Z-10 thread


ZeEa5KPul

Junior Member
Registered Member
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.
That's precisely what I'm arguing. There are two types of military articles on GT: the editorials on US posturing and other political affairs, and the straight reporting on sales, tests, etc. This is a sample of the latter articles
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(the article that started this controversy)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The former type of article you can make of what you will, but I argue that the latter type should be taken as seriously as we take rumours from our most reliable sources (which are, again, anonymous people we think have some association with the Chinese military-industrial complex).
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.
There's a difference between "new and useful" and "accurate". I argue that GT should be given credibility for the latter - it has access to far better sources than we do, it's just that those sources are under strict secrecy guidelines, so they'll be careful about what they reveal and what they'll allow to be published. But they won't give falsehoods. It's true that new information is rare (of the above, only the ATGM test could be considered new) - I argue that we should consider such new information accurate until proved otherwise.
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.
Yet more evidence that my position is the correct one.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
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.
Obviously I disagree. “World leading” is more or less the same spin you get from any maker looking to Hawk it’s product or hype. It’s like Best “in class”.
Particularly when what it is supposed to be “World leading” in is left empty. Pick any product of the same generation and they will all be “World leading” In some category you could gage them by. longer range, higher speed, more accuracy, Jam resistant, Bigger warhead, more safe, less drag, Lower price, lighter weight, modular, less casualty producing more casualty producing, Able to loiter, Homes in on the signal produced by a Toyota Hilux, whatever.
Without details It’s spin doctoring and salesmen-ship not useful information as every maker wants their product to be viewed as World leading. Even if it isn’t.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
That's precisely what I'm arguing. There are two types of military articles on GT: the editorials on US posturing and other political affairs, and the straight reporting on sales, tests, etc. This is a sample of the latter articles
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(the article that started this controversy)
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The former type of article you can make of what you will, but I argue that the latter type should be taken as seriously as we take rumours from our most reliable sources (which are, again, anonymous people we think have some association with the Chinese military-industrial complex).

There's a difference between "new and useful" and "accurate". I argue that GT should be given credibility for the latter - it has access to far better sources than we do, it's just that those sources are under strict secrecy guidelines, so they'll be careful about what they reveal and what they'll allow to be published. But they won't give falsehoods. It's true that new information is rare (of the above, only the ATGM test could be considered new) - I argue that we should consider such new information accurate until proved otherwise.

Yet more evidence that my position is the correct one.
If you're arguing that GT is "accurate" for the articles that they post where they regurgitate news from other sites (including official PLA news sources), then sure, that is fine.
I'm not sure I would give them "credit" for that, it's more like the minimum baseline I expect from them or any other outlet.

But as far as their articles on new leading PLA weapons developments, their "new/useful" information is often lackluster.


As far as taking their articles on new weapons developments (like this new ATGM) goes, I have no problem with reading in between the lines to garner some useful information from them especially if they do cite useful sources (like the developer or reputable individuals or experts). But they don't have the credibility for us to take their articles on new weapons developments at face value and "accurate".
More often than not, we have to do some active work to get actual useful information out of it.
 

Hendrik_2000

Brigadier
Obviously I disagree. “World leading” is more or less the same spin you get from any maker looking to Hawk it’s product or hype. It’s like Best “in class”.
Particularly when what it is supposed to be “World leading” in is left empty. Pick any product of the same generation and they will all be “World leading” In some category you could gage them by. longer range, higher speed, more accuracy, Jam resistant, Bigger warhead, more safe, less drag, Lower price, lighter weight, modular, less casualty producing more casualty producing, Able to loiter, Homes in on the signal produced by a Toyota Hilux, whatever.
Without details It’s spin doctoring and salesmen-ship not useful information as every maker wants their product to be viewed as World leading. Even if it isn’t.
That is asking for the impossibility Chinese defense industry NEVER revealed spec for weapon used by PLA period. But they always give a hint what is in store So saying world class mean that is spec approached the leading missile maker of the world And we do know what is the capability of the leading missile in the world

Chinese ATGM is not something of vaporware they are widely used in conflict all over the world And for most part they worked well So to dismiss the new missile as empty word is Ignorant and denial of the fact and hubris at worst
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Neither does the US or any nation for that matter what they do is give estimates.
The fluff article only promises “it will be great”.
We are not talking about an established product or even a preproduction prototype. Yes around the world there are Chinese made ATGM. But what does that have to do with the fluff piece? It’s Vaporware until it exists. Right now you are latched on to vapor.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Obviously I disagree. “World leading” is more or less the same spin you get from any maker looking to Hawk it’s product or hype. It’s like Best “in class”.
Particularly when what it is supposed to be “World leading” in is left empty. Pick any product of the same generation and they will all be “World leading” In some category you could gage them by. longer range, higher speed, more accuracy, Jam resistant, Bigger warhead, more safe, less drag, Lower price, lighter weight, modular, less casualty producing more casualty producing, Able to loiter, Homes in on the signal produced by a Toyota Hilux, whatever.
Without details It’s spin doctoring and salesmen-ship not useful information as every maker wants their product to be viewed as World leading. Even if it isn’t.
I think you are getting a little bit too hung up over the "world leading" phrase.
First of all, the original phrase in Chinese and even the English translation in GT mentions that the product (the new ATGM itself) is at "world leading level". So obviously it refers to the category of air launched ATGMs, and the current leading air launched ATGMs in the world.

As far as air launched anti tank guided missiles goes, there are enough international contemporaries in that category for us to know what groups of capabilities it probably includes.
E.g.: enhanced range/greater stand-off distance, more advanced guidance (some sort of composite/multimode guidance of which one component is likely MMW radar), more advanced datalinking and cooperative engagement capabilities, those are some of the more obvious ones.
JAGM, Brimstone, advanced Spike variants etc all feature variations of those characteristics.

Even without Yankeesama's article posting the additional details about the new missile, that mere phrase "world leading level" is useful for pointing us in the right direction, and the level of detail is entirely appropriate and expected given this is really the first time we are clearly hearing about the new gen ATGM in any form to begin with.
 
Last edited:

ZeEa5KPul

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'm not sure I would give them "credit" for that, it's more like the minimum baseline I expect from them or any other outlet.
Your minimum baseline is a very high bar in English PLA news writing. Who meets it? Certainly not The National Interest, SCMP, or Diplomat articles besides yours.
More often than not, we have to do some active work to get actual useful information out of it.
I'll grant that. For instance, I'm convinced that there's a 1200kW variant of the WZ-9 equipping the Z-10s with the upturned exhausts. Why? Among other reasons, a GT article mentioned it.
 

Klon

Junior Member
Registered Member
Global Times is not just better than various mainstream outlets, it's better than the self-proclaimed peak of PLA watching, professionalism and expertise, i.e. SDF. There's often the amusing experience of seeing this forum struggle to piece together and at least partially translate some news that then gets published in a concise and informative GT article.
 

Top