• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Pratt & Whitney powers China's Z-10 attack helicopter

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,680
Reaction score
1,735
sublight is back said:
I guess they'll be selling them F135 technology next?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/how-us-software-ended-up-in-chinese-assault-helicopters/

Old news. Looks like ArsTechnica is getting in on click-bait too. The whole tone of the article is dripping with it. (Did you actually read the article?)
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
789
Reaction score
77
sferrin said:
Old news. Looks like ArsTechnica is getting in on click-bait too. The whole tone of the article is dripping with it. (Did you actually read the article?)

Are you saying that they didn't actually do this then?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,680
Reaction score
1,735
sublight is back said:
sferrin said:
Old news. Looks like ArsTechnica is getting in on click-bait too. The whole tone of the article is dripping with it. (Did you actually read the article?)

Are you saying that they didn't actually do this then?

I'm saying that this is old news. Years ago. And if you look at the article, Ars dug up every "scandle" they could find (was somewhat disappointed not to see Henry Ford in there) to create faux controversy and grab eyeballs. Like I said, click-bait. Not one of the examples they cited hasn't been all over the news years ago. I mean this Z-10 "scandal" is over a decade old.
 

sublight is back

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
Messages
789
Reaction score
77
So the ongoing issue of American technology ending up in Chinese weapons is totally irrelevant today?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,680
Reaction score
1,735
sublight is back said:
So the ongoing issue of American technology ending up in Chinese weapons is totally irrelevant today?

Is that what I said? If they wanted to talk scandal though there are SO many more relevant examples. The F-22 canopy for example. RAM for another (the missile and launcher). The Mk41 VLS for another (even the bolt patterns are the same in some areas of that thing).
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,674
Reaction score
4,299
This is old news indeed. The story posted is 3 years old, there were many articles at the time after UTC were fined for this episode.

Sean Gallagher - Jul 4, 2012 10:30am NZST

Flight had this in 29 Oct 2007:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/chinese-helicopter-gunship-suppliers-face-us-investigation-218930/

In 2006, the Global Arms Campaign published a report listing P&WC and US-based Lord as parts and technology suppliers for the Z-10. The report also listed AgustaWestland and Eurocopter as involved in the project.


This is the report from 2006:


http://www.oxfam.org.nz/sites/default/files/oldimgs/whatwedo/control%20arms/arms_without_borders.pdf
 

Blitzo

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
382
Reaction score
44
sferrin said:
sublight is back said:
So the ongoing issue of American technology ending up in Chinese weapons is totally irrelevant today?

Is that what I said? If they wanted to talk scandal though there are SO many more relevant examples. The F-22 canopy for example. RAM for another (the missile and launcher). The Mk41 VLS for another (even the bolt patterns are the same in some areas of that thing).


I'd be more concerned about the kind of info that they could derive from actual espionage rather than things that can be influenced and derived from photos.


compromising or reverse-engineering software, RAM (radar absorbing material), EW and RF bands... etc are far more proof of espionage than whether FC-31 looks like F-35 or not (often mentioned as proof of hacking :eek: ), or the resemblance between J-20's canopy and F-22, or other things which can be taken from open sources.


----


as for Z-10, the original project was under the guise of the china medium helicopter name, with the impression that it was civilian to get foreign partners on board.... so it isn't really fair to wholly blame the western companies for participating when the entire goal of the Chinese side was to circumvent the arms embargo in a limited degree.
 

totoro

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
391
Reaction score
118
That was a weird piece of writing. Wz16 engine was certified only late last year in china so it wasn't even a part of the z10 equation up until very recently. It remains to be seen if it will indeed be used in z10 helicopters, be it under that name or some other name. Meaning the whole question of whether the French have prevented its usage will be answered in the future, and could not have been answered so far.

Unrelated, z10 was observed serving with 13 PLA aviation brigades so far, suggesting some 150 or more airframes in service.
 

Secundius

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
The PRC uses only two units of measurement, "Universal Metric" and the "Shizhi". "Universal Metric" is use for domestically produce foreign export and the "Shizhi" for domestically produced domestically used products, including "Military". The Shizhi is based on units of 16 and not 10 like universal metrics, with an added oddity that their Screw Pitch is Left-Handed, not Right-Handed. So anyone Foreign Nation State is forced to buy replacement parts from the PRC. As an example, in 2013 Cuba had to outsource to North Korea for replacement parts for their aging fleet of MiG-21's, because the Russian Federation stopped producing them and the parts made in the PRC wouldn't fit because of their Left-Hand pitch screws. I suspect the Soviets had the same problem, when trying to reverse engineer the three B-29's that fell into their hands, because the American Aircrews were forced to land in Neutral (Not Fighting the Japanese) Soviet Union. Though the Soviet Engineers were forced literally at gunpoint to make exact copies of the B-29's in their possession, and didn't have the US-design manufacturing equipment to produce them, Or producing them (i.e. "a close approximation as possible") while using Universal Metrics. Which is probably why only 470 of them (i.e. Tu-4's) were ever produced...
 
Top