Z-10 thread
- Thread starter Red Guard
- Start date
- Status
I would be surprised if they will upgrade Z-10 with a new engine, and I don't think WZ-16 would be used as a turboshaft for PLA attack helicopter roles.
If Z-10 did receive newer and more potent engines (like better WZ-9 variants), priority would probably go to armour and self defense suite. Even if they wanted to put the extra horsepower for weapons, it's not like they need additional hardpoints; we rarely see Z-10 making full use (e.g.: 16 ATGMs, or 8 ATGMs and two large capacity rocket pods) of its four existing hardpoints to begin with.
Instead, at this stage it would make more sense to develop an attack helicopter on the proven Z-20 airframe/powertrain (similar to UH-1 to AH-1 or Z-9 to Z-19 pathways), in which case the powerplant of choice would be the WZ-10 turboshaft.
I see, so do you believe the WZ-16 more likely to be used for the next Z-8/18 upgrade instead?
Better armour is understandable but what would be a better defensive suite? I am confused about the current status of the Z-10 defensive suite. I read that the MAWs, upwards facing exhaust and DIRCM have been installed/demonstrated, and there have not been any serious improvements in helicopter defensive suites on the world stage yet.
I'm not sure if WZ-16 engine will even be used for military applications. It was developed originally for the H175/AC352 which is a civil helicopter, and was done through a joint venture with Safran.
Furthermore, WZ-9 variants and WZ-10 exist.
So, my belief is that WZ-16 probably won't have a military application to begin with because they don't need it. If one is interested in PLA military helicopters, it is probably better to pretend WZ-16 (and H175/AC352/Z-15) doesn't exist, because its existence just introduces confusion.
In terms of defense suites, you can always get more powerful self defense sensors, more powerful ECM. And yes, DIRCM is a system that could be installed as well. All of those things can end up consuming more weight.
If Z-10 was to receive slightly more powerful engines in future (such as newer WZ-9 variants), then some of the additional horsepower could be used for those factors yes.
You're asking the question backwards. Helicopters are not planes and their design is optimised differently. Planes move in the air so high energy is priority. Helicopters move on the ground, just without touching it, so high mass is priority. Helicopters are always designed to have maximum take-off weight possible in a given class, which is defined by MTOW but determined by propulsion - engines and transmission.
There are two important parameters that require mass - armour and fuel.
More armour is necessary because the primary threat that helicopters face is from small arms fire, not missiles. When you look at clips of shootdowns from Ukraine you typically see attack helicopters, typically Ka-52, performing missile attack against an armoured target. That is actually a rare mission for an attack helicopter, as the primary role is CCA (close combat attack) meaning direct fire in support of a ground formation or an air assault landing. In other words an attack helicopter is a literal flying tank drawing fire and suppressing enemy positions which means it gets hit with everything that the defending force has and that includes 5,56mm, 7,62mm, 12,7mm, ATGMs and only rarely MANPADS which is not issued below battalion level.
I stressed drawing fire because that's a counter-intuitive action that is very important role that an attack helicopter plays in full-spectrum conflicts against peer enemy. In a formation of attack and transport helicopters the transport is always the primary target. It carries troops which are a greater threat than attack helos, and it provides logistics for deployed forces. An attack helo will hang around for a while and shoot a bit but then it flies away, while the troops stay on the ground. Another reason is recon. A well defended position is a well concealed position and often the best way is to bait the enemy to reveal its location which is then communicated to ground force. Again, uncontested missions against insurgents are not a good measure of what attack helos do in full-spectrum combat.
More fuel is necessary because helicopters have horrible fuel economy and range is affected more drastically by mass/altitude than in planes. There's even a saying "planes want to fly, helicopters don't." Fuel also allows helicopters to loiter for longer periods of time and often additional time on station is more valuable than additional missiles so being able to carry two larger spare fuel tanks is very helpful.
Z-19 is a recon helicopter with combat roles and while it carries ATGMs the tactic is likely similar to light anti-tank helicopters of Cold War like Gazelle or Bo-105 which launched the missiles from stand-off distances in an ambush. The lack of a mounted moving gun is telling, as this is the primary fire suppression tool for attack helicopters performing CCA, allowing the helicopter to move above the position and engage in every direction. A well trained crew disorganize an entire defensive position with just the gun. Z-19 must keep distance and also has more limited munitions. It is in the same class as A129 and must have some degree of armour but there's a reason why contemporary designs have 8,5-10t MTOW and it has to do with the shift in air assault tactics and more direct role of heavy attack helicopters. 4t class is a product of technological limitations of engines that defined AH-1 (derived from smaller UH-1) and Mi-24 (derived from larger Mi-8) and later A129 which was achievable and affordable to Italy.
Personally I'm surprised Z-19 is in production because it's a very specialised design produced in 2010s when attack helicopters have higher requirements while lighter and cheaper recon/observation helicopters benefit from traditional cabin design allowing them to fulfill other roles as well. It reminds OH-1 but that helicopter turned out to be a disaster. RAH-66 with over 7t was in Z-10 class. Z-19 could be an attempt to maintain a second design and production line, parallel to Z-10 but I'm not sure how it worked out. Both Z-10 and Z-19 are "first generation" helos and in each case it is the second generation that shows intention of planners and doctrine - AH-64, Mi-28/Ka-52, Tiger, AW249 etc. Which means that to evaluate Chinese helicopter program we have to see what comes next.
All about not have -> have
back in early 2010s, all they had was some Z-9Ws and even that was very low in numbers. PLALH needed numbers and supply chain for Z-9/19 was already there. Didn't need much to ramp up production.
That's self-evident.
