Z-10 thread
- Thread starter Red Guard
- Start date
- Status
asif iqbal
Banned Idiot
lol just a slight over-estimate there, maybe around 40 would be a better number
in recent times around 6-7 of our AH-1 Cobras have been so badly damaged in COIN operations they have been taken out of service and cannibalized for spares parts, it would be interesting to see how well this helo stands up to battle damage and how well it takes a punch
in recent times around 6-7 of our AH-1 Cobras have been so badly damaged in COIN operations they have been taken out of service and cannibalized for spares parts, it would be interesting to see how well this helo stands up to battle damage and how well it takes a punch
plawolf
Lieutenant General
That's a good question, and I hold some reservations about just how suitable the Z10 might be for a country like Pakistan who would likely by using their attack helos against a low-tech adversary.
Looking at the sleek lines of the Z10, it's construction (the fuselage is a single piece composite structure) and the comprehensive array of sensors and countermeasures installed, and you can see that the Z10 was designed to fight a high-tech enemy, and would be relying on it's stealth, agility, sensors and countermeasures to survive combat rather than thick armor.
The Z10 was designed to pick apart hostile heavy armored formations from a distance and with massive friendly ground and air support. It was primarily designed to evade missiles rather than withstand AAA fire. The Z10 seems more like a fencer rather than a street brawler.
As such, it looses much of it's greatest strengths if pitched against an enemy who does not have heavy armor for the Z10 to target or rely on fancy missiles that the Z10's self-defense suit is optimized to spoof.
The best MAWS will not help you when some guy is aiming a HMG or RPG at you with iron sights, and neither will ECM or chaff/flairs/laser dazzlers cause a bullet or RPG round to deflect from it's target.
If Pakistan wants Z10s as a counter against India, I think it would be a perfect fit, but I hold reservations about just how effective the Z10 would be if pitched against insurgents.
I think the world's attack helos can be divided into roughly two groups. You have your high tech 'fencer' helos like the Tiger, Ka50/52, Z10, and then you have your beefy 'brawler' helos like the Apache and Mi28.
Against a high tech foe, your 'fencers' should fair better because they have a better chance of avoiding being hit, and with high tech foes, if you get hit by a big-ass missile, slightly heavier plating and sturdier design won't help much. OTOH, against low tech foes, the 'brawlers' do better because their slightly heavier armor and sturdier construction often makes all the difference when your first warning of being under attack could be the sound of enemy fire smashing into your hull.
I think that there is a reason the Russians decided to buy the Mi28 as well as the Ka50/52 and why the US operates both the AH64 and the AH1.
China does not really see itself ever having to fight a COIN war, and even if it does, it has the manpower to flood the area with friendly boots and that is ultimately the only fool-proof solution to an armed insurgency. Because of this, the Z10 was designed primarily to fight other high-tech armies. It's just a matter of slightly different operational requirements and design goals between what the PLA wants and what the PA might want in an attack helo.
If Pakistan wants an attack helo mainly for COIN, I think it can do a lot worse than taking a long hard look at the Mi28, especially if they are only looking at a modest order.
If Pakistan wants a massive number of attack helos, it might be better to follow the JF17 model and team up with China to design a new one from the ground up to specifically meet Pakistan's unique needs.
I think that the lack of heavy armour on the Z-10 has more to do with the WZ-9 engines as they are too weak to take on heavier armour rather than any PLA requirements. But when you see the WZ-16 turboshaft engines come online in the next few years then you will see China develop a heavier armoured and armed version of the Z-10.
