Chinese ATGM discussion


Mohsin77

Junior Member
Registered Member
Hi guys, am I wrong or by judging the video source of the new ATGM screen capture pics it looks to me that the angle of attack when the missile is about to strike the target from the top is rather steep. I wouldn't say that it is perpendicular, but it should be close to 90 degrees.

That's not required. It's not the angle, it's the impact point. Top attack munitions just need to strike the unprotected part of the hull on the top-side. If they hit that target, the shaped charge will pierce through, even at a slope. Also, attempting a 90 degree impact trajectory will severely reduce the range of the missile.
 

Insignius

Junior Member
This missile really might be the reason for why the PLA didnt adopt the HJ-12.

Ultimately, the HJ-12 is old tech. Just Javelin-level. The "HJ-16" here seems to be considerably better, as it also included the NLOS capability of the AFT-10 into a man-portable package. The Javelin still had to maintain LOS with the target, at least for the lock-on-procedure, while NLOS missiles like the SPIKE can be launched blindly into the general direction.

These days, having NLOS capability for a top-line ATGMs is a must. ImIR/optical-based early warning systems and laser warning receivers equipped on modern tanks will immediately turn your stationary ATGM crew into minced meat if they still have to maintain line-of-sight with their armored targets. Launching at a target "behind the mountain" is the best and safest way to engage tanks now as an infantryman, aside of calling in airstrikes or precision artillery of course.

Only thing I'm worried about is the wireless feature. The AFT-10 uses an optical cable for the NLOS capability, which is reliable and virtually unjammable... But this here, if we assume that it is based on the defense expo offerings posted here in this thread, has a wireless datalink for the man-in-the-loop control. I dont know how survivable a wireless datalink is these days. But meh, even without the handly NLOS capability, at least the PLA has a non-suicidal top-attack ATGM now.
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
This missile really might be the reason for why the PLA didnt adopt the HJ-12.

Ultimately, the HJ-12 is old tech. Just Javelin-level. The "HJ-16" here seems to be considerably better, as it also included the NLOS capability of the AFT-10 into a man-portable package. The Javelin still had to maintain LOS with the target, at least for the lock-on-procedure, while NLOS missiles like the SPIKE can be launched blindly into the general direction.

These days, having NLOS capability for a top-line ATGMs is a must. ImIR/optical-based early warning systems and laser warning receivers equipped on modern tanks will immediately turn your stationary ATGM crew into minced meat if they still have to maintain line-of-sight with their armored targets. Launching at a target "behind the mountain" is the best and safest way to engage tanks now as an infantryman, aside of calling in airstrikes or precision artillery of course.

Only thing I'm worried about is the wireless feature. The AFT-10 uses an optical cable for the NLOS capability, which is reliable and virtually unjammable... But this here, if we assume that it is based on the defense expo offerings posted here in this thread, has a wireless datalink for the man-in-the-loop control. I dont know how survivable a wireless datalink is these days. But meh, even without the handly NLOS capability, at least the PLA has a non-suicidal top-attack ATGM now.
I don't buy it, judging by both the pictures and the video. This new ATGM is designed to be fired from a tripod (i.e: fixed position) which means that needs to be set up pre firing. Compare that to a Javelin or a HJ-12, which only needs the operator to attach the CLU to the missile tube and it ready to go. Weight wise it is likely going to be heavier than the Javelin.

There is a difference between a ATGM designed to be used by foot soldiers and ATGM that are designed to be man portable. The former is intended to be used by soldier on the ground in mobile squads where the option of "hiding behind a mountain" and shooting a ATGM is neither practical or optional all the time. In that scenario getting into line of sight with a tank is more or less acceptable because :
1) There is no way of ensuring soldiers have consistent access to the luxury of long range detection systems like drones
2) You are most likely to stumble upon enemy armor unexpected which means the other side won't be expecting you either so there is the exploitable element of surprise and terrain. It takes a well trained tank crew to detect and locate a ATGM firing and then decide whether they want to run, fire a smoke screen or fire back.

