Z-10 thread

[Blitzo]

Tphuang, are you implying a chief engineer who spend 12 years develop WZ-10 is lying? And you look down on his achievement? Show some respect to this dedicated people. I will doubt his words if he keep his bird in hangar without showing its performance to the public but its not. A 6/7tons helo making sharp turn , fast reacting spinning and a full loop hardly exhibit any sight of underpowered.

As for asif, I just stand to correct his misinformation. This nonsense about WZ-10 underpowered is first started from some small rumour and was quickly pick up by western media as the main point. But it turn out to be false unless someone has substantial proof.

Z-10 prototypes were powered by pratt and whitneys which put out a fair bit more power than the current WZ-9 engines. The original Z-10 was also equipped with a heavier and more capable E/O turret, and could afford a little more IR shielding by turning the exhausts upwards, and the entire helicopter was probably better armoured in areas as well.

Reverting to WZ-9s for production Z-10s meant weight had to be cut to retain aerodynamic performance. Can Z-10 haul 16 ATGMs? Maybe.
Is the production Z-10 lighter, with weaker engines than the prototype Z-10s? Yes definitely. How does a lighter attack helicopter compare to a heavier attack helicopter? Negatively, because it means you can hold a lower combat payload, lighter and less capable avionics package, less armour, than a heavier helicopter.

So the term "underpowered" may be inaccurate as it suggests a vehicle cannot perform kinetically. But Z-10 as it is, without more powerful engines, is definitely in a lower weight class, and thus a less capable attack helicopter, compared to a 10 ton attack chopper like apache.

 

[Lion]

Z-10 prototypes were powered by pratt and whitneys which put out a fair bit more power than the current WZ-9 engines. The original Z-10 was also equipped with a heavier and more capable E/O turret, and could afford a little more IR shielding by turning the exhausts upwards, and the entire helicopter was probably better armoured in areas as well.

Reverting to WZ-9s for production Z-10s meant weight had to be cut to retain aerodynamic performance. Can Z-10 haul 16 ATGMs? Maybe.
Is the production Z-10 lighter, with weaker engines than the prototype Z-10s? Yes definitely. How does a lighter attack helicopter compare to a heavier attack helicopter? Negatively, because it means you can hold a lower combat payload, lighter and less capable avionics package, less armour, than a heavier helicopter.

So the term "underpowered" may be inaccurate as it suggests a vehicle cannot perform kinetically. But Z-10 as it is, without more powerful engines, is definitely in a lower weight class, and thus a less capable attack helicopter, compared to a 10 ton attack chopper like apache.

Fair enough with your assessment but apache has additional 3-4tons of extra weight compare to WZ-10 which you need to take into consideration despite having more powerful engine. I agree apache has more armour but as other which I do no agree much.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Z-10 prototypes were powered by pratt and whitneys which put out a fair bit more power than the current WZ-9 engines. The original Z-10 was also equipped with a heavier and more capable E/O turret, and could afford a little more IR shielding by turning the exhausts upwards, and the entire helicopter was probably better armoured in areas as well.

Reverting to WZ-9s for production Z-10s meant weight had to be cut to retain aerodynamic performance. Can Z-10 haul 16 ATGMs? Maybe.
Is the production Z-10 lighter, with weaker engines than the prototype Z-10s? Yes definitely. How does a lighter attack helicopter compare to a heavier attack helicopter? Negatively, because it means you can hold a lower combat payload, lighter and less capable avionics package, less armour, than a heavier helicopter.

So the term "underpowered" may be inaccurate as it suggests a vehicle cannot perform kinetically. But Z-10 as it is, without more powerful engines, is definitely in a lower weight class, and thus a less capable attack helicopter, compared to a 10 ton attack chopper like apache.

Nothing but pure speculation. Most likely they substitute the earlier Pratt and Whitney engine with domestic engine because of the obvious reason, Now will it affect the aerodynamic performance. None whatsoever based on the breathtaking performance of the aerobatic team. As to avionic , nobody know you just speculate that it must me of lower performance .

Now do they need to carry 16 ATGM maybe but the combination of 8 ATGM and rocket pod is no less lethal in mopping up operation as in COIN operation. Against a well equipped air force the value of Attack helicopter as Close air support is questionable. They will easily shot down by the opposing air force without gaining air superiority first.The whole doctrine of using helicopter as close air support is untested so far. So the idea that more is better, is not always true!

