What's new

Z-10 ME/P deliveries to begin from 2023

Hmmm... Is Pak military preparing for some sort of operation in Siachen ?? Or how will such purchase aid towards that option ??
Likely for ops flexibility.

The PAA sees modern attack helicopters as force multipliers and, ideally, the CAS capability they offer would be available to as many environments as possible. When they evaluated the T129, they tested its endurance, its hot temperature tolerance, and its high altitude performance.

@SQ8
 
. .
Any chance, the interior ministry wants to rebuild and upgrade the PA cobra fleet from the Turks, so that it can take over the choppers and give them to the FC once the Z-10s are operational for the Army?
Bro why do you want to compete a 90 year old man to run a marathon at a Olympics? Have a mercy at the old man as the poor thing have done its deed and now its going to be a health hazard. Keeping in the air and maintenance cost will be horrendous. Let the old man bones to rest in peace.
 
.
A new look...

FmpJ1sHaYAQ9JxA
 
. . .
No Z-10 ME coming in 2023. Was there any official confirmation ?

Most importantly, IMF is now stressing countries on verge of default to even reduce existing defence budget and downsize the militaries.

New govt has crippled the exports, there's no way getting dollars except IMF or borrowing from friendly countries. I can say for sure that Z-10 or any other planned purchases will be pushed back to later years.
 
.
A complete one....

FmmeLZFaUAASSNf



Among all the fighting columns of Pakistan Army, Pakistan Army Aviation (PAA) plays one of most important & critical role.

Currently Pakistan Army Aviation operates nearly 400 Fixed Wing and Rotary Wing Aircrafts that includes Bell AH-1F/S Gunship, Mil Mi-35 Hind’s, Mil Mi-17’s, Augusta Westland AW-139, Eurocopter AS550 Fennec, SA330 Puma etc. To replace aging fleet of AH-1F/S Gunship & due to ever changing & evolving geo-strategic requirements and operational demands, Pakistan Army Aviation has decided to acquire China Aircraft Industries Corporation (CAIC) Z-10ME attack helicopters.

Z-10ME is the most advance variant of Z-10 attack helicopter. Following changes are incorporated in Z-10ME from standard Z-10 attack helicopter.

Note: There are almost 300 upgrades which have been incorporated in Z-10ME, some significant ones are mentioned below

¶ Doubled Cannon Capacity.

¶ Better centre of gravity due to central ammo location.

¶ Mast mounted radar (MMR) has been installed on Z-10ME with data link capabilities (MMR of Z-9 most likely to be used in Z-10ME). This will enhance interoperability with PAF And PN.

¶ ATGM (F&F system) with Z-10ME have a range of 15Km.

¶ Upward facing engine exhausts to ensure lesser vulnerabilities to IR based SAMs.

¶ Cockpit & engine protection has been increased through enhanced armor plating.

¶ Target acquisition system has been upgraded with enhanced optics with up to 20km, for firing rockets & Air-Air Missiles (AAM).

¶ Battlefield survivability has been enhanced by radar laser warning systems (RWR) linked with inbuilt jamming suite (EW) and chaff flare dispenser.

¶ Dust protectors have been installed to ensure engine health & life without any adverse effect on engine output & power.

¶ Software architecture is easy to upgrade & is being made compatible for network centric operations with Air Defense and PAF assets.

¶ Z-10ME has built-in interface, to be used over sea and amphibious operations.

¶ HMD is next generation & previous helmet was deemed bulky & not pilot friendly hence new helmet was developed for ME.

¶ Chinese assets are interoperable & can be linked with J-10C, other Chinese systems & naval assets.
 
.
You are the sort that's has a loser mentality. If nukes are nothing then why doesn't Turkey libya Syria and Palestine have them.
Get off your Shetland pony and apply your brain instead of your mouth.
People like you love to scream. But actually look at what your kind have achieved. Loser mentality gets you loser results
Now I understand why Pakistan always begs to other for money cos pak has a people like you.
 
