QTS-11 OICW. 5.8 mm Heavy and 20 mm Air Burst.
- Thread starter tanlixiang28776
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The technology here is based on a number of roots. The primary principles of operation are based on the principles of either gas operation or the rotating bolt action based on fundamentals laid by John M Browning and Mauser.
The airbrush is based on fundamentals used in artillery since the 1960s, the laser ranging has been in use since the 1980s the critical here is that only since the turn of the millennium has the technology been available to miniaturize the technologies from a tank to a infantry weapon. But the big debate we seem trapped in is how those technologies are employed and what they mean to coming infantry operations in the near future.
And it's not just ZH05 but the emerging computerisation of infantry small arms as a whole. I mean systems like tracking point are just has heavily influenced by the concepts of the OICW. The Russians have advertised a thermal sight with tracking point like capacity the Israelies conceptual OICW was based on a favor with a smart scope and no grenade launcher.
We are rapidly watching the rise of revolution in the military in general and the infantry is slowly joining the information Age. The question is how these change the principles of infantry fighting.
The advantages of Augmented reality to the grunt.
We Arm chair generals are throwing our weight around trying to figure how these would be employed. Sometimes with wild claims and opinions.
For example Andrews claim of battlefield exchange, the question on that is are the magazine's of the ZH05/QBZ05 compatible with QBZ95? If so fine if not that throws a wrench his way.
A quick pick up is one thing and not as much a hurdle as a long term retasking of a soldier. Besides in battlefield pick up the Zh05 ammo is all on the fallen soldier well the Xm25 has a magazine.
In any event overall this banter is more or less just spinning our wheels.
The airbrush is based on fundamentals used in artillery since the 1960s, the laser ranging has been in use since the 1980s the critical here is that only since the turn of the millennium has the technology been available to miniaturize the technologies from a tank to a infantry weapon. But the big debate we seem trapped in is how those technologies are employed and what they mean to coming infantry operations in the near future.
And it's not just ZH05 but the emerging computerisation of infantry small arms as a whole. I mean systems like tracking point are just has heavily influenced by the concepts of the OICW. The Russians have advertised a thermal sight with tracking point like capacity the Israelies conceptual OICW was based on a favor with a smart scope and no grenade launcher.
We are rapidly watching the rise of revolution in the military in general and the infantry is slowly joining the information Age. The question is how these change the principles of infantry fighting.
The advantages of Augmented reality to the grunt.
We Arm chair generals are throwing our weight around trying to figure how these would be employed. Sometimes with wild claims and opinions.
For example Andrews claim of battlefield exchange, the question on that is are the magazine's of the ZH05/QBZ05 compatible with QBZ95? If so fine if not that throws a wrench his way.
A quick pick up is one thing and not as much a hurdle as a long term retasking of a soldier. Besides in battlefield pick up the Zh05 ammo is all on the fallen soldier well the Xm25 has a magazine.
In any event overall this banter is more or less just spinning our wheels.
kwaigonegin
Colonel
No arguments there however the conversations have veer from effectiveness and suitability towards more tactics and field operations which is fine if the poster is an operator of such system IRL or even a squad commander etc. I think equation was in the army ? Maybe he can speak about such systems employed in battle.
But the problem is that the interaction of various technological advances is forcing significant changes in terms of infantry combat (against peer opponents), so that previous best practice experience is not really relevant anymore eg.
Augmented reality headsets are now commercially available for $1000
Manually controlled DJI drones are also commercially available for $1000
Small drones with AI capabilities are due later this year.
We can see general improvements in robotics, sensors, AI in the commercial world - are leading to all sorts of possibilities.
Therefore investing large amounts in today's technology with expensive/bespoke/slow programmes is not a very good strategy - as they will almost certainly be quickly superceded by better and cheaper commercial grade stuff.
The XM-25 is a prime example of this.
Augmented reality headsets are now commercially available for $1000
Manually controlled DJI drones are also commercially available for $1000
Small drones with AI capabilities are due later this year.
We can see general improvements in robotics, sensors, AI in the commercial world - are leading to all sorts of possibilities.
Therefore investing large amounts in today's technology with expensive/bespoke/slow programmes is not a very good strategy - as they will almost certainly be quickly superceded by better and cheaper commercial grade stuff.
