Z-10 thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

hardware

Banned Idiot
around 2003,both Chinese and taiwanese magazine claim that origin of WZ-10 project come from french 's Tiger AH program. the french provide the blue print minus technical support.
according to past issue of Flight International (2002?) ,a single prototype was send to italy's Augusta helicopter test facilities for vibration test ,the composite blade technology come from south africa. the EO and MAW come from israel.
the revelation by Kamov was a total surprise.
 

Lion

Senior Member
around 2003,both Chinese and taiwanese magazine claim that origin of WZ-10 project come from french 's Tiger AH program. the french provide the blue print minus technical support.
according to past issue of Flight International (2002?) ,a single prototype was send to italy's Augusta helicopter test facilities for vibration test ,the composite blade technology come from south africa. the EO and MAW come from israel.
the revelation by Kamov was a total surprise.

Great entertainment news. More exciting than Hollywood Tabloid.
 

ahadicow

Junior Member
It seems this thread and the Y-20 thread have all been plagued by a sudden Russian derailment. Regardless of the truth of the Russian involvement in the newest chinese military equipments, what amazes me is that back a few decades ago when China DID rely on Soviet for military equipment, no Soviet design bureau would proudly claim its involvement on a chinese military eqiupment. MiG, for example, would not be telling the world "Look at me, I totally HELPED China with their J-5 and J-7". If anything, it's a open secret that nobody like to mention.

The situation has changed 180 degrees. Now, to be mentioned next to a new chinese weapon development, it seems, carries certain prestige and credit. It bears, for the chief designer of Kamov, to mentions its involvment in Z-10, even just "preliminary design". That in itself speaks loudly about how such development as Z-10 are regarded in defense industry circles.
 

Franklin

Captain
Perhabs linked to to Kamov story. This is Russia's view on China Russian relations today.

View From the Global Tank: Russia Needs to Develop Eastern Provinces as China Rises

For better or worse, China is still several decades of development away from claiming the mantle of the world’s most powerful nation, according to Asia’s wisest living statesman, Lee Kwan Yew, the founder of modern Singapore.

The Kremlin should use this “grace period” to allocate resources and introduce incentives to spur economic and demographic growth east of the Urals so that this region doesn’t become what Russian political scientists describe as “a raw materials appendage” to China.

The International Monetary Fund and US National Intelligence Council are betting, respectively, that China will overtake the United States economically in 2016 and 2030.

Meanwhile, China’s growing strength is causing a geopolitical realignment, with national leaders across the post-Cold War world scratching their heads over how to maximize benefits and minimize costs associated with the rise of the Middle Kingdom.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is no exception, of course. He will have an opportunity to personally advance Russia’s interests vis-à-vis Beijing when the general secretary of the Communist Party of China (CPC), Xi Jinping, who is also set to become the president of China this week, visits Russia later this month. Russia is the first country President Xi will visit.

In keeping with the norm for Russian-Chinese summits, the two leaders will probably announce new bilateral economic deals and reiterate consensus on a number of international issues. This consensus reflects the current convergence of Russian and Chinese interests in counterbalancing US dominance, preserving the UN Security Council’s monopoly on authorizing use of force, and preventing regime change in countries where they have vested interests.

The two nations also stand to benefit from further development of bilateral trade, which totaled $83 billion last year, making China Russia’s largest trading partner.

If the price is right, then Russia will be happy to help China meet its demand for gas, which is expected to quadruple by 2030, especially given that European states seek to lessen dependence on supplies from Russia’s state-run energy giant Gazprom.

China is also one of the most generous clients of Russia’s defense industry, whose existence is key to preserving Russia’s relative self-sufficiency in armament, but also to maintaining some semblance of diversification of the national economy, which is dominated by the energy sector.

However, the rise of China is not without costs for its neighbors. And these costs are bound to increase for the Kremlin not only in Russia itself, but also in the post-Soviet neighborhood, unless Russian leaders address the growing inequalities in the relationship with its economic superpower neighbor.

