Pakistan considers Chinese attack helicopters on back of stalled AH-1Z, T129 deal

[Nasr]

Z-10ME is a great way forward to off-set t-129s and ah-1Zs. In line with Pakistan Military's policy, diversify the gunship procurement with Mi-28 Havoc, the Russian helicopter gunships.

I keep stressing on the importance of establishing strong and deep ties with Russia. The need for Pakistan to do so is based on not only geo-strategic reasoning, but also one of enduring friendship. Only reason why this not transpired is because Pakistan has not really made a concerted effort. Forget india, it's worthless to even consider that hideous country. Just focus on establishing meaningful relations with Russia. Find mutually beneficial partnerships on every front.

Pakistan Army Aviation operating both Z-10MEs and Mi-28 Havocs would benefit the military in many ways. The key point of focus should be ToT, with full manufacturing capability.

 

[Signalian]

Looking a bit further towards the future. A gunship which can communicate, coordinate and control UAVs and UCAVs. A support helicopter which has ISR (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) ability along with a SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) and E/O sensors for getting a clearer picture and mapping of the battlefield or Ops area instead of flying in PAF assets equipped with E/O sensors, AESA or X-band radar, GMTI (ground movement target indicators), communication links jamming equipment etc.

From an aviation perspective, any combination of Gunship, utility helicopter, UAV and UCAV should be able to conduct all tasks comfortably for ground strikes be it COIN or conventional war if they are equipped and armed properly. Sensors on aviation assets are required to detect and track ‘dismounted’ insurgent teams planting IEDs, or otherwise occupied positions. Thermal imagers which can simultaneously image different infrared colours. An imaging pod that carries no less than 12-15 imaging sensors to permit continuous surveillance of a 5-10 kilometre footprint.

All the options of gunships that PAA is looking to acquire are all twin engines, be it AH-1Z or T-129 or Z-10, even the Mi-35 have twin engines. This is a jump from the legacy single engine AH-1Fs. Ops at high altitude may not be the only factor here since light transport helis that PA uses in Northern areas are single engines while the newer AW-139 have twin engines. It could be experience in COIN war that led to PAA on making a decision to get heavier and modern gunships of different types.

 

[GumNaam]

The Turkish gunship is fast & furious while the Chinese gunship slow but heavily armored & stealthy.

 

[Yasser76]

Looking a bit further towards the future. A gunship which can communicate, coordinate and control UAVs and UCAVs. A support helicopter which has ISR (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) ability along with a SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) and E/O sensors for getting a clearer picture and mapping of the battlefield or Ops area instead of flying in PAF assets equipped with E/O sensors, AESA or X-band radar, GMTI (ground movement target indicators), communication links jamming equipment etc.

From an aviation perspective, any combination of Gunship, utility helicopter, UAV and UCAV should be able to conduct all tasks comfortably for ground strikes be it COIN or conventional war if they are equipped and armed properly. Sensors on aviation assets are required to detect and track ‘dismounted’ insurgent teams planting IEDs, or otherwise occupied positions. Thermal imagers which can simultaneously image different infrared colours. An imaging pod that carries no less than 12-15 imaging sensors to permit continuous surveillance of a 5-10 kilometre footprint.

All the options of gunships that PAA is looking to acquire are all twin engines, be it AH-1Z or T-129 or Z-10, even the Mi-35 have twin engines. This is a jump from the legacy single engine AH-1Fs. Ops at high altitude may not be the only factor here since light transport helis that PA uses in Northern areas are single engines while the newer AW-139 have twin engines. It could be experience in COIN war that led to PAA on making a decision to get heavier and modern gunships of different types.

Basically, like much with Chinese aviation, it comes down to a matter of engines. Chinese have done very very well in terms of weapons, Electronics, EW, Radar etc. They have not mastered the art of fan blade metal technology in order to produce reliable, powerful and long lasting engines. This is the only think holding back Z-10 and even JF-17 (Still using Russian engines). West has deliberately kept this tech out of their hands, and are very sensitive about it. Even Rolls Royce which was due to help Turkey on it's own engines was told to hold back by UK Government. Basically only US, France, UK and Russia have mastered this, arguably even harder then making nuclear weapons.