Helicopter was born in Vietnam war. Their primary purpose is to give mobility where there is no road and other mean of transport . Latter on it morph into close support for the infantry. But I am not certain it will work as CAS in heavily contested air war against well equipped opponent

 

[Blitzo]

Nothing but pure speculation. Most likely they substitute the earlier Pratt and Whitney engine with domestic engine because of the obvious reason, Now will it affect the aerodynamic performance. None whatsoever based on the breathtaking performance of the aerobatic team. As to avionic , nobody know you just speculate that it must me of lower performance .

Um, no it isn't speculation.
the pratt and whitney PT6C has a higher rating than WZ-9, about 250 kw worth.

Sure, we don't really know if the Z-10 prototype had a more powerful EO package than the production version, but the fact remains that a heavier avionics package would be more powerful than a lighter one assuming both are of similar technological levels. In that sense, the production Z-10's less powerful engines does inhibit the possibility that they could have moutned a more powerful EO package.

Now do they need to carry 16 ATGM maybe but the combination of 8 ATGM and rocket pod is no less lethal in mopping up operation as in COIN operation.

I don't think we've seen pictures of Z-10 carrying 8 ATGMs and rocket pods either. In fact we haven't seen Z-10s carrying rocket pods bigger than 7 round ones.

Against a well equipped air force the value of Attack helicopter as Close air support is questionable. They will easily shot down by the opposing air force without gaining air superiority first.The whole doctrine of using helicopter as close air support is untested so far. So the idea that more is better, is not always true!

LOL, it's not that I disagree with you, but your'e beating around the fact that a lighter attack helicopter is inherently less capable than a heavier one, and also refusing to acknowledge that Z-10s with more powerful engines would make it better.
Face it, the most important metrics of how combat capable a helicopter gunship are: armour/survivability, offensive weaponry, avionics, aerodynamic performance, and the common factor they all hinge on are engine output. when CHAIC decided to down grade Z-10 to less powerful WZ-9 engines they obviously could have retained armour, or a large avionics suite, etc, but that would have adversely effected aerodynamic performance. From the videos, Z-10 has quite impressive kinetic performance, so clearly they decided to forgo armour and other bits and pieces instead of aerodynamics.

Of course, that's not to say they couldn't have retained the internal structure to allow the helicopter to still carry a large weapons load, it will just mean the helicopter will be underpowered when hauling it because it simply lacks the engine output to carry a large load while maneuvering competently.

Fair enough with your assessment but apache has additional 3-4tons of extra weight compare to WZ-10 which you need to take into consideration despite having more powerful engine. I agree apache has more armour but as other which I do no agree much.

AH-64 does have 3-4 tons of extra weight but it also has more powerful engines, so the overall power to weight ratio shouldn't be very different to Z-10. That's why we consider Z-10 less capable.

AH-64 has more armour. It also has the excess power to carry the longbow radar which Z-10 probably can't carry using WZ-9 engines. AH-64 can also consistently carry large weapon loads, and we rarely see Z-10 carrying more than a pair of fuel tanks and rocket pods. AH-64 also has a larger gun.

Fact is, larger weapons allow for a heavier helicopter. Heavier helicopters are better than lighter ones.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

I don't think we've seen pictures of Z-10 carrying 8 ATGMs and rocket pods either. In fact we haven't seen Z-10s carrying rocket pods bigger than 7 round ones.

I saw article that WZ10 can carry 8 ATGM

L

OL, it's not that I disagree with you, but your'e beating around the fact that a lighter attack helicopter is inherently less capable than a heavier one, and also refusing to acknowledge that Z-10s with more powerful engines would make it better.
Face it, the most important metrics of how combat capable a helicopter gunship are: armour/survivability, offensive weaponry, avionics, aerodynamic performance, and the common factor they all hinge on are engine output. when CHAIC decided to down grade Z-10 to less powerful WZ-9 engines they obviously could have retained armour, or a large avionics suite, etc, but that would have adversely effected aerodynamic performance. From the videos, Z-10 has quite impressive kinetic performance, so clearly they decided to forgo armour and other bits and pieces instead of aerodynamics.

Of course, that's not to say they couldn't have retained the internal structure to allow the helicopter to still carry a large weapons load, it will just mean the helicopter will be underpowered when hauling it because it simply lacks the engine output to carry a large load while maneuvering competently.

