Made in China - Attack Helicopter

[Cire 0]

Beijing: China has published photos of its new attack helicopter ahead of its first public appearance in an air show.

 

Official media here published photos of WZ-10 attack helicopter conducting sorties.

 

The chopper is due to be exhibited at the Zhuhai Air Show in China's Guangdong province, state-run Global Times reported without revealing details of its capabilities.

 

China, which complaints of little access to advanced technologies of the US and the EU, has been developing large military hardware.

 

Besides launching its first aircraft carrier recently, China also unveiled a second version of the stealth bomber J-20, becoming the second country after the US to have that technology

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/video/2012/11/14/china-debuts-attack-helicopter?videoChannel=1&videoId=239123416

 

 

The WZ-10 is China's first domestically designed and produced attack helicopter, superficially comparable to Western counterparts such as the American AH-1 Cobra and AH-64 Apache, or the European PAH-2 Tiger. The design features a reduced signature fuselage, such as was incorporated in the abandoned American RAH-66 Commanche. But the WZ-10 must represent something of a disappointment for the Chinese. Although weighing about the same as the AH-64 Apache, it carries only half the armament, comparable to the much smaller AH-1 Cobra. And appearing some four decades after the American Cobra, it represents a retrogression relative to the typical two decade Chinese lag in military hardware compared to the United States./p>

 

The primary mission for the treetop hugging WZ-10 is battlefield interdiction, eliminating the enemy ground fixed and mobile forces, and concurrently certain air combat ability. The WZ-10 (Wuzhuang Zhisheng-10) is generally similar to the South African Rooviak and Italian Agusta A129. The PLA Army Aviation long lacked an attack helicopter such as the AH-64 Apache or Mi-28 Havoc. The limited attack helicopter force consisted of 30-40 Z-9Ws and 8 SA-342L Gazelles, along with 60 Mi-17 Hips with unguided rocket launchers./p>

 

Prior to the WZ-10 China had yet to produce an indigenously designed helicopter. The WZ-10 is thus a bellwether of the improvements in China's helicopter design and production capabilities. Although the helicopter might still not be as capable as the US AH-64 Apache, it will probably play a significant role in Army Aviation modernization and force capabilities.

 

The helicopter's net empty weight is approximately 5,500 kilograms. The helicopter approximate length is 14 meters, is 3.8 meters high, and is roughly 4.3 meters at its widest point. The main rotary consists of 4 blades made up of a compound material. The diameter of the blades is approximately 12 meters length.

Development of a dedicated attack helicopter began in the mid-1990s at the 602 Institute and Changhe Aircraft Industry Company (CHAIC) in Jingdezhen, Jiangxi Province. According to another report, the PLA originally selected the the MI-35 but chose the Franco-German Tiger as the source of emulation. Around 1991-92 the PLA leased a single Pakistani AH-1 for technical evaluation. The WZ-10 attack helicopter suffered several delays due to engine related troubles, and finally flew for the first time on 29 April 2003.

[S V Choong 4]

Can't wait for those anti-Chinese comments

[flee 5]

Can't wait for those anti-Chinese comments

Yes, because they are now involved in many territorial claims and disputes with its Asian neighbours.

 

This has the potential to destabilise Asia, which is looked up to for economic growth. If Asia goes down, the rest of the world will probably go down too...

[amanairways 0]

They should help the aboriginals take , what is now called Australia back .... And whilst they are at it the cocos and Christmas islands too....

[S V Choong 4]

 

Yes, because they are now involved in many territorial claims and disputes with its Asian neighbours.

 

This has the potential to destabilise Asia, which is looked up to for economic growth. If Asia goes down, the rest of the world will probably go down too...

I don't know about the spratlys islands but the Diaoyu or Senkaku Islands are definitely not the Japanese, if you care to read history enough. Even the Taiwanese, the former legitimate govt. of China and an ally of the US seemed to think it does not being to the Japanese.

 

Malaysia is trying to claim the Spratlys too.

 

They should help the aboriginals take , what is now called Australia back .... And whilst they are at it the cocos and Christmas islands too....

 

Sorry that does not translate to money or oil reserves.

[flee 5]

I am not qualified to decide who has a right to claim the territories. I am merely looking at the economic fallout should negotiations fail and hostilities break out.

[KK Lee 5]

I don't know about the spratlys islands but the Diaoyu or Senkaku Islands are definitely not the Japanese, if you care to read history enough. Even the Taiwanese, the former legitimate govt. of China and an ally of the US seemed to think it does not being to the Japanese.

 

 

If one looks far enough into history, every country’s territory overlapped with its modern neighbours at sometime. If politicians instigate, every country can lay claim on its neighbours. Acceptance of established boundaries is fundamental to peaceful coexistence.

