Z-20 (all variants) thread

[Lethe]

From my perspective Z-20 is about the most boring project going on in the PRC today. An indigenous development of a 40yr-old foreign design = snore. This thing is even older in its basic design lineage than JH-7 was at the time it was introduced, and indeed it seems more appropriate to that era in Chinese development, i.e. 90s to early 2000s.

If you are going to indigenise a foreign design in 2016, the least you could do is work from something reasonably modern like AW101.

In any case I hope they can pump out the numbers they need quickly (hopefully the saving grace is that it is cheap and simple to produce) and then move on to a next generation of (more interesting) rotorcraft.

 

[Deino]

YES & NO IMO !

Even if quite an old and dated design, the Blackhawk is surely still the benchmark for it's class and esp, since You mentioned the AW101, both are very different. The new Z-18A is probably closer to the AW101 and as such a smaller, more versatile complement is just what's needed.

I'm however indeed surprised - esp. in mind of the close Sino-European relationship with Eurocopter - that not a design closer to the NH.90 was developed ...

Deino

 

[PanAsian]

From my perspective Z-20 is about the most boring project going on in the PRC today. An indigenous development of a 40yr-old foreign design = snore. This thing is even older in its basic design lineage than JH-7 was at the time it was introduced, and indeed it seems more appropriate to that era in Chinese development, i.e. 90s to early 2000s.

If you are going to indigenise a foreign design in 2016, the least you could do is work from something reasonably modern like AW101.

In any case I hope they can pump out the numbers they need quickly (hopefully the saving grace is that it is cheap and simple to produce) and then move on to a next generation of (more interesting) rotorcraft.

China's inability to come up with (or unwillingness to invest in R&D-ing) something better is exactly what makes this an interesting project revealing how far behind China still is in certain technologies and possibly also how budget conscious they are. They definitely have a need to churn these out when it's ready and have a naval version as well.

 

[Jeff Head]

The Chinese are using their experience with the S-70, which apparently has operated above expectations to do a job they wanted doing to now produce more of them on their own.

You can bet, that although the airframe looks very similar to the Blackhawk, that the PRC has packed it with plenty of its own innovation to improve it significantly over what they got so many years ago.

Just like they have done with the Flankers and their products they have improved into indigenous designs of their own.

I would not call it boring at all if it is something that gets a job done that the PLAAF wanst and needs doing.

 

[Iron Man]

YES & NO IMO !

Even if quite an old and dated design, the Blackhawk is surely still the benchmark for it's class and esp, since You mentioned the AW101, both are very different. The new Z-18A is probably closer to the AW101 and as such a smaller, more versatile complement is just what's needed.

I'm however indeed surprised - esp. in mind of the close Sino-European relationship with Eurocopter - that not a design closer to the NH.90 was developed ...

Deino

Actually the AW101 is even larger than the Z-8/18 at 14.6 tons MTOW compared to 13 tons MTOW, while the UH-60/S-70 is 10 tons MTOW. Completely different classes of helicopter and completely unsuitable for comparisons with the S-70.

NH-90 weighs in at 10.6 tons MTOW and is definitely a far more suitable comparison, but then again China does not have the intimate knowledge of that helicopter like it does the S-70. The US military continues to use this helicopter actively in a multitude of variants so it's not at all clear to me that this design is obsolete by any means. China will have no doubt modified the basic S-70 design for its own needs, just as the US military has the UH-60, MH-60, SH-60 and several more variants all based on the same core design.

 

[Yodello]

I tend to agreee...! China's proven path of taking the safe route will never make it a leader. It has to break the mould of being a mere follower and doing things that others have already done to be truly respected and acknowldged as a world power. Despite all the technological advancements, and implementatiins of its technology on all fronts, China is still, and will always be regarded as a follower untill she breaks through ans puts forth her own truly indegenious ideas, and that means taking risks. On that front, there are only two true world superwpowers to me, the USA and Russia. Deapite all her economic and diplomatic weaknessess, Russia is a military superwpower, period. China has a long way to go before she can even be measured in the same shoes of the Russains.

 

[Iron Man]

I tend to agreee...! China's proven path of taking the safe route will never make it a leader. It has to break the mould of being a mere follower and doing things that others have already done to be truly respected and acknowldged as a world power. Despite all the technological advancements, and implementatiins of its technology on all fronts, China is still, and will always be regarded as a follower untill she breaks through ans puts forth her own truly indegenious ideas, and that means taking risks. On that front, there are only two true world superwpowers to me, the USA and Russia. Deapite all her economic and diplomatic weaknessess, Russia is a military superwpower, period. China has a long way to go before she can even be measured in the same shoes of the Russains.

Not sure who you're arguing against. Did anyone here say that China is ahead of Russia in military technology? There is no doubt China is still not at a stage where it can innovate across a broad range of military technologies, even compared to Russia, but IMO it does not have a "long way" to go before it surpasses the Russians in this regard. At its current trajectory, in the next 10 years or so I think we will see China catch up to and surpass Russia on most fronts.