Wu Ximing the chief engineer said that it is armored so where did you get the idea that it not protected with Armour?

If bigger is always better why the German choose 6 ton Heli for their attack helicopter? They could easily design 9 ton Heli

Ever heard to each according to its own?

 

[rhino123]

Z-10 prototypes were powered by pratt and whitneys which put out a fair bit more power than the current WZ-9 engines. The original Z-10 was also equipped with a heavier and more capable E/O turret, and could afford a little more IR shielding by turning the exhausts upwards, and the entire helicopter was probably better armoured in areas as well.

Reverting to WZ-9s for production Z-10s meant weight had to be cut to retain aerodynamic performance. Can Z-10 haul 16 ATGMs? Maybe.
Is the production Z-10 lighter, with weaker engines than the prototype Z-10s? Yes definitely. How does a lighter attack helicopter compare to a heavier attack helicopter? Negatively, because it means you can hold a lower combat payload, lighter and less capable avionics package, less armour, than a heavier helicopter.

So the term "underpowered" may be inaccurate as it suggests a vehicle cannot perform kinetically. But Z-10 as it is, without more powerful engines, is definitely in a lower weight class, and thus a less capable attack helicopter, compared to a 10 ton attack chopper like apache.

1) Is this a spec for attack copter to carry 16 ATGMs? Or just the dream of some fanboys who was disappointed when the Z-10 cannot do it while heavier attack copters like the Apache can?

2)

Probably better armour

... hmm... I would take it that the keyword for this sentence is "probably"... unless the official statement by the company that made this aircraft or PLA actually admit to this. Other than that, it is pure speculation and most of the time speculation might not be true.

3) Being a lighter copters doesn't mean it is a less capable attack helicopter, one must know the design perimeter and what the helicopter was designed for. The PLA seemed to be very please with the Z-10 for them to order so many of it. As China is not in immediate danger of war, the PLA would have enough time to wait for heavier attack copters but they didn't and go straight for the Z-10, which kind of show us that they actually like the performance of that copter... and so it was not a less capable copter but meet all or at least, most specification set for the copter.

4) direct competition of the Z-10 to heavier copter is not really comparing apple to apple to apple, of course a heavier copter would be armed more heavily and/or had thicker armour, but if it takes only a 6-7tons attack copter to accomplish something or a mission or fitted into the doctrine of an army, would you still need a 10ton attack copter, taking note of budget, logistical support, etc of the country? Of course I am not saying that China do not need a heavier copters with bigger and more powerful engine, but currently, I believe the Z-10 served its purpose and served it with distinction and the Chinese must be happy with it or we will not be seeing so many of the Z-10 in service.

 

[Lion]

Precisely, we are seeing probably 70-80 WZ-10 helo in service now and its a wild suggestion , it not up to mark and waiting to refit hundred over WZ-9 new turboshaft with WZ-16 turboshaft. Does PLA ever spend money that way? Never heard of.

 

[Blitzo]

I saw article that WZ10 can carry 8 ATGM

Yes so have I. I'm not denying it can't, but at this point we've only seen Z-10s carrying half empty KD-10 racks with 7 shot rocket pods, or fuel tanks.

Just a caveat, Z-10 can probably carry 16 KD-10s (I assume its internal structure would probably have been designed to allow it), but the less powerful engines means the added weight means it can't maneuver as impressively.

Wu Ximing the chief engineer said that it is armored so where did you get the idea that it not protected with Armour?

Where did you say I think that Z-10 wasn't armoured?
I said less powerful engines meant they had to forgo the armour component of the specs of the helicopter. IE: lighter, less potent armour than what a heavier engine could entail.

If bigger is always better why the German choose 6 ton Heli for their attack helicopter? They could easily design 9 ton Heli

Ever heard to each according to its own?

Lol every military has its own needs and limits to their budget, as well as technological limitations, I don't concede that, but the fact is, heavier attack helicopters are better than lighter attack helicopters, period. Suck it up and move on.

1) Is this a spec for attack copter to carry 16 ATGMs? Or just the dream of some fanboys who was disappointed when the Z-10 cannot do it while heavier attack copters like the Apache can?

I brought it up to demonstrate to how engine power directly effects combat load.

