Z-10 thread


Hendrik_2000

Brigadier
It’s a day dream because the article is A GT Fluff piece. We all know the Global Times it’s a Tabloid. You are the one, not the article Who is drumming up 10km @Hendrik_2000. You sir. Not the article. The article just says we have a great new missile that we don’t know anything about but it sounds so great!!
all I can think of is the Justin Hammer EX wife from Ironman 2
You want to talk about being on the forum long enough? Remember whom you are comparing to I have a whole year on you and we are two of the old men of the group. I don’t believe in divination.
The Export versions give us a basis to compare as they are made using the same technology and same concept. This doesn’t even give us a basis to compare. You are inferring a basis of comparison based solely on it must be better than X. Yet based on what? The claims of an unknown source who doesn’t give anything? That’s the daydreaming. Might as well be based on the endtrails of some animals.
We don’t have even estimates. No photos.
For all we know this could just be an upgraded HJ8. Or something totally different. the Piece sums its self up as “ Better missile we promise...”
and from that you created your own specs and details. It’s a Rorschach.

You need to hold your horses with your diatribe and wait for further press release or leak from reliable sources Just like anything with chinese military news PLA never release their spec We all depend on leak or drip bit information release from socalled big shrimp. Bltizo post interesting leak or guess whatever you like to call it Seem like it NLOS missile, dual seeker of IIR and millimetre wave guidance, Yes it is double the range AKD 10 which has 5 to 7 kilometre range . So my guess of more than 10 km is not a dream

Apologies for the massive link.
This is from Yankeesama's wechat, where he talks about a new ATGM test launched from Z-10s.

The full text is as below, but the key points is that this new ATGM looks to have significant improvements from the current serving AKD-10 that serves as the primary heavy helicopter ATGM.
Among other improvements, is multimode guidance (ImIR and MMW radar) with advanced datalinking capabilities to enable significantly longer ranged engagement and I enhanced multi-domain/joint/cooperative engagements.
Yankee personally speculates its effective range to be at least double that of the AKD-10.

No exact statement on the size of the missile but he partly implies it may fit in the AKD-10s same footprint but is expected to at least be heavier

A few pictures below from a paper he references that talks about the new missile:

atgm 1.png


atgm 2.png





And the full original text below. Some other pictures are omitted because of image limit and because they're not relevant and only for reference in the original article

This report, published on the front page of China Aviation News on July 14, 2020, entitled "Singing under Helan Mountain", disclosed the news that the long-rumored domestically-made armed helicopter successfully tested a new generation of air-to-surface missiles. Although the report did not mention more details of the missile, in fact, from the changes in the test area of the new type of missile, one can probably guess that its performance is a big improvement compared to the active-duty air-to-surface missiles of our military.
Here is another article form SCMP about the missile


China successfully test-fires air-to-ground missile for military helicopters
  • Long range stand-off weapon is first of its kind for People’s Liberation Army
  • Missile can be used to attack ground targets, moving vehicles and even ships
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in Beijing
Published: 4:03pm, 18 Jul, 2020

[IMG]

China has developed a new long-range missile for use in military helicopters. Photo: 81.com

China has successfully developed and tested an advanced air-to-ground missile for helicopters, according to state media.

The new weapon was put through its paces at a desert location in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region in late June, when it was fired from a helicopter and hit its intended target, China Aviation News reported.

The missile, whose name and specifications were not revealed, is a stand-off weapon, meaning it can be launched from a distance sufficient to allow attacking personnel to evade defensive fire.

With its multiple guided systems, long range and capability to evade jamming, the missile is the first of its kind for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the report said.

[IMG]

A PLA helicopter takes part in an exercise in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region, where the new missile was tested. Photo: Handout

It was developed by the China Helicopter Research and Development Institute, a subsidiary of the Aviation Industry Corporation of China, and although the project was delayed because of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is now back on schedule, the report said.

Once fully functional, the new missile could replace the AKD-9 and AKD-10 anti-tank missiles and YJ-9 anti-ship missiles already in service, it said.

Unlike its predecessors, the new missile is not limited to use with just one type of helicopter, making it similar to the US AGM-114 “Hellfire” series.

Song Zhongping, a military analyst in Hong Kong, said that having a single missile capable of attacking fixed ground targets, moving armoured vehicles and even ships, would make it much easier and faster to prepare and maintain the helicopters, rather than having to consider multiple weapon options.

“An all-purpose munition could speed up the response and also largely improve its overall combat capability,” he said.

China’s military already has the home-grown TY-90 air-to-air missile for use in helicopter dogfights. A combination of the new weapon and the TY-90 – which was the first of its kind in the world – plus rocket bombs would boost the attack power of the PLA Ground Force’s aviation units, Song said.