The XM-25 is a prime example of this.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
That's a dubious argument for a number of reasons
First, There is no Commercial market for a XM25 or ZH05 these are specifically military neache. There is no Commercial value to a number of military specific assets. Airbursting grenades are a military only technology like Antitank rockets or guided missiles or smart bombs. There are a number of potential dual role technologies in the cutting edge militaries of the world like Ballistic missiles for satellite launches, Nuclear power reactors, even high performance jets but most of the infantry AR is working the other way around where the top militaries are absorbing from the commercial or building unique assets. The Fact is that the ZH05 is getting the cost markdown not because it's revolutionary but because XM29, K11 and XM25 broke the ground first. They can look at what they know works and then establish based on Known success. The Technologies at the heart of these systems were taken off the shelf then repurposed
Second at the same time Cheaper Commercial grade have holes vs true Mil spec. A common troupe brought in to Peer on Peer is EMP. Electromagnetic pulse. Against military grade hardware EMP is mostly harmless. the Circuits are hardened. whereas Commercial grade is not designed to deal with a electromagnetic attack.
Third just as the PLA is working to adopt commercial grade kit to military roles the US Has been to. Just about all front line nations like the UK, RF, France, Israel, Germany, Poland, Australia, Singapore, Japan, South Korea and more have been adopting advancements from the commercial grade to military grade.
Why is the XM-25 and the grenades so expensive compared to the K-11 or ZH-05?
Most of it is due to the electronics. And in the realm of electronics, commercial grade is way better value for money.
You also talk about antitank rockets or guided missiles or smart bombs as military-only products. But again, most of the cost is in the electronics and software, or at least it was until they went commercial.
You also talk about how the XM-25 and K-11 cost more because they break new ground.
But the XM-25 appropriation clearly splits out R&D costs versus the acquisition costs of $41K per unit. Also, the K-11 and ZH-05 comes in at roughly half? the cost, so why is the XM-25 still so expensive?
===
With reference to your EMP resistant microchips, you can get around having to use them if you have sufficient shielding in place. Additional shielding costs way less than bespoke low-performance EMP resistant microchips, although there is likely a weight penalty.
So I stand by the comment that in general, it's better to wait and go commercial for volume production needs.
===
And yes, everyone is looking to incorporate commercial grade technology - but that assumes you have access to a thriving civilian commercial industry which is also secure - in order to support this drive.
Remember it is Shenzhen which is the global centre of the open source electronics revolution. Case in point would be DJI who are the global technology/cost/volume leader in the field of small drones, along with the entire supply chain and all the other significant players in the field are located in Shenzhen.
No one else in the world has anything like it.
But if you really want someone to disagree with on the importance of commercial tech - why don't you start with SecDef and the Third Offset?
Most of it is due to the electronics. And in the realm of electronics, commercial grade is way better value for money.
You also talk about antitank rockets or guided missiles or smart bombs as military-only products. But again, most of the cost is in the electronics and software, or at least it was until they went commercial.
You also talk about how the XM-25 and K-11 cost more because they break new ground.
But the XM-25 appropriation clearly splits out R&D costs versus the acquisition costs of $41K per unit. Also, the K-11 and ZH-05 comes in at roughly half? the cost, so why is the XM-25 still so expensive?
===
With reference to your EMP resistant microchips, you can get around having to use them if you have sufficient shielding in place. Additional shielding costs way less than bespoke low-performance EMP resistant microchips, although there is likely a weight penalty.
So I stand by the comment that in general, it's better to wait and go commercial for volume production needs.
===
And yes, everyone is looking to incorporate commercial grade technology - but that assumes you have access to a thriving civilian commercial industry which is also secure - in order to support this drive.
Remember it is Shenzhen which is the global centre of the open source electronics revolution. Case in point would be DJI who are the global technology/cost/volume leader in the field of small drones, along with the entire supply chain and all the other significant players in the field are located in Shenzhen.
No one else in the world has anything like it.
But if you really want someone to disagree with on the importance of commercial tech - why don't you start with SecDef and the Third Offset?
