Chinese Attack helicopter

joe nelson

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
1,297
Location
cincinnati,ohio
Aircraft
I have owned an AA-7B, Quad City Challenger, WAR P-47 and have flown several other type
Total Flight Time
12000hrs approx
I was reading on line today and noticed how much the new Chinese Z10 attack helicopter looks like the Agusta A129 Mangusta. More stolen technology!
 
Don't forget all the technology that went across the pond at the end of WW2 - some top scientists too, some should have stood trial but gained new passports in exchange for Space Race knowledge.

These things happen.
 
I was reading on line today and noticed how much the new Chinese Z10 attack helicopter looks like the Agusta A129 Mangusta. More stolen technology!

I wouldn't go so far as to say 'stolen'. It's actually a very common attack helicopter design, up to the stepped canopy.

These following aircraft also share similarities:

-Denel (Atlas) CSH-2/AH-2 "Rooivalk"
-Aerospatiale (Eurocopter) SA.665/EC-665 "Tiger"
-KAI KMH
-HAL LCH (the original LAH mockup version shown in 2001)
-Mil Mi-28 "Havoc"
-Early Bell D-255 concepts
-Sikorsky S-66
-Maaaaybe the Mil Mi-24 "Hind"
 
Last edited:
In all honesty it's pretty much an obsolete platform. Or at the very least well on it's way out. Why risk the lives of two highly trained aviators (or worse yet their capture) when a UAV can pretty much do the same thing for less cost, complexity and risk ? For the cost of one Apache I could send up 4 UAVs armed with the same Hellfire missiles while controlling them safely from a stateside location. Then, go on to kill 20 tanks, maybe lose a drone or two in the effort-hey it's just stuff right ? Then have lunch at Taco Bell come back - rinse and repeat.
 
Last edited:
Randolph,
For the cost of one Apache I could send up 4 UAVs armed with the same Hellfire missiles while controlling them safely from a stateside location. Then, go on to kill 20 tanks, maybe lose a drone or two in the effort-hey it's just stuff right ?

Reversing Your point of view:
How would You protect US tanks from drone's attack ?

Or:
Don't You thing that UAVs without satelite communication are useless ?
Didn't Chinease prove already that thay can shot down any satellite ?
 
Randolph,


Reversing Your point of view:
How would You protect US tanks from drone's attack ?

That's a really great question. If we look at current US doctrine (our doctrine always tends to focus on how to fight the last war instead of the next) there would first be the establishment of "Air Superiority" before any ground assets like tanks and troops would be employed. So, depending on how well that part of the "puzzle" goes together then there should not be a need to worry about enemy drone or air attack - hoffentlich.

Or:
Don't You thing that UAVs without satelite communication are useless ?

Although that is probably the weakest link there are quite literally hundreds of these missions being run every single day using that form of command and control and I hear of almost zero problems with it. So no, I am not worried about that aspect nor do I think it is useless.

Didn't Chinease prove already that thay can shot down any satellite ?

I am not aware of China having this capability nor would I be too worried about it if it actually existed as China's success rate with that level of technology has been quite low.

That's a really great question. If we look at current US doctrine (our doctrine always tends to focus on how to fight the last war instead of the next) there would first be the establishment of "Air Superiority" before any ground assets like tanks and troops would be employed. So, depending on how well that part of the "puzzle" goes together then there should not be a need to worry about enemy drone or air attack - hoffentlich.

Or:
Don't You thing that UAVs without satelite communication are useless ?

Although that is probably the weakest link there are quite literally hundreds of these missions being run every single day using that form of command and control and I hear of almost zero problems with it. So no, I am not worried about that aspect nor do I think it is useless.

Didn't Chinease prove already that thay can shot down any satellite ?

I am not aware of China having this capability nor would I be too worried about it if it actually existed as China's success rate with that level of technology has been quite low. [/QUOTE]
 
I am not aware of China having this capability nor would I be too worried about it if it actually existed as China's success rate with that level of technology has been quite low.

Actually the chinese shot down a one of there own satellites that was dead using there own missile technology. Quite a mess. Left a bunch of extra debris in space just to prove that they could do it.

I am like you in that I dont worry to much about the chinese and their current technology.

If things keep going on at the rate they are inside the country then they will be to interested in there own internal affairs, like a growing middle class.
 
Form does indeed follow function however reverse engineered products of all kinds already exist from Chinese 'C-17's' the Y-20 sports the same wide swept wing and T-shaped tail as the Boeing-made C-17, blueprints of which China obtained several years ago through a spy working for the Chicago-based plane manufacturer, and stealth fighters to many other kinds of weapon.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/01/chinas-new-transport/

Ongoing warfare already exists on the cyber-front. Massive efforts made by the Chinese to hack into the industrial and military complex in Western Europe and US have been ongoing for some years now with varying degrees of success.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/piracy-scheme/

The openness of Western society, freedom of information, willingness to relocate advanced technology to China in order to take advantage of cheap labor, the unwillingness of the Chinese to respect patent laws, pricacy laws or intellectual rights of designers has contributed hugely to such advances in their military hardware.

They have also been quite happy to sacrifice any qualitative cutting edge on any particular system for their trump card, which is quantity. They will simply swamp with numbers and their different view on the value of human life.
 
Here some pictures for comparison...could it be mimicary or theft.
Picture#1 is the Z10 and the A129 is the second.
 

Attachments

  • z10.jpg
    z10.jpg
    7.6 KB · Views: 0
  • a129.jpg
    a129.jpg
    110.4 KB · Views: 0
  • WZ-10 (2).jpeg
    WZ-10 (2).jpeg
    23.5 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
Here some pictures for comparison...could it be mimicary or theft.
Picture#1 is the Z10 and the A129 is the second.

#1: AgustaWestland T129
#2: AgustaWestland T129
#3: CAIC WZ-10

AgustaWestland is 50% MTOW of WZ-10 !!!
You should compare against Eurocopter or Viper!!!!
:)
 
Always seemed kind of stupid to me to put the optics on the nose like that. You have to un-mask almost the entire aircraft from concealed position to get a look at anything and then you become a target as well. Although it's REALLY ugly the OH-58D at least got that aspect right. The Delta model Apache to a lesser extent as well although it's not exactly an optical device. The Echo model Apache interestingly enough adds the ability to control multiple UAVs from the cockpit.
 
Guys,

I was looking at an article on attack helos and they must have posted two pictures of the A129 saying that one was a Z10. Still they look very close to the same.
 
Maybe we should compare those two below instead ? :)

PLAAF_Changhe_WZ-10_-_Jordan.jpg

vs.
1280px-Eurocopter_LE_TIGRE_-_Flickr_-_besopha.jpg
 
Some additional info about the Z-10 ("WZ-10" designation turns out to be incorrect), or "Project 941":

This design is actually of Russian origin. Kamov, to be specific. They gave the Chinese the preliminary design (see Kamov concept sketch below), and they developed it to their own specifications. This would explain a lot of the "influences" we see in the basic layout.
 

Attachments

  • Izo1.jpg
    Izo1.jpg
    45.3 KB · Views: 0
Top