Last edited:
asif iqbal
Banned Idiot
good post plawolf and i would tend to agree
WZ10 will need re-worked, buying it off the self would probably be out of the question, certainly modifications are needed, also the terrain where COIN opperations take place account for alot too
for example, when in open green tree enviroments maintanence hours arent that high but switched to a desert hot heat enviroment and filters, gearbox, rotorblade etc etc take a beating, the downtime goes through the roof and parts needed replaced much faster than normal, especially when dust and small particles get into the engine intake entire situtaion changes
for PA WZ10 would need a list of modifications, which would include the above and also armour as you said, ISAF and NATO have perfected their techniques in operations in harsh conditions, from Gulf Wars they learnt alot, but when they first came to Afghanistan they were like infants, helicopters were sitting on base for days in down time, the best helo out there is by far the Apache, it can take 12.7mm at few hundred yards and still carry on but it also has a very powerful engine
so same would be for WZ10 it would be a massive learning curve and incremental changes would need to be made before WZ10 could operate in such harsh conditions but that would also greatly benifit China, all that information coming back would certainly benifit the design and development work of future models
WZ10 will need re-worked, buying it off the self would probably be out of the question, certainly modifications are needed, also the terrain where COIN opperations take place account for alot too
for example, when in open green tree enviroments maintanence hours arent that high but switched to a desert hot heat enviroment and filters, gearbox, rotorblade etc etc take a beating, the downtime goes through the roof and parts needed replaced much faster than normal, especially when dust and small particles get into the engine intake entire situtaion changes
for PA WZ10 would need a list of modifications, which would include the above and also armour as you said, ISAF and NATO have perfected their techniques in operations in harsh conditions, from Gulf Wars they learnt alot, but when they first came to Afghanistan they were like infants, helicopters were sitting on base for days in down time, the best helo out there is by far the Apache, it can take 12.7mm at few hundred yards and still carry on but it also has a very powerful engine
so same would be for WZ10 it would be a massive learning curve and incremental changes would need to be made before WZ10 could operate in such harsh conditions but that would also greatly benifit China, all that information coming back would certainly benifit the design and development work of future models
FirstImpulse
New Member
Last time I checked, Ah-64s have flown into RPG "traps" laid out by the Taliban and had several RPGs shot at them, and even then (after a glancing hit) the Apaches made it back to base. RPGs aren't that effective against helicopters in flight, although they can be devastating as the choppers are landing or offloading troops (think Takur Ghar).
Wolf, I whole heartily disagree with you about yr assertion of WZ-10. I believe WZ-10 was intentionly design as an close in combat armour helo. The fact, WZ-10 is the only helo being armed with a fix heavy machine gun in PLA clearly tell us , PLA wanted this helo to go into the thick of the action where chances that it will being surprised by small arms and can take a beating.. If wanted WZ-10 to go as near as 500-1000m away from enemies and flush them out with machine gun. Look at Z-9G and WZ-19, they are more likely your so called long range shooter , rely on long range ATGM and never armed with machine gun to take out enemy. They are to stay 3000m-4000m away far away from small arm like GPMG or 23mm anti aircraft gun and rely on HJ-9 ATGM which can fly more than 4000m to take out big armour tank.
Another sign of WZ-10 able to take punishment is its thick heavy looking landing gear and big wheel which is same as Apache. The WZ-10 definitely design with intend to survive a control crashed landing to save the helo crew. In order for its to take such punishment , not only the landing gear is reinforced but the whole body structure are needed to strengthen to take such an impact. Therefore the whole body shall be armored and capable of taking small arms like GPMG or even 0.5 cannon.
Recently after the zuhai airshow. We get to see a lot of CCTV coverage of WZ-10. It seems PLA is very happy with WZ-10 and no sight of under powered and under armour. In the fact, WZ-10 is much smaller than Apache meaning it do not need the kind of powerful engine in order to achieve almost similar area of armored while not sacrificing it performance.
Last edited:
Re: what Lion, Plawolf mentioned regarding armor protection for the Z-10...
I'm not going to be euphemistic here, China's ground military equipment at least is known for being underarmored, from tanks, IFVs and APCs, to all sorts of supposedly armored cars, to body armor for its troops and paramilitary forces.
We at least know that the big bottleneck in China's aircraft industry is with engines, I don't know if there is a parallel problem with engines for ground and/or naval equipment. This may be the actual cause of an underarmoring tendency in China's military equipment, or it may be an exacerbating factor to an existing underarmoring tendency due to resource constraints or simply a tactical habit.
I think underarmoring is at the level of a systemic problem for China, combined with issues in developing powerful aircraft engines I would not bet on the Z-10 being able to reliably withstand anything heavier than 7.62mm rounds.
I'm not going to be euphemistic here, China's ground military equipment at least is known for being underarmored, from tanks, IFVs and APCs, to all sorts of supposedly armored cars, to body armor for its troops and paramilitary forces.
We at least know that the big bottleneck in China's aircraft industry is with engines, I don't know if there is a parallel problem with engines for ground and/or naval equipment. This may be the actual cause of an underarmoring tendency in China's military equipment, or it may be an exacerbating factor to an existing underarmoring tendency due to resource constraints or simply a tactical habit.
I think underarmoring is at the level of a systemic problem for China, combined with issues in developing powerful aircraft engines I would not bet on the Z-10 being able to reliably withstand anything heavier than 7.62mm rounds.
- Status