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


Inst

Senior Member
I'm assuming that powered armor would be more expensive than a multimillion dollar fighting vehicle. You'd need a power source, a series of servos, etc. Miniaturization is expensive. Full maturity might see power armor as cheaper than an AFV, but at least in the initial stages the miniaturization is going to cost money and not deliver the same payload or armor levels as an AFV.

As for the QTS-11, I think the issue is that I don't see small arms as militarily-effective, as mentioned before, the majority of combat casualties occur as the result as crew-served (machine guns) or fire support weapons (airstrikes, artillery, mortars, and perhaps smart grenade launchers).

It's essentially the smart grenade portion of the QTS-11 that's more interesting than the carbine section, which is something you appreciate more. In my view, the carbine is there for suppressive fire, not for inflicting casualties or taking ground.

That said, when discussions of suppressive fire weapons like PDW come around, the big problem is that suppressive fire weapons, to actually be scary instead of propaganda leaflets, need killing potential. PDW don't do that.

The other possibility is, well, the QBZ-95. For how much it's maligned by parts of the PLA and the Western firearms community, which disdains bullpups, it's actually a superlative carbine.

When we saw mechanized infantry loadouts for the PLA, one thing that came up was how many soldiers were armed with rocket launchers (for both anti-entrenchment and anti-tank jobs), but even then, they also carried a QBZ-95, helped by the QBZ-95's low weight.

That's to say, the evolution of the QTS-11 might turn out to be a separate PDW or carbine (QBZ-95B) carried by the soldier alongside a dedicated smart gun with increased grenade caliber. The QBZ-19 applied to the QTS-11 might end up being a QBZ-95B-2 that incorporates the mechanism improvements of the QBZ-19.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I'm assuming that powered armor would be more expensive than a multimillion dollar fighting vehicle. You'd need a power source, a series of servos, etc. Miniaturization is expensive. Full maturity might see power armor as cheaper than an AFV, but at least in the initial stages the miniaturization is going to cost money and not deliver the same payload or armor levels as an AFV.
Again that’s more 2119 we are talking more 2020. And 2020 isn’t looking at a mech suit it’s looking at a exoskeleton more likely unpowered for the near term.
As for the QTS-11, I think the issue is that I don't see small arms as militarily-effective, as mentioned before, the majority of combat casualties occur as the result as crew-served (machine guns) or fire support weapons (airstrikes, artillery, mortars, and perhaps smart grenade launchers).
True to a point but this is an evolution not a revolution. Smart grenade launchers are an evolution of the underbarrel launcher. In fact the alternative is to take the same tech and put it in the grenade of the under barrel launch as such it’s not that bigger weapon. It’s meant to be an infantry leg up.
It's essentially the smart grenade portion of the QTS-11 that's more interesting than the carbine section, which is something you appreciate more. In my view, the carbine is there for suppressive fire, not for inflicting casualties or taking ground.
Because of the low rate of fire, small caliber and small payload the QST11 like other systems that have emerged based on the same concept I think gets a little over sold. It’s still an infantry weapon. The US XM25 was its match perhaps over match when you factored in semi automatic fire but was found not as useful against infantry forces in Afghanistan deployment. Because it doesn’t offer anti armor capabilities it’s an anti infantry weapon and then it still hits some weak points. The carbine portion is the 90% used portion where the 10% grenade launcher is useful but for specific reasons.
That said, when discussions of suppressive fire weapons like PDW come around, the big problem is that suppressive fire weapons, to actually be scary instead of propaganda leaflets, need killing potential. PDW don't do that.
The function of the PDW is right in the name. Personal Defence Weapons. The role was defined to a specific issue. Back in the early 1980s the Russians started issuing early body armor. NATO issues a requirement for a compact weapon that could at close to medium ranges engage and defeat said armor. Before that weapons in the role were to be Pistols or Submachine guns firing the same ammo. It was intended to be a weapon light enough to be fired one handed small enough to be carried in a holster or sling by people whose main job was not combat but support. It was a weapon for cooks, Artillerymen, truck drivers, General Headquarters, Motor pool mechanics, medics and quartermasters.
It was the camp is being over run a bunch of nasty bad guys break into the Kitchen and the Cook well still stirring the stew guns them down. But that requirement was written not with level IV armor in mind but a level 1-2 class armor. Vs that threat and unarmored foes its effective, vs more advanced armor it’s not.

now the “Suppressive fire”. Infantry combat statistically happens under three conditions. 1) when two infantry forces basically stumbled on to each other. Or when one lays an ambush but they have no idea when the other will show.
2) at ranges below 400 meters.
3) the one who lays down more fire wins.