As of 2011, China had a population of 1.344 billion and its GDP totaled $7.3 trillion, ranking second in the world, while Russia had a population of 142 million and its GDP totaled $1.86 trillion, ranking ninth in the world, according to the World Bank. If measured in terms of purchasing power, China’s GDP is to exceed Russia’s by a factor of five in 2013 and a factor of six in 2017, according to the IMF forecast.

Russia’s political leaders are extremely careful to keep whatever reservations they have about the growing disparities with China private so as not to irritate Beijing. But sometimes they do let their worries show.

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned in August 2012 that “the Far East … is located far away and, unfortunately, we don’t have many people there and must protect it from the excessive expansion of people from neighboring countries.”

Moscow’s cautious attitude toward Beijing is also reflected in Russia’s 2013 foreign policy doctrine, which calls for “a strategic partnership” with India, but for “strategic collaboration” with China.

Russia’s military leaders have likewise begun in recent years to hint at challenges presented by their eastern neighbor. In 2009, then chief of the Ground Forces Staff Lt. General Sergei Skokov said the following when describing the kind of warfare the national armed forces should prepare for: “If we’re talking about the east, then it could be a multi-million-man army with a traditional approach to conducting combat operations: straightforward, with large concentrations of personnel and firepower along individual operational directions.”

More recently, the commander of the Russian navy, Vladimir Vysotsky, warned that in the Arctic “a host of states ... are advancing their interests very intensively, in every possible way, in particular China.” In response, “the ships of the Northern and Pacific fleets are continuing to increase their military presence in the Arctic zone,” the admiral said in October 2010.

It would be surprising if Russian generals were not planning for a possible conflict with China, which the Economist magazine forecasts to become the world’s largest military spender in 20 years’ time and which has been involved in 23 territorial disputes since 1949, using force in six of them (including the 1969 conflict with Soviet Russia), according to a count by MIT researcher Taylor Fravel.

But the expansion of Chinese influence in Russia’s eastern provinces is unlikely to take a violent turn. After all, Russia has enough nuclear weapons to deter any nation from waging an open large-scale war. Also, thanks to Putin’s personal efforts, the two countries settled outstanding territorial issues along their 3,600-km border – once described by Henry Kissinger as a “strategic nightmare” – in a 2004 agreement.


Rather, China’s influence in the Far East and Siberia – which some Russian scholars fear may eventually lead to a de facto loss of Russia’s sovereignty over these regions – will expand incrementally and by economic means.

Among the factors increasing the risk of such a development, it is the cross-border demographic and economic disparities that should be of utmost concern to the Russian leadership.

There are fewer people living in all 27 provinces that comprise Russia’s Urals, Siberian and Far East federal districts than in Heilongjiang, just one of the four Chinese provinces bordering Russia.

And all four of the Chinese border provinces have significantly greater population density than Russia's eastern regions. The population density in Heilongjiang, Inner Mongolia, Xinjiang and Jilin is, respectively, 84, 20, 12 and 146 people per square kilometer, according to the China Internet Information Center. In comparison, Russia’s 2010 national census registered a population density of 6.6, 3.7 and 1 person per square kilometer, respectively, in the Urals, Far Eastern and Siberian districts.

Neither are the economic comparisons of these border lands in Russia’s favor.

In 2010, the regional domestic products of Russia's three eastern federal districts totaled roughly $372 billion, compared with $538 billion worth of goods and services produced by the aforementioned four Chinese provinces over the same period of time.

While deepening its economic ties with China, Russia should also tap into the economic potential and modernization know-how of the United States, the European Union, Japan, South Korea and other powers to ensure a diversification of partnerships needed for sustainable development of its eastern provinces.

