Of all the weapons China is developing, gyrocopters rank very low among those I’m worried about. In truth, I wasn’t even aware they had them until this video popped up in my feed:
The gyrocopter, AKA the autogyro, was a funky forerunner to the helicopter with unpowered rotor blades combined with a propeller to provide lift.
They can fly, but they can’t hover.
China has one in service called the Hunting Eagle Strike gyrocopter.
“What in God’s good name is really going on here? What explains this
seemingly bizarre decision by China to start using gyrocopters in their otherwise modern Army?”
One theory is they’re not for actual combat with other nations, but for carrying out police actions like riot control, murdering Tibetans, murdering protesting students, etc.
There’s also the possibility that it might be useful in border skirmishes with India in the Himalayas.
They also mention Taiwan, but I find that use case really, really doubtful, unless it’s part of the “everything to the coast” kitchen sink invasion plan.
Cost is cheap, though: Only $5,500 a pop.
They have anti-tank missiles, but I have my doubts as to their efficacy on modern western tanks.
The fly low and slow enough that anti-aircraft systems have trouble with them.
All that said, I can’t really see terribly many use cases for this that aren’t better fulfilled by drones.
While I can construct some edge-cases where a gyrocopter might be better at the same price point (grid search in the mountains), but in just about all cases, a drone, a helicopter or an airplane is going to be superior.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 2nd, 2023 at 6:04 PM and is filed under Foreign Policy, Military, video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
13 Responses to “China’s Funky Military Gyrocopter”
They had these in the military parade at Golden week for the 70th anniversary celebrations in 2019. Not really new. Certainly made everyone pull a doubletake ‘huh’ when they appeared in flatbeds halfway through the parade.
Here’s the thing….just like the ‘Pentomic’ army brigades in the 1950s that were experimenting with jet packs an other aerial conveyances, the US army discovered 70 years ago anything that slow with a low service ceiling is a death trap. You are literally taking a soldier (or in this case 2) and removing all their cover, all concealment, and silhouetting them against the sky in a vehicle that doesn’t move faster than the family sedan, can’t go higher than maybe a 1000 feet, and isn’t armored. In other words, 3 decently trained PKM gunners will think they died and went to duck hunter heaven, and in the case of this thing you get 2 for the price of one.
The same problem still exists for modern derivatives of the concept, like the UK produced pack with jet mittens. You’re still making yourself the finest groundfire target ever for the entire duration of your movement or approach, and worse still your hands are occupied by default, so unless they come up with predator-style automated shoulder turrets you’re not firing back or suppressing an area.
The earth is the infantryman’s friend. It protects, conceals and shields him from the enemy. When he needs air, he uses helicopters and when he needs fire support he calls for it in the form of dedicated attack platforms that can carry more than 50lbs of offensive weapons, unlike this thing. If he needs to scout, he uses a drone now. The Chinese are “FeiChang FengKuang” (fucking crazy).
There are no systems out there so bizarre that someone, somewhere, is an enthusiastic proponent of said system.
Also, things never die in the military procurement space. Ever. The Brits thought the bullpup was a cool concept, developed the EM-2, Churchill sh*t-canned it in the name of NATO standardization, and the developers just went away sulking. Until they successfully inflicted the SA-80 on the British Army.
In the US, there was SPIW, then OICW, then the XM-25, all of which were combo weapons with a grenade launcher built into the individual weapon. None of them work; but, they were unkillable. There are people who still think those things are the wave of the future… Which is nuts.
The gyrocopter, AKA the autogyro, was a funky forerunner to the helicopter with unpowered rotor blades combined with a propeller to provide lift.
The propeller provides thrust, not lift. The rotor blades provide the lift; also a lot of drag, compared to a fixed wing aircraft.
Virtually nobody builds the things because at the fast end rotors are too much drag, at the slow end they can’t hover (they won’t crash, exactly, since falling will still spin the rotors some, but they can’t maintain altitude, either), and they’re more expensive to operate than something like a Stork or a Cessna.
Yeah, SA-80 is almost a curse word for British troops that had to use in Gulf Wars. British government have to get H&K (at the time a subsidiary of a British company) to essentially rebuild all of it. The only thing they didn’t completely fiddle with it is the receiver.
Did a “you shoot ours; we’ll shoot yours…” range with the Royal Engineers, once upon a time. Firing the SA-80, which was then in the pre-HK phase of its life-cycle? Left me very, very unimpressed.
Only military small arm I’ve ever fired that I could jamb just by holding it wrong. I was bracing myself with my left arm wrapped up and under, gripping the receiver. The sides of said receiver were flimsy enough that the pressure from me holding the damn thing actually retarded the bolt carrier from reciprocating, producing jams galore.
On top of that, the Radway Green ammo they had for it appeared to be loaded with floor sweepings from the propellant plant; that crap was so dirty that it fouled the gas systems on our M16A2s in short order, and when we tried firing our M855 in the SA-80, it was obviously way over-gassed with that ammo. It did shoot a hell of a lot cleaner…
The benefits I see for a chinese Gyro* are likely 1) tolerance for crazy wind conditions (eg mountains as mentioned above) 2) very little training needed, and 3) much lower cost. They still have a mostly-peasant army, and, like the russians, see troops as mostly expendables, so helos are likely just considered too expensive. They may find a small, expensive, specialized helo fleet less attractive than a big, cheap, gyro fleet that almost any knucklehead can get into the air long enough to scout a ridgeline or whatever. Lose a few? Who cares!
