The Battlehawk? I believe it's not purely dedicated to the same cause that the AH-64D is.

Shattered OUT...

So? You say that like it's a bad thing.

The Apache is dedicated to anti-tank operations on a large scale battlefield. It was designed with the European Land War scenario in mind; that concept became redundant when the Cold War ended. Being the fantastic aircraft that it is, it has been used to great effect in other situations, against other targets.

The battlehawk, on the other hand, is a utility helicopter adapted for the gunship role, just like the first gunships were: UH-1s were fitted with rockets and miniguns during the Vietnam War and renamed Gunslingers. (The Australians developed their own version which was called the Bushranger.) It was from the UH-1 that the world's first dedicated attack helicopter, the AH-1, was developed.

Since WWII conflicts have been relatively small-scale, so everything has become more multirole. A single helicopter that can lay waste to an armored division one day, insert a long range recon patrol behind enemy lines the next day, and airlift a piece of field artillery the day after that is more valuable than a dedicated tank killer.

Interesting comments. The thread started about the Rooivalk, then diverted away. Luckily it came back. I'm gonna add my "slightly" biased opinion:

First, well said, benigma

Well, being another South African from the same border/bush war era (now a blesskop with a bierpens), I may be just a little biased

But seriously, so many modern weapons have amazing specs on paper (or in PDF documents! / game simulations), but the reality is they'll never survive/perform in real war conditions. War is not a rendered PC game.

As for the Russians - I'm lucky enough to be married to one, I have greatest respect for their 'basic' but effective weaponry - from my early days against their indestructable AK-47's. So yes, the KA50 is a serious piece of machinery. The only downside I would guess - having seen Russians prepare their aircraft for a show after delivery in an (Antropov?? I think) at Hoedspruit in SA, whereupon I got my respect for the durability of their MIGS - would be build quality. Thats something that SA really excel in, is good weapon build quality.

Right now, I'm 5 miles from Farnborough Air Show 2006 (jets flying overhead all week) and will be there on the weekend , the only two things I want to see is a MIG-29 in flight doing it's 120 degree back-flip (if he does it) also and stalling/restarting the motors in flight ! , and the Rooivalk (hopefully they have one here this year! - they did in 2004) doing loops and barrel-rolls!!! ) (that shuts the crowd up completely and big time!). After I've seen that, I pack up and go home a happy man - ie. not interested in the starwars prototypes, but seen those that have been there and done it. Many blue collar boys will say what's the use of aircraft that can do that - well, you'll be grateful for it when you need it

BTW: As you may be aware the Rooivalk and Mangusta 129 are the only two remaining on Turkeys ATAK shortlist. The Russian KA50-2 and Eurocopter Tiger were elimated. Apache, as much as the Turkish Army likes it (its big and american - like in the movies) for obvious reasons will not work well in Turkey : this is a real war zone : dirty - not a science lab. It's important to note that Turkey in 1998 was about to purchase Rooivalk's when the SA goverment vetoed the deal : to do with Turkeys Kurdish minority (nice guys, aren't we?).

I read something in the thread about manuverability? As far as I'm aware the Rooivalk is the ONLY helicopter that effortlessly does loops and barrel-rolls : it don't get much better than that, tail rotor or not ! And it's an amazing sight to see it ! Quote from Mail and Gaurdian: "It is an awe-inspiring sight, watching a nine-tonne attack helicopter perform a loop and barrel rolls, the aeronautical equivalent of Luciano Pavarotti performing a perfect pike on the diving board"

Rooivalk (Red Hawk) is designed to operate in very basic surroundings for prolonged periods without sophisticated support (far from home base) - that's the key to it's advantage. Its designed for a high-intensity 24 x 7 war. Thats all weather conditions, day or night, at extremely low level, sometimes at an altitude of 10m, to avoid being detected. In a laboratory, others (may be?) better - not even sure of that, but in the real world war situation, you'll be crying for a Rooivalk. It has a 700km range in primary role, self-deployment range of 1100km.

From a Janes Defense spokesman: "In many respects it is better than the Apache. It centres on a database, which makes it easier to integrate other weapons and systems, where most of the Apaches are hard-wired. The cockpit design and layout is also better, and the aircraft is easier to maintain and fix in the field,"

TBC...

(coninued) ...

It's weaponry is pretty unique : eg : the 740 round per minute nose cannon feeds from both sides - allowing the gunner to select different rounds from each magazine depending on target. The cannon can be controlled from the pilots helmet laser sight for target designation.

Comes with the Mokopa missile system (another SA weapon) : which is similar (but better range etc) than the Hellfire missile. It penetrates 1350mm RHA Armour and works against Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA). This means the Mokopa is able to counter any current vehicle armour threats. Mokopa has a 'fire and forget' option too. Rooivalk can carry Hellfire too for whatever reason.

Another very unique feature of the Rooivalk is its extremely low airframe vibration (far better than Apache and others) - which is crucial to successful weapons delivery ie 'hits' - don't help you got lots of big guns but can't hit the tin

Some other quotes :
"It was the first helicopter from 1996 to use a digital, night and day operational 'glass cockpit' (computer screen format). The flight controls and the weapon systems are displayed on the visor of the pilot's helmet, providing all mission critical information. SA has in effect pioneered this helmet sight, and it has become the helmet of choice, including in the US."

While many may speculate the Rooivalk may die because of no exports, there is another Rooivalk version being contemplated - a 'lite' version, for countries with smaller budgets, so either way it'll be around a while flying circles (and loops) around the competition

thx for the thread.
______________________

Just wanted to add a couple of things....

The Rooivalk is better suited to SA's needs due to higher operating temperatures and desert sand. Also, who is going to go against them? Namibia?

As for the competition in Turkey, ROK and Japan, there was no way any Russian company is going to get a foothold. These are traditional American bastions and they will be arm-twisted to great lengths so that it stays that way. Remember the F-15 vs Su-30 competition in ROK?

As with a lot of so called 'attack' helicopters designed around the antiarmor mission as clones of the AH-64 paragigm, the design premise for the Rooivalk (Kestrel) is that of all-eyes-forward.

Which is of course a totally moronic ideal when you don't WANT to close with the battlefield and modern day focalplane and radar technology allows you to skirt it's perimeter if not outright avoid it altogether (employing drones instead).

As such it is wrong from the start.

