Z-19 armed recon helicopter

Deino said:

Take it plain and simply: You claim was:

View attachment 72927


which is simply wrong since NONE of your two images posted shows the new missile. In fact you did not even notice they are different.

I asked - and IMO quite kindly - why you think in the first image you think it should be since this was the only one similar. The second image is so clearly an AAM, there it not even anything to debate, yet still you insist and in fact insult with stupid claims only since you did not notice that they are different and even two different missiles.

As such again: SHOW me where is the new missile? ... in fact none is it.

Click to expand...

Go check my previous post yes it is 2 different missile I didn't realized it! due to perspective! and small picture. the second phot is AAM with fin in the front

Hendrik_2000 said:

Go check my previous post yes it is 2 different missile I didn't realized it! due to perspective! and small picture. the second phot is AAM with fin in the front

Click to expand...

And why then so aggressive in the first place? Insulting comments with "you have eye problem. You are completely WRONG EXPERT!" Was this really necessary only to be right even if completely wrong? I really have to admit that through this story you fell quite deeply in my respect.

Hendrik_2000 said:

The seeker might be modify to take account of sea clutter but the same dimension!

Click to expand...

The second photo posted in the original post is a PL/TY-90 I believe, note the forward fins. [Edit to remove unnecessary info catch up with later posts]

As for the others, I'd be inclined to agree with Deano, as a radar guided missile would generally not have an optically transparent nose and such a change would likely make no difference to performance in clutter. Changes to resolve clutter would either be a change to the hardware of the tx/Rx units or a software change. At most you might see a change in diameter of the receiver on the warhead to make use of a different frequency, but typically manufacturers would avoid that due to cost of re-testing the aerodynamics of the weapon - ideally they want to keep the shape the same to allow the existing flight control logic and certification to be re-used.

Deino said:

And why then so aggressive in the first place? Insulting comments with "you have eye problem. You are completely WRONG EXPERT!" Was this really necessary only to be right even if completely wrong? I really have to admit that through this story you fell quite deeply in my respect.

Click to expand...

Because you didn't explain which missile you are talking about the first one or the 2nd one It is miscommunication I thought you meant the second one Again rear perspective of the first photo is hard to discern all missile look the same from the rear. My fault is I mistook the 2nd one as ATGM due to perspective of larger diameter when I should realized it is AAM due to fin in the front . So it is 2 different missile. I thought you are curt instead like Bltzo he explain which missile you are talking about. So I get annoy! so next time you criticize be more descriptive

LH963569 carrying something like a small rocket launcher:



It is a part of a picture of two Z-19s (with the main rotor of probably the third visible):

xyqq said:

LH963569 carrying something like a small rocket launcher:

It is a part of a picture of two Z-19s (with the main rotor of probably the third visible):

Click to expand...

I think it's a smoke generator (for parade), certainly not a rocket launcher.

Lots of Z-19s along with a few Z-10s in the formations.

Many Z-19s.

Self-explanatory.