 

Believe current Chinese claim on Diaoyu and Sparatly is for domestic political consumption and PLA to ask for bigger budget.

[S V Choong 4]

I am not qualified to decide who has a right to claim the territories. I am merely looking at the economic fallout should negotiations fail and hostilities break out.

 

Afraid the money is not on the Japanese side unfortunately. The Chinese aren't as stupid as you think.

 

If one looks far enough into history, every country’s territory overlapped with its modern neighbours at sometime. If politicians instigate, every country can lay claim on its neighbours. Acceptance of established boundaries is fundamental to peaceful coexistence.

 

Believe current Chinese claim on Diaoyu and Sparatly is for domestic political consumption and PLA to ask for bigger budget.

 

Established boundary can be disputed. Basically the US were given administration rights after the WW2 and Japan received the administration rights from the US. The US had told both China and Taiwan to respect their decision rather than having all parties to agreed. Both China and Taiwan have disagreed this move in the 1970s, as this is seen as a one sided move and not a mutually agreed position. The Americans had actually granted the Japanese the administration rights and not the ownership of the islands. This is what the Americans have been telling the Japanese of late.

 

The Chinese govt have been keeping quiet all along basically because they have agreed to leave the discussion in the 1970s when Japan and China established their ties. Lately the Japanese govt were the one who is trying to change the status quo, by transferring the ownership of the island to Japan without honouring the agreement they had with China. So who is the trouble maker? I wonder what the newspaper in Malaysia had reported...

Edited November 16, 2012 by S V Choong

[amanairways 0]

 

Sorry that does not translate to money or oil reserves.

 

Really ? ...look deeper and wider ....

[S V Choong 4]

Really ? ...look deeper and wider ....

 

I am sure they have done their feasibility studies. The aboriginals are busy drinking.

 

Australia is now China's mining territory already didn't you know?

Edited November 16, 2012 by S V Choong

[Cheng Long 0]

Malaysia is trying to claim the Spratlys too.

 

We have our layang layang island. Even built a small navy base there. Hope china won't be too hostile with territory claim.

 

With other territory claims, nations go to international court and respect the decision, but not china. They just refuse to do so. For them might is right.

[S V Choong 4]

We have our layang layang island. Even built a small navy base there. Hope china won't be too hostile with territory claim.

 

With other territory claims, nations go to international court and respect the decision, but not china. They just refuse to do so. For them might is right.

 

I guess you can say the same about Japan not willing to go to international court with S. Korea regarding Tok do island (or Takeshima island for Japanese).

 

Lately Japan has heated territorial dispute with China and S. Korea. This has caused Russia has dispatched their Navy vessels to Kuril islands. Why is this so I wodner

[Cheng Long 0]

I think the big guys avoid international court if they feel they cant win.

 

For Russia, maybe when neighbors are fighting, you will be on your guard too.

[Alif A. F. 0]

I wonder what the newspaper in Malaysia had reported...

 

Basically, as far as I know, MY newspapers source the news directly from AFP, etc, etc...

[Cheng Long 0]

The news commentaries in Malaysia are pretty much on china side.

[Alif A. F. 0]

We have our layang layang island. Even built a small navy base there. Hope china won't be too hostile with territory claim.

 

There are too many hands who want to control parts or all of Spratlys (Hey, everyones knows that). But, Malaysia is smart enough (in my opinion) until now to promote some sort of modest economic activity (tourism) on Layang-Layang successfully.

[S V Choong 4]

I think the big guys avoid international court if they feel they cant win.

 

For Russia, maybe when neighbors are fighting, you will be on your guard too.

 

No, Japan has in the past asked Russia to return the Kuril islands to Japan. There are quite a lot of East Asian looking people on those islands, many are of Japanese and Ainu descent (native Japanese). It often depended on which side of the story you... Basically the Russians are reluctant to relinquish the islands to Japan. Because the island issues has heated up with S. Korea and China, they are guarding their own interests should Japan attempt to land on the island.

 

Whatever the game the Chinese govt is playing, they are not stupid bunch of people. The Japanese on the other hand are known to have played dirty tricks in the past, ranging from denial of invasion which cause Asian the sufferage, comfort women issue, white wash of history and denial of Nanjing Massacre. Today, they seemed like angels and portray themselves as victims of WW2. There are still people in the Japanese political scene which are known as the Right Wing politicians who believe in what it was taught durin world war. This include fascism, believing the Emperor is the Godly figure and they are ready to sacrifice for the country. These right wingers are the equivalent of neo-Nazi of Japan.