1. It is too expensive. To be used as a true /gun/ ship ala UH-1D Hog and AH-1G Snake of Vietnam fame. It will remain so so long as you dangle upwards of 4 million dollars worth of complex EO gear off the front end.
2. It is too slow to patrol large areas or engage or in extensive vertical maneuver above the majority of the trashfire. Another lesson of the Vietnam war wherein we got plenty tired of being sniped at by light AAA and found it easier to trade surprise for transit speed and safety (in hot/high conditions no less). Despite the reputation as a sniping assassin, _in the majority of real world combats_ the gunship continues to use diving attacks with dumb weapons like FFAR and Guns. This often reduces the effectiveness of both the sensor package and the gun due to limited traverse limits and sighting angles when firing down.
3. As I understand it, Rooivalk it has elements of the Puma, Alouete a Hip in it's design. Not necessarily a bad thing but simply not as 'unique' as it seems.
4. I've heard that the inner stations while nominally able to take Mokopa, are in fact sterilized for anything but small (7-10rd) 70mm rockets because of clearance and plume issues with both the outboard underwing station and the inboard gear and sponson.
5. The aircraft has a fancy-schmancy _passive_ countermeasures systems including all the (typical really) LWR, RWR, MAWS. But it doesn't back this up with significant RF or IRCM options beyond expendables. Expendables get blown quick in relatively 'high altitude' combat (1,500ft) and particularly with the rising prevalence of LCG weapons in the S2A mission (either 'pure' or as a secondary function of ATGW), you cannot afford to be playing passive games only.
6. In reference to the above, the wingtip AAM stations block the likeliest position for a DIRCM set or more EXCM blocks and so 'looks cool' doesn't really mean a whole helluva lot. Not least because helos fight nose on to reduce frontal area and keep the guns and sights on and thats a chicken game nobody wants to play when they can send in a 400 knot _true_ fighter to knock down the threat air from 5-6 miles out, even lolo.
7. Speaking of signatures, the AH-2 is more or less a slabsided wall with massive dangling fins and gun mount besides the compromised exhaust systems. The suppressors for which make a significant hit on performance (why you usually see them 'round holed' when doing airshow display work) and when coupled to a serious lack of significant active defenses, this makes the Rooivalk very vulnerable to conventional attack as well.
8. Mokopa is nice (though the AGM-114K/L matches it and the JCM beats it for range) but like all ATGW remains too expensive and too large (warhead effect) to just be 'thrown out there' against typical guerilla=defenseless or collateraled threats and while I can find no evidence for an onboard secondary spectrum alternative to SALH, the 'important fact' remains that even a 10km weapon is more or less worthless when you take into account engagements like that of Mogadishu or Najaf and Karbala indicate that you had better bloody well look at 30-60km range systems that keep you COMPLETELY OUTSIDE the builtup area MOUT.
This will challenge even the ability of modern sensors to reach in anything short of massive widebore/folded optics systems and even then LOS conditions may be insurmountable. Which effectively puts you into Netfires territory with LAM/SMACM/Dominator systems to effectively _replace_ on-airframe sensing. Especially vs. the much more typical insurgent threat.
9. Single pilot helicopter operations are actually quite easy, as we have repeatedly proven with the right combination of flexstick controls and coupled autopilot modes with side as well as forward looking obstacle detection and four axis variable softcontrols (height, speed, attitude and rate dampening) with the SPACES programs. A more critical problem is that visionics alone do not secure helicopter operations in a LOT of conditions, including those of Europe where the Apache was 'always intended' to fight. You need active systems, coupled to DTE maps and sophisticated autopilots. When you get them (and we had about 5 under development using everything from range-gated tv to LIDAR and MMW) you can basically ditch the large cockpit glass for virtual imaging as you get much finer formation and terrain clearance once you drop the clutter as much as laser-threat vulnerabiltiy of an all-glass cockpit. Of course there are limits. You can fly or fight or defend. But not more than that. But since the majority of modern threats onset too fast for human reflexes anyway and the worst of those threats are actually _easier_ to deal with from altitude; this is not as bad as may be first thought. Contrary to popular 'Go Army' belief, before they chicken#ted back to 'conservative views' (bowed to the community in spite of contrary evidence), the LHX was itself a single place 'fighter' helicopter. Because that is what we thought the Ka-50 was. Today, a potential combination (VTDP) of a 250-300 knot cruise speed, high altitude flight modes and integrated ALERT/AMUST style targeting would _easily_ get you single pilotage. Because the helo is largely a weapons bus and the pilot is mostly a node-manager handing off and taking in mission data from other, cheaper-to-lose, platforms. None of which the AH-2 is really much offboard-offboard-offboard! suited to.
10. While the notion of 'defending it's borders and people' is really, /really/, sweet, the fact of the matter is that most of the AH-2s missions systems come straight from Thales, the FLIR, the TopOwl (which bears a striking similarity to 'Night/Wide Eyes' of 20 years ago) HMDS and most of the cockpit integration from what I understand. It was a lack of competency in this basic area which kept the Rooivalk a glorified systems testbed for the better part of a decade. Yet the real LESSON TO BE LEARNED is not that you shouldn't reach for what you cannot build and claim greatness on the external bailout. But rather that _attack helicopters as a breed_ are overrated and underbought and the last cycle of their major new-program acquisition is probably in the past (as even the Army has stated it is no longer into RW development). If you could design a CHEAP, singleplace LUH, using composite design and advanced propulsion while including an AAH 'package' which militarized it (S-76->H-76 like), you would be able to sell that _cheaper than Blackhawk/BK-117, better than Eurocopter/B406_ platform to nations which might want a handy dandy proactive kill system for one or two 'variants' but would prefer 6-8 passenger speed and economy for the majority of their other liason and light transport/observation duties. i.e. Get the baseline platform competitive in the civil market and -whatever- you do with addon Airwolf packages will justify itself. Fail to realize the general unpopularity of RW air in the military and you will end up sitting on your prized toy at airshows and military demos, wondering why the hell nobody wants to talk to you about your uber-gunship.


KPl.

Halfbless,

>>
Well, I certainly rattled someones cage! ... Quite a mouthful of techie jargon junk / guessing in your post
>>

I don't like helicopters as more than utility transports. They blew it when they dumped the rigid rotor and compound propulsion of the AH-56 and now it's too late to go back because the threat has advanced to the point where attack choppers are worthless compared to drones and UCAV for their most typical OOTW/'CAS' mission sets.

>>
Apache's ???
Was it 13 (or more?) Apache's lost in Iraq? ... mostly due to 'brown-outs'! (wonder what that is a cover-up for!). Worlds greatest attack heli, did u say ???
>>

They sent 32 into Najaf and not one came back undamaged. 'Several' were down for weeks on end. It's the same ol' same ol' of about double the 'official' count of 5,000 choppers lost in SEA being rebuilt from scratch.

I think it was Pierre Sprey who noted that it takes between 6 and 18 months for an enemy to become acclimated to air mobile warfare operations and then you start losing your shirt and wondering why you didn't invest in ground force armor and heavy logistics. Back in 1965.

Nothing has changed (and nothing will so long as we don't exact horrific vengeance for every man lost amongst the 'collaterals') and the Rooivalk would do no better than the Apache in similar MOUT'd circumstances. Even as it would do /worse/ against a massed armor threat because it doesn't have the ranged-sort of the APG-78 or the multicarriage of Hellfire L and the Longbow upgraded FLIR.

>>
Most of them probably due to the fact that Apache's are not allowed to fire the Hellfire in training (only in combat) and only from starboard side to avoid missile debris hitting the tail rotor! ... ie - shooting itself down ... perhaps that's 'brown-outs' ???
>>

Helos didn't fly much during the storms. And the Iraqi's didn't exploit that opportunity to use VBIED and mass ambush tactics to alter the course of the battle through our forward deployed cavalry teams. It may be that they still feared 'steel rain' support from ODS though we didn't bring half as much and our IAM shooters were still pretty stupid when it came to unconfirmed DMPI drops through weather.