The force has several attack helicopters, including the home-grown Z-10 and Z-20, and the Z-19 which was modified from the Z-9, which in turn was based on the French “Dolphin”.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
It’s a day dream because the article is A GT Fluff piece. We all know the Global Times it’s a Tabloid. You are the one, not the article Who is drumming up 10km @Hendrik_2000. You sir. Not the article. The article just says we have a great new missile that we don’t know anything about but it sounds so great!!
all I can think of is the Justin Hammer EX wife from Ironman 2
You want to talk about being on the forum long enough? Remember whom you are comparing to I have a whole year on you and we are two of the old men of the group. I don’t believe in divination.
The Export versions give us a basis to compare as they are made using the same technology and same concept. This doesn’t even give us a basis to compare. You are inferring a basis of comparison based solely on it must be better than X. Yet based on what? The claims of an unknown source who doesn’t give anything? That’s the daydreaming. Might as well be based on the endtrails of some animals.
We don’t have even estimates. No photos.
For all we know this could just be an upgraded HJ8. Or something totally different. the Piece sums its self up as “ Better missile we promise...”
and from that you created your own specs and details. It’s a Rorschach.

While I do also agree it is wise to treat some GT articles with caution given they are a tabloid, they do sometimes directly quote the original institutes or developers and in this case they are the ones who used the specific phrase, "leading level" among the world to describe this new missile

“中了,中了!”随着一声轰鸣,阿拉善某机场现场人员发出不可抑止的欢呼。
“命中目标,属于国内首次啊!”“是啊,即使放眼世界,也属于领先水平啦!”
……2020年6月22日19时30分(注:当地日落时间约20时26分),在内蒙古阿拉善某试验基地,某型机挂载某新型空地导弹起飞,对目标进行投射,导弹精准命中目标。
在角落里敲下这一行简讯并将胜利的消息告诉远在江南的同事后,航空工业直升机所试飞主管黎文斌看了看欢呼的人群,忍不住打开手机......


As for the specific range itself, given this is a new helicopter launched ATGM, the contemporary weapon it should be compared to (in terms of range, guidance, overall performance) would be the AKD-10.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Senior Member
Registered Member
While I do also agree it is wise to treat some GT articles with caution given they are a tabloid
It's true that GT was much looser in the past, but can you or anyone else point to an article written in the past year or two that would merit any caution beyond what we should typically have? I'd be especially interested to hear from @TerraN_EmpirE, since he characterized the article about this missile as a "fluff piece".
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
It's true that GT was much looser in the past, but can you or anyone else point to an article written in the past year or two that would merit any caution beyond what we should typically have? I'd be especially interested to hear from @TerraN_EmpirE, since he characterized the article about this missile as a "fluff piece".

The reason why GT merits more caution is because most people who are new think it's part of "Chinese state media" and therefore every claim it makes is either official or representative of actual military or developer statements.
And yes, there is enough of a history from GT's articles (including military development related ones) that treating with with caution is necessary.

I don't know what you mean by "caution beyond what we should typically have".
If you're saying we shouldn't instinctively reject everything that GT writes out of hand, yes I agree with that, but only in the sense that I also don't instinctively reject everything written by say, Minnie Chan, even though I know 99 out of 100 times her claims or conclusions are wrong.


And yes, this article can be considered a fluff piece in the sense that it directly quotes the developer and is obviously light on any useful details for us.
But being a "fluff piece" doesn't mean it can't be useful to us -- the two are not mutually exclusive.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I called it a “Fluff” as other than the claim of a new missile their is nothing in it. It’s just a bunch of air and at best rumor.
It’s supposedly a “World leading” missile which is propaganda phrasing. That’s all you get. No name, no range, no details. Just it’s supposedly a super missile.
So I gave it some snark.
“It’s a missile so great they don’t even know how great.”
I pushed back on Hendrik as he started filling in more air with comparison based on his own imagination. Since there were no details at all given, how do you compare? You can guess but at this point it’s all your own imagination.
I prefer something under my feet to stand on more than walking on clouds.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Senior Member
Registered Member
The reason why GT merits more caution is because most people who are new think it's part of "Chinese state media" and therefore every claim it makes is either official or representative of actual military or developer statements.
I argue that GT might have been more "tabloidish" two years ago, but there's been a marked recent shift in GT's coverage of late. There was a picture I wish I had saved of Hu Xijin with a PLA officer, which I took to mean that GT now has a direct line to military developments and that its quality of coverage would improve to reflect that. Having observed their later articles, I believe my deduction was correct.

