Everybody remember PRC's dedicated attack helo program? If not read this.

It seems to be moving alot at full speed (well, they are the world's largest copy machine):

Looks like a mixture of A129, Eurocopter Tiger and the Comanche concept to me ... not bad at all, but somehow copied.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 1): Looks like a mixture of A129, Eurocopter Tiger and the Comanche concept to me ... not bad at all, but somehow copied.

The guiding principle might be "Why reinvent the wheel when it simply could be improved?"

you'd have to admit it looks cool! I wonder how good it is

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 1): Looks like a mixture of A129, Eurocopter Tiger and the Comanche concept to me ... not bad at all, but somehow copied.

Exactly what I was thinking.
One comfort I take from the Chinese copying others technology is that just with other things in life the copy is never as good as the original. Also since we know where their design came from we know it's limits and weaknesses.

Ancient Chinese secret my tail.

If it's like most everything else I buy that is "MADE IN CHINA" I won't loose too much sleep over it. Looks good though, but I'd be surprised to learn that it's very capable; looks like AIM-9X or AMRAAM+ fodder to me.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5): looks like AIM-9X or AMRAAM+ fodder to me.

Any helicopter would be "fodder" to those weapons.

Anyone think it's covered with LEAD paint...??? That would really kill usable payload huh?

Actually, when you really really look at it, it looks like an stealth version of the A-129 rather than a mix of three helos.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 6): Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5): looks like AIM-9X or AMRAAM+ fodder to me. Any helicopter would be "fodder" to those weapons.

But not just "any" helicopter will "potentially" have an AIM-9X or AMRAAM+ pointed at it!  

I still think the USA has a place for the RAH-66 and it's stealth capabilities.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9): But not just "any" helicopter will "potentially" have an AIM-9X or AMRAAM+ pointed at it! Smile

*mommymodeon*
Don't point your sticks at each other, kids. Come along with each other ...
*mommymodeoff*
  

An AMRAAM is probably ineffective against a low flying helicopter as it needs a certain minimum altitude in order to distinguish the target from ground clutter.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 9): I still think the USA has a place for the RAH-66 and it's stealth capabilities.

Too expensive for its impact. Stealth is also not that important that close to the ground. Better put some money into IR signature reduction, although that might be forlorn hope in face of imaging infrared seekers. Helicopter pilots will always have a dangerous job, much more than fighter pilots ...

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5): If it's like most everything else I buy that is "MADE IN CHINA" I won't loose too much sleep over it. Looks good though, but I'd be surprised to learn that it's very capable; looks like AIM-9X or AMRAAM+ fodder to me.

I agree looks like a copied "euro-copter" just was woundering how much experience the Chinese have usuing an acual attack helicopter in battle. Its only as good as the operator.

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 11): Quoting AirRyan (Reply 5): If it's like most everything else I buy that is "MADE IN CHINA" I won't loose too much sleep over it. Looks good though, but I'd be surprised to learn that it's very capable; looks like AIM-9X or AMRAAM+ fodder to me. I agree looks like a copied "euro-copter" just was woundering how much experience the Chinese have usuing an acual attack helicopter in battle. Its only as good as the operator.

It appears that not everything is "Made in China" - US company to be investigated for possible breach on ban of military supplies to the PROC.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ppliers-face-us-investigation.html

Quote:
"The US Department of State confirmed on 25 October that the probe includes alleged exports by Pratt & Whitney Canada and its parent, United Technologies.

But State officials have declined to elaborate and P&WC and UTC officials were not immediately available to comment.

P&WC's 1,680hp (1,250kW) PT6C-67 turboshaft had been selected as early as 2001 to power the Z-10 medium helicopter, which is reportedly in a similar class as the AgustaWestland A129. It is not clear whether P&WC's participation in the Z-10 programme has been investigated until now."

After the first world war german products were dismissed, after the second ww japanese products. Maybe now it's our time now to dismiss chinese products.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 13): After the first world war german products were dismissed

I don't think German products were ever dismissed. People did think the same about Americans in those days BTW.

"good at making refrigorators, but not planes" like we indeed look at China now, or more or less similar

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 14): I don't think German products were ever dismissed

"Made in Germany" The label was originally introduced to Britain by the Merchandise Marks Act 1887, to mark foreign produce more obviously, as the British society was considering foreign produce to be inferior to domestic produce, and tried to get buyers to adhere to the concept of 'buying British'.

In 1894, however, the German Reichstag's commission already reported that after suffering slight losses, German manufacturers soon found the label to be of good use since they could distinguish themselves better from the British manufacturers. This led to more and more manufacturers voluntarily applying the label, and not even World War I, in which marks were mandatory in Britain in order to boycott the Central Powers countries' products, could dent the growing popularity of the mark.

