Z-10 thread

[gizhou]

Excellent translation. Further to that, this is an an article I translated - Being a weiguo and all.

The WZ-10 attack helicopter was recently unveiled and described in some detail in an article in Tanke Zhuangjia Cheliang.

The helicopter is in the size and weight range of the Italian A129 Mangusta with many design features directly from it, including the cockpit. Two Pratt and Whitney Canada PT6C-6TC engines rated at 1,531 horsepower, which equates to 1,142 kilowatts, power the WZ-10. These give it a top speed of 280 km/hr, a cruising speed of 230 km/hr and a maximum range of 800 km.

The cockpit design has been taken directly from the A129 Mangusta fire control system, using helmet mounted display systems a field of view of 260 degrees horizontally and from minus 34 to plus 56 degrees at right angles to the cockpit. The design reduces its infrared signature and the navigation system incorporates GPS/GLOSNASS updates. The sensor system includes a nose mounted electro-optical laser designator/range finder and a thermal imaging seeker.

The armament comprises a 30mm cannon and on its two stub wings it can carry eight TianYan 90 air-to-air missiles or eight Hong Jian 10 anti-tank missiles as well as rockets and gun pods. It incorporates electronic warfare suite includes a radar warning receiver and a chaff/flare dispenser.

 

[tphuang]

Excellent translation. Further to that, this is an an article I translated - Being a weiguo and all.

The WZ-10 attack helicopter was recently unveiled and described in some detail in an article in Tanke Zhuangjia Cheliang.

The helicopter is in the size and weight range of the Italian A129 Mangusta with many design features directly from it, including the cockpit. Two Pratt and Whitney Canada PT6C-6TC engines rated at 1,531 horsepower, which equates to 1,142 kilowatts, power the WZ-10. These give it a top speed of 280 km/hr, a cruising speed of 230 km/hr and a maximum range of 800 km.

The cockpit design has been taken directly from the A129 Mangusta fire control system, using helmet mounted display systems a field of view of 260 degrees horizontally and from minus 34 to plus 56 degrees at right angles to the cockpit. The design reduces its infrared signature and the navigation system incorporates GPS/GLOSNASS updates. The sensor system includes a nose mounted electro-optical laser designator/range finder and a thermal imaging seeker.

The armament comprises a 30mm cannon and on its two stub wings it can carry eight TianYan 90 air-to-air missiles or eight Hong Jian 10 anti-tank missiles as well as rockets and gun pods. It incorporates electronic warfare suite includes a radar warning receiver and a chaff/flare dispenser.

some of the stuff you listed are too specific to be considered accurate. For a non-export project like Z-10, there is no way real specs would be released at this stage on a magazine. Also, we have seen that Z-10 has 4 pylons, indicating that it can possibly carry 16 missiles.

 

[gizhou]

some of the stuff you listed are too specific to be considered accurate. For a non-export project like Z-10, there is no way real specs would be released at this stage on a magazine. Also, we have seen that Z-10 has 4 pylons, indicating that it can possibly carry 16 missiles.

:nonoo yourself a favour, read the article before you attack it will you. The article actually has less specs than the previous one translated in this thread. If the article says eight missiles who am I, or you to disagree. Why wouldn't the Chinese not release these sort of details which shows the openess you now attack. I often have translated material from Chinese defence magazines, years before they got into the mainstream journals. People are either unwillingly (too lazy) or too busy to translate, preferring to get some other poor sod to do it. Also who said the Chinese will not export the Z-10 in future?

By the way all the translations I have done from this particular magazine over nearly five years have shown it to be accurate and FAR more accurate than any Jane's publication. You will find that fin separation and aerodynamics preclude 16 ATGMs. The AH-64 Apache was seen with 16 on trials but its combat load is generally eight Hellfire ATGMand two 19 round 2.75 inch rocket pods. This can change with the missioneg gun pods for ATGMs etc. :coffee:

 

[MrClean]

Umm, dude do yourself a favour and stop attacking people like tphuang's posts. He is a Supa-mod, and you should treat him with nothing but respect just like the rest of the members of this forum. Besides, he was stating nothing but a fact. If an attack helo had 4 pylons, it will be able to carry up to 16 missiles be it Air to Air, or ATgM. So leave it to the mods to do the moderating and diciplining of posts, it is their job ya know.