There is one task which this widget could be used effectively: Invading Taiwan. Admittedly it would have to be on a clear day with no storms, and the organization for the process would be epic, but squint a little and imagine ten thousand of these buzzy little beasts in a rough line headed across the straits. AA missiles could kill a few hundred, crashes and mechanical failures undoubtedly a few hundred more, and using fighter jets on them would be iffy because the airspace would be controlled by thousands of Chinese jets. Instead of a 2-man vehicle, you have a 1-man craft and 100kilos of supplies/ammo/gear landing in the thousands in rear areas behind the coast. Each vehicle could be pre-packed with all the supplies and stored in standard shipping containers, then on D-day, unboxed and flown in minutes. Chinese aerial wave.
“They still have a mostly-peasant army, and, like the russians, see troops as mostly expendables…”
If the Chinese leadership actually thinks this way, I think they’re in for one hell of a surprise. Demographically, what with the “One Child” policy, they’re playing with fire if they get into a shooting war and lose manpower the way they’re used to. The problem is that they have no real state pension system, so people put their “old age planning” into their kids and real estate. The real estate system is failing before our eyes, and if they then get a bunch of the kids killed off…? Yikes.
I don’t have a clue what the gyrocopter is going to do for them. My guess is that there’s a general out there who’s always been enamored of the things, and is thus pushing for them. Not every single decision made by any organization or nation is really always that brilliant; you have to account for an awful lot of “stupid” before you copy what they’re doing. Look how the Soviets built the MiG-25 to counter the never-built B-70, and then had to push the thing into the recon role to justify its existence. See also “Infantry Fighting Vehicle”, which we cribbed off the Soviets. Something I still don’t fathom, TBH… When has it ever been a good idea to copy people who think that manpower is endlessly available, and who don’t care about casualties?
Still say the “IFV” ought to be a pair of vehicles, one with the weapons and the other carrying troops. In my entire military career, I never saw a single instance wherein it was a good idea to haul the troops around together with high-value targets like the weapons systems we put into the Bradley. You almost never, ever see a tactical scenario where the ideal place to shoot at an objective is also the same place where you want to be dropping your dismounts; the two are almost always situationally contradictory. Which presents a commander with Hobson’s choice: Lose my dismounts, or lose my firepower…?
Do your own thinking. Don’t copy others; all you’re going to get is an echo of their thinking, which is quite possibly delusional. Also, do not project your thinking onto trying to understand their actions. They very likely aren’t doing the things you see because they’re in agreement with you; they’re likely doing their own things for their own reasons, at least some of which are gonna be entirely delusional.
[…] the post about China’s funky military gyrocopter, a discussion of just how bad the British SA80 assault rifle (AKA Enfield L85A1) sucked. And boy […]
Gee, this is so 1950.
There was a huge fad of auto-gyros after WW2
They had these in the military parade at Golden week for the 70th anniversary celebrations in 2019. Not really new. Certainly made everyone pull a doubletake ‘huh’ when they appeared in flatbeds halfway through the parade.
Here’s the thing….just like the ‘Pentomic’ army brigades in the 1950s that were experimenting with jet packs an other aerial conveyances, the US army discovered 70 years ago anything that slow with a low service ceiling is a death trap. You are literally taking a soldier (or in this case 2) and removing all their cover, all concealment, and silhouetting them against the sky in a vehicle that doesn’t move faster than the family sedan, can’t go higher than maybe a 1000 feet, and isn’t armored. In other words, 3 decently trained PKM gunners will think they died and went to duck hunter heaven, and in the case of this thing you get 2 for the price of one.
The same problem still exists for modern derivatives of the concept, like the UK produced pack with jet mittens. You’re still making yourself the finest groundfire target ever for the entire duration of your movement or approach, and worse still your hands are occupied by default, so unless they come up with predator-style automated shoulder turrets you’re not firing back or suppressing an area.
The earth is the infantryman’s friend. It protects, conceals and shields him from the enemy. When he needs air, he uses helicopters and when he needs fire support he calls for it in the form of dedicated attack platforms that can carry more than 50lbs of offensive weapons, unlike this thing. If he needs to scout, he uses a drone now. The Chinese are “FeiChang FengKuang” (fucking crazy).
There are no systems out there so bizarre that someone, somewhere, is an enthusiastic proponent of said system.
Also, things never die in the military procurement space. Ever. The Brits thought the bullpup was a cool concept, developed the EM-2, Churchill sh*t-canned it in the name of NATO standardization, and the developers just went away sulking. Until they successfully inflicted the SA-80 on the British Army.
In the US, there was SPIW, then OICW, then the XM-25, all of which were combo weapons with a grenade launcher built into the individual weapon. None of them work; but, they were unkillable. There are people who still think those things are the wave of the future… Which is nuts.