.
A complete one....

FmmeLZFaUAASSNf



Among all the fighting columns of Pakistan Army, Pakistan Army Aviation (PAA) plays one of most important & critical role.

Currently Pakistan Army Aviation operates nearly 400 Fixed Wing and Rotary Wing Aircrafts that includes Bell AH-1F/S Gunship, Mil Mi-35 Hind’s, Mil Mi-17’s, Augusta Westland AW-139, Eurocopter AS550 Fennec, SA330 Puma etc. To replace aging fleet of AH-1F/S Gunship & due to ever changing & evolving geo-strategic requirements and operational demands, Pakistan Army Aviation has decided to acquire China Aircraft Industries Corporation (CAIC) Z-10ME attack helicopters.

Z-10ME is the most advance variant of Z-10 attack helicopter. Following changes are incorporated in Z-10ME from standard Z-10 attack helicopter.

Note: There are almost 300 upgrades which have been incorporated in Z-10ME, some significant ones are mentioned below

¶ Doubled Cannon Capacity.

¶ Better centre of gravity due to central ammo location.

¶ Mast mounted radar (MMR) has been installed on Z-10ME with data link capabilities (MMR of Z-9 most likely to be used in Z-10ME). This will enhance interoperability with PAF And PN.

¶ ATGM (F&F system) with Z-10ME have a range of 15Km.

¶ Upward facing engine exhausts to ensure lesser vulnerabilities to IR based SAMs.

¶ Cockpit & engine protection has been increased through enhanced armor plating.

¶ Target acquisition system has been upgraded with enhanced optics with up to 20km, for firing rockets & Air-Air Missiles (AAM).

¶ Battlefield survivability has been enhanced by radar laser warning systems (RWR) linked with inbuilt jamming suite (EW) and chaff flare dispenser.

¶ Dust protectors have been installed to ensure engine health & life without any adverse effect on engine output & power.

¶ Software architecture is easy to upgrade & is being made compatible for network centric operations with Air Defense and PAF assets.

¶ Z-10ME has built-in interface, to be used over sea and amphibious operations.

¶ HMD is next generation & previous helmet was deemed bulky & not pilot friendly hence new helmet was developed for ME.

¶ Chinese assets are interoperable & can be linked with J-10C, other Chinese systems & naval assets.
@SQ8 @MastanKhan @iLION12345_1

IMO...this upgrade was clearly designed to offer an analogous solution to the AH-1Z. When it sent its feedback, the PAA was probably of the mindset of making the Z-10 series heavier so it's better protected while carrying more weapons and tech.

However, with the exception of executing the ECM option, the PAA didn't emphasize the tech or weapons as much for the T129. Rather, with the T129, the main points of emphasis were endurance, range, stationary durability (like sitting in an area without its GSE overnight), etc.

It seems like the Z-10ME was sought as the principal anti-armor and area-denial weapon, while the T129 was seen as a rapid-response, armed scout, and maybe even CAS asset (but for asymmetrical operations).

I think (with the funding caveat aside), if the Turkish-designed engines materialize, the PAA would acquire both the Z-10ME and the T129 in complementary roles. It would also be interesting to see how much they're willing to rely on attack helicopters in the area-denial role. If Z-10-series production sticks for several decades, the PAA has an opening to build a relatively large -- possibly 'oversized' -- fleet.

In the late 1980s, the PAA had set a requirement at the time for a total of 60 AH-1s (it had 20 and ordered 40 more around the time Bhutto signed on for PG-IV F-16s). IMO, this was an ambitious plan for the time given that (1) not many countries had attack helicopter fleets that big and (2) 60 AH-1s would've comprised of like 40%+ of the PAA rotary fleet.

