a smart devise its not as long lived as the battery life on a Comp4 Aimpoint red dot (something like a year of continuous use) but we are starting to push the power spans longer and longer add in external adaptors and individual alternative power supplies like solar blankets. The more mobile orientation of mechanized combat and its becoming more and more a practical system.
already in both Iraq and Afghanistan the US Employed digitized command systems down to the squad level. Using smart devices on a Secured G3 network.
in Africa French troops are already deploying Felin digital suites.

and not only the digital goodies either land warrior in the US also included FR environmentally suited clothing IE combat shirts and pants designed to resist fire and allow optimized movements through the battlefield. This is another area the PLA seems lacking in.

as to the OICW the Dual gun is in my opinion not practical. To big to wield, to heavy to carry even with a exoskeleton. Breaking them up and going into standalone systems makes the most sense. Already the American M25 "Punisher" has proven a effective system in Afghanistan. The South African Neopup is also proof that a stand alone weapon can work. Although it means packing two individual weapons the smart grenade launcher and a personal weapon. Its easier to use and employ. As well as effective.