Gyrocopters are far superior to all other forms of aircraft in turbulent wind conditions. They are impossible to stall.
This makes them uniquely suited to operations in mountainous areas.
I see YouTube has age restricted this vid because he said “Tibet”.
The propeller provides thrust, not lift. The rotor blades provide the lift; also a lot of drag, compared to a fixed wing aircraft.
Virtually nobody builds the things because at the fast end rotors are too much drag, at the slow end they can’t hover (they won’t crash, exactly, since falling will still spin the rotors some, but they can’t maintain altitude, either), and they’re more expensive to operate than something like a Stork or a Cessna.
Yeah, SA-80 is almost a curse word for British troops that had to use in Gulf Wars. British government have to get H&K (at the time a subsidiary of a British company) to essentially rebuild all of it. The only thing they didn’t completely fiddle with it is the receiver.
Did a “you shoot ours; we’ll shoot yours…” range with the Royal Engineers, once upon a time. Firing the SA-80, which was then in the pre-HK phase of its life-cycle? Left me very, very unimpressed.
Only military small arm I’ve ever fired that I could jamb just by holding it wrong. I was bracing myself with my left arm wrapped up and under, gripping the receiver. The sides of said receiver were flimsy enough that the pressure from me holding the damn thing actually retarded the bolt carrier from reciprocating, producing jams galore.
On top of that, the Radway Green ammo they had for it appeared to be loaded with floor sweepings from the propellant plant; that crap was so dirty that it fouled the gas systems on our M16A2s in short order, and when we tried firing our M855 in the SA-80, it was obviously way over-gassed with that ammo. It did shoot a hell of a lot cleaner…
Long time reader, have not posted before.
The benefits I see for a chinese Gyro* are likely 1) tolerance for crazy wind conditions (eg mountains as mentioned above) 2) very little training needed, and 3) much lower cost. They still have a mostly-peasant army, and, like the russians, see troops as mostly expendables, so helos are likely just considered too expensive. They may find a small, expensive, specialized helo fleet less attractive than a big, cheap, gyro fleet that almost any knucklehead can get into the air long enough to scout a ridgeline or whatever. Lose a few? Who cares!
There is one task which this widget could be used effectively: Invading Taiwan. Admittedly it would have to be on a clear day with no storms, and the organization for the process would be epic, but squint a little and imagine ten thousand of these buzzy little beasts in a rough line headed across the straits. AA missiles could kill a few hundred, crashes and mechanical failures undoubtedly a few hundred more, and using fighter jets on them would be iffy because the airspace would be controlled by thousands of Chinese jets. Instead of a 2-man vehicle, you have a 1-man craft and 100kilos of supplies/ammo/gear landing in the thousands in rear areas behind the coast. Each vehicle could be pre-packed with all the supplies and stored in standard shipping containers, then on D-day, unboxed and flown in minutes. Chinese aerial wave.
Jonathan said:
“They still have a mostly-peasant army, and, like the russians, see troops as mostly expendables…”
If the Chinese leadership actually thinks this way, I think they’re in for one hell of a surprise. Demographically, what with the “One Child” policy, they’re playing with fire if they get into a shooting war and lose manpower the way they’re used to. The problem is that they have no real state pension system, so people put their “old age planning” into their kids and real estate. The real estate system is failing before our eyes, and if they then get a bunch of the kids killed off…? Yikes.
I don’t have a clue what the gyrocopter is going to do for them. My guess is that there’s a general out there who’s always been enamored of the things, and is thus pushing for them. Not every single decision made by any organization or nation is really always that brilliant; you have to account for an awful lot of “stupid” before you copy what they’re doing. Look how the Soviets built the MiG-25 to counter the never-built B-70, and then had to push the thing into the recon role to justify its existence. See also “Infantry Fighting Vehicle”, which we cribbed off the Soviets. Something I still don’t fathom, TBH… When has it ever been a good idea to copy people who think that manpower is endlessly available, and who don’t care about casualties?
Still say the “IFV” ought to be a pair of vehicles, one with the weapons and the other carrying troops. In my entire military career, I never saw a single instance wherein it was a good idea to haul the troops around together with high-value targets like the weapons systems we put into the Bradley. You almost never, ever see a tactical scenario where the ideal place to shoot at an objective is also the same place where you want to be dropping your dismounts; the two are almost always situationally contradictory. Which presents a commander with Hobson’s choice: Lose my dismounts, or lose my firepower…?
Do your own thinking. Don’t copy others; all you’re going to get is an echo of their thinking, which is quite possibly delusional. Also, do not project your thinking onto trying to understand their actions. They very likely aren’t doing the things you see because they’re in agreement with you; they’re likely doing their own things for their own reasons, at least some of which are gonna be entirely delusional.
Like, gyrocopters.
Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapon have a rather detail video on all of the faults of SA80/L85A1 https://youtu.be/gDCRop6CRwY
[…] the post about China’s funky military gyrocopter, a discussion of just how bad the British SA80 assault rifle (AKA Enfield L85A1) sucked. And boy […]