that said at longer engagements semi auto fire is better. Remember automatic weapons disperse ammo the action of firing moves the weapons point of aim so a rapid burst at 1 meter is more concentrated then one at 100m. This is why Spray and Pray is stupid. This is why military service weapons that have burst or automatic fire have a single shot mode.
The other possibility is, well, the QBZ-95. For how much it's maligned by parts of the PLA and the Western firearms community, which disdains bullpups, it's actually a superlative carbine
Your being to general there are many many fans of Bullpup in the west. Heck General Dynamics offering for the NGSW is a Bullpup. It does offer a compact weapon will full rifle power ammo however it has trade offs that create issues of ergonomics. The QBZ95 is a fair field bull pup but as a PDW it has issues. In the PDW arena you are more likely to face issues of switching shoulders for close quarters. The 95 also has a terrible placement for selector switch. The 95-1 might fare better but not by much. however this has little to do with the topic.
That's to say, the evolution of the QTS-11 might turn out to be a separate PDW or carbine (QBZ-95B) carried by the soldier alongside a dedicated smart gun with increased grenade caliber. The QBZ-19 applied to the QTS-11 might end up being a QBZ-95B-2 that incorporates the mechanism improvements of the QBZ-19.
Sorry that’s not how it works. The QBZ95 isn’t that much lighter than a conventional rifle of similar construction. The QBZ95 weighs in at 7.2 pounds the G36K at 7.3.
This is exactly what happened to the XM29. The US tried to strip the weight of the weapon but it became apparent that barring some magical breakthrough the XM29 would never hit its objective weight as it was. So it was broken into two programs the XM25 and XM8.
The thing is that the XM8 still weighed 7.5 pounds. The XM25 still weighed 14 pounds.
Now the QST-11 doesn’t have a semiautomatic grenade launcher but still the grenade launcher and fire control system are the heavier portion not the carbine. Striped down the carbine portion is probably 30% of the system weight. Breaking it up would only make it less effective not more. As the US experience shows when offered the XM25 for use Infantry forces found the heavy weight restrictive. They couldn’t also pack an M4A1. It was one or the other.
The QST-11 seem to have worked around some of these issues by going to a single shot bolt action vs the US semiautomatic or South Korean Bolt action Repeater but the cost is slower rate of fire and less follow on shot.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Yes the Payload rifle based off the same concept behind the on again off again XM109. But at 28 pounds it’s hardly an infantry weapon. It’s more of a fixed crew served over watch weapon.
 

Inst

Senior Member
Actually, looking it up, the QBZ-95B is more or less comparable to the M4 in weigh and is only lighter than the M4A1.

Concerning the suppressive fire topic, when fired upon, soldiers either return fire or get into cover. Suppressive fire doesn't indicate full auto fire, only any type of fire that gets soldiers into cover, allowing other fireteams / squads to flank and assault (or, as with the QTS-11, launch airbursting grenades into cover).
 

Inst

Senior Member
About the bullpup's potential, the biggest advantage of the bullpup is the length of the barrel. When we see the standard American rifle being an M4 instead of an M16, the barrel length doesn't matter that much.

When you move up to 6.5 and 6.8mm, or battle rifle lengths, on the other hand, rifle lengths are now more important and we may see more bullpups in larger calibers.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Actually, looking it up, the QBZ-95B is more or less comparable to the M4 in weigh and is only lighter than the M4A1
Isn’t that basically what I said? I chose to use the G36 vs QBZ95 because same era and similar specs but it works the same for M4 vs QBZ95B. There is no huge weight difference between the two. As such trying to repackage the QST11 Grenade launcher on a QBZ95B isn’t going to get a weight savings. It would be the same weight as the current model just more awkward to shoulder.
Concerning the suppressive fire topic, when fired upon, soldiers either return fire or get into cover. Suppressive fire doesn't indicate full auto fire, only any type of fire that gets soldiers into cover, allowing other fireteams / squads to flank and assault (or, as with the QTS-11, launch airbursting grenades into cover).
Accurate however the size and force comes into play. A single airburst round is unlikely to cause more than a one or two casualties due to its size. So again the rifle portion plays into use.
About the bullpup's potential, the biggest advantage of the bullpup is the length of the barrel. When we see the standard American rifle being an M4 instead of an M16, the barrel length doesn't matter that much.
accurate the loss of length Is about 5.5 inches that does reduce muzzle velocity but that can partially be made up for by more powerful powder loads. The reason for the 14.5 inch barrel was in fact that that was a short a barrel they could mount and still fit the M9 Bayonet. XM8 would have had a 12.5 inch barrel standard and had a work around by cutting back the opening of the hand guard to fit a bayonet.
When you move up to 6.5 and 6.8mm, or battle rifle lengths, on the other hand, rifle lengths are now more important and we may see more bullpups in larger calibers.
Not quite. The length would depends on more than just the caliber of bullet. It also depends on the mechanical space needed to cycle the bolt. The Operating group of the rifle needs a set length of space to open and allow a spent cartridge to extract well a fresh one is loaded. By playing with that you can also reduce recoil to a degree.
The space needed to open and close is dictated by the length of the cartridge. A longer cartridge a longer action. So a conventional cartridge loaded with high propellant loads needs a longer space. That is the space from the stock or butt pad in a Bullpup to the chamber and barrel.
For perfect example an MP5 stock retracted has a length of 21.7 inches the HK53 is not quite a variant of that but very similar with the same barrel lengths chambered for 5.56 NATO and is 22.2 inches long. So longer cartridge longer gun.
But there are work arounds cased telescoped or a high pressure load in a more compact cartridge both are possible.
also the length of a 6.5 or higher isn’t all that much longer. The difference between a HK416 and HK417 in the same length of barrel is about 3 inches.
GD’s NGSW chose a Bullpup configuration Because they have two modes of operation hybrid together short stroke and short recoil. By contrast the other two major competitors army that much longer than M4 because they chose either a conventional operation (Sig) or a push through (Textron). Long length 20 inch barrels are not as needed any more because of improvement in propellant loads and ammunition science.
 

by78

Brigadier
From a TV segment, but I don't have the video yet. I will hopefully find it and see if it will illuminate us on how the weapon is deployed. From all the footage so far, it doesn't appear QST-11 is embedded in regular fire teams; it's instead issued to an entire squad.


 

Top