>>
Funny (if Apaches are so much better) that UK initially chose the Rooivalk over the Apache - that's before they were bullied into buying Apache or loose the Hellfire - that bullying leading to the reason SA had to develop the much better Mokopa missile. Which highlights the reason the Rooivalk may never sell - political pressure from Sam the giant - so much for the free market concept.
>>

Don't whine like a Democrat: "Ohhh they have the slicker sales campaign but it's all lies, lies I tell you!". You lost because what you had didn't do enough /more/ than the 'corrupt existing system' to be selected. Surprise, surprise when it is configurationally and by mission role the same beast in different spots, people will ask why they should trust the new guy.

If you want a decent chopper, make it single pilot capable. Make it small and very fast with a range at least equal to a combat _radius_ of 250nm on a <3hr average flight (30-45 minutes on the pointy end).

And for direct attack purposes, give it a range of standoff/dropfire weapons which it can use, survivably, from altitude over a FIBUA matrix. Or from outside it.

South Africa is a relatively tiny nation with a bad history and no track record for having done more than modify other nations weapons to their own use. Militarily, you may be successful but only in wars which are largely unknown throughout the rest of the West (welcome to the aftermath of isolationism). And you may also be perceived as standing in the shadow of the Israelis, especially in airborne systems.

The AH-2 is a helicopter which has little or no logistical or force buildup standing even within the South African armed forces. Thus making you vulnerable to assumptions that all 'unforeseen' costs are yet to be discovered and will be _paid for_ by the initial export customers.

If you can't SEE THAT as the source of your real problems you don't deserve to be 'given special treatment' just because you _used to_ be a part of the Commonwealth.

Money Talks, Whiners Walk.

>>
mmm ... Apache cost somewhere between $14million (thats the old original AH-64A cost) and $56million (AH-64D unit cost to Greece in 2003), compared to $9million for a Rooivalk ... and I'd most certainly choose 1 - 5 Rooivalks over an Apache, specially when Apaches shoot their tail rotors off and 'brownout' all over the desert.
>>

YOU'RE NOT LISTENING. The UH-1D in 1963 was coming off the line, depending on modifications at between 750 and 950,000 dollars. The AH-1G of three years later was said to be 20% more expensive thanks to trades in sheer structural component mass vs. more capable subsystems.

That's 1.2 million bucks. Which is still /exceptional/ as a throwaway asset to be traded against a squad of infantry (before the days of 100,000 dollar death benefits) but is at least 'within reason' when escorting slicks to a landing zone.

Compared to this, NINE MILLION DOLLARS EACH IS COMPLETELY BEYOND JUSTIFICATION. Especially when the basic vulnerability /by engagement mode/ over cities and trashfire hasn't changed a single iota. And systems like MALI and Taifun point the way to kill them in transit to the target area over extended horizon lines.

>>
You're dead right, not neccessarily a bad thing, in fact brilliant.
A quote for you :

"While no advanced aircraft type can claim to be an entirely original concept and design, Rooivalk is very much a South-African creation that contains many design features and techniques that genuinely can be described as original"
>>

What it does show is that you are using existing component engineering to create a largely conventional helicopter design with all the baseline problems inherent to stressed aluminum structures and fixed component fatigue indexes as well as discrete subsystem integration into same, all over and above the basic 'heay metal, grinding fast' penalties of the turboshaft, tranny and tail rotor complexities.

What screws you over is your desire to Xerox an existing _operational paradigm_ whose need and reputative quality has already been met. By the precursor. While failing as _hardware_ to 'devolve' back to the very level of warfare which claimed some 5,056 choppers almost 40 years ago.

>>
... BTW: Some of those original ideas can now also be found on the French Tyger
>>

Which is also just another copy of an existing (flawed) paradigm, further compromised by a collapsed Franco German attempt at 'joint' PAH-2/HAP/HAC configurations, NONE of which possessed the armament, performance or systems advancements to be useful in their 'summative' rather than unified roles.

I can say the same about the Mangusta and the Mi-28. Though at least the early models of the former are relatively cheap and reliable (see Mog).

>>
Are you refering to the Apache there?
>>

I'm refering to the Rooivalk being a French Avionics Suite on an unknown (is it a Yugo or a Chevy?) airframe looking for a launch export customer 10 years after it last had that 'new car smell'. The smell is still there, it's just more like dead fish now.

Something that is NOT helped out by the recent yet oh-so-predictable rash of 'look how easy they are to shoot down!' proof of vulnerability that has once more (Mogville, AfG and Iraq) showed how the inbred Army Aviation hierarchy can design and procure MASSIVE fleets of _worthless_ systems.

[edit on 20-7-2006 by ch1466]

WE were stuck with the combat helicopter by a little piece of blue suit lawyerism called the Key West Accords. YOU are stuck looking up the ass of the lead dog because _you choose_ to see the helicopter as complimentary rather than vestigial organ of combined arms. I mean 'after all, the U.S. does it'.

Do you realize what a flaming hypocrite you sound like trying to justify yourselves as being 'better than the U.S.' while using a system that essentially looks and functions like ours does? Nevermind, rhetorical question.

>>
If Rooivalk ... half a dozen Greek Apaches cost more than the entire Rooivalk R&D budget. That alone is more than 'greatness' ! And unless you're blind, it is built!
>>

Let me once more make clear: I do not like combat helicopters. They can never exit the trashfire envelope which dooms them to mediocrity of LER and they lack either the sensor LOS or weapons system to be capable of standoff beyond the horizonline which defines 'occupation' as much as 'signature' of threat presence.

>>
Something an Apache can only dream of ... and have been wet-dreaming over it since Rooivalk first did it ...
>>

First off, with an articulated rotor, the AH-64 CAN do this. The AH-1W cannot.

Secondly, _who cares_? Because this kind of crap is NOTHING compared to what even a MANPADS can 'square corner becomes handgrenade in goldfish bowl' achieve. Because this kind of crap is _too late_ when a flaktrap opens up as you motor on buy 200-1,500ft off the dirt and all of one to five evolutions of autorotate from a crash (one man, one Mannlicher Carcano Carbine, two idiot AH-64 crew looking 'seriously bemused' on Iraqi TV as they haul the bird through downtown on it's way to techint 'buyers').

OTOH, if you try to skulk even lower, to contour chase or NOE levels, you cannot hope to roll the chopper _at all_. Indeed, do you even know what a 'dig' maneuver is? It's the rotary wing equvalent to a flying dismount off a cavalry horse followed by laying the animal down and shooting over it's belly. And against a force that knows what they are doing, it's just about as worthless. Because you are vulnerable to mortar and small arms fires as well as the most basic of cable-over-gap-in-treeline type mechanical threats and now, the 'AHM'.

ALL RELEVANT COMBAT ROTARY WING ACTIVITIES OCCUR WITH THE HORIZON LEVEL AND THE BLADE DISK _UP_.

