I personally think that the PLA Army Aviation Corps has a shortcoming (compared with the United States). The United States has heavy transport aircraft such as the CH47, while China only has the improved version of the Z8. The Marine Corps has the CH53 series and the V22, while the PLA currently only has the Z8 and as transport helicopters. This means that the US Air Assault Brigade and the Marine Corps have stronger air delivery capabilities than the PLA. In addition, as a medium-sized helicopter, although the Z10 has new ammunition, its comprehensive capabilities are still far behind the Apache (its load capacity is even inferior to that of the European Tiger). This is also the reason why China developed the Z21. However, the PLA's anti-tank ammunition has developed rapidly. The PLA has begun to equip the Blue arrow21, which is similar to the British Brimstone, as well as the CM502 missile with a range of up to 25KM, and even has the ability to launch the CM501 (range 40KM?) Loitering Ammunition .The performance of the above ammunition undoubtedly surpasses the Hellfire missile. Of course, the United States is also testing the NLOS system
@@Strategy_Analysis You can make a video about the development of PLA anti-tank ammunition, from old HJ73 HJ8 HJ9 to the modern HJ10 H11 HJ12 HJ16 HJ20 HJ50 and AKD10 Blue arrow21 Chinese version of "XM501" CM501/CM502 series. I personally think that the development of PLA anti-armor ammunition has surpassed Russia and even the West. And how the XM501 of the United States was "reborn" in China. There is too little research on these things on UA-cam and reddit
I think the lack of heavy vertical airlift capability in china's military reflects on its defensive posture as it doesn't perform expeditionary warfare like the US does. The only place where it might conceivably need them is an invasion of Taiwan but the distances involved is so short, amphibious landing craft make more sense cost wise.
Excellent briefing! Even more so given the notorious secrecy of chinese military principles and the language barrier. What are your thoughts on areas in which PLA is *lacking* in terms of helo capabilities? Seems this is a domain their capacity to indigenize is still sorely behind the curve, evident from their procurement of russian KA-52s and joint development of a heavy-lift. As always, much appreciated. (Australia truly is blessed with the likes of brilliant people such as yourself, Hugh white and Paul keating)
As for your question on what the PLA is lacking in terms of helo capabilities, most of all are numbers of modern platforms. They need many more Z-8s and Z-20s, and that's across all 3 Services.
@@你看个锤子你看 It's in the same class as the AW101. It's actually a good generic size, in that it has good size for ASW without being too big, and good size for ground force manoeuvre. Of course, China and Russia are jointly working on a heavy lift helo.
I just want to thank you for your videos and the work you put into them! They really help me understand the military dimensions of China's rise, and how this tends to compare to other powers. Again, thank you for the videos!
@@Strategy_Analysis would love to see more of Chinese equipment such as anti- navy, anti- air systems, different types of missiles,rockets and all.....
Does the PLA Army operate helicopter mobile Assault Brigades and leave the parachute training Airborne Combined Arms Brigades to the PLA Airforce? I know that the different types amphibious brigades are used by the PLA Army and the PLA Marines. With each type having a different role and mission.
Yes. The PLAAF has 6 Airborne Brigades, one of which might also be an Air Assault Brigade. As for the PLAGF Amphibious Brigades and PLAN Marine Brigades, I have done briefings on both of them. Take a look.
Every week I would check for a video about Chinese ground forces aviation, The only other army aviation that can someday be similar in size and capabilities with US army aviation, yet there was no information. Glad that I finally got some view on it. Loads of well put information, keep it up.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it. I have done 2 other briefings on PLA helicopters, you might find them interesting. If you haven't already, please consider subscribing and sharing the videos with others.
Thanks for yet another forensically researched - no nonsense delivery briefing. On the flip side, with the US Army's selection of Bell's 280 Valor for its 'Future Long Range Air Assault' platform, (often citing its quantum leap in speed & range as crucial for any potential regional conflict with China }, what are your thoughts on Australia's rush to retard its air assault capacity by ordering 40 Black Hawks ? The range, speed, payload & utility of the Chinook made it the ADF's sole rotary deployment to its longest conflict ever, surely those attributes make aquiring more Chinooks rather than Black Hawks a more sensible holding pattern, while the US Army rewrites air assault doctrine with tiltrotor technology. Putting the vast size of our own remote island continent aside for a moment, air refuelable Chinooks supported by C130 tankers could deliver a credible island hopping capacity that establishes - sustains remote stand-off missile sites across our northern approaches, insert - retrieve special forces boats at sea or deliver significant numbers of boots on the ground etc, tasks well beyond the Black Hawk.