The term Made in Germany was soon associated with product reliability, quality and even perfection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_Germany

Quoting Keesje (Reply 15): The term Made in Germany was soon associated with product reliability, quality and even perfection.

exactly what I meant. People found those products were superior. They were labeled as such to make a distinction with domestic products and profit from negtive sentiments towards Germany.

By WWI people knew how to value German products.

Whilst the quality of US products may be better than Chinese, when you take account of cost, which gives most bang per buck?.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 13): After the first world war german products were dismissed, after the second ww japanese products. Maybe now it's our time now to dismiss chinese products.

I cannot speak intelligently about the quality of their fighters... but when it comes to helicopters, that's my bread and butter.

There is so much more to making a great helicopter, than slapping some stub wings on a good looking frame. Even when the manufacturer says, "Oh well our helicopter has x, y, and z pieces of equipment installed", does not equate to a top notch helicopter. I think a lot of military aviation enthusiasts forget this. There are a lot of intangibles, things that make the difference between an OK piece of equipment, and a great piece of equipment, that do not show up on a specification sheet.

Ok, so the WZ-10 can carry some laser guided missiles, akin to the Hellfire. To an aviation enthusiast, who has not real experience, this may seem like the helicopter is as good, or better, than other helicopters. Wrong. Because what makes the hellfire great is not necessarily the missile, but the crew (and their training) who are employing that weapon!

In other words, how does the WZ-10 integrate itself into the battlefield? How easily can the ground commander utilize this helicopter? Do not forget, every helicopter exists to serve the ground commander. How does the WZ-10 work with other units in the air? What tactics does it use to best employ its weapon systems, while maintaining the highest level of security? Do they rely on scouts to conduct zone recon up to the PL? Or does it charge beyond the FLOT without recon support? How do they set up kill zones? How well can they work together to put max force on target? Or even smaller, more innocent questions: How much torque are they pulling at full weapons/fuel load at an OGE hover? What are they using for a maintenance schedule?

...See, there is so much more to making a good attack helicopter, than stub wings and a few missiles! A lot of people seem to overlook this. The truth is, playing Janes Flight Simulators are nowhere near the real thing!

Another major reserve I have: tactics. The Chinese are still very reliant on Soviet doctrine. You should see how they operate: a very ridged, very controlled manner that allows for no innovation in the company level commanders. In other words: You fight exactly as you trained, and were briefed, and you do not waiver from the plan. If they use their helicopters like the Soviets did, then they are severely hampering their fighting abilities.

-UH60

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 18): In other words, how does the WZ-10 integrate itself into the battlefield?

I think this WZ10 is the result of many prototypes that have been tested during the last 8 yrs.

So it is a result of trail an error, stealing technology, copying, improving older technology, and probably some talent and creativity. Doesn´t mean it can´t be a good helicopter. Sure thing is they are learning fast.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 19): I think this WZ10 is the result of many prototypes that have been tested during the last 8 yrs. So it is a result of trail an error, stealing technology, copying, improving older technology, and probably some talent and creativity. Doesn´t mean it can´t be a good helicopter. Sure thing is they are learning fast.

Did you even read what I wrote?

All of this is great... but it still doesn't equate to a "slam dunk." There are so many more factors - some of which I highlighted - that need to be considered before it becomes a fantastic attack helicopter. Whoopie freakin' doo... it has a gun and some missiles. But if their air ground integration is junk, their air coordination is junk, and their tactics are junk... then all you have is cannon fodder flying over the battlefield.

-UH60

Quoting Keesje (Reply 15): Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 14): I don't think German products were ever dismissed "Made in Germany" The label was originally introduced to Britain by the Merchandise Marks Act 1887, to mark foreign produce more obviously, as the British society was considering foreign produce to be inferior to domestic produce, and tried to get buyers to adhere to the concept of 'buying British'. In 1894, however, the German Reichstag's commission already reported that after suffering slight losses, German manufacturers soon found the label to be of good use since they could distinguish themselves better from the British manufacturers. This led to more and more manufacturers voluntarily applying the label, and not even World War I, in which marks were mandatory in Britain in order to boycott the Central Powers countries' products, could dent the growing popularity of the mark. The term Made in Germany was soon associated with product reliability, quality and even perfection. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in...rmany

Keez, fer Chrissakes don't cite wikipedia for the truth of anything. I thought you were a schoolteacher.