Why? Because then they might realize that helicopters which climb, dive or in any other way reorient their principal _forward propulsion system axis_ lose all such thrust and INSTANTLY increase their vulnerability by sticking around a mushroom of 'predictable' defended airspace around an _only human_ (Mk.1 Ball) targeted objects is engaged. Since they have strict VNE going downhill and zero ability to sustain axis-linear thrust angles going back up, helo drivers that choose to maneuver over a target are in fact _tactically stupid_.

OTOH, if your VNE is 300 knots and you start with enough forward propulsion to sustain 200 knots, _minimum cruise_ and add to this a sensor capability to cover lateral as well as vertical target slants from directly under the airframe to 10-20 miles to each side. You don't have to waste potentially critical evasion or along-track escape energy as you dropfire on targets that _the damn nose is never pointed at_. Indeed the AH-56 design team knew this decades before ATGW compromised aperture locaions came to be configurationally identical on helos.

The basics are already there you know. Viper Strike as the VSM being your 10lb OOTW primary weapon. LAM/PAM being your 60km reachin weapon+sensor drone combination that can _replace_ onboard targeting without requiring parent aircraft closure to 'high intensity' threats at all.

Comparing this level of simple common sense to your photo alls I see is that the Rooivalks weapons are bottom mounted, forward firing, and all your defenses need a clean ejection or FOV arc to work properly. Both of which your WWII (Varrrrooom! Toy-in-hand 'rolling in' little boy airshow maneuver) antics have effectively denied.

Unfortunately, most of this derives from the simple fact that, again, contemporary attack helos nose-mounted sensor clusters all linearize targeting and engagement to the immediate ground track of the airframe without making /any/ 'design trades' analysis of the penalties (first to get hit, heavy-forward, defines the position of the CPG, adds massive drag penalties, compromises signature etc. etc.).

It's just too damn bad that the idiots who design Attack Helis can't even /comprehend/ the notion of designing a sensor system with a _lower hemisphere_ oriented field of regard and _dropfire_ weapons to go along with. Hell, an AAQ-22/26 Star Saffire 3rd generation thimble mount is a more intelligent design than EITHER the TDAT or TADS. Better focalplane resolution, better coverage, less cost or effects on system performance, more reliable. Same laser designator options. _Half The Size_.

CONCLUSION:
Nothing you've said shows you have even the most basic comprehension of 'how its done son' and that's too bad. It's all rah-rah nationalism looking for a fight because you have a new-old-toy you're /desparate/ to be 'proud of'. Because it's clear that the U.S. is entirely past it when it comes to RW design and yet /still/ everybody brownnoses trying to prove that they can do the same damn one-trick with only a slightly newer pony.

Just to refresh you on what your wartoy SHOULD look like:

1. Stealth the airframe to the level you can sustain target LOS useful sensor grazes from a lateralized aspect. Neither more nor less, starting with your chosen camouflage paint for the cruise altitude.
2. Use COE as your operative design philosophy both in integrating offboard (or fly-away) sensors to further roll back the horizon line. And to SHOOT INTO RATHER THAN FLY OVER the threat matrix.
3. Recapture a minimum threshold 3hr, 250nm _radius_ of aerodynamic performance.
4. Define your cruise speed by the number of square nm that your sensors or networking can service at optimum total flight time (say 3hrs) with on-the-fly target processing using ALERT level integration routines. As a minimum, set a 200 knot cruise and 250-270 knot top end. Obviously, this is going to mean compount, tiltrotor or (duhhh) _pure turbine_ performance design trades. The last of which will probably give you even better cruise (fuel economies) capabilities. Even as it sheds HUNDREDS OF POUNDS in transmission and ATR weights.
5. Keep it as cheap as possible, both by shrinking the design scales (bye bye CPG) and reducing the payload bus to sensor wagon levels of federated mission system integration. With drones and networking there is _absolutely no reason_ for every fires platform to be a sensor one. Especially if you are dogmatically flying section drill for 'CAS' missions.
6. SELL IT AS A CIVILLIAN LUH. With dollar:hour operating costs and specific performance edges over existing types in-class. Because that is where the real money is right now and will probably continue to be.
7. As an element of 5 and 6, maximize your cabin volumes ability to employ _dropfire_ as opposed to forward fire weapons and sensor systems. Since a vanilla cabin with internal rails and a weapons bay or sensor aperture hatch can be reloaded using RORO techniques with preconfigured MEPs without losing performance to draggy, high signature, CofG compromised, external weapons wings.

Do you get it now? Or are you 'so proud' of this 21st Century Pterodactyl that you can't see it for the 1918 performance and 1960s M&R disaster that it is /by nature/?


KPl.

Time for your pills, pops.

So why are you killing this thread if you don't like combat heli's ? We don't bombard your 'why am i in a strait-jacket' threads with garbage. This thread is about the Rooivalk.

YOU'RE NOT LISTENING.

Do you blame me?! If I want to listen to garbage, I watch CNN News.

You lost because what you had didn't do enough /more/ than the 'corrupt existing system' to be selected.

Uh, no. Now you're not listening ... we lost because US had to resort to their normal strongarm tactics and threatened to not supply UK with Hellfires in order to sell the Apaches - which unfortunately came too late, else we could have thrown the better Mokopa together sooner. The irony is you are complaining about the cost of these heli's etc, but it's going to take cheaper/better/alternative helis like Rooivalk to force costs down - competition is good.

South Africa is a relatively tiny nation with a bad history and no track record for having done more than modify other nations weapons to their own use.

1) At least we're all South Africans and achieved what we did ourselves, not import IQ from all over the world (incl SA), then claim its ours.
2) Based on our 'tiny' size, we've achieved a lot - lot's of inventions and innovations, and even today lead the world (yes, even the US of A....), in many areas.
3) For a tiny nation, we kick arse ... in comparison to a huge nation with a bad history that gets their arses kicked!
4) When you say modify, I assume you mean 'based on' ? in which case I would concede you're right, but then the first rifle was english design, the first cannon and rockets chinese (india used rockets first for war), Germany missiles, and Heli's are Russian (or Da Vinci). Since then, all others were modifications - so I assume then the great US of Aliens is guilty of the same modification track record !
A wheel needs to be round, so no use in redesigning it. Just modify the basic design and improve it - better bearings etc (Improve is the key).

In all your clever comments, did you consider the tiny budget that tiny nation spent to R&D this product compared to what US has spent on theirs? (not including all their flops!). How do you justify that? We R&D'd a better product for a tiny fraction of the cost. You should look and learn. If you had our capabilities inhouse, you might well be a happier man, as the cost of your products would be a fraction (considering your large production lines).

Militarily, you may be successful but only in wars which are largely unknown throughout the rest of the West

1) Well, we are not a nation that needs to loudmouth our battles and successes, so it really doesn't bother us.
2) In contrast, Militarily, you are not successful! ... and continue to get your butts kicked all over the world, and leave total mayhem behind.
Go in, strong-arm other countries to go in with you so you don't get kicked out, waste a fortune in $$$, mess it all up, destroy the country, then run away. And for what ?, mostly because of greed and the need for precious oil to sustain those big V8 chevy's and break down the ozone layer. Well, you know what, so do we and many others need oil : so how did we do it : easy - use our heads : turn coal into oil (another SA invention).