Otherwise – as Lee predicts in a recent book co-written by my colleague Graham Allison, the director of Harvard’s Belfer Center – “the lands on the bend of the Amur River will be repopulated by Chinese.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

Lion

Senior Member
It seems this thread and the Y-20 thread have all been plagued by a sudden Russian derailment. Regardless of the truth of the Russian involvement in the newest chinese military equipments, what amazes me is that back a few decades ago when China DID rely on Soviet for military equipment, no Soviet design bureau would proudly claim its involvement on a chinese military eqiupment. MiG, for example, would not be telling the world "Look at me, I totally HELPED China with their J-5 and J-7". If anything, it's a open secret that nobody like to mention.

The situation has changed 180 degrees. Now, to be mentioned next to a new chinese weapon development, it seems, carries certain prestige and credit. It bears, for the chief designer of Kamov, to mentions its involvment in Z-10, even just "preliminary design". That in itself speaks loudly about how such development as Z-10 are regarded in defense industry circles.

I do not see any prestige felt from the Russian about how they are indeed involved in Chinese military project? In fact, I see its more of a racist and bitterness toward any Chinese military project that they will derail any cost with creating rumour of their critical involvement to take away any credit that shall be given to the Chinese.

I think the Global Tank report will more or less tell us why the bitterness and action the Russian undertake against the Chinese.
 

kroko

Senior Member
Perhabs linked to to Kamov story. This is Russia's view on China Russian relations today.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

While deepening its economic ties with China, Russia should also tap into the economic potential and modernization know-how of the United States, the European Union, Japan, South Korea and other powers to ensure a diversification of partnerships needed for sustainable development of its eastern provinces.

Otherwise – as Lee predicts in a recent book co-written by my colleague Graham Allison, the director of Harvard’s Belfer Center – “the lands on the bend of the Amur River will be repopulated by Chinese.

Why would the US, EU and others invest in russia´s far east? The problem with that region is that it is vey vast, very cold, largely mountainous and largely landlocked. thats why no one wants to live there. The fact that it is enourmous and sparsely populated means that infrastruture construction (critical for future development) is prohibitly expensive. And russia has a lot of money, but not that much. In essence, without population, no one will want to invest and develop there.

However, those geographical reasons are the same why chinese wont populate russia´s far east. I once read that there were more chinese in moscow than the rest of russia combined. Chinese also dont want to go there, but to invest in the natural resources.
 

no_name

Colonel
It may be that the China did try to reach an agreement with Kamov to design an attack helicopter for China, it could be that they've presented the basic preliminary design outline to China but that the deal went sour due to them not being able to agree on the details of the transaction.

The current WZ-10 I think came about as a possible later separate liaison with Europe. The similarities superficially may simply be due to unchanged/very similar requirements made by the Chinese. This IMO is now used by Kamov to publicise about their input in the development of - if not the Z-10 specifically -the Chinese attack helicopters.

I believe that Kamov's design came before the Z-10 but they are trying to tie the two together and implying that the Z-10 was a continuation of the Kamov design even though later inputs from other sources may be considerably greater.
 

kyanges

Junior Member
It may be that the China did try to reach an agreement with Kamov to design an attack helicopter for China, it could be that they've presented the basic preliminary design outline to China but that the deal went sour due to them not being able to agree on the details of the transaction.

The current WZ-10 I think came about as a possible later separate liaison with Europe. The similarities superficially may simply be due to unchanged/very similar requirements made by the Chinese. This IMO is now used by Kamov to publicise about their input in the development of - if not the Z-10 specifically -the Chinese attack helicopters.

I believe that Kamov's design came before the Z-10 but they are trying to tie the two together and implying that the Z-10 was a continuation of the Kamov design even though later inputs from other sources may be considerably greater.

The way I'm reading what Mikheyev said, it looks pretty clear that the contract was simply fulfilled, and that was that. They did some starting design work, all according to Chinese supplied specs, and handed everything to the Chinese to finish off themselves. Mikheyev pretty clear that the Chinese did the leg work, everything from construction, testing, parts, etc, by themselves, with no further input from Kamov.