UH60FtRucker

You seem to assume that China will continue to use Soviet tactics and that Soviet tactics will not be effective.

The way that the Chinese are changing their equipment, are these assumptions still valid.

I recall similar assumptions being made about the Hind in the old days. What people failed to grasp that the Hind was less effective than the Cobra if Cobra tactics were used, but that the Soviets did not plan to use it that way.

David

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 22): You seem to assume that China will continue to use Soviet tactics and that Soviet tactics will not be effective. The way that the Chinese are changing their equipment, are these assumptions still valid.

I don't assume. I know. We've been watching their training exercises for years. They are still holding close to the tactics we expected to see in the Fulda Gap, as the Soviets rolled through. Intel analysis have theorized two major reasons for this. One: their tactics are optimized for extremely large operations. It's much harder to control an army with so many divisions, by using the fluid tactics that the US Army uses. Especially when your army is not fully integrated through state of the art CC&C (command, control and communication). Their tactics clearly accept that they have an inefficient force, so this is compensated for by using the weapon of mass. There are many benefits to sheer mass. Especially if you lack tight control and contact with all units. There is no need to issue a complex OPORDER, a simple order is needed: advance. However, there is also severe drawbacks, including the ability to rapidly deal with an evolving, and fluidic situation. Because their OPORDER was not thorough, it does not allow for units to immediately know what to do if, say, their right flank develops a gap.

The Chinese know this, just as the Soviets knew it. Their answer is overcoming the tactical disadvantage, through audacity and speed. Amass enough forces, and advance with such speed, you do not allow the enemy force to rapidly assess, and react to the battle situation. However, this is easier said than done. Even the US Army found how difficult this could be in 2003. To advance a sizable force over a vast distance is extremely difficult, fraught with unexpected obstacles. One major lesson we learned was that force integration was essential, we could not have pulled off the same feat a mere 10yrs prior. Force integration is certainly a theory of force aspect that the Soviets lacked, and the Chinese lack.

Remember that major joint exercise the Russians and Chinese held a few months ago? We saw that they both used very similar tactics, and we also saw how choreographed the battleplan was. Force X went here. Force Y went there. Event X occurred, to which Division X then responded too. Battalion X failed to complete it's primary mission, so Battalions Y and Z were unable to compensate and shift fire. All very interesting to see (I didn't see it - I read about it).

This is even more important in rotary wing aviation, which requires very precise control and planning.... especially if you want to use it to its maximum effectiveness. Like I said: it's nothing like playing Janes flight sims. Do you know how many radios I am talking on, when conducting a complex air assault mission? At least 6. And usually multiple freq changes per mission.

I don't doubt that the Chinese will evolve their doctrine beyond Cold War tactics, but you must remember that doctrine changes occur over military generations.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 22): I recall similar assumptions being made about the Hind in the old days. What people failed to grasp that the Hind was less effective than the Cobra if Cobra tactics were used, but that the Soviets did not plan to use it that way.

In the Mil-Av archives, there's a thread I started, that talked about my first hand account of the Mi-24. Check it out. Certainly far too overrated.

-UH60

UH60 Always a pleasure to see you involved in these Helicopter Discussions. Hope all is well, and SOCK it too'em for me from KFOR9!

-Attack

I agree with the roatary wing guys here, who would of course know.
The MiG-21 is still an effective platform when properly employed. The thing is, the Fishbed is seldom properly employed and is always, not "often", no match for a modern fighter with a properly trained driver.
Our strength is our training. We train against the tactics we expect to see (and some we don't) constantly. Sometimes we even train against Russian hardware.  
The wings and weapons are only an extension of the driver and his/her training.

Bravo MCI, any closer you would have nuked it!

LINK 1
LINK 2
LINK 3



Sneaky!

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 25): The wings and weapons are only an extension of the driver and his/her training.

Or as some guy who shot down 80 odd airplanes in the great war said, "It's not the crate but the man sitting in the crate"

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 20): All of this is great... but it still doesn't equate to a "slam dunk." There are so many more factors - some of which I highlighted - that need to be considered before it becomes a fantastic attack helicopter. Whoopie freakin' doo... it has a gun and some missiles. But if their air ground integration is junk, their air coordination is junk, and their tactics are junk... then all you have is cannon fodder flying over the battlefield.

I think you have very valid points UH60. Nevertheless, the fact that they are gradually generating hardware that slowly closes the gap between "us" and "them" in capability. It's not so much the question if we should be worried now. I guess that's also what Keesje was trying to say.