Today, both the Z-10ME and T129 are far, far superior in tech and payload to the AH-1s, so in theory, you wouldn't need as many. However, is there a rationale for the PAA to ever clock attack helicopter numbers to 75 to 100 units? Or is such a large number more of a measure to have plenty of reserves to absorb attrition in a conventional war scenario? E.g., you're expecting to lose 4-5 units per week in a war, so you want to have enough to maintain a full force (of 40+ active attack helis) for at least 3-4 weeks?
 
Last edited:
.
@SQ8 @MastanKhan @iLION12345_1

IMO...this upgrade was clearly designed to offer an analogous solution to the AH-1Z. When it sent its feedback, the PAA was probably of the mindset of making the Z-10 series heavier so it's better protected while carrying more weapons and tech.

However, with the exception of executing the ECM option, the PAA didn't emphasize the tech or weapons as much for the T129. Rather, with the T129, the main points of emphasis were endurance, range, stationary durability (like sitting in an area without its GSE overnight), etc.

It seems like the Z-10ME was sought as the principal anti-armor and area-denial weapon, while the T129 was seen as a rapid-response, armed scout, and maybe even CAS asset (but for asymmetrical operations).

I think (with the funding caveat aside), if the Turkish-designed engines materialize, the PAA would acquire both the Z-10ME and the T129 in complementary roles. It would also be interesting to see how much they're willing to rely on attack helicopters in the area-denial role. If Z-10-series production sticks for several decades, the PAA has an opening to build a relatively large -- possibly 'oversized' -- fleet.

In the late 1980s, the PAA had set a requirement at the time for a total of 60 AH-1s (it had 20 and ordered 40 more around the time Bhutto signed on for PG-IV F-16s). IMO, this was an ambitious plan for the time given that (1) not many countries had attack helicopter fleets that big and (2) 60 AH-1s would've comprised of like 40%+ of the PAA rotary fleet.

Today, both the Z-10ME and T129 are far, far superior in tech and payload to the AH-1s, so in theory, you wouldn't need as many. However, is there a rationale for the PAA to ever clock attack helicopter numbers to 75 to 100 units? Or is such a large number more of a measure to have plenty of reserves to absorb attrition in a conventional war scenario? E.g., you're expecting to lose 4-5 units per week in a war, so you want to have enough to maintain a full force (of 40+ active attack helis) for at least 3-4 weeks?
Really depends upon the doctrine - I think the PA has bought the PAF line of UCAV CAS but may not have thought that IA doctrine may not have tanks going single file or in piecemeal attacks. The Akinci kind of takes care of that because that can under ideal conditions act as a orbiting gunship and pop armor but that isn’t going to be true of IBGs.

So while having 60 choppers is good, I think the AH-1s could be given a new lease of live as orbiting munitions controllers. The PA knows how to maintain them and they now have facilities available to them(at the expense of PAF tasks) at Kamra to rip their front seats apart to install a station there.

Why not simply use a ground station? Because the AH-1 can the carry these orbiting munitions into a contested area NAP - launch them and then sit back behind cover to guide them. A poor mans Invictus if you will.

Technically, you could have had ATAKs do that as well but since that isn’t happening soon. Doesn’t mean you cannot talk to Roketsan about how to get very very deli.
 
.
@SQ8 @MastanKhan @iLION12345_1

IMO...this upgrade was clearly designed to offer an analogous solution to the AH-1Z. When it sent its feedback, the PAA was probably of the mindset of making the Z-10 series heavier so it's better protected while carrying more weapons and tech.

However, with the exception of executing the ECM option, the PAA didn't emphasize the tech or weapons as much for the T129. Rather, with the T129, the main points of emphasis were endurance, range, stationary durability (like sitting in an area without its GSE overnight), etc.

It seems like the Z-10ME was sought as the principal anti-armor and area-denial weapon, while the T129 was seen as a rapid-response, armed scout, and maybe even CAS asset (but for asymmetrical operations).

I think (with the funding caveat aside), if the Turkish-designed engines materialize, the PAA would acquire both the Z-10ME and the T129 in complementary roles. It would also be interesting to see how much they're willing to rely on attack helicopters in the area-denial role. If Z-10-series production sticks for several decades, the PAA has an opening to build a relatively large -- possibly 'oversized' -- fleet.