GT might take an editorial line some here might find abrasive (and others overly mild and deferential), but I don't think that compromises the accuracy of its coverage. If someone thinks otherwise, I'd welcome him linking a recent military article by GT that has a significant inaccuracy.
I don't know what you mean by "caution beyond what we should typically have".
I mean that I take issue with the notion that we should treat GT with skepticism beyond what we reserve for, say, a SCMP article written by someone other than Minnie Chan. Even Minnie Chan articles are posted and discussed seriously here, so that's certainly a courtesy that can be extended to GT.
And yes, there is enough of a history from GT's articles (including military development related ones) that treating with with caution is necessary.
Distant history which should be discounted. I'm talking about recent history.
And yes, this article can be considered a fluff piece in the sense that it directly quotes the developer and is obviously light on any useful details for us.
To be honest with you, I don't think it's any more vague than something like pupu's "thrust-enhanced WS-10"; enhanced to what? People filled in the blank with "16 tons", but is that something he said? And how is quoting the developer worse or less credible than some rando from the Chinese internet vaguely associated with the relevant projects? Do we know who "pupu", "yankeesama", "Gongke", and "fzgfzy" are?

I take "world-leading missile" with much more credibility since that was quoting the designers of the system and these people would certainly know how the system they designed stacks up against the competition. Whether they're exaggerating the capabilities of their pet project is another story, but then again LockMart makes their living doing that and no one takes them to task for it.
It’s supposedly a “World leading” missile which is propaganda phrasing. That’s all you get. No name, no range, no details. Just it’s supposedly a super missile.
Once again, no worse than anything you'll find on a LockMart brochure. "World-leading" means its up there with the first-tier of such missiles; if you want some idea of the specs then look up the specs of such missiles. You've been watching the Chinese military long enough to know that China doesn't toot its horn unless it has something to toot about. Or do you believe it's beyond China's technical ken to field a first-class ATGM?
“It’s a missile so great they don’t even know how great.”
It's designers know exactly how great, they just won't tell us. Frustrating but understandable. In any event, the yankeesama article has much more detail.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Generally when a maker like LM launches a product they tell you the aim. A range, function and an idea of what it would offer vs existing systems. Yes they have a habit of marketing shtick but give you are more to work with than this article.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I argue that GT might have been more "tabloidish" two years ago, but there's been a marked recent shift in GT's coverage of late. There was a picture I wish I had saved of Hu Xijin with a PLA officer, which I took to mean that GT now has a direct line to military developments and that its quality of coverage would improve to reflect that. Having observed their later articles, I believe my deduction was correct.

GT might take an editorial line some here might find abrasive (and others overly mild and deferential), but I don't think that compromises the accuracy of its coverage. If someone thinks otherwise, I'd welcome him linking a recent article by GT that has a significant inaccuracy.

I mean that I take issue with the notion that we should treat GT with skepticism beyond what we reserve for, say, a SCMP article written by someone other than Minnie Chan. Even Minnie Chan articles are posted and discussed seriously here, so that's certainly a courtesy that can be extended to GT.

Distant history which should be discounted. I'm talking about recent history.

To be honest with you, I don't think it's any more vague than something like pupu's "thrust-enhanced WS-10", enhanced to what? People filled in the blank with "16 tons", but is that something he said? And how is quoting the developer worse or less credible than some rando from the Chinese internet vaguely associated with the relevant projects? Do we know who "pupu", "yankeesama", "Gongke", and "fzgfzy" are?

I have no issues treating GT articles if they have something useful, just as I do with occasional SCMP articles and even more rarely sometimes on Minnie Chan articles.
But if you're arguing that GT deserves to be taken seriously at the outset of every article as a baseline assumption then I think that is a hard sell. GT articles on military pieces which provide new or useful information tend to be the exception rather than the norm, and this includes recent articles.
They remain a tabloid and their military coverage remains so as well.

It's just that every now and then their military coverage includes some new or useful information, but we have to make some extra effort to sort out those instances where they do have said useful information.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I called it a “Fluff” as other than the claim of a new missile their is nothing in it. It’s just a bunch of air and at best rumor.
It’s supposedly a “World leading” missile which is propaganda phrasing. That’s all you get. No name, no range, no details. Just it’s supposedly a super missile.
So I gave it some snark.
“It’s a missile so great they don’t even know how great.”
I pushed back on Hendrik as he started filling in more air with comparison based on his own imagination. Since there were no details at all given, how do you compare? You can guess but at this point it’s all your own imagination.
I prefer something under my feet to stand on more than walking on clouds.

Disregarding your response to Hendrik, I do hope you can recognize why your snark had rubbed people the wrong way, because the developer calling the new missile "world leading level" even in isolation is actually some useful information to go on, even if we factor out the developer's own bias and whatever possible marketing enthusiasm there is. We all know what capabilities the world's current leading ATGMs have and their characteristics, so saying the new missile is in the same benchmark gives us a nod in the right direction.

With the addition of what Yankeesama wrote on it, I think the developer saying it's a missile that is at the world leading level is quite fair.
 

Top