 

Read up Shintaro Ishihara and his associates. Ishihara was the Tokyo metropolitan mayor and until recently, he left the job and started form his own political party with many right wing Japanese members. Ishihara is a nationalist who had in the past been anti American and wrote a book by the name of "The Japan that can say No (to America)" and has been critical of China. It is important to Know who the sh1t stirrer are... rather just judging the book by the cover (as written on the newspaper).... Heck even western media is not free from brainwashing.

Edited November 16, 2012 by S V Choong

[S V Choong 4]

 

Yes, because they are now involved in many territorial claims and disputes with its Asian neighbours.

 

This has the potential to destabilise Asia, which is looked up to for economic growth. If Asia goes down, the rest of the world will probably go down too...

 

But more to the point, which country in Asia has the money and which country in Asia is leading the growth? Malaysia? Thailand? Singapore? Japan?

 

The answer lies with the US presidential speech.

Edited November 16, 2012 by S V Choong

[KK Lee 5]

The nearest inhabitant to Dioayu is Taiwan. Taiwan ‘together with Dioayu’ was colonized by Japan in 1895. Japan surrendered to the U.S. in 1945, i.e. the U.S. assumed the administrative rights over Dioayu. This administrative rights was passed to Japan in 1972, Japan has been administrating the area since. By international laws, administrative rights is equivalent to effective control i.e. territory.

 

 

In the event of escalation of tensions, exclusive zone around Dioayu may be declared by both Japan and China, and will impair Chinese imports and exports. It is more likely that Chinese will have armed conflict with Vietnam.

 

Chinese depends on foreign imports (i.e. iron ore, coal, oil, copper, wheat, etc ) and exports (i.e. finish products) for economic growth, is ill afford to have any armed conflict. However, CPC may escalate tension whenever they want distraction from domestic issues or consolidate their power and ruling rights.

Edited November 16, 2012 by KK Lee

[BC Tam 2]

However, CPC may escalate tension whenever they want distraction from domestic issues or consolidate their power and ruling rights.

Tried and tested formula, employed by most ruling regimes the world over at times of need

Don't discount its application here in coming months too

Edited November 16, 2012 by BC Tam

[S V Choong 4]

The nearest inhabitant to Dioayu is Taiwan. Taiwan ‘together with Dioayu’ was colonized by Japan in 1895. Japan surrendered to the U.S. in 1945, i.e. the U.S. assumed the administrative rights over Dioayu. This administrative rights was passed to Japan in 1972, Japan has been administrating the area since. By international laws, administrative rights is equivalent to effective control i.e. territory.

 

It should be noted that the international community only recognises one China and that is the People's Republic of China since early 1970s. Taiwan is regarded as a province of China and the Republic of China government there is a grey area or see as a "provincial government" run by a different ruling party. Whether you like it or not this is a fact of life. Therefore the sovereighty is automatically assigned to the PRC should China successfully claimed the islands. Taiwan can use the islands at the mercy of China. Of course the Chinese government is not silly enough to assign it to Taiwan, an ally of the US and it will mean the sea boundary be pushed closer to China. Both Taiwan and China are now on the same side in terms of dispute of Diaoyu islands. The government in Taiwan had also sent out several vessels to "safe guard" the protestors and fishermen.

 

Not only Taiwan and Penghu islands which Diaoyu isles is amongst it. Japan should have returned the islands to the Republic of China government at the conclusion of World War II. Instead the administrative rights of these islands were acquired by the US along with Okinawa (Ryukyu). The US never claimed sovereighty over Okinawa and other surroudning islands despite they have administrative rights. Therefore, administrative rights does NOT automatically mean sovereighty. Okinawa was officially merged into Japan by ways of referendum in the 1970s and as a result the administrative rights was assigned to Japan but not the sovereighty. This unilateral move had attracted protest by both the PRC and ROC governments.

 

The US Congress report clearly pointed out that they have assigned the administrative rights to Japan but not the sovereighty. Japan's claim has been weakened by this report

http://www.fas.org/s.../row/R42761.pdf

 

Centuries old territorial dispute cannot be resolved by contemporary understanding of international laws and economies. There are many factors and interests that determines whose territory it belongs to. Hence reference to history and complete understanding of the situation is required. Rather than just resting on personal interests. If you guys don't learn to accomodate the rise of China, I am afraid the years and decades ahead is going to get thougher.

 

In the event of escalation of tensions, exclusive zone around Dioayu may be declared by both Japan and China, and will impair Chinese imports and exports. It is more likely that Chinese will have armed conflict with Vietnam.

 

I don't know, I am not a military strategist, but it will be silly to launch any kind of war without realising the repercussion later on. As I said, the Chinese leaderships are not stupid.

