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.
Here is another article form SCMP about the missileThis 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.
China successfully test-fires air-to-ground missile for military helicopters
in Beijing
- 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
Published: 4:03pm, 18 Jul, 2020
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 , the report said.
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”.
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.
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".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".
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.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 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.I don't know what you mean by "caution beyond what we should typically have".
Distant history which should be discounted. I'm talking about recent history.And yes, there is enough of a history from GT's articles (including military development related ones) that treating with with caution is necessary.
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?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.
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 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.
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.“It’s a missile so great they don’t even know how great.”
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 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.