WZ-10

Originally posted by Brownpower
Wow, the chinese are so original, i wonder where they ever got such an idea to build an attack helo like this one, jk, the chinese military desighners and planners are like xerox machines, they copy everything real cheap

Reverse-engineering or building upon already tested designs makes sound economic sense to me...and to the military planners no doubt too. Why waste hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D, when you can obtain the hardware, materials, avionics and basic gunship design for far less, and spend the otherwise R&D-earmarked money on producing more units?

Originally posted by Brownpower
Wow, the chinese are so original, i wonder where they ever got such an idea to build an attack helo like this one, jk, the chinese military desighners and planners are like xerox machines, they copy everything real cheap

you do know most of the high tec planes the US built after ww2 was based on nazi designs and so forth with nazi war criminals.

reverse engering is good for one thing it saves you the time to research and develop one thing and allows you to work on it and later start from scratch and so forth

In what scenarios/regions does China see these attack helis deployed?

The new helicopter seems to be in the class of the Tiger, Mongoose and Rooivalk. The picture shows it carrying four ATGM on each side. The type of ATGM is unknown thus far but it has a possbile choice of three missiles. HJ-9, HJ-8 or a new development missile called the HJ-10 which is said to be the equivalent of the american hellfire. At this momment, the chinese airforce lacks a proper attack helicopter which is one of the reasons the chinese military has adapted many WZ-9s into simple attack helicopters with few missiles and protection for the crew.

From the lack of any serious ground threat to mainland china its main purpose would be in the taiwanese threater where it could uses it firepower and mobility for hit and run attacks on the taiwanese coast

The main purpose would be a cross strait invasion where it can use its low cruising altitude to go across the strait undetected. On the taiwanese cost it could use its ATGM and cannon fire to get rid of obstacles like bunkers and taiwanese ground forces so the landing craft are not as freely targeted by the fixed defences

One very possible weapon that could be used is a FAE weapon for mine clearing to or to destroy ground defenses or sea obstacles before the main invasion fleet arrives so a safe corridor can be formed for the lightly armoured landing craft. China already has man-portable FAE weapons and has fitted some to ballistic missiles. The man-portable ones can be re-fitted on a helicopter and use its area effect capability to silence a large area

Armaments
- One 30mm chin mounted cannon
- 8 ATGM
- possible ECM suite
- Five-blade main rotor and four-blade tail rotor
- Possible QW-XX(?) helicopter killer variant AAM
- Rocket pods

The Tiger has a combat range of 800km and the Rooivalk has a range of 700km so the WZ-10 should be in the same class. Leave out 300km for its intial trip there and 300km for the trip back. So it would leave about 200km or 100km for the WZ-10 depending on performace. So range wouldn't be much of a problem

A group of about 20 WZ-10 try to skim the water and try not to be detected because taiwan has a unknown EW system which might not be able to detect low-flying aircraft. They expend all their munitions and then head back while a new group of helicopters that had been lanuched 20mins after the first group to continue the attack and provide continuous cover

I will say that the helicopter is an obvious reverse-engineering progject - hell, it even has Eurocopter working on it. The added advantage of having a reasonably similar structure to the Tiger and Eurocopter are that the avionics will be more 'stock' and, thus, cheaper.

I don't like it from an engineering perspective. I think if you're going to kill something with a machine - you should build it yourself (to an extent). Then it's your own personal pride going into it - your machine matched the talents of your operators better than the dead guys' did.

But as far as economy goes - it's better to go with a stock frame of some kind.... sometimes.....

Who knows what China is going to do with them. I highly doubt they'd buy new toys and throw them away on Taiwan. They'll build up for something.

Right now they aren't wanting to attract a reprimand from the U.S. via a Naval Fighter-Bomber squadron, but they want our attention and respect of their military strength. It's a second Cold War.

Although China might just be crazy enough to make it go from cold to blazing hot in one hell of a hurry.

Originally posted by Aim64C
The added advantage of having a reasonably similar structure to the Tiger and Eurocopter are that the avionics will be more 'stock' and, thus, cheaper.

You lost me at Tiger and Eurocopter

But for anyone who hasn't seen a picture of others helicopters and actually compared them to the WZ-10, do so now before you take a guess.

I can point about more than 10 major differences on the airframe of both these helicopters

EDIT:

[edit on 10-8-2006 by chinawhite]

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by Aim64C
The added advantage of having a reasonably similar structure to the Tiger and Eurocopter are that the avionics will be more 'stock' and, thus, cheaper.