 

Chinese depends on foreign imports (i.e. iron ore, coal, oil, copper, wheat, etc ) and exports (i.e. finish products) for economic growth, is ill afford to have any armed conflict. However, CPC may escalate tension whenever they want distraction from domestic issues or consolidate their power and ruling rights.

 

The same can be said about Japan. Heavily depended on foreign materials. Japan is going through elections in the coming months. It is said that Prime Minister Noda is using this opportunity to gain support by irating China as his popularity slides to the historic low.

Edited November 17, 2012 by S V Choong

[Cheng Long 0]

Chinese depends on foreign imports (i.e. iron ore, coal, oil, copper, wheat, etc ) and exports (i.e. finish products) for economic growth, is ill afford to have any armed conflict.

 

In the meantime, it doesn't stop china from pushing their weight around. The size of their economy is huge and growing. No other country in Asia has that much weight.

 

With philiphines island dispute, they stop buying fruits and led to huge export loss.

 

Awhile ago when some Chinese fishermen were arrested after ramming into Japan coastguard, china halted rare earth export to Japan, something necessary for high tech equipment.

 

 

[S V Choong 4]

The news commentaries in Malaysia are pretty much on china side.

That would be Chinese language newspapers I would imagine.

 

Basically, as far as I know, MY newspapers source the news directly from AFP, etc, etc...

That would be western media. They do have their own agenda, trust me.

 

The officlal version is very different from those leaked by Wikileaks. Makes you wonder why they want the Wikileaks founder dead or alive.

[S V Choong 4]

The nearest inhabitant to Dioayu is Taiwan. Taiwan ‘together with Dioayu’ was colonized by Japan in 1895. Japan surrendered to the U.S. in 1945, i.e. the U.S. assumed the administrative rights over Dioayu. This administrative rights was passed to Japan in 1972, Japan has been administrating the area since. By international laws, administrative rights is equivalent to effective control i.e. territory.

 

Excerpts from the US Congress report:

 

U.S. Position on the Competing Claims

During Senate deliberations on whether to consent to the ratification of the Okinawa Reversion Treaty, the State Department asserted that the United States took a neutral position with regard to the competing claims of Japan, China, and Taiwan, despite the return of the islands to Japanese administration. Department officials asserted that reversion of administrative rights to Japan did not prejudice any claims to the islands. When asked by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee how the Okinawa Reversion Treaty would affect the determination of sovereignty over the Senkakus (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai), Secretary of State William Rogers answered

 

11. The State Department officials included Robert Starr, Acting Assistant Legal Adviser for East Asian and Pacific Affairs; Harrison Symmes, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations; and Howard McElroy, Country Officer for Japan. For their statements, see Okinawa Reversion Hearings, p. 90-91, 93, 147.

 

12. Ibid., p. 77, 94, 119; Hornsby, Michael, “Japan Asserts Rights to Isles Claimed by China,” London Times, Mar. 19, 1972. Koga’s father ran several commercial operations on the islands, including fish-canning and guano collection. Mark J. Valencia, “The East China Sea Dispute: Context, Claims, Issues, and Possible Solutions,” Asian Perspective, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2007, p.150-56.

 

13. State Council Information Office, The People’s Republic of China, White Paper on Diaoyu Dao, an InherentTerritory of China, September 2012, http://english.peopl...5/7960320.html.

 

14. Treaty on Reversion to Japan of the Ryukyu and Daito Islands, signed Jun. 17, 1971, 23 U.S.T. 446.

 

15. Okinawa Reversion Treaty Hearings, p. 91. Senkaku (Diaoyu/Diaoyutai) Islands Dispute: U.S. Treaty Obligations Congressional Research Service 5 that “this treaty does not affect the legal status of those islands at all.”

 

16. In his letter of October 20, 1971, Acting Assistant Legal Adviser Robert Starr stated:

The Governments of the Republic of China and Japan are in disagreement as to sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands. You should know as well that the People’s Republic of China has also claimed sovereignty over the islands. The United States believes that a return of administrative rights over those islands to Japan, from which the rights were received, can in no way prejudice any underlying claims. The United States cannot add to the legal rights Japan possessed before it transferred administration of the islands to us, nor can the United States, by giving back what it received, diminish the rights of other claimants. The United States has made no claim to the Senkaku Islands and considers that any conflicting claims to the islands are a matter for resolution by the parties concerned.

 

17. Successive U.S. administrations have restated this position of neutrality regarding the claims, particularly during periods when tensions over the islands have flared, as in 1996, 2010, and 2012.

Edited November 17, 2012 by S V Choong

[amanairways 0]

 

 

I am sure they have done their feasibility studies. The aboriginals are busy drinking.

 

Australia is now China's mining territory already didn't you know?

 

Think deeper .... And wider still !