(welcome to the aftermath of isolationism)

As we all know, the embargo was the best thing US of A.... did for SA. Was short term damage for long-term gains. Shot yourselves in the foot though, as now you have more compitition.

...TBC...

...have you had a Cat-scan recently?!!! (another SA invention)

OK I'm going to call that. The first commercially viable CT system was invented by Godfrey Newbold Hounsfield in Hayes, England at THORN EMI Central Research Laboratories using X-rays, well according to Wikipedia.

OK I'm going to call that. The first commercially viable CT system was invented by Godfrey Newbold Hounsfield in Hayes, England at THORN EMI Central Research Laboratories using X-rays, well according to Wikipedia.

Hi Nacnud.
Ok we can share credit for that one, as it was done in UK, Allan Cormack (SA) worked with his colleage Godfrey Hounsfield (UK), and they shared the Nobel prize for it in 1979.
Wikipedia is brilliant, but it's biased towards the contributors

"The computed axial tomography scan, or CAT scan, was developed at Tufts University in the UK by South African physicist Allan Cormack and Godfrey Hounsfield of EMI Laboratories. Their achievement secured them the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Cormack's interest in the problem of X-ray imaging of soft tissues or layers of tissue of differing densities was first aroused when he took up the part-time position of physicist for a hospital radiology department.

The two-dimensional representations of conventional X-ray plates were often unable to distinguish between such tissues. More information could be gained if X-rays of the body were taken from several different directions, but conventional X-ray techniques made this procedure problematic.

In the early 1960s Cormack showed how details of a flat section of soft tissues could be calculated from measurements of the attenuation of X-rays passing through it from many different angles.

He thus provided the mathematical technique for the CAT scan, in which an X-ray source and electronic detectors are rotated about the body and the resulting data is analysed by a computer to produce a sharp map of the tissues within a cross-section of the body."

I'm having problems relating CT scanners and attack helicopters... ...interesting, but,

Let's get back on topic, folks.

It's good to see that someone here is capable of writing a 2 page post and actually make sence (I mean halfbless not ch1466)
Man, I absolutely can't believe the level that SA has achieved with relatively little funds compared to the behemoths (US, Russia, China), what you are doing is amazing (not sure about that Cheetah...thing). The Rooivalk (change the name, really if you want to export it) is a hard core machine, it's meant to fight wars, not star in movies

P.S. Did you know that SA makes the best 'American' muscle cars, the Superformance Cobra & Coupe. You can have more fun in them than in a Rooivalk or Apache

Halfbless,

>>
Time for your pills, pops.
>>

So what, you're a failed nationalist war monger and would be arms broker with a side degree in psychiatric medicine?

>>
So why are you killing this thread if you don't like combat heli's ? We don't bombard your 'why am i in a strait-jacket' threads with garbage. This thread is about the Rooivalk.
>>

The Rooivalk is neither better nor worse than what is out there _conceptually_. It deserves to be bombarded as a monstrous waste of money for that alone. As an outdated system paradigm that is designed to keep a few people employed at the expense of the many taxpayers who are robbed for little comparitive benefit.

>>
Uh, no. Now you're not listening ... we lost because US had to resort to their normal strongarm tactics and threatened to not supply UK with Hellfires in order to sell the Apaches - which unfortunately came too late, else we could have thrown the better Mokopa together sooner. The irony is you are complaining about the cost of these heli's etc, but it's going to take cheaper/better/alternative helis like Rooivalk to force costs down - competition is good.
>>

No. You are taking the weakling approach to assuming that because you did the same job within 10% of performance point, that -nothing else mattered-. If you want to talk politics then you have to do the same job /and other jobs/ with 50% or more _improvement_. Something noteworthy enough to provide a basis of 'But we could by half the number of Rooivalks and do the same job, better!' to a political debate wherein wastage is offset by capability. A conventional penny-farthing layout helo is never going to show that much variance in absolute performance and the Rooivalk is unproven from a maintainability or war-fighting reputation POV.

Indeed, it is barely in service with the home nation. You have no M&R statistical model because you are still awaiting a true launch customer.

As for Hellfire, last I recall, the Brits owned the front end of Brimstone (superior to Longbow because it uses a higher frequency band with better imaging and an onboard signature database) and were in fact _co marketing it_ with either Boeing or Raytheon. Now maybe we forced them to use the AGM-114K aft end. But it doesn't change the fact that if Mokopa had to be modified to beat what was in fact a Brit creation with an existing U.S. motor, it was not 'all that' to begin with.

In terms of cheaper helis, I don't compare them to each other, but to the value of the trashfire it takes to shoot them down like clay pigeons. You Sir, are a fool if you do otherwise. In this, ONLY the 1.2 million dollar AH-1G (itself 'half the price of the Cheyenne' then roughly the price of a new build F-4 Phantom) is justifiable as a daylight OOTW/COIN platform, for cost.

_In Any Other Mission Set_ you are better off going with drones which can call in separate fires or mount Viper Strike vertical fall, mini-warhead, weapons from a position of optical signature and ceiling point that is 'higher' than trashfire can readily reach.

>>
1) At least we're all South Africans and achieved what we did ourselves, not import IQ from all over the world (incl SA), then claim its ours.
>>

Yeah, ask a black man about 'imports'. Then take a look at the TopOwl HMDS and the TDATS FLIR sensor and ask yourself: "Since when is South Africa a colony of _France_?"

>>
2) Based on our 'tiny' size, we've achieved a lot - lot's of inventions and innovations, and even today lead the world (yes, even the US of A....), in many areas.
>>

Not in England. Not here on this U.S. board. The only places which 'count' because HERE you are selling a cheap ass copy of the AH-64 Apache which is itself a failed operational paradigm apt to being shot out of the sky by farmers with bolt action rifles.

>>
3) For a tiny nation, we kick arse ... in comparison to a huge nation with a bad history that gets their arses kicked!
>>

Why emulate, technically, what you despise as an 'arse kicking' comparitor? Remember YOU were the one who intro'd the AH-2 onto this forum in desperate need to justify your own opinion of the Rooivalks 'superior features'. Not me.

>>
4) When you say modify, I assume you mean 'based on' ? in which case I would concede you're right, but then the first rifle was english design, the first cannon and rockets chinese (india used rockets first for war), Germany missiles, and Heli's are Russian (or Da Vinci). Since then, all others were modifications - so I assume then the great US of Aliens is guilty of the same modification track record !
A wheel needs to be round, so no use in redesigning it. Just modify the basic design and improve it - better bearings etc (Improve is the key).
>>

No. Not improve. /Recombine/. So that the sum of the systems are worth more than their individual components as a unique synergistic creation. Both as a function of survivable MA features unknown in other platforms. And as regards produceability for your own forces vs. export. Operationally, the Rooivalk is a cheap copy of a failed system. I would say that, by definition, it is thus economically a failure because it doesn't isolate _to you_ the specific features which makes it /different/ from what everybody else is doing. Thus making YOU unique in what you have to offer and how much it will cost _others_ to copy your effort.

Typical Russian mindset. "We'll copy their mission plan then say that similar goals make for similar engineering solutions." And it's all bleep because we've already been there and moved on and you're simply in tailchase trying to do it cheaper-later-lesser.