You lost me at Tiger and Eurocopter

But for anyone who hasn't seen a picture of others helicopters and actually compared them to the WZ-10, do so now before you take a guess.

I can point about more than 10 major differences on the airframe of both these helicopters

EDIT:

[edit on 10-8-2006 by chinawhite]

You're telling me that the WZ-10 does not, in any way, resemble this: www.smh.com.au...

It's nearly a rubber-stamp.

It's worse than the TU-160 and the B-1.... Russia did an absolutely remarkable job on copying that one (if I am reading my dates correctly).

It would help if you get pictures on the same angle


Yeah rubber stamp, do you want me to highlight some?

lol

splitting hairs, here, kid.

The differences are rather minor - and made mostly, judging by appearance, to circumnavigate problems with the flow of air into the engine as well as taking a deviation here and there to try and tailor the needs of the PLA a little further.

It's no more a 'designed from scratch' aircraft than the F-22A is - which is a contorted F-15.

EDIT: Spilting hairs. LOL.

Originally posted by Aim64C
circumnavigate problems with the flow of air into the engine

????

Your trying to imply that the eurocopter has air flow troubles?. So china changed the intake design because the Tiger has trouble with its air intakes? . Apart from the fact that both helicopters air intakes are positioned at the same position, your argument makes no sense because the Tiger did not ahve air flow troubles to begin with.

as well as taking a deviation here and there to try and tailor the needs of the PLA a little further.

deviations????

So the nose, cannon, tail, rudders, main rotar, tail rotor, cockpit, landing gear, engine, intakes, weapon pylons, aircraft body have all been "tailored" to PLA needs even though the Tiger is argubly a much better design for the needs of the PLA?

Its practically a complete helicopter with all the systems i named

It's no more a 'designed from scratch' aircraft than the F-22A is - which is a contorted F-15.

Contorted F-15?.

[edit on 10-8-2006 by chinawhite]

Again - you show complete disregard for aircraft design.

The engines that China uses will be different and be subject to different aerodynamics. The cross-winds at the intake of the turbine engines will have drastic effects on the performance of the engine - especially when they remain constant.

China does not have the experience with designing aircraft to overcome such obstacles. Nor do they have the experience in automated aviation systems to develop any form of electronic control solution to solve the problem. It was more cost-effective to just change the angle of the damned engines and be done with it. I'm not sure what performance difference it would make - as there are simply too many variables to take into account - but you'd be amazed what small little changes in the aircraft lead to big changes - and how large changes result in almost no change. It's sometimes counter-intuitive to the average person.

And, yes - the engines are placed at a different angle relative to the angle of the rotors.

Okay... so you do not see the general picture, here? Sure, there are deviations. Just like there are deviations between the B-1 and TU-160 - but the TU-160 was still a copy. You're splitting hairs as to the design of the helicopter. The landing gear is not the least bit impressive of an arguement. Many times today's aircraft use 'stock' landing gear from previous generation aircraft to cut production costs. It by no means makes them a copy - or by not having those landing gear, a unique design.

The nose is also splitting hairs. The general design is very similar. Even take a look at the bulge housing electronic equipment right above the pilot's seat (assuming it follows typical attack helicopter design).

The tail and boom are, perhaps, the most deviated from the Tiger than anything else. But there again, how detailed do you want to go? I'm sure you'd be going much more detailed in criticism if it was your project that was copied - rather than going in-detail to defend China.... for whatever reasons....

Any attack helicopter is what the PLA wants/needs. I wouldn't trust them with it... but that won't keep them from obtaining one.

If you can't see the obvious signs of it - then you're either in denial or beyond help - one or the other.

But, really - China has made its economy on violating international copyrights, selling forgeries, and genericizing many products (not necesarily a bad thing to make generic brands... but it doesn't create a very stable socio-economic atmosphere when executed consistantly on a national basis). It surprises me little that their wartime vehicles resemble those that have been developed by other countries with more R&D experience.

And, yes, the F-22 is a repackeaged F-15, From the intakes, lower fuselage, the rearward cant of the trailing edge of the wing, to the engine placements, themselves.

Lockheed disapoints me continually with the F-22. They should have come up with a better solution. But political favors go a long way when it comes to winning military contracts.... and Northrop was somewhat blacklisted because of B-2 over-runs... so naturally the superior design lost due to bogus slanders of its integrity.

1. You claim it resembles a Tiger helicopter when you provide a picture on a completly different angle
2. You claim its a rubber stamp of the Tiger. I then listed all differences in designs (which equates to a whole helicopter equipment list)
3. You claim some vague reference to cross winds effecting engine performace even though its the intakes which effect the performace
4. You claim the F-22 is a contored F-15

Originally posted by Aim64C
Again - you show complete disregard for aircraft design.