2) ... hmm... I would take it that the keyword for this sentence is "probably"... unless the official statement by the company that made this aircraft or PLA actually admit to this. Other than that, it is pure speculation and most of the time speculation might not be true.

Or we can use logic, and think where they might have cut weight to make do for the 1/5 drop in engine rating due to the switch from pratt and whitneys to WZ-9s. Again, I'm not making any concrete statements, and I'm not pretending to know the specifications of Z-10 beyond what little we all agree on such as engine output, MTOW, etc. I'm only serving to demonstrate how engine power and MTOW is related to an attack helicopter's combat capability, and that downgrading to WZ-9s from PT6Cs meant they would have had to cut weight somewhere if they wanted to retain kinetic performance and not make the helicopter "underpowered".

"Underpowered" directly reflects the power to weight ratio of a vehicle. If power decreases, then you either have to decrease weight, or your vehicle will be considered underpowered and unable to meet the kinetic specs required.

3) Being a lighter copters doesn't mean it is a less capable attack helicopter, one must know the design perimeter and what the helicopter was designed for. The PLA seemed to be very please with the Z-10 for them to order so many of it. As China is not in immediate danger of war, the PLA would have enough time to wait for heavier attack copters but they didn't and go straight for the Z-10, which kind of show us that they actually like the performance of that copter... and so it was not a less capable copter but meet all or at least, most specification set for the copter.

Of course. However one must also consider the possibility of militaries winding down their requirements to suit what the industry can produce, which has happened many a time.

But this is irrelevant to the discussion, we're not talking about how well Z-10 suits PLA, but talking about the respective combat capabilities of heavier attack helicopters versus lighter ones, an idea which a poster or two couldn't seem to grasp.

One may argue all you want about how different doctrines of one military arm may differ to another, leading to a lighter helicopter or a less stealthy fighter or a smaller destroyer.
But fact is, in terms of combat capablity, AH-64>Z-10 (as well as tiger, A-129, etc etc), on all the important metrics.

4) direct competition of the Z-10 to heavier copter is not really comparing apple to apple to apple, of course a heavier copter would be armed more heavily and/or had thicker armour,

Thank you.

but if it takes only a 6-7tons attack copter to accomplish something or a mission or fitted into the doctrine of an army, would you still need a 10ton attack copter, taking note of budget, logistical support, etc of the country? Of course I am not saying that China do not need a heavier copters with bigger and more powerful engine, but currently, I believe the Z-10 served its purpose and served it with distinction and the Chinese must be happy with it or we will not be seeing so many of the Z-10 in service.

I agree with you, but this statement is irrelevant to the discussion previously at hand.

Lion was annoyed at the suggestion that Z-10 was underpowered when we mentioned putting in more powerful engines into future variants of Z-10, and I was only serving to say that engine power does directly correlate with all the important metrics of combat capability in attack helicopters universally.

Z-10 as it is, with WZ-9s, might suit PLA's needs at present, yes.

But we all know there are future variants of Z-10 being considered with more powerful engines. My point is that a Z-10 with more powerful engines will be a more capable helicopter than WZ-9 equipped Z-10s, and that attack helicopters in general are more powerful if they are heavier with similarly potent engines.

 

[Blitzo]

Precisely, we are seeing probably 70-80 WZ-10 helo in service now and its a wild suggestion , it not up to mark and waiting to refit hundred over WZ-9 new turboshaft with WZ-16 turboshaft. Does PLA ever spend money that way? Never heard of.

No one suggested refitting existing Z-10s with WZ-16s.

However future Z-10 variants, Z-10A or Z-10B as it may be, should very well have more powerful engines, and thus, heavier armour, payload, more capable avionics, etc.


Don't misunderstand me, despite my statements -- they have about 72 Z-10s in service, and an equal number of Z-19s.

That is a quantum leap in the PLA's LH orbat, and that is a combined larger attack helicopter force than most countries in the world, considering Z-10 is in the same class as eurocopter tiger and Z-19 is like a AH-1 with modernized avionics.

But if we shoudln't deny the reality that heavier attack helicopters are simply more capable, black and white, and that Z-10 is less capable than AH-64.

 

[broadsword]

In defense of Asif, he did a comparison of the power to weight ratio before and found WZ-10 comparable to the Tiger and did not find it underpowered. It certainly could do with more power so that it can mount the heavier 30mm gun and IF suppressor without sacrificing performance.