>>
In all your clever comments, did you consider the tiny budget that tiny nation spent to R&D this product compared to what US has spent on theirs? (not including all their flops!). How do you justify that? We R&D'd a better product for a tiny fraction of the cost. You should look and learn. If you had our capabilities inhouse, you might well be a happier man, as the cost of your products would be a fraction (considering your large production lines).
>>

Fine, if you want cheap, invent drones as Israel has. Platforms which, by scale, allow you to branch out into multiple specialist subroles that can overlap nearly all the traditional helo's basic missions while each, individually, costing /vastly less/. While also avoiding the BHD nightmare 'rescue and secure' scenario losses in technology and personnel.

OTOH, if you are going to waste MASSIVE amounts of funding on a manned platform, spend it on something that is going to have a high profit:investment turnover at the end of the day. Rooivalk is doing nothing but riding the skirts of somebody original, long after the Apache concepts functional utility has already been proven false in an era _still_ 'tactically dominated' by MANPADS, AAA trashfire, and now AHMs.

Something you would have KNOWN if you had researched the history of attack helos going back to the end of the Vietnam campaign where ALL these threat systems were already in place and we lost some 5,056 'official' choppers fighting a _losing_ insurgency campaign. It's one thing to criticize the 'arse kicking' ability of a nation. It's another to copy their methodology and then come here pretending you have 'something new to sell'.

>>
1) Well, we are not a nation that needs to loudmouth our battles and successes, so it really doesn't bother us.
>>

It should, if you want to sell your version of 'How it's done son'. PARTICULARLY NOW when it's all about 'externals' and COIN-ops, such as made your forces famous throughout the 60's, 70's and 80's. Because customers shouldn't be forced to rely on osmosis to realize you know of what you speak. You see I _do know_ some of what South Africa went through. And I know that 90% of it no longer applies today as the systemic approach to helo insertions, artillery shelling and lolo cross border 'prep' raiding with dumb weapons off tacjets doesn't mean diddly dip in an age of drones and standoff munitions as key elements in a TCT/TST microtargeting force **NETWORK**.

Attack Helos support high risk ground combat team 'adventures' by supplying mobile security/blocking force cav missions that can imbed with the maneuver units. Without those elements in your active force prosecution doctrinal model (either because you don't want the price commitment, cannot leverage the threat technically or simply aren't of an 'offensive mood' with your neighbors), an AH is just shy of worthless because it cannot target guerilla forces at less than Mk.1 Ball levels of threat threshold vs. ATGW pricing index. And once you go LOS with a trashfire threat, it is only a matter of time until they 'kick your arse' at low levels.

Something which we poor-dumb-Americans are busy learning alllllll over again. While you yammer on in ignorance.

>>
2) In contrast, Militarily, you are not successful! ... and continue to get your butts kicked all over the world, and leave total mayhem behind.
>>

No. We are not successful in the _occupation_ of a hostile enemy civillian populace. If we made it clear that the ownership of any weapon or weapon making material was illegal and put forces on the ground to enforce that rule on an NQA Field Court basis of punishment, Iraq would stabilize within six months. If we required all residents to register themselves so that they and their relatives and their workplace associates could be equally held responsible for their black-sheep son's and nephews actions relative to an eviction and burndown retaliatory policy. That time might be cut in half again. If we _required_ everyong who wanted to eat from U.S. controlled food distribution network to present a daily 'time sheet' showing any kind of labor to remove the /opportunity/ of 'idle hands as the devil's workshop', that might be cut in half again. If, for every occurence of a car bomb, we removed the privilege of vehicular transport for a month, if for every man who refused his neighbors inspection of his premises 'at whim' for suspect guns we levied the Iraqi equivalent of a 1,000 dollar fine, if we flat out _removed_ cellphone service from the entire country. If we made it clear that Muslims who didn't respect their own mosques have no privelege from our intrustion. We might further tighten the insurgents leash to no more than a week.

The problem is that we fail to take seriously our _Hague Convention Responsibilities_ to pacify and secure the civillian population of an enemy country. Preferring instead to treat them as 'equals to American Citizens' in terms of rights of privacy, religion and gun ownership.

This is a weakness but it has little or nothing to do with our military.

Because our military knows beyond any doubt that we should strip Korean and European and CONUS force garrisons for the 300,000 troops we need and we should further more _not come home (rotation or otherwise) until it's over, over there_.

Unfortunately, our military is ruled by moron civillians who think war is something in which to exercise mercy 'at all costs'. Rather than as an utter act of barbarism whose severity of 'war face' presented discipline from the outset creates the opportunity for mercy through shorter suppression of the insurrection which is typical of ALL post-conflict power vacuums and indeed has /ALWAYS/ been responsible for 70-90% of casualties.

>>
Go in, strong-arm other countries to go in with you so you don't get kicked out, waste a fortune in $$$, mess it all up, destroy the country, then run away. And for what ?, mostly because of greed and the need for precious oil to sustain those big V8 chevy's and break down the ozone layer. Well, you know what, so do we and many others need oil : so how did we do it : easy - use our heads : turn coal into oil (another SA invention).
>>

Yes. Because frankly we are a debtor Empire whose existence depends on the free flow of petroleum and the payment for same by a fiat currency so that we can maintain the balance of interest payments on a nation stripped of competitive civillian production infrastructure. OTOH, bad as it was from the view of Tributary States, the Pax Romana was the first moment in history when the glimmer of a _contiguous, continuous, non warring social order_ showed what could happen in terms of granted opportunity to raise ourselves ALL up a peg on the civilization scale. Indeed, it was one of three times when we were within a few decades of printed word, steam propulsion and industry and mass economics rather than subsistence agro. And the chance was blown when Rome let her economic stability slip (whether by conquest or internal production) so that client states in Egypt, Spain and along the Frontiers in Gaul and Germany no longer felt a fealtied need to contribute to her defense.

Nowadays, if Iran and Korea decide to get obstreperous, what is going to save you? The Pax Americana gives the world a chance to go to renewable energies, single-point field effect propulsion systems, zeroed disease and even a 'capitalist-consumerist free' state of existence. Can South Africa do that?

No.

Certainly not thru export sales of the Rooivalk. Indeed, your position at the ass-end of the Southern Hemisphere where your own population is your greatest risk to breathing through til morning, hardly makes you eligible to judge World Events from any but the farthest tiers of the Peanut Gallery.

>>
As we all know, the embargo was the best thing US of A.... did for SA. Was short term damage for long-term gains. Shot yourselves in the foot though, as now you have more competition.
>>

How many Rooivalks have you sold? What is the size of your Air Force? Your ground forces? How fragmented are the OFS separatists and who runs the nation if not a white minority ruling over a very volatile 'free black' majority?

Baaaah. Mister, you are just trying to run in a big dog race with a 10 year old system concept that was worthless when it was new because _the Apache_ was worthless when it was new.