Dont humour me.

Do you think i perceive you as an aero engineer or someone who has knowledge in aircraft design....someone older than myself?.

...........................Dont kid yourself

The engines that China uses will be different and be subject to different aerodynamics. The cross-winds at the intake of the turbine engines

How do engines get subject to different aerodynamics when its the actual intakes which the air flows though and not the "aerodynamics" of the engine. And what effects will cross winds have on the engine when it remains constant?. Please, dont try to bunch a few words together to try and fool people.

If china were reverse engineering the Tiger helicopter, it would have reversed engineered the engine as well or would have put one of its other helicopter engines inside so the dimensions of the helicopter would not be altered. Nor is the helicopter expected to be under anymore harsh "cross-winds" than where ever the tiger was suppose to operate.

You term reverse engineering is very vague. Because the helicopter has a similar arragnment to other similar helicopters does not mean reverse engineering but means the designs came up with similar solutions to the same problem. Reverse engineering is the termed used when people copy a design and fix it to their own craft. WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN

China does not have the experience with designing aircraft

They had as much experience as the first designers of the Tiger, Apache, Corba, Mongoose and Rooivalk. None of them had built a tandem cockpit helicopter which with the "lack" of experience they still managed to build a helicopter. Why is that?

Chinese engineers have worked out the exact same problems with the helicopters that were originally built under license than re-modifed with a armoured role in mind. The Z-9 series, the Z-11 and the EC 120 come to mind instantly. All helicopters have been tinkered with and have been fitted with weaponary. Now tell me what the designers of Rooivalk were thinking when they had even less expereince in designing helicopters make such a forminable helicopter?.

And if the chinese industry has been building and designing aircraft since the 1950s, there is no reason why it cannot produce a helicopter when a country like south africa or italy builds one.

the engines are placed at a different angle relative to the angle of the rotors.

Just like 99% of all helicopters ever built

The general design is very similar.

Do you agree all helicopters have a "similar" nose. It is as much difference between the grill of Mercedes-Benz and a hyundai.

Somehow a square can be twisted to look like a circle in your opinion. Look at the gunners cockpit and the engine housing. Notice that gump their and the way both the cockpits are squashed and the body has been made to fit a whole bunch of different equipment. The equipment you see on the helcopter was made before it was a actual design. It wasn't the helicopter and equipment, it was equipment then helicopter

China has made its economy on violating international copyrights

It made its economy though FDI, which means foriegn compaines pay chinese workers to make their designs. Its economy is based though exports and domestic consumption. Its not based though anything else since the compaines which make products in china are justing their own designs while chinese compaines make a TV and its called a copy because its a TV.

Anyone know the difference between Coke Zero and Pepsi Max?

EIDT: HTML code

[edit on 11-8-2006 by chinawhite]

omg, look at the damn picture, in fact look at all major attack helicopter with exception of the hind, cause it an transport, all the attack helicopter share similar looks, but THAT'S LAWs AERODYAMICS at work. IT@S not the Chinese copying!

FFS what matters is performance, internal systems, and second if none of you has notice the WS-10 has stealth reduction angles (and coating). which means, that the helicopter should look different at angles* and layout, and it is. So if the WS-10 is a copy, it can only be the Comanche cause that's the only helicopter with stealth reduction angles*.

*sorry but could not think of adequate description of stealth reduce structures. So i said angles NOT coating, the two are different.

There we go again about the Tu-160 and B-1 copies and the Chinese copying more US designs. If that were true, I have hundreds of little copies lying in my garage. If a copy meant that one object merely resembled another in looks, we would have every country in the world with a B-2 and an F-22!

Chinawhite,

I'm not at all sure why you are bothering to argue with a tosser who can't see the difference between a B-1 and a Tu-160.

I have no doubt that this character gets most of his opinions from the TV he bought at Walmart, which he thinks was built in the USA, rather than China.

Perhaps he can enlighten us all about just exactly what the Russians copied to get the MiG-21, MiG-29, Su-27 and Su-47. He doesn't know - and doesn't want to know - for instance, that the jet engine was invented in Britain and Germany (concurrently and independently). Fact is he doesn't know - and doesn't want to know - about anything outside the USA.

That makes him an abject idiot!

That you would argue with such a person also says something about yourself!

Wow that Z-9 sure isn't a copy and that mast mount radar is an original Chinese concept also.