Is a dedicated helicopter-destroyer a feasible idea?

China currently has lack of dedicated attack helicopters, which is quite pronounced compared to almost every one of its neighbour, and this situation will not see much change before mass-production and induction of the WZ-10. Now, in modern day anti-helicopter roles were usually left to organic air-defence units and attack helicopters have also a seconadry role of anti-helicopters. In forseeable future however China's attack helicopters would still be too few to waste in that role. The question then is should China concentrate on what she is moderately good at and develop more modern mobile AD platforms (mobile TY-90 and Type 95 SPAAG/SAM and Russia Tor) and manpads, or perhaps should a dedicated helicopter-destroyer be developed?

I am thinking a variant of WZ-11. As a design it is fairly robust and quite agile. It should be capable of mounting TY-90 with suite. It is also cheaper to produce than Z-9, and presumably much cheaper than the WZ-10. In a screening role it might do much to soften possible enemy attack helicopter attacks against China's own formations, and in intercept mode to destroy enemy transport helicopters in insertion and transport missions.

Is this too specialized a role, or is there potential to this?

I saw a picture of Mi-17 with four TY90, so there might be few of Mi-17 already modizied for this feature. Z10 have under test for sometime now, so I think mass production will be soon.

I dont know about a dedicated anti-helicopter platform, but I know that the AH-64 Longbow can have Sidewinders mounted on the very sides of the wings. Although this might only be in the prototype. Most modern helicopters, such as the Euro Tiger and the WZ-10 have had some more emphasis on air-to-air capabilities...So I remember anyway.

Kampfwagen said:

I dont know about a dedicated anti-helicopter platform, but I know that the AH-64 Longbow can have Sidewinders mounted on the very sides of the wings. Although this might only be in the prototype. Most modern helicopters, such as the Euro Tiger and the WZ-10 have had some more emphasis on air-to-air capabilities...So I remember anyway.

Click to expand...

See below:

Troika said:

China currently has lack of dedicated attack helicopters, which is quite pronounced compared to almost every one of its neighbour, and this situation will not see much change before mass-production and induction of the WZ-10. Now, in modern day anti-helicopter roles were usually left to organic air-defence units and attack helicopters have also a seconadry role of anti-helicopters. In forseeable future however China's attack helicopters would still be too few to waste in that role. The question then is should China concentrate on what she is moderately good at and develop more modern mobile AD platforms (mobile TY-90 and Type 95 SPAAG/SAM and Russia Tor) and manpads, or perhaps should a dedicated helicopter-destroyer be developed...

Click to expand...

I already know this. That was not the question. The point was that China will have too few attack helicopters to have them specialize in that role, and that maybe it may not be worthwhile to develop a specialized helicopter destroyer on a cheaper platform.

How many TY-90s can the WZ-10 supposedly carry?

Troika said:

Is this too specialized a role, or is there potential to this?

Click to expand...

The best anti-helicopter weapon is your air force fixed wing aircraft, flying at up to Mach 2 with BVR missiles. A fighter jet will out-fly and out-shoot attack helocopters by a wide margain.

Attack helicopters are more useful in hitting enemy armor and other ground-targets. The short-range AAM's they carry are just for last-ditch self defense. Against an enemy fighter jet with long-range missiles, you're better off taking evasive action.

that's questionable. Helicopter's flight profile can be used very easily to evade BVR weapons. Ground clutter, hiding behind hills...besides, these things are armed and are what? 7.62mm proof? Frags from a BVR missile probably wouldn't do much, unless it's a direct impact, even then...

I seriously doubt the total dominance of aircrafts over their rotery counterparts. Helicopters are know for having excelent infared countermeasures due to the fact that they are ground huggers. Also because of the virtually non-existant minimum operating distance, the threat of BvR missiles is irrelavent, as unless over water, the attack copter can simply land and totally evade enemy radar until they are within dog-fighting range. Note that the A-50 Awac can only detect individual tanks at ranges of 40 kilometers. Modern helos such as the ka-50/52 can carry some serious A2A arnament, including the R-73 with hms. Combine that with virtually 360 degree TVC and you got a killed. Also taking into account that most dogfights take place under 500km/h.

As for china operating a helo carrier in the instance of a Taiwan landing, I would have to say that to creat a fleet of such ships simply for the purpose of such a senario would be to expensive. It would be much easier to take merchent ships with reinfored steel decks ferrying Helos across the 100km distance. Due to the closeness of shore support, the ship would simply need to provide a refueling station for the assult copters. Any rearmnament can be done from forward air based on the mainland.

adeptitus said:

The best anti-helicopter weapon is your air force fixed wing aircraft, flying at up to Mach 2 with BVR missiles. A fighter jet will out-fly and out-shoot attack helocopters by a wide margain.

Attack helicopters are more useful in hitting enemy armor and other ground-targets. The short-range AAM's they carry are just for last-ditch self defense. Against an enemy fighter jet with long-range missiles, you're better off taking evasive action.

Click to expand...

I do not think that the fixed wing aircrafts are the major threaten to helicopters. groud fires such as AA guns and missile even rifle are the main cutthroats.

towards PLA army attack-helicopter can cover groud forces in the attack missions and patrol key points such as airport or camps and provide quick response to abrupt attacks from enemy

The main strategic doctrine of China is a defensive confrontation between NATO. The Army has a strong NATO aircraft, but ground forces are weak. Helicopters weak against fighter aircraft, besides the weapons are very difficult to manufacture and expensive. Helicopters are common in NATO countries, but the basic doctrine of NATO is reduced more than the numerous small wars in developing countries than to confrontation with heavily armed opponents. Against the guerrilla armies of helicopters and effective guerrilla no serious air defense, only hand-held anti-aircraft missiles and machine guns.
China in small wars do not engage and keep the army as a means of protection from NATO. Apparently so, China further strengthens the Army and Air Defence what makes mobile military team, comfortable in the fight against the guerrillas, but ineffective in large-scale war.