In the late 1980s, the PAA had set a requirement at the time for a total of 60 AH-1s (it had 20 and ordered 40 more around the time Bhutto signed on for PG-IV F-16s). IMO, this was an ambitious plan for the time given that (1) not many countries had attack helicopter fleets that big and (2) 60 AH-1s would've comprised of like 40%+ of the PAA rotary fleet.

Today, both the Z-10ME and T129 are far, far superior in tech and payload to the AH-1s, so in theory, you wouldn't need as many. However, is there a rationale for the PAA to ever clock attack helicopter numbers to 75 to 100 units? Or is such a large number more of a measure to have plenty of reserves to absorb attrition in a conventional war scenario? E.g., you're expecting to lose 4-5 units per week in a war, so you want to have enough to maintain a full force (of 40+ active attack helis) for at least 3-4 weeks?
Hi,

If I remember correctly---when PA was checking on the american helicopter---they had requested air to air missile capability---which was refused by the americans---due our neighbors protest.

I believe that PA should request the chinese / Turkish helicopters with that ability---. Choppers with air to air missile are a tremendous threat to the enemy aircraft---.

They can hover behind a high rise building / a tall mountain or tall trees and when the enemy aircraft flies by---they can pop up and release their weapon
 
Last edited:
.
People are placing too much confidence on UAVs to be operating in a combat dense environment.

Russia-Ukraine will not look like India-Pakistan. Add to the fact that Pakistan GHQ-AHQ-NHQ are more than happy just having mission critical equipment sit around in storage yards/ airfields than be deployed in the field.

Barring the occasional "intelligence-based raid".
 
.
@SQ8 @MastanKhan @iLION12345_1

IMO...this upgrade was clearly designed to offer an analogous solution to the AH-1Z. When it sent its feedback, the PAA was probably of the mindset of making the Z-10 series heavier so it's better protected while carrying more weapons and tech.

However, with the exception of executing the ECM option, the PAA didn't emphasize the tech or weapons as much for the T129. Rather, with the T129, the main points of emphasis were endurance, range, stationary durability (like sitting in an area without its GSE overnight), etc.

It seems like the Z-10ME was sought as the principal anti-armor and area-denial weapon, while the T129 was seen as a rapid-response, armed scout, and maybe even CAS asset (but for asymmetrical operations).

I think (with the funding caveat aside), if the Turkish-designed engines materialize, the PAA would acquire both the Z-10ME and the T129 in complementary roles. It would also be interesting to see how much they're willing to rely on attack helicopters in the area-denial role. If Z-10-series production sticks for several decades, the PAA has an opening to build a relatively large -- possibly 'oversized' -- fleet.

In the late 1980s, the PAA had set a requirement at the time for a total of 60 AH-1s (it had 20 and ordered 40 more around the time Bhutto signed on for PG-IV F-16s). IMO, this was an ambitious plan for the time given that (1) not many countries had attack helicopter fleets that big and (2) 60 AH-1s would've comprised of like 40%+ of the PAA rotary fleet.

Today, both the Z-10ME and T129 are far, far superior in tech and payload to the AH-1s, so in theory, you wouldn't need as many. However, is there a rationale for the PAA to ever clock attack helicopter numbers to 75 to 100 units? Or is such a large number more of a measure to have plenty of reserves to absorb attrition in a conventional war scenario? E.g., you're expecting to lose 4-5 units per week in a war, so you want to have enough to maintain a full force (of 40+ active attack helis) for at least 3-4 weeks?
Whatever the case may be, I don't have any doubt that Pakistan is looking at the Ukraine war and making newer calculations. Considering the massive amount of helicopter losses in the war, Pakistan is 100% worried about attrition rate, though I suspect that it also may be due to the large number of armored vehicles that India is guaranteed to field against Pakistan in case of war (remember cold start?).