Sorry to get a little off topic guys.. Back to the WZ-10.

My question is, is how good do you think the HJ-10 is compared to the Hellfire or similar missiles?

 

[gizhou]

BFD if anyone is a super - moderator what ever that means. My work is used by Sinodefence.com in the ground systems and more than one person in the forum has quoted some of my articles and even worse plagarised what I wrote in the journals. All I am saying is don't atatck the information in a translation if it doesn't fit in with your view of the world. As for four pylons it means crap. Distance between individual missiles, aerodynamic lift from the fins, harmonics from air passing over the ordnance and pylons themselves, fatigue problems on the outer pylon stubs the effect of motors, weap[ons seperation on launch, all have a bearing, even if the ordnance can fit on the launcher on the ground.

I understand that weapons comparisons are froened upon in the forum. If the article states that ATGMs flew 2km with the helicopter one metre above the tree line then they could have been almost any air-launched ATGM. Who knows even if the photos of the Z-10 I have a real HJ-10s or a generic dummy for trials puropses. As Hellfire is a 25 year old system I would expect the HJ-10 to at least meet its performance. Hell they probably copied the Hellfire like most other ordnance in their military.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Andrei, is that you?

 

[gizhou]

I emailed you privately

 

[tphuang]

:nonoo yourself a favour, read the article before you attack it will you. The article actually has less specs than the previous one translated in this thread. If the article says eight missiles who am I, or you to disagree. Why wouldn't the Chinese not release these sort of details which shows the openess you now attack. I often have translated material from Chinese defence magazines, years before they got into the mainstream journals. People are either unwillingly (too lazy) or too busy to translate, preferring to get some other poor sod to do it. Also who said the Chinese will not export the Z-10 in future?

By the way all the translations I have done from this particular magazine over nearly five years have shown it to be accurate and FAR more accurate than any Jane's publication. You will find that fin separation and aerodynamics preclude 16 ATGMs. The AH-64 Apache was seen with 16 on trials but its combat load is generally eight Hellfire ATGMand two 19 round 2.75 inch rocket pods. This can change with the missioneg gun pods for ATGMs etc. :coffee:

You need to hold down your attitude. I personally couldn't care less that it's posted on a Chinese defense magazine. As far as I'm concerned, none of that is infallible by any means. If you get your source from avic1 or HKB, that's a different story. But clearly not, you get it from just a magazine, meaning unofficial. Unlike Z-10, J-10 is already declassified. Have we seen real flight performance numbers coming out? No. As for export, Z-10 is just about as unavailable as any system they have right now.

BFD if anyone is a super - moderator what ever that means. My work is used by Sinodefence.com in the ground systems and more than one person in the forum has quoted some of my articles and even worse plagarised what I wrote in the journals. All I am saying is don't atatck the information in a translation if it doesn't fit in with your view of the world. As for four pylons it means crap. Distance between individual missiles, aerodynamic lift from the fins, harmonics from air passing over the ordnance and pylons themselves, fatigue problems on the outer pylon stubs the effect of motors, weap[ons seperation on launch, all have a bearing, even if the ordnance can fit on the launcher on the ground.

I understand that weapons comparisons are froened upon in the forum. If the article states that ATGMs flew 2km with the helicopter one metre above the tree line then they could have been almost any air-launched ATGM. Who knows even if the photos of the Z-10 I have a real HJ-10s or a generic dummy for trials puropses. As Hellfire is a 25 year old system I would expect the HJ-10 to at least meet its performance. Hell they probably copied the Hellfire like most other ordnance in their military.

Why don't you tell us who you are then? If we managed to violate so many of your copyright articles, why don't you show us that?

 

[gizhou]

I took it up with the owner of the site. I have no time for amateurs.

 

[tphuang]

I took it up with the owner of the site. I have no time for amateurs.

Really, save your arrogance. I got a pretty popular blog going and got many of articles posted on CDF without my permission. Do you think I actually took it up with CDF's site owner?

You should be flattered anyone bothers to quote your stuff.