Thanks, MS. I actually had a reference to tilt-rotor aircraft in my draft but removed it. The V-22 Osprey brings unique capabilities, but they are expensive to maintain and operate. That doesn't mean don't have them, but an important consideration. I would expect the V-280 Valour to be less costly to run, which will be critical if it is to replace most? Blackhawks. As for Australia's decision to get Blackhawks, these are to replace the existing MRH-90s which are being withdrawn. So not an additional capability. They will fill the Tactical Lift role, something the Chinook is too big for. Now the Chinook is a great helo, would be nice to have more, but the budget only goes so far, especially when you're saving up for SSNs and other expensive kit. If Australia was to develop units similar to the U.S. Marine Littoral Regiments, I could see your idea having a lot of merit. As it stands, Australia needs a tactical lift helo as a matter of urgency. The only solution to this is more Blackhawks.
Many differences. The U.S. brigades are more heavily armed and designed to assault heavily defended positions, likely result in very heavy causalities on both sides.
Just one point of disagreement. I would not refer to Air Assault units as helicopters with organic infantry. I would say it consists of infantry with organic helicopters. The primary combat component is the infantry, not the helicopters. They are analogous to Motorized and Mechanized Infantry units, just different means of transportation. LOL
I personally think that the PLA Army Aviation Corps has a shortcoming (compared with the United States). The United States has heavy transport aircraft such as the CH47, while China only has the improved version of the Z8. The Marine Corps has the CH53 series and the V22, while the PLA currently only has the Z8 and as transport helicopters. This means that the US Air Assault Brigade and the Marine Corps have stronger air delivery capabilities than the PLA. In addition, as a medium-sized helicopter, although the Z10 has new ammunition, its comprehensive capabilities are still far behind the Apache (its load capacity is even inferior to that of the European Tiger). This is also the reason why China developed the Z21. However, the PLA's anti-tank ammunition has developed rapidly. The PLA has begun to equip the Blue arrow21, which is similar to the British Brimstone, as well as the CM502 missile with a range of up to 25KM, and even has the ability to launch the CM501 (range 40KM?) Loitering Ammunition .The performance of the above ammunition undoubtedly surpasses the Hellfire missile. Of course, the United States is also testing the NLOS system
Agree that heavy lift helicopter capability is a current deficiency for the PLA.
@@Strategy_Analysis You can make a video about the development of PLA anti-tank ammunition, from old HJ73 HJ8 HJ9 to the modern HJ10 H11 HJ12 HJ16 HJ20 HJ50 and AKD10 Blue arrow21 Chinese version of "XM501" CM501/CM502 series. I personally think that the development of PLA anti-armor ammunition has surpassed Russia and even the West. And how the XM501 of the United States was "reborn" in China. There is too little research on these things on UA-cam and reddit
I think the lack of heavy vertical airlift capability in china's military reflects on its defensive posture as it doesn't perform expeditionary warfare like the US does. The only place where it might conceivably need them is an invasion of Taiwan but the distances involved is so short, amphibious landing craft make more sense cost wise.
Excellent briefing! Even more so given the notorious secrecy of chinese military principles and the language barrier.
What are your thoughts on areas in which PLA is *lacking* in terms of helo capabilities? Seems this is a domain their capacity to indigenize is still sorely behind the curve, evident from their procurement of russian KA-52s and joint development of a heavy-lift.
As always, much appreciated. (Australia truly is blessed with the likes of brilliant people such as yourself, Hugh white and Paul keating)
I've done a briefing on why the PLA might be interested in the Ka-52 (the purchase of which is not confirmed): ua-cam.com/video/h92WaS23Nww/v-deo.html
@@Strategy_Analysis Perfect! Thanks
As for your question on what the PLA is lacking in terms of helo capabilities, most of all are numbers of modern platforms. They need many more Z-8s and Z-20s, and that's across all 3 Services.