Rest assured once China really masters this then there will be nothing holding them back to actually make the best jets and helicopters available. Imagine Z-10 and JF-17 with engines that have 50% more power and larger range. You can then hang all sorts of heavier and more deadly weaponry from them. Even their cruise missiles will increase in range massively.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Looking a bit further towards the future. A gunship which can communicate, coordinate and control UAVs and UCAVs. A support helicopter which has ISR (Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance) ability along with a SAR (Synthetic Aperture Radar) and E/O sensors for getting a clearer picture and mapping of the battlefield or Ops area instead of flying in PAF assets equipped with E/O sensors, AESA or X-band radar, GMTI (ground movement target indicators), communication links jamming equipment etc.

From an aviation perspective, any combination of Gunship, utility helicopter, UAV and UCAV should be able to conduct all tasks comfortably for ground strikes be it COIN or conventional war if they are equipped and armed properly. Sensors on aviation assets are required to detect and track ‘dismounted’ insurgent teams planting IEDs, or otherwise occupied positions. Thermal imagers which can simultaneously image different infrared colours. An imaging pod that carries no less than 12-15 imaging sensors to permit continuous surveillance of a 5-10 kilometre footprint.

All the options of gunships that PAA is looking to acquire are all twin engines, be it AH-1Z or T-129 or Z-10, even the Mi-35 have twin engines. This is a jump from the legacy single engine AH-1Fs. Ops at high altitude may not be the only factor here since light transport helis that PA uses in Northern areas are single engines while the newer AW-139 have twin engines. It could be experience in COIN war that led to PAA on making a decision to get heavier and modern gunships of different types.

According to TAI's CEO/GM Temel Kotil, they're talking to the PAA about the 10-ton ATAK-2.

I don't think they're past exploratory talks with the PAA, but it's now on the PAA's radar as an option. I think orienting the attack heli fleet around that large an aircraft would be quite a change.

 

[Figaro]

Basically, like much with Chinese aviation, it comes down to a matter of engines. Chinese have done very very well in terms of weapons, Electronics, EW, Radar etc. They have not mastered the art of fan blade metal technology in order to produce reliable, powerful and long lasting engines. This is the only think holding back Z-10 and even JF-17 (Still using Russian engines). West has deliberately kept this tech out of their hands, and are very sensitive about it. Even Rolls Royce which was due to help Turkey on it's own engines was told to hold back by UK Government. Basically only US, France, UK and Russia have mastered this, arguably even harder then making nuclear weapons.

Rest assured once China really masters this then there will be nothing holding them back to actually make the best jets and helicopters available. Imagine Z-10 and JF-17 with engines that have 50% more power and larger range. You can then hang all sorts of heavier and more deadly weaponry from them. Even their cruise missiles will increase in range massively.

The Z-10 sent to Pakistan in the trials was relatively powered by a 900 kW engine, which is relatively underpowered (and hence resulting in the reported performance issues). But since 2016, all Z-10s produced have been equipped with a 1100 kW upgraded WZ-9 turboshaft. We have seen the past few years the Z-10 consistently conducting exercises in altitudes of 4000 to 5000 meters, so the altitude issue should have been mitigated. I have no doubt that the upgraded Z-10ME has an even stronger turboshaft engine, likely in excess of 1200 kW, which is more than sufficient to power the Z-10. I do think the PA should take another look at the Z-10, especially since it went through such large upgrades.

 

[Destranator]

Good for our evaluation if Pakistan Army gets Z-10s.
We have a major requirement for attack helicopters.
It is likely that BA will go ahead with an Apache deal but we are unlikely to get them in large numbers due to costs.

A cheaper option is required to complement/substitute Apaches.

@Bilal9 @Michael Corleone @The Ronin

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Good for our evaluation if Pakistan Army gets Z-10s.
We have a major requirement for attack helicopters.
It is likely that BA will go ahead with an Apache deal but we are unlikely to get them in large numbers due to costs.

A cheaper option is required to complement/substitute Apaches.

@Bilal9 @Michael Corleone @The Ronin

IMHO ... stick to one platform. 'Supplementing' sounds good on paper, but it isn't as cost-effective as one might think due to the need for an entirely different overhead. You should go for 24-32 AH-64E.

