I think I’ve read the same Z10 analysis (comparing with other attack helicopters). It’s quite impressive. And I agree that Z10’s engine has been its weakest part.
But I can see 2 issues with his analysis, which may explain why there’s a gap between his conclusion and reality:
1. He paid too much attention to the “Engine on high altitude” factor, whereas many other factors of a combat helicopter need to be considered, in a balanced way as well. Not to mention that these factors weigh differently by different users. It’s just too simple to compare combat helicopters only by a figure called RoC, let alone that figure may not be up to date, which leads to my second point
2. Static snapshot view is a bad way to compare weapon systems. Weapon systems are ever changing. While there’s no way to find a 100% correct comparison point between different systems, one at least needs to take the dynamics and different mile stones into consideration. For example, he uses the current LCH (which is currently in test flight phase with only 3 prototypes) comparing to 5-8 years ago’s Z10 version. At least he should use current LCH prototype to compare to Z10’s current variant (2015) test prototype, which includes 2nd iteration of engine enhancement changes.
Now, I know the standard answer to the above line is: no one knows about Z10 (or whatever Chinese weapon system). But honestly, if you don’t know about Z10, you should just leave it instead of making a serious comparison with in-consistent and unreliable data.
All in all, it’s fun for military fans to do all sorts of comparisons and analysis, but it’s quite a leap of confidence to use those analysis to measure what’s happening in real world. We simply don’t have enough information, and tools to make comprehensive and solid analysis.
he quite clearly mentions that his analysis is based on modeling aerodynamics based on published figures for engine power and helicopter weight. There will be other factors that will have a play in evaluating the total efficacy of a helicopter, but I don’t see any issues with the RoC calculation methods he used.
Weapons systems did not feature at all in his analysis, since, as I mentioned, it was restricted to aerodynamics. On the weapons front also, brochure specs vs real world specs sometimes have variations and that is something only those who actually evaluate the systems would get to know. No analyst can get down into those level of details without access to data that may well not be public at all.
Otherwise, its going to be superficial analysis of the kind where one just looks at how many weapons are carried, how long their range is or the caliber of the gun, it’s rate of fire, how thick the armour in certain areas is and so on. That is pretty much what you see on nearly every military forum, including this. Now, are you telling me that such an analysis is better than his, where he uses published data (or else clearly calls out his assumptions) and plugs it into analytical models that model well known phenomena like Hover IG and Hover OUG effect and calculate RoC?
He didn’t make a serious comparison for the sake of an army’s evaluation- he did for regular forum visitors who may get an idea as to how the performance of different helicopters stack up (he did it likewise for the Fennec, LUH and Sergei too) and he clearly mentioned that he was assuming certain things- for instance the lack of confirmation relating to some LCH data. Of course, there are a whole lot of other factors that go into the maneuverability of a helicopter and those he doesn’t address, since that may not be possible to do theoretically without writing a paper or without actual field testing.
The way I see it, his analysis is a LOT better than some of the kinds of analysis one sees on many other forums, including this, where people just go with their bias instead of any analytical models.
It would indeed be interesting for me to see how the Pakistani gunship requirement goes- if they do buy the Mi-35 just for use in the Afghan theater, then it does mean that it has certain advantages over the Z-10 in higher altitudes, which is precisely what his analysis mentioned. Otherwise, it is quite puzzling as to why they would go for 2 different types, especially when the relationship with China is so mature and loans with lower interest rates will be available and they too stand to gain with operational experience for the Z-10..and on the other hand, you try out a major offensive system for the first time from a supplier who is still primarily an Indian ally.
Regarding the LCH, he uses whatever is the latest data he can get his hands on. He didn’t tailor his analysis to suit his preference. You will agree that getting reliable data on Chinese weapons systems is a difficult thing and one has to go with what one gets. If you suspect that the data is outdated and the Z-10 has new specs, please do let us know the source and the info.
I’ll pass it on to him and ask him to update his calculations.
Sign In