>>
Really? Percieved by who? And if its US of A....., who cares? Perception is often wrong - if you used your brains, you might realize it might be the other way around: Israel and SA have worked together a lot, and we've helped them a lot. In fact we've helped the US too.
>>
Which is why Cheetahs, of which you have more built than starting airframes 'and the Israelis refuse to account for all their Kfir'. Said jets are routinely seen carrying Python 3 clones under their wings instead of the indigenous U-Darter and your first ARH weapon was announced as the Rafael Derby rather than the Darter-R. Indeed it is why the radars under the noses of those Cheetahs is almost certainly an Elta-2035 clone.
You can try and tart yourselves up all you wish. But the reality remains that Israel is what it is because we GIVE THEM 2.25 billion dollars in purely military FMF support funding, every year. You can't match that, not with all the gold and diamonds you have. And so you are gradually slipping back to a half-ass colonial power with an air component which is barely a wing strong and combat helos which could not sustain a single months attrition in Iraq.

>>
As for 'perception' : I guess it might be like the US is percieved as trying to play catch up with the Russians. I'm at Farnborugh, and watched a MIG perform : simply amazing - something like this-
external image
so you got a lot of catching up to do! ...but then I guess according to you that agility is also not important.
>>

Relying on agility means putting a missile against an airframe. Not an airframe against an airframe. And any such comparison at 'dogfight' ranges where agility is important, finds the jet a loser, every damn time.
Furthermore, at the speeds and distances for which 'man can' possibly effect outcomes by means of tactical skillset, there is still too much of a random variability to _gaining_ shot parameters to be decisive with anything but numbered attrition. Stalin once said that victory comes, not to those who count how many they can kill before losing. But to those who can win in spite of any losses. Thankfully, we are not barbarians like the Russians. And apparently you.
FWIW. This demonstration is less impressive than the early Su-30 vs. Su-35 demonstration when the latter at least showed 'hooking' as a purely horizontal, relatively high-energy, manuever. It it equally unimpressive when compared to the X-31 demos against the F/A-18 HARV and vanilla Hornets which 'will never be seen at Farnborough'. Because they show the limitations of axis-linear performance as a function of manned system limits rather than airframe ones.
If you want an agile aiframe, design a UCAV with 15G @ 400knots capabilities and let it bend the world round it's fuselage in EITHER axis.
In any case, don't come to me with some sorry tales about how _the Rooivalk_, an unrelated attack helicopter system, somehow 'compares' with a RUSSIAN jet which you /also/ cannot build.
Cause now you sound like a fanboy for Sukhoi as well as Denel.
>>
Well, sorry I never meant to compare to the great US!!! Don't push the red button, please sir!
Get real !
>>
Of course you did. The Rooivalk is a cheap paradigmatic copy of the AH-64. You try to play one upmanship games by direct comparison with it rather than unique demonstration of a completely different approach to the mission scenario _or a changed one_ from that which faultily generated the Apache to begin with. And you get laughed out of court because you somehow think that 'playing unfair' has much to do with anything when you are essentially offering up the same goods with less rep and a less established supply chain.
>>
Are you seriously comparing $1million in 1963 to $9m in 2006 ? !!! Do you have any idea what the buying power of $1m in 1963 was ?!!!
>>
And still we beat you with today's 'poor old USD'. Please.
If you cannot appreciate the absolute waste inherent to putting 9 million dollars into an airframe that can be shot down by 1,000 dollars worth of bullets vs. a 1.2 million dollar airframe being shot down by 200 dollars worth of bullets 'back when' then make the comparison vs. the drones that are increasingly replacing RW attack aviation /anyway/.
ERMP will run roughly the same as the 4 million dollar MQ-1. And it will do the same scouting and security missions _better_ than the Apache OR the Rooivalk because it isn't shot down by trashfire, it has nearly 8 times the endurance and it _doesn't need_ mission specific fires which are better (cheaper, more accurate, in greater densities) 'resolved' from surface shooters to begin with.
Something that South Africas experience with Artillery should have long since taught you.
OTOH, the MQ-9 when combined with the VSM and the GBU-39, will also outpace the Apache in terms of avionics and endurance and tactical (LOS lookdown) advantagement _and_ it will have more, superior, /vertical fall/ weapons systems than the Apache OR the Rooivalk can deliver. For a system cost about equal to the AH-64A.
Where's your copy of either the Predator or Predator B? Oh, /that's right/ you are still looking up the lead dogs 'arse' aren'tcha?
>>
You keep hammering on about the Rooivalk not being unique and being base on previous designs. Uh ... well, news for you, it's a heli you know, there's not a hell of a lot you can change in a heli (else it won't be a heli!): it has a rotor and is VTOL, it looks like a heli and operates like a heli ( ok, in rooivalks case - a lot better than another heli.
>>
Back before the Army bowed to either their own internal idiots-with-wings parochial conservatism. Or the Air Farces paranoia about 'fighter helicopters'. Or the Pentagon Red Books 'redefinition' of the Ka-50 as not being one.
The McDonnell Douglas LHX was a coaxial ABC with with a ducted tail propulsor rather than 'just' NOTAR. It was also single seat.
Back before the Army started thinking with their 'guns' instead of common sense, the LHX UTIL/SCAT buy was split with a _slight_ edge to the utility model. As indeed both the ACAP airframes were based on light transport, not gunship configured civillian helos.
i.e. LHX before the retarded Comanche was an awesome machine. All of which was known in U.S. aviation publications. All of which should have driven you to produce a system that _looked nothing like our dated designs_. Instead, you did the 'greatest flattery is mimicry' game. And now you're left holding an empty sack as you wonder why, 20 years on, nobody is interested in a cheap copy of a failed design.
BLUNTLY: The only reason the current crop of helos looks like they do is because morons with the creative intuit of rocks all want to copy the Americans 'because surely if they designed it'. Nothing else can be better.

And you will always be second best flunkies because, deep down, underneath it all, YOU BELIEVE THAT STUPID NOTION.
Or you wouldn't be making an apples to apples comparison with twinned system concepts.
Christ, with the AH-56 and S-67 as examples one would /think/ you could do better than claim a lack of innovation because nobody else has done better.
>>
Yeah, right!!! There's a big difference between CAN DO and DOES DO !!!
>>
No. We 'did do it' back in the early 1980s during helo vs. helo ACMT. Putting up H500 and H-76 against AH-1F, T and W along with the AH-64. Typically, in horizontal plane maneuvering combat, the civil helos won because they were all better balanced with lower mass:inertia ratios, superior rotor systems and much lighter MEPs/weapons wings and fuel. In missile warfare, the Stinger was less than worthless because the engagement ranges passed from guided to rocket to gun distances before lockon could be assured thanks to piss poor seeker reticle and borecue handing from the TADS or TSU. Hellfire and TOW in fact did better but only to the extent that the threat did not have /overwhelming/ numbers. And/or did not start with a significant height advantage (as when rolling up an antiarmor preambush hide). And did not see the shot coming. And did not exercise 'all due caution' in rolling up potential defilade terrain positions with artillery.
In vertical combat, the side which had the best speed could outclimb the side which didn't until both were down to zero and then the higher installed horsepower ratio won. But in a war between helos, you WANT to get ahead of your enemy because of the disk-down issues. And where maneuvering combat quickly came down to a zero-airspeed fight for disk-dominance (in which a UH-60 'with door guns and the roll rate to use them' often proved superior) the resultant altitude increase /invariably/ upped the vulnerability to S2A fires faster than the kill ratio between choppers.