I'm wondering about the decision to procure a recon helicopter with modified cabin, resulting in an attack helicopter that was clearly inferior to Z-10, but without the benefits of traditional hull that is more natural to light recon helos. This is a decision contrary to what all other countries do including the US which, having cancelled the Comanche, intended to replace OH-58D with ARH-70. The only countries which took a different route were Russia with Ka-52 and Mi-28 and Japan with AH-1/AH-64 and OH-1 but neither did so as consequence of military planning.
Russia did it because of politics and competition for resources between Mil and Kamov - both companies having facilities in different parts of the country. The result is largely a disaster for Russian Armed Forces. Mi-28 which is the better concept was insufficiently funded so it's still lagging in readiness, support and capabilities of sub-systems while Ka-52 despite being the less optimal design for both recon and attack roles is more available for deployment and production as consequece of past decisions which prioritised Kamov purely on political grounds. Ka-52 was derived from Ka-50 which was a unique (single pilot) but also more coherent and survivable design. Consequently Ka-52 is taking heavy losses in Ukraine while at the same time consuming excess resources. If Russia had a proper light attack/recon helicopter that could deploy long range ATGMs using stand-off tactics it could also support a proper heavy attack helo capable of better surviving direct combat. Ka-52 due to its design has less protection and this is one of the reasons why so many were lost - with some helos being shot down by small arms fire.
Japan wanted to develop a domestic attack helicopter under the guise of a recon helicopter in the 1980s. It was meant to be a domestic equivalent of Tiger/Mangusta/Cobra at the time when Apache was not yet in service and was considered a "heavy" attack helicopter. Then in the 1990s two things happened. Firstly the Cold War ended and soon the economic crises hit Japan and budgets were slashed depriving OH-1 program of necessary funding. Secondly the Apache was so successful in 1991 that it managed to redefine the doctrinal application of attack helicopters, with "heavy" becoming the norm. Both Mangusta and Tiger continued as industrial programs but also because European countries did not have attack helos in service. Japan did - and a lot of them - and that stopped OH-1 development because sustaining the fleet took away resources from developing domestic design. Also as long as Yen was overvalued American helicopters were competitive.
Coming back to China:
The decision to develop a combat helicopter based on existing production line of W-9 is rational. What is questioable is the choice to the hull in the same manner as UH-1 to AH-1.
If Z-19 entered service before Z-10 it could be understood as insurance, against a new program led by a foreign design bureau (Kamov) but Z-19 came afterward.
It can't match Z-10 in direct combat because of threat of small arms fire which evolved in terms of lethality since 1980s and for stand-off attacks it is too heavy and expensive to be optimal. If Germany could use Bo-105 as light attack helo in the 1980s on European front I don't see why China could simplify Z-19 to Z-9 with armament. The only logical explanation that I have is number of missiles carried but even that is problematic. Z-9 has empty mass of 2050kg, Z-18 - 2350kg. Even with reduced volume the gain in armour is not sufficient for direct combat and Z-19 has no mounted gun meaning it is more exposed because it can't use suppressing fire. That leaves missile attacks - HJ-8 has mass of 25kg and Z-19 carries 8 of them, HJ-9 is heavier but has range greater only by 1,5km. Those could be performed by base Z-9.
Was PLA dissatisfied with Z-9W for some reason that I'm not aware of? I've looked at the pictures and on the surface the design seems fine. W-9W seems better than the Polish equivalent based on W-3 helicopter which the Polish military tested and found satisfactory but the program went nowhere due to lack of funding. Z-9W has armament and cabin access which offers tactical options that Z-19 sacrifices for protection that is clearly insufficient because of mission profile.
If the cabin structure was insufficient then 300kg of difference between W-9 and Z-19 should be enough to reinforce it with help of modern materials. However helicopters are surprisingly finicky and subtle machines so what works very well for Z-9 may have been lost to Z-9W because of miniscule changes.
Perhaps there were some problems with cooperation with Russians on Z-10 that are not common knowledge and Z-19 was developed not so much as insurance, as to prove to Kamov that they're not irreplaceable. Afterward the program could continue with institutional inertia. Or was it entirely internal politics, and proof that Harbin should not be left out of future procurement and R&D?
All those make more sense than Z-19 on its own. If anyone is aware of any such information I'm very much interested.
Anyway. EOT.
As you said it yourself, the Japanese have the OH-1 recon helicopter, and the Z-19 looks pretty similar in configuration. So if there was any outside inspiration for the design that was likely it. The Z-10 itself seems inspired by European attack helicopter designs. Even if Kamov was a consultant on the project.
The Ka-52 was more readily available than the Mi-28. The Mi-28 had a protracted development period.
Ka-52 took losses initially because it was not operating at standoff range from MANPADS. Which are very prolific in Ukraine, more so than in other conflicts. It did great more recently during the initial stages of the Ukrainian counter offensive when it was operating at standoff range. You can either attribute the better performance to doctrine, or to more static and well established line of contact which enables them to operate more safely. More modern Ka-52 variants have even further improved sensors and missiles which enable it to strike at longer distances. Quite outside MANPADS range.
Both design traits, being a light attack helicopter, and deploying large long range ATGMs, are in conflict with each other. Those who use light helicopters don't put long range ATGMs on them not because they don't want to, but because that isn't possible.
Hardly. Most were lost to MANPADS.
Both helicopters serve complementary purposes. Other countries have light recon helicopters.
So your question is why PLA chose to go with a large mod in Z-19 which in your opinion is actually worse for the mission at hand than Z-9W?
My guess is that they didn't see the need for more Z-9W. That they view Z-9W as an overly old platform that relies on too much foreign tech. It's quite possible they think Z-19 can at least be used in the role of getting closer to supporting ground forces.
It's also possible that in terms of supply chain, they needed to move to this to standardize certain parts. And that the parts on Z-19 will be supported for significant time into the future
- Status