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 As an outdated system paradigm that is designed to keep a few people employed at the expense of the many taxpayers who are robbed for little
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
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.