QTS-11 OICW. 5.8 mm Heavy and 20 mm Air Burst.

I have skimmed through the thread, but I am not sure if this point has been mentioned, and in my opinion, this is one of the key factors why PLA asked the designers to get rid of the repeater mechanism and adopted the bolt action:

* It removed much of the complicated electronics required for round-type selector inside each round, allowing for almost 40% increase in the size of the warhead.

So instead of having a programmable general purpose round that can air-burst or burst on impact like normal grenades, they will carry three round types, the air-burst (used with the laser rangefinder), the normal impact fused, and a directional air-burst. By removing the programming function altogether, they can also reduce the complexities in electronics and control on the weapon itself, making it lighter and more robust.

The 20mm and 40mm grenades are not same animals. They are for different uses and are not comparable. It is impossible to have a light hand-held weapon that can fire a 40mm round in a flat trajectory up to a range of 800 meters like a bullet (due to recoil). You can do that with a 20mm round, and flat trajectory allows a much more effective use of air-burst rounds to kill targets behind obstacles.

Flat trajectory is very important as allows for much simpler FCS, as in theory you only need a laser range finder and a simple calculation of the time of arrival of the round above the target: range / exiting speed of the round * some predetermined or calibrated air-resistance coefficient. And you can use the existing sight on the rifle to aim effectively. This means reduced complexity, weight, power consumption (means you can have smaller and lighter batteries), cost, as well as increased robustness of the weapon.

Field tests had PLA soldiers reporting that the shot-gun round had great suppressive properties, and the repeater function of the older design weren't that valued by the soldiers, chief reason being the 5 rounds in the magazine added a lot of bulk and weight to carry around in arms while running and crawling, and the bolt action provided adequate rate of fire for the intended purposes of this weapon.

Bltizo said:

Err yes it is accepted that the mechanism is bolt action.

But the ballistics computer and FCS are integrated/non removable from the rifle. We had a picture of a ZH05 in a case stripped down, and you can see the buttons on the left side of the gun fully integrated into the FCS block.

Just consider it: if there isn't a FCS/ballistics computer integrated in the rifle then why have a smart grenade launcher integrated into the rifle at all? The entire point is I have an integrated smart grenade system.

You may be thinking of the scopes, which can be removed/changed.

Click to expand...

The FCS being detachable offers advantages of future upgrades without having to change the weapon itself. The laser rangefinder and the FCS computer are all dedicate systems, more likely to get damaged in combat. Also technologies in electronics advance much faster than the gun mechanics, and when it is time to upgrade the FCS, it becomes as easy as plug and play. They may develop new rounds, which may require new FCS, for example.

Modular systems is the word to use here.

I agree FCS should be easily upgradeable, but that isn't the same as detachable/separate on the soldier as no name said.

Is the 20mm grenade round with relatively flat trajectory powerful enough to damage low flying objects like helicopters?

no_name said:

Is the 20mm grenade round with relatively flat trajectory powerful enough to damage low flying objects like helicopters?

Click to expand...

The weapon is designed primarily for anti-personal roles, and especially effective in urban environments.

Very much doubt it will be of much use for attack helicopters, these birds are designed to withstand 20+ mm rounds in their vital parts, and that is 20 or 23mm HE or incendiary rounds fired from auto cannons with much more KE.

For unarmored helicopters, it is also difficult because of the rate of fire, and the rounds are unguided. Even if you have semi-automatic mechanism, or even automatic mechanism, the magazine holds about 5 maximum. Unless the helicopter is hovering, and unaware of your presence, in which case you may be able to get a lucky shot on its tail rotor.

Bltizo said:

I agree FCS should be easily upgradeable, but that isn't the same as detachable as no name said.

Click to expand...

I do admit that I have never seen a photo of the weapon with FCS section detached. The available photos from the in service models (not the prototypes) does show a clear line between the weapon (receiver) part and FCS part, however. Whether that means the FCS can be field-stripped like a scope is another matter. Your guess is as good as mine.



BTW, for anyone interested in how much space does electronics occupy the M1018 rounds used by OICW, look at this picture.

no_name said:

Is the 20mm grenade round with relatively flat trajectory powerful enough to damage low flying objects like helicopters?

Click to expand...

most combat helicopters are built to take full power 20mm rounds. Weapons like the ZH05 use under powered 20mm rounds like the 20x28, 20x30mm or 20x30 or 20x42 meant to offer flatter trajectories but soft recoil the rounds used are nothing like those of say the American M61 Vulcan cannon which uses 20x102mm. so short of lucking in to a open door chances of actually taking down a combat chopper are better in video games then reality.

wtlh said:

I do admit that I have never seen a photo of the weapon with FCS section detached. The available photos from the in service models (not the prototypes) does show a clear line between the weapon part and FCS part, however. Whether that means the FCS can be field-stripped is another question. Your guess is as good as mine.

View attachment 10530

Click to expand...

Considering elements of the FCS will be integrated into the barrel to set the fuze on whatever type of grenade they are using, I doubt the FCS is meant to be field stripped.

The scope looks like it can be easily changed, but the line between the FCS is probably not indicative of anything other than a byproduct of ease of integration (easier to just stick the FCS block on top instead of trying to make it all smooth)
That makes sense, because any upgrades to the FCS for a weapon of this complexity probably involves factory or specialised upgrade stations instead of being "field changeable".

I think the FCS probably can be removed by soldiers at bases to maintain and possibly even modify them, but definitely not able to do so outside of base during missions where special tools are lacking. In other words, even if the FCS block is designed to allow upgrades of future blocks, it will not be as easy as changing scopes for many years to come.

Bltizo said:

Considering elements of the FCS will be integrated into the barrel to set the fuze on whatever type of grenade they are using, I doubt the FCS is meant to be field stripped.

The scope looks like it can be easily changed, but the line between the FCS is probably not indicative of anything other than a byproduct of ease of integration (easier to just stick the FCS block on top instead of trying to make it all smooth)
That makes sense, because any upgrades to the FCS for a weapon of this complexity probably involves factory or specialised upgrade stations instead of being "field changeable".

I think the FCS probably can be removed by soldiers at bases to maintain and possibly even modify them, but definitely not able to do so outside of base during missions where special tools are lacking. In other words, even if the FCS block is designed to allow upgrades of future blocks, it will not be as easy as changing scopes for many years to come.

Click to expand...

The fuse setter does not have to be a part of the FCS, the FCS just needs a bus connection to it. However, I do agree that the FCS may not be field strippable, and may require special tools to detach in the armoury.

A field strippable FCS, however, is not without merits---I am not implying the ZH-05 is. They can be regarded as pre-programmed modules for different combat environments or set of rounds that can be swapped easily by the soldiers, just like changing scopes. Think of it something like the cartridges for the old SNES game consoles. These cartridges can be made to be a lot cheaper, smaller, faster and more robust than programmable computers.

In the Field troops don't swap scopes. and nor would they swap FCS on the fly. That only happens in video games. reality is chances are once it's set other then the occasional battery change and lens cleaning it's going to stay on. Your not going to have a soldier carry 3 or 4 FCS systems optimized for Ap rounds, AB rounds, Training rounds, ecta.. ecta... the weight and bulkiness would be more trouble then it's worth. better to have preprogrammed ballistics data and a manual switch that would allow the user to change mode to match ammo in use.