If line of sight is something that is so deadly then weapons like the PF-89 and it's successor units would have been discontinued long ago.
 

silentlurker

Junior Member
Registered Member
If line of sight is something that is so deadly then weapons like the PF-89 and it's successor units would have been discontinued long ago.
PF-89 is a cheap unguided rocket designed to provide anti-tank capability at basically point blank range, I don't see how you can use that to justify the existence of LOS only ATGMs.
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
PF-89 is a cheap unguided rocket designed to provide anti-tank capability at basically point blank range, I don't see how you can use that to justify the existence of LOS only ATGMs.
Sorry meant the PF-98, but even so if a LOS ATGM like a Javelin or TOW which have better range and the luxury of being fired from a position of concealment and protection are supposedly so obsolete and impotent against a modern tank. I find it incredulous that weapons like the PF-89 and 98 are still in active use by the PLA.
 

supersnoop

Junior Member
Registered Member
Sorry meant the PF-98, but even so if a LOS ATGM like a Javelin or TOW which have better range and the luxury of being fired from a position of concealment and protection are supposedly so obsolete and impotent against a modern tank. I find it incredulous that weapons like the PF-89 and 98 are still in active use by the PLA.
Isn't PF-98 basically anti-tank weapon in name only?
Is it not basically the PLA equivalent AT4/Carl Gustaf?
Basically for soft fortifications and light vehicles
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
Isn't PF-98 basically anti-tank weapon in name only?
Is it not basically the PLA equivalent AT4/Carl Gustaf?
Basically for soft fortifications and light vehicles
The PF-98 is rated to pen 800mm of armor, which is good enough to get through the sides and underbelly of a modern tank. If they aren't design with an anti armor role in mind they would not have made it in such a caliber.
Also the proliferation of a Infrared and laser warning systems are not limited to MBTs, basically any vehicle that can mount one can and will mount one.
Also, if you are facing off against enemy armor and your immediate choice is a PF-98 or Gustav. You are not going to be picky with your choices.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I don't buy it, judging by both the pictures and the video. This new ATGM is designed to be fired from a tripod (i.e: fixed position) which means that needs to be set up pre firing. Compare that to a Javelin or a HJ-12, which only needs the operator to attach the CLU to the missile tube and it ready to go. Weight wise it is likely going to be heavier than the Javelin.

There is a difference between a ATGM designed to be used by foot soldiers and ATGM that are designed to be man portable. The former is intended to be used by soldier on the ground in mobile squads where the option of "hiding behind a mountain" and shooting a ATGM is neither practical or optional all the time. In that scenario getting into line of sight with a tank is more or less acceptable because :
1) There is no way of ensuring soldiers have consistent access to the luxury of long range detection systems like drones
2) You are most likely to stumble upon enemy armor unexpected which means the other side won't be expecting you either so there is the exploitable element of surprise and terrain. It takes a well trained tank crew to detect and locate a ATGM firing and then decide whether they want to run, fire a smoke screen or fire back.

If line of sight is something that is so deadly then weapons like the PF-89 and it's successor units would have been discontinued long ago.

Missiles like MMP and Spike are also designed to be fired from a tripod, however they are still considered to be man-portable. There is a reason why the likes of MMP and Spike and Javelin often compete for the same ATGM competitions and tenders.

The combined weight of MMP is 15kg (missile in tube) and 11kg (tripod and launch unit) for 26 kg total.
The combined weight of the equivalent range Spike MR is 13kg (missile in tube) and 13kg (tripod and launch unit) for 26 kg total.
The combined weight of Javelin is 15.9kg (missile in tube) and 6.4kg (launch unit) for 22.3 kg total.

Javelin is slightly lighter than both of those systems yes, but you still ultimately need to set up all of these systems as well.
The extra step of having a tripod as part of the launch unit for MMP or Spike does not mean they aren't "man portable", and there are only a few types of terrain where a Javelin can be fired that MMP and Spike cannot.


In any case, this new PLA ATGM clearly isn't intended only for NLOS use -- if it functions anything similar to MMP, it will be capable of both NLOS and line of sight engagements.

Basically, I don't see anything that Insignius wrote which is incorrect -- this is essentially a slightly larger, longer ranged Javelin type ATGM with NLOS and offboard targeting capability added in addition to standard/traditional line of sight engagement capability.
 

by78

Brigadier
I don't buy it, judging by both the pictures and the video. This new ATGM is designed to be fired from a tripod (i.e: fixed position) which means that needs to be set up pre firing. Compare that to a Javelin or a HJ-12, which only needs the operator to attach the CLU to the missile tube and it ready to go. Weight wise it is likely going to be heavier than the Javelin.

Not so fast, judging by the images below, Javelin is very much clearly designed to be fired from a tripod (i.e. fixed position), which means that it needs to be set up pre-firing. See what I did there? :p

1280px-Javelin_Firing_Positions_MOD_45162586.jpg
crows-j-stryker-1200.jpg
 

Top