I don't see any hint of anything going sour, or any attempt to imply that the Z-10 is a continuation of a Kamov design. Instead, it sounds to me, like exactly what some here are already saying: That the Chinese knew exactly what they wanted, how to get it, and in the most efficient way possible. As we've all seen from the news coverage, they're pretty happy with the results.
 

Lion

Senior Member
The way I'm reading what Mikheyev said, it looks pretty clear that the contract was simply fulfilled, and that was that. They did some starting design work, all according to Chinese supplied specs, and handed everything to the Chinese to finish off themselves. Mikheyev pretty clear that the Chinese did the leg work, everything from construction, testing, parts, etc, by themselves, with no further input from Kamov.

I don't see any hint of anything going sour, or any attempt to imply that the Z-10 is a continuation of a Kamov design. Instead, it sounds to me, like exactly what some here are already saying: That the Chinese knew exactly what they wanted, how to get it, and in the most efficient way possible. As we've all seen from the news coverage, they're pretty happy with the results.

Quite agree! In the closing stage of his comment, he did state that kamov never participate in the development of Z-10 and credit the chinese for materialising the project. But it still sounds incredible that chinese will seek kamov for help.
 

ahadicow

Junior Member
I do not see any prestige felt from the Russian about how they are indeed involved in Chinese military project? In fact, I see its more of a racist and bitterness toward any Chinese military project that they will derail any cost with creating rumour of their critical involvement to take away any credit that shall be given to the Chinese.

I think the Global Tank report will more or less tell us why the bitterness and action the Russian undertake against the Chinese.

Hold your lion there, my dear lion.;) I think you need a bit of historical prospective on Sino-Russian relationship. could you please follow me to the year 1949. When chairman Mao proudly proclaim the creation of People's Republic, where was PLANF and PLAAF in the first Tianman Square parade? They were nowhere, right? because they didn't exist. Both the airforce and the navy of PLA were established under extensive help from the Soviet. When I say "extensive help" I mean ships, planes, port, maintance, officers, training, facility, doctrine, you name it, the only thing China can provide at that time are space, and able-bodied freshman.

If you fast-forwad a bit to the time when Stalin died and Khrushchev, eager to establish a firm alliance with Mao, decided to "industralize" China, the Soviet aid raise to a whole new level. Hundreds of thousands of Soviet experts from all fields came to China, brought equipment with them, blueprint with them, science, designs, technologies, expertise, everything, all free of charge. They replicate factories and plants in China exactly how they were built in Soviet; It is through THEIR hard work, China had established a firm industrial base.

On came the Sino-Soviet split, that's a ideological and political mess with very little real conflict of interests. When the time came for these experts to leave, the order was for them to burn all the blueprint, all the documents and destroy all the moulds. But these experts, having worked in China for so long and were friends of their chinese collegues, couldn't bear to destroy what they have created. So many of them secretly copied the documents and left them with Chinese. These are gifts, inheritance if you will, that you wouldn't find anywhere on earth. Imagine Boeing transfer to you the plant and blueprints for building 747, without charging your the money for the PAPER. Money couldn't even measure the importance of these to the fledging Chinese heavy industry.

I want to revisit this history not because I want to attribute everything China have achieved to Soviet or Russia. For any country or person, if you don't work yourself, no help is enough help. However, to say Russian engineers somehow harbors an inherent "racist" or "bitterness" toward China could not be further from the truth. The collabration and, forgive me for saying, friendship, between Russian and Chinese military scientist and engineers goes back a long time. No matter exactly who is involved in which project, that China inhereted a great deal from Soviet military techonologies is an undeniable fact. So all these bickering about if Russians are "involved" in Z-10 and Y-20 are kind of pointless to me. If there was no such nation as Russian ever existed, China's "5-year plan" right now would probably be about how much rice to plant for the next five years. So, if Russians want some "honorary mention" after a Chinese new weapon, they are more than have earned it anyway. There really is no need for this stringent accounting of "who did what".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top