But to be honest, I think the AH-1Z might have been better for Bangladesh. It's a 'marine-friendly' design with salt erosion-proofing, and still brings the same carriage potential as the AH-64E (16 ATGM). It's also lower-cost at $45-50 million per helicopter all-in. You could get 50 AH-1Z with AGM-114Rs for $3 b USD.

 

[PakShaheen79]

Did any body remember what DG ISPR said about a question in regard to the TAI's ATAK's engine? He said the issue is near resolving.

 

[PakFactor]

Did any body remember what DG ISPR said about a question in regard to the TAI's ATAK's engine? He said the issue is near resolving.

How long ago was this?

 

[Bilal9]

Good for our evaluation if Pakistan Army gets Z-10s.
We have a major requirement for attack helicopters.
It is likely that BA will go ahead with an Apache deal but we are unlikely to get them in large numbers due to costs.

A cheaper option is required to complement/substitute Apaches.

@Bilal9 @Michael Corleone @The Ronin

Well @Quwa bhai is correct. Dealing with two different attack heli platforms may be prohibitive. Storing and obtaining more than one type of spares is the first issue and there are many others.

I vote for the Viper as well.

But I agree we have a dire needs of attack helis. In the first desert storm volley, It was USMC Super Cobras and Apaches that took out Iraqi radar installations with tree top level attacks and hellfire missiles. Once you soften up the signals stuff, then moving in for other hard targets become much easier.

 

[Destranator]

IMHO ... stick to one platform. 'Supplementing' sounds good on paper, but it isn't as cost-effective as one might think due to the need for an entirely different overhead. You should go for 24-32 AH-64E.

But to be honest, I think the AH-1Z might have been better for Bangladesh. It's a 'marine-friendly' design with salt erosion-proofing, and still brings the same carriage potential as the AH-64E (16 ATGM). It's also lower-cost at $45-50 million per helicopter all-in. You could get 50 AH-1Z with AGM-114Rs for $3 b USD.

Well @Quwa bhai is correct. Dealing with two different attack heli platforms may be prohibitive. Storing and obtaining more than one type of spares is the first issue and there are many others.

I vote for the Viper as well.

But I agree we have a dire needs of attack helis. In the first desert storm volley, It was USMC Super Cobras and Apaches that took out Iraqi radar installations with tree top level attacks and hellfire missiles. Once you soften up the signals stuff, then moving in for other hard targets become much easier.

I do see the logistics argument. However, regardless of which American platform we get (provided we get any at all), we would not be getting them in sufficient numbers. It is therefore best for us to go for the best. It is important for BAF/BA to gain exposure to cutting edge platforms so that they can gauge their own capabilities and requirements better.

The Apaches are absolute monsters with their performance and firepower and can be reserved for attacking well-equipped enemy formations.
Z-10s being cheaper and easier to replace can be deployed more frequently and in numbers (100+) to support every infantry division. There is also no risk of sanctions from China.

We should therefore go for both.

Any attack helicopter platform obtained in numbers will be an absolute game changer given how difficult our terrain is for infantry and armour.

BN has plans to get their own attack/ASW helicopters. Salt water resistant airframes are therefore not that important for BA/BN.

 

[Signalian]

Basically, like much with Chinese aviation, it comes down to a matter of engines. Chinese have done very very well in terms of weapons, Electronics, EW, Radar etc. They have not mastered the art of fan blade metal technology in order to produce reliable, powerful and long lasting engines. This is the only think holding back Z-10 and even JF-17 (Still using Russian engines). West has deliberately kept this tech out of their hands, and are very sensitive about it. Even Rolls Royce which was due to help Turkey on it's own engines was told to hold back by UK Government. Basically only US, France, UK and Russia have mastered this, arguably even harder then making nuclear weapons.

Rest assured once China really masters this then there will be nothing holding them back to actually make the best jets and helicopters available. Imagine Z-10 and JF-17 with engines that have 50% more power and larger range. You can then hang all sorts of heavier and more deadly weaponry from them. Even their cruise missiles will increase in range massively.