They then tried the same scenarios with A-10s and even light trainers like the PC-7 and OA-37 and not even the nominally 'high agility' civil helos could play in the same leagues as the dumbest, lowest performing, of Mk.1 Ball driven fixed wing assets. Indeed, the only thing that could save a helo at that point was quickly breaking line of sight and praying that those self-same frontal air defenses capped the fast movers or forced them away.
Today the reality is even simpler. For the best way to kill a helo is with a turbine powered SAM that can use JLEN and Mountain Top techniques to shoot over-horizon while _hunting_ with optical/acoustic sensors. At which point, again, the agility of the helo vs. the helo is _completely pointless_ because NEITHER can beat a flock of MALI type weapons which can _reattack_ if they miss.
So please, don't bore me with your claims of 'high agility as a be all do all justification' for a dated platform concept with limited capabilities over the AH-64. Because frankly little-boy attack helo pilots playing aerobatic games doesn't impress me as anything but the juvenile stunting of moronic imbeciles who have more money in their hands than they have the maturity to national-investment protect.
BLUNTLY: The only way to save a machine as inagile and non-EM capable as a helo is _not to get shot at_. And if shot at, to use _maximum efficiency_ CMs (smoke mortars and laser DIRCM) to suppress fire from a level horizon standpoint. In any case you stay the hell out of the cities and put your battlespace awareness into cheap offboard throwaway systems which largely invalidate the 'maximum performance point' arguments altogether.
Stay fast and stable in all weather and terrain clearance plane states. Across a wide enough radius and range-servicing economical cruise condition to remain a viable fires delivery system in comparison with limited TOS fixed wing assets. And finally, _stay cheap_ so that you can sell what you build as a civil mod platform where all the real money is in rotary wing systems /anyway/.
And maybe you will have something worth selling.
>>
Get real, thats like me saying with a different oil filter the Rooivalk will double its max speed - all talk, no walk. Typical US : can never admit any defeat ... and when defeated, will always play it down ... "it's not important to be agile - most important is straight line speed" : ie. big bore V8 stuff, no brakes, no handling, no cornering. (why: because thats all we got!)
>>
Not at all. Because the propulsion trades bring with them greater not lesser agility.
Just as the AH-56, in it's final production configuration, was vastly more stable at _all speeds_ in the lolo environment because it didn't need to pitch the fuselage to adjust the lift vs. propulsion vector and thus take itself off the cushion. And it's rigid rotor system didn't contribute to turbulence shaking induced Half-P hop like _all other_ helos then extant did.
Just like a BAT could theoretically fight from 10-12K, at the edges of the MANPADS envelope at 350knots with a true 5-6G vs. 3G envelope that didn't 'stiffen up' near VNE.
Just like the MP-18 Dragon could fly at upwards of 400 knots and 8-9G, creating about 675 vs. (160 knots) 270 fps worth of Ps adjustable vector to outrun as much as evade a threat.
The difference is that targeting for fixed wing assets is now the equal of helos, even unmanned. While the range of small guided munitions has in fact bettered that available to rotary wing assets by tens of miles. And the combination of MAWS and automatic EWMS makes it easier to integrate sophisticated suppression defenses than to rely on yank'n'bank maneuver to avoid threats already in the air.
I frankly _don' care_ how many guerillas and AKs or RPKs there are at 1,500ft and 300knots. I frankly _don't care_ how many MANPADS there are at 10,000ft and 400knots. Because I am out of envelope for most of them. And the remainder are either vulnerable to seduction by advanced CM. Or beatable with standoff munitions and drone-not-nose based sensor packages.
It is your inability to foresee this and cancel the Rooivalk for your own forces that makes you a bunch of second rate engineers when you try to compare your system to the AH-64. Because 'handling' is like quick-drawing a sixshooter when faced by 10 men with handgrenades and submachine guns. A losers proposition for the costly, low-combat utility, helicopter.
>>
Have you had a Cat-scan recently?!!! (another SA invention) . Perhaps take 2 pills instead of 1 : then get back to your PC game on world dominance.
'how its done son' ? ... tell that to the missing Apaches.
Like anything you said comprehends?!
>>
Since I was the one who brought up Najaf and had the numbers, your argument hardly meets spec sir.
>>
I'm not posting on this forum to claim I'm the worlds best encyclopedia of useless info, I'm posting my viewpoints and what I do know - obviously oh so much less than you, oh great puff.
>>
This is true, you are ignorant of the subject you choose to espouse and you are a puff of smoke egotrip blown apart by the hot air of your own hubris.
>>
I do however have real military experience (obviously nothing like yours I'm sure), and was an officer in a real war (one of those unknown successful ones you mentioned) - infantry though not Apache pilot like you - which is why I said : I'd take a Rooivalk anyday rather than an Apache - for the simple reason they work and work well, and when I need that support overhead I don't want it to be lying at my feet with burned electrics, or its own tail rotor shot off, or just because of dirt! I know and trust SA's weapons : they are well designed, well built to do the job in the toughest (real war - not film studio) conditions.
>>
So you are not a pilot and you do not have 'real world' comparitive data for the specific field in which you claim an expert victim's opinion? Baaaah. How many Rooivalk does the SA have in their inventory? How many F-16s or A-10s with ROVER capability do we have? Do you even /own/ an airborne realtime netcentric coordination capability?
Any man saved from a burning building by a fireman will claim allegiance to that fireman beyond all others. Because he hasn't been saved by superior _engineer_ whose system got him out before the building caught fire. Or stopped the fire from every happening.
NTISR is the most critical aspect of current combat operations. And 12 Rooivalk could hardly put a dent in the sortie densities we devote to that mission today. Even as they most certainly could not shift surveillance orbits rapidly enough to cover more than one area per mission.
And lacking real experience of a now-blooded integrated CAS system which operates at ALL levels, incorporating ALL assets, not merely rotary wing ones, you are hardly in a position to do more than shout your own bias-of-weakness inherent to ignorance.
I don't have any respect for my miltiary because they exist solely to reinforce their own role-image rather than to win wars in the most efficient manner. That doesn't mean that, when push comes to shove, our existing force model is not superior to all others. Because we throw enough cash at it that the dumbest solutions will work, en-masse.
YOUR PROBLEM is that you want to compare your much weaker system to ours while _using the same paradigmatic approach_ to executing the total warfighter mission set. This is not 'better' it is _the same_. And you don't have the reputation to sell it as more than a cheap copy of what is already noted to be one of our weakest system elements in a standing campaign.
>>
Rooivalk kicks arse.
>>

Name the conflict in which Rooivalk has been commited to a large scale military action, in numbers, with sufficient combat hours to prove that it is more than a vaporware piece of salesmanship looking for an initial export customer. You can't. Which means that it could well be nothing more than a Kestrel hovering over a field of duckhunter shotguns. As I know it is.
Your argument stinks of anachronism looking for an excuse to keep breathing by the very act of finding itself 'superior' to another dated-past-obsolescent concept.
G'way. Ya Boer Me..

KPl.