India would likely start any large scale invasion with armored thrusts much like the Russians (of course this would be after the initial missile attacks that India would 100% conduct, again like the Russians), in order to try and make rapid gains before Pakistan can retaliate. In this Scenario, Pakistan would need to rely on the rapid deployment of anti-armor, which would probably be a mix of ATGM teams on the ground, attack drones, and attack helis which would have the capability to strafe and provide close air support, as well as an anti-armor role.

Pakistan cannot match India 1 to 1, so it has always sought solutions in terms of force multipliers, which a large amount of these attack helicopters would be. They would be an immediate and direct threat to India's armored battalions, so long as PAF can at the very least contest the skies, if not have outright air superiority.
 
Last edited:
.
@SQ8 @MastanKhan @iLION12345_1

IMO...this upgrade was clearly designed to offer an analogous solution to the AH-1Z. When it sent its feedback, the PAA was probably of the mindset of making the Z-10 series heavier so it's better protected while carrying more weapons and tech.

However, with the exception of executing the ECM option, the PAA didn't emphasize the tech or weapons as much for the T129. Rather, with the T129, the main points of emphasis were endurance, range, stationary durability (like sitting in an area without its GSE overnight), etc.

It seems like the Z-10ME was sought as the principal anti-armor and area-denial weapon, while the T129 was seen as a rapid-response, armed scout, and maybe even CAS asset (but for asymmetrical operations).

I think (with the funding caveat aside), if the Turkish-designed engines materialize, the PAA would acquire both the Z-10ME and the T129 in complementary roles. It would also be interesting to see how much they're willing to rely on attack helicopters in the area-denial role. If Z-10-series production sticks for several decades, the PAA has an opening to build a relatively large -- possibly 'oversized' -- fleet.

In the late 1980s, the PAA had set a requirement at the time for a total of 60 AH-1s (it had 20 and ordered 40 more around the time Bhutto signed on for PG-IV F-16s). IMO, this was an ambitious plan for the time given that (1) not many countries had attack helicopter fleets that big and (2) 60 AH-1s would've comprised of like 40%+ of the PAA rotary fleet.

Today, both the Z-10ME and T129 are far, far superior in tech and payload to the AH-1s, so in theory, you wouldn't need as many. However, is there a rationale for the PAA to ever clock attack helicopter numbers to 75 to 100 units? Or is such a large number more of a measure to have plenty of reserves to absorb attrition in a conventional war scenario? E.g., you're expecting to lose 4-5 units per week in a war, so you want to have enough to maintain a full force (of 40+ active attack helis) for at least 3-4 weeks?
In the 1980's and for a long time afterwards, doctrine was to use the Gunships as flying artillery to support the armored formations. Essentially what Stukas did for the Germans, the IL-2 for the Soviets and the Typhoons for the British. Experience in UN Missions in Somalia and latter West Africa in the 1990's and of course the WoT illustrated the value of gunship support for infantry.

Our armoured formations are more substantial and spread out since ethe 1980's. And of course demands on the PAA are exponentially heavier.
Like all ground forces, the PA view of airpower is essentiall tactical and operational, not strategic. The PA wants its own independent air arm. So it has its own assets, things which aren't dependent on a different service and that can't be diverted to "higher priority tasks" elsehwere. This in replicated within the PA, the guys commanding the armored formations want the gunships to be organic to them so they don't lose them.

If anything, 100 is conservative.

India would likely start any large scale invasion with armored thrusts much like the Russians (of course this would be after the initial missile attacks that India would 100% conduct, again like the Russians), in order to try and make rapid gains before Pakistan can retaliate. In this Scenario, Pakistan would need to rely on the rapid deployment of anti-armor, which would probably be a mix of ATGM teams on the ground, attack drones, and attack helis which would have the capability to strafe and provide close air support, as well as an anti-armor role.

Indias cold start would be dealt with by the holding formations which have significant maneuver forces.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom