SteelBird
Colonel
I thought the WZ-10 is kept less capable compared to AH-64 since the beginning of design. For armor, I think any arm helo can withstand 12.7 ~ 15 mm hit would be too much enough. Helos are vulnerable to portable missile anyway.
Z-10 thread
- Thread starter Red Guard
- Start date
- Status
I thought the WZ-10 is kept less capable compared to AH-64 since the beginning of design. For armor, I think any arm helo can withstand 12.7 ~ 15 mm hit would be too much enough. Helos are vulnerable to portable missile anyway.
I thought we are discussing whether the Z-10 is underpower or not. Which I disagreed with those who say that it is underpowered. The reason for my argument is simple.
"What is considered underpower?"
1) The incapability to carry 16 missiles?
2) Lesser armour (which by the way is just a speculation)
3) Lesser speed
I am not seeing number 2 and number 3 though, and the PLA is satisfied with the performance of the Z-10 which also meant that the Z-10 is performing according or even exceeding the expectation of the PLA and so to the people that are most affected (the PLA), that copter is not underpower.
And if that is the case, why are we (who are outsider) still arguing and comparing the lighter copter to a heavier one?
Also if we really want to compare, I would say... lets not bring Apache into the picture because it was a different class of attack copter. It would be like... comparing a light tank to a MBT. sure... the MBT is heavier, larger, more heavily armed... but are you saying that there will not be a use for the light tanks? If that is the case, why light tanks and IFV are still being manufactured in lots of nations.
Last edited:
We are not discussing whether it's underpowered or not -- or at least I wasn't.
Underpoweredness, in relation to what lion was fretting over and what I was discussing, was power to weight ratio.
In that sense, Z-10 is not underpowered, because it can obviously perform impressively and also has had weight reductions to compensate for the reduction in engine power.
You're fixating a little, I think, on those three aspects.
When I brought up those examples, they were not to demonstrate "underpoweredness" but rather to demonstrate how engine output relates to each of those.
Again, underpoweredness = power/weight ratio, not combat capability.
What you are comparing here is what I was comparing before vis a vis "what makes a good attack helicopter"
Kinetic performance, armour, avionics, payload, survivability are all metrics we should use to measure attack helicopters and their respective combat capabilities.
The term "underpower" in relation to combat capability is inaccurate, as it suggests a sense of inferiority in relation to another product, and like everyone has said, every military has their own requirements. But I have been using the word this entire time purely as a synonym for power to weight ratio.
But that doesn't mean we can't compare helicopters based off their own merits and consider what may accentuate those merits. In that sense, heavier attack helicopters are simply better, assuming they have the engine power to sustain that weight.
To sum up:
1: Underpoweredness = power to weight ratio, in my book. Z-10, by definition, is not underpowered, because of CHAIC's weight reduction from the prototype to production version as a result of less powerful engines, thus keeping the ratio even.
2: Combat capability is derived from MTOW which allows for greater armour, speed, payload, more powerful avionics, etc, and is all dependent on the maximum output of your engines.
3: Z-10 with WZ-9 engines may be enough for PLA's requirements at present. All good and done, excellent.
4: Z-10 with WZ-9 engines, which is enough for PLA's requirements at present, is less capable than the much heavier AH-64, because AH-64 has a greater MTOW and also more powerful engines to sustain it, meaning more armour, more powerful avionics, greater payload, greater endurance, all while retaining similar aerodynamic performance. All good and done, excellent.
Even since the Z-10 prototype, with the 1250 kw PT6C, Z-10 would have been slightly less capable, I think, yes.
But WZ-16 has a rating of 1500 kw, in line with the AH-64E's latest engine, so a future Z-10 iteration may well be competitive with the apache.
Agreed. This entire time I've been arguing that Z-10 isn't underpowered, because its power to weight ratio shoudl still be decent. But its combat capabiilty and survivability suffer because of the less powerful engines+lighter weight to compensate.
I actually woudln't mind if the 23mm gun is retained, if an AFV cannot be killed by a flurry of 23mm rounds it probably won't go down to 30mm either. I'd rather Z-10 be armed with more capable avionics, mast mounted radar, much more armour + larger fuel tanks, and a capacity to hold more ATGMs.
The turret would probably only be used for comparatively soft targets, like IFVs, rather than MBTs, which would be the job of ATGMs.
Last edited:
Performance demonstration and real actual capabilities are extremely different. You cannot use demonstration performance as the yard stick for determining if the engines provide sufficient power or not.
Firstly, it carries zero payload, partial armor removed and minimal fuel during the demonstration. Secondly, in actual use it behaves extremely differently when it carries fully loaded fuel, 8 ATGM + 2x Unguided rocket pods + 14x 90mm unguided rockets or 36x 57mm unguided rockets + 23/30mm ammo. With full payload and fuel you really think that it can still execute those moves or fly as agile?
Demonstrations are meant to always far outperform due to its significant reduce weight.
YF-22 vs YF-23 the YF-22 removed a lot of components during its flight demonstration to reduce weight in order to have a better performance to edge out the YF-23 as the USA 5th generation fighter.
AH-64
Max Takeoff Weight: 10,433 kg
Total Engine Power: 4,000 shp
shp/kg: 0.38
AH-1Z
Max Takeoff Weight: 8,390 kg
Total Engine Power: 3,600 shp
shp/kg: 0.42
AH-2
Max Takeoff Weight: 8,750 kg
Total Engine Power: 3,800 shp
shp/kg: 0.43
Tiger
Max Takeoff Weight: 6,000 kg
Total Engine Power: 2600 shp
shp/kg: 0.43
Mi-28
Max Takeoff Weight: 11,500kg
Total Engine Power: 4,390 shp
shp/kg: 0.38
Z-10
Max Takeoff Weight: ~8,000 kg
Total Engine Power: 2700 shp
shp/kg: 0.33
So instead of judging just by view videos on a prepared DEMONSTRATION. The Z-10 engines lack power when compared to other attack helicopters in service. With the weight of 2 heat shields the shp/kg would even be lower.
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Never read so much nonsense before, Helicopter was not born in the Vietnam War who told you that, it was born in the Korean War
The use of an attack helicopter used for close air support was demonstrated and proven more than 20 years ago if you did not know during Gulf War in 1991 when a AH-64 squadron attacked a Iraqi Republican Guard Division, the Madinah Division, this was solely an attack helicopter vs armour division battle, since then attack helicopters have been used many times for close air support, no modern army will advance an armoured division consisting of tanks without close air support, as a matter of fact even infantry these days have close air support from attack helicopters
And anyone who comparing Z-10 with Euro copter first needs to establish who are Euro copter operators?? In comparison PLA is huge and have massive land force an attack helo with 8 ATGM is hardly sufficient
And lastly why do you think Z-10 does not have any suppression of heat exhaust or any IR suppression equipment installed over those two turbo shaft exits, not because PLA hasn’t thought of it but because it’s a trade-off between weight and engine power
Last edited:
You are talking nonsense. Apache and tiger also never carry full load and carry out all those kind of acrobatic loop. If a helo is underpowered , no matter with load or not. It will not able to execute those moves.
And you try to play dirty trick by putting WZ-10 max take off weight at 8000kg to prove yr point.
Last edited:
asif iqbal
Lieutenant General
Later models of AH-64 can withstand 12.7mm even to the windscreen, some parts like engine coverage can withstand 23mm, but Apache is a hell of a tough helo, it can sustain damage and absorb punishment, its armour is combat proven
By looking at that high resolution Z-10 images posted here I don’t think it’s as well armoured as AH-64 not the later models anyway
Check out tiger wiki data rather than apache. You are comparing orange with apple. If Tiger botton fuselage can withstand 23mm rounds. I do not believe PLA will settle for less especially WZ-10 is slightly heavier than Tiger.
At least the demo in the Tianjin Airhsow proves something,if something is underpowered. No sane person will bring it out for performance.. If somebody want to say more then bring out concrete data. From those crowd who witness the WZ-10 performance. None of them agrees WZ-10 is underpowered or looks sluggish with its pick up and ascend. Mind you, that's a 6/7tons armour helo. Not a light weight Z-11 performing those stunt.
Then you claim the designer of WZ-10 is doing salesman talk? Why he didn't say it the best Attack helo in the world since you think he's bragging. Isn't number one or top 2 sounds better? Why must top 3?
Last edited:
- Status