 

[vesicles]

I tend to agreee...! China's proven path of taking the safe route will never make it a leader. It has to break the mould of being a mere follower and doing things that others have already done to be truly respected and acknowldged as a world power. Despite all the technological advancements, and implementatiins of its technology on all fronts, China is still, and will always be regarded as a follower untill she breaks through ans puts forth her own truly indegenious ideas, and that means taking risks. On that front, there are only two true world superwpowers to me, the USA and Russia. Deapite all her economic and diplomatic weaknessess, Russia is a military superwpower, period. China has a long way to go before she can even be measured in the same shoes of the Russains.

Before you can be a pioneer, you have to be a good student. No one can start out as a leader without understanding what is known. The phrase "you stand on the shoulders of giants" comes to mind.

China now, despite all the advancement, is still climbing the learning curve. You need to be patient.

China is indeed leading and innovating in many fields, where they have done learning. Quantum communication would be one of them.

In the fields where they are still lagging behind, they still have much to learn.

 

[taxiya]

I don't think Blackhawk design is outdated just because it was designed 4 decades ago. All later newer designs are not fundamentally advanced (just because they are made recently). The design of helicopter has not changed as dramatic as Jet fighters. That is why a 4 decades old design is as good as a one decade old design. The improvement of most recent designs are internal, NOT the configuration and shape.

That is why I kept on saying that when China choose the mission for Z-20, it is almost certain it will look like Blackhawk. Just like if one want to have a sedan for a decent performance, all choices on the market would look similar in shape, horsepower, size and weight regardless of brand.

The key word is the mission. I have hard and am convinced that China want a helicopter doing almost the exactly jobs as blackhawk in all her military branches.

One may ask why not "copy" other later designs? The answer is to ask "what is unique with blackhawk?" What I know of is that, for one, blackhawk's landing gear arrangement makes it more stable in a unprepared terrain. For second, blackhawk has a very low profile, good to be tucked in warships or airlifters. If China choose these features as must-haves, plus the same weight-class, what do you expect for the outcome? Twins?

I always disagree with the notion "to make a difference just for the sake of looking different". I believe in only making a difference when function demands. By the same principle, I reject the notion that just because it looks very similar it must be "copied" or "derived". All wheels are round, period.

nagging over

 

[superdog]

Actually the AW101 is even larger than the Z-8/18 at 14.6 tons MTOW compared to 13 tons MTOW, while the UH-60/S-70 is 10 tons MTOW. Completely different classes of helicopter and completely unsuitable for comparisons with the S-70.

NH-90 weighs in at 10.6 tons MTOW and is definitely a far more suitable comparison, but then again China does not have the intimate knowledge of that helicopter like it does the S-70. The US military continues to use this helicopter actively in a multitude of variants so it's not at all clear to me that this design is obsolete by any means. China will have no doubt modified the basic S-70 design for its own needs, just as the US military has the UH-60, MH-60, SH-60 and several more variants all based on the same core design.

I also don't agree with some people's implication that a Z-20 with similar body config to the NH-90 must be "better" or "more advanced" than one that resembles the UH-60.

The general body config of the UH-60 and the NH-90 are clearly different, but the differences are not about one setup being inherently "more advanced" than the other, they are only different because the two helicopters were designed under different sets of tactical requirements.

The NH-90 was designed under NATO requirements to be a well rounded multi-purpose medium helicopter, it can fulfill some land and naval assault roles, but must also be able to hold a variety of cargo, such as NATO pallets or an ATV. With these requirements, it needs a vertically spacious cargo bay and a tail door, which means it has to use a tricycle gear setup, high tail boom, and smaller side doors. This is not necessarily a problem, but there are costs to be paid: the center of gravity will be higher, the smaller side doors will be less useful in assault mode (by assault I don't mean like an Apache, but when it is used for front-line troop deployment and extraction), tricycle gears with shorter wheelbase makes it harder to land under rough conditions, taller cabin and retractable gears requires more structural weight, a bigger side profile is more susceptible to crosswind, etc.

In comparison, the UH-60 is also a general purpose platform but it put a bit more emphasis on front line performance rather than cargo versatility (also a side effect of its C-130 loading requirment). It is not good at holding cargo pallets or ATV internally, but the config allows for a lighter, more stable, and more streamlined body, which means this config will have better mobility given the same engine.

Structurally, the NH-90 is indeed more advanced than the UH-60 in that it uses more composite materials and is perhaps more refined in structural design, but this has nothing to do with the general shape of the aircraft, it has everything to do with the fact that NH-90 is designed more recently. The Z-20's structural design and composite usage would be as good as what AVIC is capable of, and how good that would be has nothing to do with whether it looks more like the NH-90 or the UH-60. One needs to realize that the Z-20 is not a 1:1 blueprint copy of the UH-60, so you can't tell how bad (or how good) it is by directly referencing the UH-60.

The fact that AVIC selected a Blackhawk-ish config means the PLA also emphasizes more on mobility and performance rather than cargo space versatility. It make sense given that they already have quite a fleet of Mi-8/17/171 for bulkier cargo and things that require tail loading (on the plateau they will have the Z-18), but lacked a high agility assault transport. On the other hand, NH-90's target users are mostly smaller European countries who may need to rely on the NH-90 as their main VTOL transport, so they'll need that cargo versatility.

In short, it is simple: different needs, different emphasis, different configurations.