The Chinese are catching up fast, and as you said, having the right hardware is only half of the story. Nevertheless it would be unwise to assume they won't learn anything with respect to training. These people aren't stupid and the've got everything going for them at the moment. I wonder who the world (balance of power) will look like in 20 years.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 29): I think you have very valid points UH60. Nevertheless, the fact that they are gradually generating hardware that slowly closes the gap between "us" and "them" in capability. It's not so much the question if we should be worried now. I guess that's also what Keesje was trying to say.

No, I was simply pointing out that sometimes Keesje judges military equipment on... well lets say... very novice markers.

People who typically do not have military equipment only look at certain things: things like airspeed, number of weapons, range, etc... I think combat flight simulators have done a disservice to the public, because they grossly simplify the real thing.

See, while those things are certainly valid markers of what makes a good helicopter, they are not the most important. Some of the most important markers are those that I highlighted earlier.

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 29): The Chinese are catching up fast, and as you said, having the right hardware is only half of the story. Nevertheless it would be unwise to assume they won't learn anything with respect to training. These people aren't stupid and the've got everything going for them at the moment. I wonder who the world (balance of power) will look like in 20 years.

Well I'm certainly not "assuming they won't learn." Indeed I even said the following:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 23): I don't doubt that the Chinese will evolve their doctrine beyond Cold War tactics, but you must remember that doctrine changes occur over military generations.

But I think I made a valid point there: huge changes occur over military generations. I agree, in 2020, things will look different, and by 2030 a lot different. But like I pointed out: the existence of this helicopter is not a significant event. The biggest event will occur when they make the first major break from Soviet war doctrine.

I talked about the recent Sino-Russian military exercise. Well, we didn't see a major doctrine change. In fact, we saw a recommitment to the Soviet-style doctrine. This is going to be their biggest hurdle.

-UH60

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 30): But I think I made a valid point there: huge changes occur over military generations. I agree, in 2020, things will look different, and by 2030 a lot different. But like I pointed out: the existence of this helicopter is not a significant event. The biggest event will occur when they make the first major break from Soviet war doctrine. I talked about the recent Sino-Russian military exercise. Well, we didn't see a major doctrine change. In fact, we saw a recommitment to the Soviet-style doctrine. This is going to be their biggest hurdle. -UH60

I agree with your remarks, nevertheless, eventhough this single chopper might not be that significant, it's one of those steps along the way. Wouldn't hurt to keep track of those steps, even the smaller ones.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 10): An AMRAAM is probably ineffective against a low flying helicopter as it needs a certain minimum altitude in order to distinguish the target from ground clutter.

Slammer-Charlie is not your Dad's AMRAAM. "Certain death" wouldn't be an inaccurate description. If they can go cruise missile hunting, then a low and slow chopper is certainly in trouble. Better to just put on the deck and hope he doesn't have AG load and doesn't see you. Better yet, just step away from the hardware, to be safe.  

Quoting Highlander0 (Reply 27): LINK 1 LINK 2 LINK 3 Sneaky!

PT6's from a Beech King Air doesn't exactly exude confidence in the performance of the WZ-10...

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 32): Slammer-Charlie is not your Dad's AMRAAM. "Certain death" wouldn't be an inaccurate description. If they can go cruise missile hunting, then a low and slow chopper is certainly in trouble.

I don't recall a situation in which an AMRAAM sucessfully shot a cruise missile at low altitude or a helo. Further on the radar on the AMRAAM is the same though version A to C. It became more powerful, more intelligent an the electronics became smaller overtime but it remains a pretty dumb monopuls radar with all the limitations that come with it. Even aircrafts radars face problems when chasing extremely low flying helos and fast aircrafts from higher above.

Against a low flying helicopter an IR or IIR missile is the weapon of choice.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 34): I don't recall a situation in which an AMRAAM sucessfully shot a cruise missile at low altitude or a helo. Further on the radar on the AMRAAM is the same though version A to C. It became more powerful, more intelligent an the electronics became smaller overtime but it remains a pretty dumb monopuls radar with all the limitations that come with it. Even aircrafts radars face problems when chasing extremely low flying helos and fast aircrafts from higher above. Against a low flying helicopter an IR or IIR missile is the weapon of choice.

OK.  

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 35): OK.

... but regarding ...

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 32): Better to just put on the deck and hope he doesn't have AG load and doesn't see you

A Mil Mi 8 was successfully laser-bombed in Desert Storm while hovering over the desert. But I don't recall the exact reason anymore.  

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 36): A Mil Mi 8 was successfully laser-bombed in Desert Storm while hovering over the desert. But I don't recall the exact reason anymore.

I'm familliar with the incident. It was a target of opportunity for an F-15E.