PLA Small arms

TerraN_EmpirE said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's always the power source that matters, because in a military ops there's very little time for those digital gadgets to be on stand-by mode, they've to be on all the time. The technologies might be here today but they need to be practical enough to survive beyond R&D labs and into real world, and more important than not, economical to produce...unless we got World War 3 or alien invaders to fight, budgetary committee is the worst enemy of all.

Integrated HUD is feasible, if and when a hardened, military grade version of the Google Glass is realised, then all that is need is to integrate inputs from various sensors (weapon sights and stuff) into a unit not bigger than an iPhone or whatever.

As for China in this thing, well let's just say they've got too many stuff on the to-do list and not enough smackers to tackle everything at once. Since it's hard to imagine them giving up in this field, they might put this on the low priority for now, small-scale compartmentalised researches running at various labs and institutes.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

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.

Click to expand...

According to wikipedia QBZ-03 is being issued to:

People's Armed Police, People's Liberation Army Marine Corps, People's Liberation Army Air Force Paratroopers, and second line PLA ground units.

Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to be very limited use if most of the units in PLA are going to be using QBZ-03 instead of the QBZ-95. Non-combat troops are majority in most armed forces, and QBZ-03 is even being issues to some frontline units like paratroopers, so in reality QBZ-03 could easily become most common weapon in PLA inventory.

It's very odd for military to have two different combat rifles instead of just one.

Edit: There is pros and cons in both rifles, but in QBZ-03 shooter has a lower profile and scope can be installed in far more ergonomic position.

Yes it is being issued but its not the priority weapon,
Peoples Armed police also still use CQ type A
People's Liberation Army Marine Corps primary long arm is the QBZ95
People Liberation Army Air Force Paratroopers are also more likely to have QBZ95
and second line units are likely waiting for first generation QBZ95 to filter to them.
It is odd but not unheard of for two more or less unrelated combat rifles to enter service basicly on top of each other like the QBZ95 and QBZ 03. cases I can think of are countries like Slovakia who's general issue is the G36 but also issues F2000 or Georgia who does the same with M4 and Tavor or India who still issues the poor indigenous Insas but to elites they issue the Tavor, Japan has the type 89 but SF uses M4A1, Israel issues M4A1 and Tavor and US who uses two related the M16A4 and M4A1 but also FN SCAR.
normally one is made the main weapon well the other is used by SF. In the case of the PLA though its hard to say. At first I though QBZ03 was there SCAR but Pla SF are shown with QBZ95Gs. And although QBZ03 has the features that make it better suited to accept accessories it seems to lack a rail interface.
this leads to two ways I think it could be playing out. One Norinco is having trouble keeping up production of the QBZ95 to the numbers wanted by the PLA, so the Chinese had them modify the older production lines to supplement with type 03. Its a little hard to figure since they make variants of the type 95, the QBZ97 for export to.

second thought the PLA has a odd tendency to make two of everything. Case in point the Type 99 tank and the Type 96 tank. The J20 and J31. For whatever reason they kept that going to issue the 03 to second line units.

Third option Type 03 is issued to specific MOS in the PLA. Well most get the Type 95. Some militaries do that giving one weapon to this trooper well another to everyone else. For example the USMC issues M16A4 to everyone except officers senior NCOs, and corpsman. M4 was in the US army originally to go to truck drivers and support people. Before the reunification of Germany the HKG11 was to be the front line issued weapon well logistical support troops would have gotten G41 a variant of the G3/Mp5 family chambered in conventional 556.
Whatever the reasons I think its clear Type 03 is not the weapon the PLA wants to issue to its mainline forces. There high profile events, parades, open houses and the like place the QBZ95 at the front and the Qbz03 in the filler position.

Broccoli said:

It's very odd for military to have two different combat rifles instead of just one.

Click to expand...

Well, the US military alone has half a dozen AR-15 variants in service plus the SCAR and HK416. It's not odd at all for the PLA to find some weapons more suitable for the type of warfare specific to particular branches.

Few more then that.
M16A2, M16A4, M16A4 with M4 stock, M16A4 SAMR, M16A4 SDMR, M4 USMC, M4 USA, M4A1, US Socom MK18 mod , Mk 20 DMR, HK416 14.5", HK 416 10.5", HK M27, M231 firing port weapon.
and that's not counting sub varietys.

It seems PLA is assigning QBZ95 to "line infantry". While QBZ03 is assigned light infantry types more reliant on personal firearms, such as airborne, marine and border troops.



According to this documentary about airborne's choice of QBZ03, it is a little more reliable than QBZ95 in adverse environment, a little more compact when folded. More importantly, QBZ03 is a better shooter, more accurate due to longer sight radius and better ergonomics to achieve proper cheek weld.

I'd guess QBZ95 is better for shooting from IFV fire ports. mechanized troops may also appreciate not having to fold and unfold the stock all the time. There is probably little real advantage or disadvantage between the two designs. There are probably pro and anti bullpup groups with the PLA just like there are on internet forums. So they went with a compromise by deploying both rifles.

shen said:

It seems PLA is assigning QBZ95 to "line infantry". While QBZ03 is assigned light infantry types more reliant on personal firearms, such as airborne, marine and border troops.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

According to this documentary about airborne's choice of QBZ03, it is a little more reliable than QBZ95 in adverse environment, a little more compact when folded. More importantly, QBZ03 is a better shooter, more accurate due to longer sight radius and better ergonomics to achieve proper cheek weld.

I'd guess QBZ95 is better for shooting from IFV fire ports. mechanized troops may also appreciate not having to fold and unfold the stock all the time. There is probably little real advantage or disadvantage between the two designs. There are probably pro and anti bullpup groups with the PLA just like there are on internet forums. So they went with a compromise by deploying both rifles.

Click to expand...

I still don't get why the PLA doesn't utilize picatinny rails.

usaf0314 said:

I still don't get why the PLA doesn't utilize picatinny rails.

Click to expand...

Equipping the army is a lower priority compared to equipping the navy and the air force, since the latter two services have the largest gaps to close and therefore upgrading them gives the best bang for the buck.

There's also a less of strategic urgency to adding the picatinny and red dot sights and whatnot because China doesn't expect to wage a large land war anytime soon. Remember the US military didn't widely adopt optical sights and picatinny rails until the Iraq War became drawn out, which created demand for such accessories.

The minute China starts churning out new IFVs and MBTs in large numbers and upgrading small arms is when you expect a major land engagement on the horizon. The same goes for body armor.

Still, the army is hardly neglected. It's getting two new attack helicopters, Y-20, and new IFVs and MBTs (in limited numbers), not to mention vastly upgraded C3I infrastructure.

One thing is for certain, the Chinese are not blowing vast sums of borrowed money on pork barrel weapons projects ill-suited for future needs, unlike a certain country.

He must mean Lithuania...
lets leave other nations defense outside of this. The PRC has its own economic issues.

there have also been reported issues of quality at least with the proprietary rail interfaces on the first generation QBZ95s.
the Chinese designers seem to have been trying to develop a counter to both American and Russian standards but because the QBZ95 was a rush job with a mandatory date of production in order to equip hand over troops they botched it a bit.

now a conventional rifle will always have a larger sight radius and with the shorter barrel 17" vs 19" it would be more compact.

usaf0314 said:

I still don't get why the PLA doesn't utilize picatinny rails.

Click to expand...

independent Chinese companies are beginning to make and market all the pimp my rifle gadgets. PAP and local police SWAT units seem to adopt these things faster. pic from a Chinese police equipment trade show.