@@Strategy_Analysis Z8 is essentially an improved version of French SA321, and has a big gap with Ch47 and Ch53
@@你看个锤子你看 It's in the same class as the AW101. It's actually a good generic size, in that it has good size for ASW without being too big, and good size for ground force manoeuvre. Of course, China and Russia are jointly working on a heavy lift helo.
I just want to thank you for your videos and the work you put into them! They really help me understand the military dimensions of China's rise, and how this tends to compare to other powers.
Again, thank you for the videos!
Thanks for the comment. Much appreciated.
Nice video looking forward for More 🙂
Thank you. More in 7 days.
That's an ominous comment
@@Strategy_Analysis would love to see more of Chinese equipment such as anti- navy, anti- air systems, different types of missiles,rockets and all.....
Does the PLA Army operate helicopter mobile Assault Brigades and leave the parachute training Airborne Combined Arms Brigades to the PLA Airforce?
I know that the different types amphibious brigades are used by the PLA Army and the PLA Marines. With each type having a different role and mission.
Yes. The PLAAF has 6 Airborne Brigades, one of which might also be an Air Assault Brigade. As for the PLAGF Amphibious Brigades and PLAN Marine Brigades, I have done briefings on both of them. Take a look.
Every week I would check for a video about Chinese ground forces aviation, The only other army aviation that can someday be similar in size and capabilities with US army aviation, yet there was no information. Glad that I finally got some view on it.
Loads of well put information, keep it up.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed it. I have done 2 other briefings on PLA helicopters, you might find them interesting. If you haven't already, please consider subscribing and sharing the videos with others.
Wil you be doing a video on Chinese stealth fighters and bombers, like the J-20 and upcoming H-20?
Yes, I will. I will also include the J-35(?) and perhaps the GJ-11.
@@Strategy_Analysis mad - cheers mate 👍
85 air assault brigade looks like nearly at my home
Thanks for yet another forensically researched - no nonsense delivery briefing. On the flip side, with the US Army's selection of Bell's 280 Valor for its 'Future Long Range Air Assault' platform, (often citing its quantum leap in speed & range as crucial for any potential regional conflict with China }, what are your thoughts on Australia's rush to retard its air assault capacity by ordering 40 Black Hawks ? The range, speed, payload & utility of the Chinook made it the ADF's sole rotary deployment to its longest conflict ever, surely those attributes make aquiring more Chinooks rather than Black Hawks a more sensible holding pattern, while the US Army rewrites air assault doctrine with tiltrotor technology.
Putting the vast size of our own remote island continent aside for a moment, air refuelable Chinooks supported by C130 tankers could deliver a credible island hopping capacity that establishes - sustains remote stand-off missile sites across our northern approaches, insert - retrieve special forces boats at sea or deliver significant numbers of boots on the ground etc, tasks well beyond the Black Hawk.
Thanks, MS. I actually had a reference to tilt-rotor aircraft in my draft but removed it. The V-22 Osprey brings unique capabilities, but they are expensive to maintain and operate. That doesn't mean don't have them, but an important consideration. I would expect the V-280 Valour to be less costly to run, which will be critical if it is to replace most? Blackhawks.
As for Australia's decision to get Blackhawks, these are to replace the existing MRH-90s which are being withdrawn. So not an additional capability. They will fill the Tactical Lift role, something the Chinook is too big for. Now the Chinook is a great helo, would be nice to have more, but the budget only goes so far, especially when you're saving up for SSNs and other expensive kit. If Australia was to develop units similar to the U.S. Marine Littoral Regiments, I could see your idea having a lot of merit. As it stands, Australia needs a tactical lift helo as a matter of urgency. The only solution to this is more Blackhawks.
What different us army air assualt brigade?
us army have 3air assult brigades in 101 airborne division.
Many differences. The U.S. brigades are more heavily armed and designed to assault heavily defended positions, likely result in very heavy causalities on both sides.
Finally, excelent video 👏 !!
Thanks Carlos.
Just one point of disagreement. I would not refer to Air Assault units as helicopters with organic infantry. I would say it consists of infantry with organic helicopters. The primary combat component is the infantry, not the helicopters. They are analogous to Motorized and Mechanized Infantry units, just different means of transportation. LOL