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Javlin missile costs $240,000 a pop Is that low cost? A ASRAAM missile costs 200,000 pounds. I am sorry but bogus.
Yes I do, the XM29 set the mold in the 1990's, K11 Emerged in 2006. they set the mold and proved the concept that Chinese Maker was clearly inspired by.
.I am still looking for your source on that price, but I have to correct my self to.
US Military Acquisitions are based on pricing on a curve. the more you buy the lower the price per unit becomes as the R&D and infrastructure is distributed.
The first handful of XM25 units were a few million a pop. The second batch was 105 units braking that price down more. The 25-30K was based in a fourth gen (Xm29 being gen 1, Xm25 early being gen2 and third gen being the 105 units) order of 117. were still talking a few hundred units and not army wide issue, at max what a little over 200 units.
Same for the rounds first gen rounds were $1000 a round as time as gone by those have also gone down. As more come online the price drops on the curve. That's how US DOD acquisitions work.
The K11 price has been based on a estimate given when the UAE evaluated 40 of it for a contract of about $140,000 per unit however, Were those bought or rented? does the UAE still have them? were they maintained by the UAE or South Korea? If bought then wow half the price but if leased. A Lease is generally cheaper then a Buy as the end product will normally return home.
Also the K11 Ran into a problem at the end of 2014 but they had already planed for a buy of 900 rifles under the Price curve scheme 900 units would be far cheaper per unit then a small batch The XM25 was still looking at what just over 200 rifles. the per unit cost was based on small lot buys vs large lots of the ROK.
Always cheaper to buy in bulk.
Finally All we really have on the Zh05 price tag is the price as advertised on promotional materials Which is based on?? IF the Chinese Use the same Scheme as The US then that low price is likely a PLA wide buy and Marketing for export.
The US by contrast has reported the price of it's buys post buy. based on small unit buys with each buy being an improved prototype lot.
Basically what this all boils down to is XM25's price is so high because it it XM25, As in experimental. As long as that X is there final pricing is not set. When the X is dropped from it's designation the final price will be more or less set as then it will be fielded force wide as M25 and large orders of a production model will be made the more bough the lower the final price per unit as the M25 goes force wide.
And I turn that against you as your last argument was not considering that prototypes cost more. I also point back your complaints of Weight against your cheap shielding and add Commercial Grade's Short life span and fragility as well as susceptibility to external access based on source code.
And yet the code is written in San Fransisco California along with much of the R&D. As to the manufacture welcome to the 21st century where what you have is a global production line system what happens in China is mostly final assembly of parts sourced globally from the US, India, Both the PRC and ROC( Taiwan), ROK, Germany, Mexico, and beyond. The assemblies and sub assemblies are imported Exported imported and beyond with hubs and spokes along the root. Shenzhen is a major hub but not the only one and as the Chinese have improved their economy the price to manufacture in China has risen leading to other hubs Taiwan, South Korea, India, Even one maker came back to the US. Most of the manufacture is turning to more and more Automation which means that the low cost of labor is removed.
Oh I don't disagree but I am also watching more than the political moves. One of the biggest hindrances of access to next gen commercial to Mil exchanges in the US is actually the DOD rules of Acquisition.
Equation
Lieutenant General
Many of those code writers along with R&D are mostly foreigners either from China, India, Pakistan, or other Asian countries. Meaning very little natural born Americans are doing the hard core science or interested in them these days. With Donald Trump and his band of foreign haters gaining political ground I doubt many of these great minds are willing to stay. That means the US will suffer a glut of talent in regards to high tech research in the future.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
That's dragging in politics and their is no guarantee that Trump is going to get his way in getting the Nomination last count he has only 41% of the delegates or Election or even if he gets that far placing policies that favor his hard line ( congress Oh Congress some times your disfunction is function ). I have heard over and over again and again the line of the fall of Advantages and this and that and yet none of it has happened as predicted. Fact is The Future has yet to be written.
Equation
Lieutenant General
And yet the future looks more and more bleak in America as shown by the many Trump supporters no longer cares about the consequences when it comes to expressing their feelings towards a more "going back to white male domination world". Now you can't deny this a disturbing growing trend that will affect America's ability to attract over seas talent. I mean whom would want to go work in such a racist environment?