While you are looking at the platform from a mechanical point of view, i am shedding light on the electronics and communication part of the platform. Chinese may have done well in the field of electronics but that can also assist PAA in procuring chinese equipment and installing it on any helicopter platform that Pakistani military wants, not just the platform (helicopter) itself.

I won't go into definition of Data Link, however its used for information sharing and is able to transfer large amount (bandwidth and throughput) of real time mission critical data such as videos and other statistics. All the functionalities for an ISR like SAR, X Band radar, E/O devices etc that i mentioned in Post # 92 will require Data Link.

At some stage, PA, PAF and PN might need a Common Data Link (CDL) otherwise a common interface for Link-16 and Link-17 to exchange information in real time. From an Army aviation point of view, Pakistan flies Chinese, European, Russian and American helicopters. The Data Link is not integrated on many machines that PAA flies. As an example consider Link-16 which can be utilised on American and European Helicopters. A-129 is able to utilise Link-16, so there are chances that T-129 will easily be able to integrate it, depending upon politics and further technology. However, would PAA choose to integrate Pakistan's own Link-17 on T-129 over Link16 ?

Next, does the mission capability of Mi-35 require a Data Link for carrying out sensitive operations be it Anti-terrorism or conventional ? If yes then, is Mi-35 also a candidate for integration of Data Link, say Link-17 ?
Similar case for Z-9EC operating for PN as well as the Westland Sea Kings. While ATR-72, P3-C, F-27 and Sea Kings maybe able to share information through Link-16, the Z-9EC again stands out.

UAV and UCAV are able to transfer and receive huge chunks of information through Data Link. They may have other ways of secure communication too for telemetry controls, which may not require a data link as not much bandwidth and through put is required for just controlling a UAV.

PAF's F-16, Erieye, C-130 etc can be data linked with PAA Gunships (e.g. T-129/AH-1Z) and ISR platforms (A bell series utility chopper) and all these can be data linked to PN Aerial Platforms like P3-C or Sea Kings. This is network centric warfare.

 

[Super Falcon]

Pak should wait for ATAK T 129 relying heavily on chinese is not a good option

 

[The Accountant]

While you are looking at the platform from a mechanical point of view, i am shedding light on the electronics and communication part of the platform. Chinese may have done well in the field of electronics but that can also assist PAA in procuring chinese equipment and installing it on any helicopter platform that Pakistani military wants, not just the platform (helicopter) itself.

I won't go into definition of Data Link, however its used for information sharing and is able to transfer large amount (bandwidth and throughput) of real time mission critical data such as videos and other statistics. All the functionalities for an ISR like SAR, X Band radar, E/O devices etc that i mentioned in Post # 92 will require Data Link.

At some stage, PA, PAF and PN might need a Common Data Link (CDL) otherwise a common interface for Link-16 and Link-17 to exchange information in real time. From an Army aviation point of view, Pakistan flies Chinese, European, Russian and American helicopters. The Data Link is not integrated on many machines that PAA flies. As an example consider Link-16 which can be utilised on American and European Helicopters. A-129 is able to utilise Link-16, so there are chances that T-129 will easily be able to integrate it, depending upon politics and further technology. However, would PAA choose to integrate Pakistan's own Link-17 on T-129 over Link16 ?

Next, does the mission capability of Mi-35 require a Data Link for carrying out sensitive operations be it Anti-terrorism or conventional ? If yes then, is Mi-35 also a candidate for integration of Data Link, say Link-17 ?
Similar case for Z-9EC operating for PN as well as the Westland Sea Kings. While ATR-72, P3-C, F-27 and Sea Kings maybe able to share information through Link-16, the Z-9EC again stands out.

UAV and UCAV are able to transfer and receive huge chunks of information through Data Link. They may have other ways of secure communication too for telemetry controls, which may not require a data link as not much bandwidth and through put is required for just controlling a UAV.

PAF's F-16, Erieye, C-130 etc can be data linked with PAA Gunships (e.g. T-129/AH-1Z) and ISR platforms (A bell series utility chopper) and all these can be data linked to PN Aerial Platforms like P3-C or Sea Kings. This is network centric warfare.

I heard somewhere that Pakistan has already integrated link 16 and 17 via AWACS. Direct sharing is not possible so data is transferred to AWACS by both data link and then it is transmitted to others