The SAAF Forum

Just thought I can share this pictures I copied of the XTP-1 Puma that I took the weekend at the Air force museum Swartkops.Its looked really mean,yes hollywood copied I believe SA's design in the movie Rambo 3.To look like A Hind.at the bottom is the link to a site where there are some pictures of it.






http://www.rotaryaction.com/pages/rambo3.html

_________________
Yesterday is history.
Tomorrow is a mystery.
But today is a gift.
That's why it's called the present.
____________________________
Adrian Munro
http://www.weddingduo.co.za
https://www.facebook.com/Airfirephotography/

I wonder why those "4-pack" Ingwe (ZT3) launchers never made it onto Rooivalk?
They are basically the same ones that ATE integrated on the Algerian Mi-24.

Hi. New to the forum.

I was hoping that some of the experts on the forum could help answer my question. Since the Rooivalk shares the mechanical systems with the Oryx... (Engines, Rotors, etc...)

What makes the Rooivalk 5 Billion dollars better than the XTP-1?

Same goes for the BattleHawk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGuds5-fSTc). Why would the Apache be better?

Thanks

I'm definitely not one of the experts, but difference between rooivalk and xtp imo is for starters manouverability, agility, speed, et al.

And rooivalk just looks meaner and way prettier, and its not as heavy and does not make such a big target, especially front on.

Btw, welcome to the forum.

Thanks iamsam.

As far as I understand the empty weight of the Rooivalk is more than the Oryx. Same drive train, so should be more maneuverable? Higher power to weight ratio?

Slimmer profile. Yes. Is this worth 5 Billion dollars?

Looks meaner and prettier, hell yes.

Nah, agreed. That's worth only about 4.5 bill dollars. Lol

Hi Petracephas, welcome.

I'm not going onto the whole rationale for the Rooivalk project, but you cannot compare the XTP-1 to the Rooivalk.

The Roivalk is a production and (eventually) operational system, an integrated weapons platform with qualified and certified avionics and weapons systems.

The XTP-1 was an experimental platform to test certain systems that were going to be used on the Rooivalk. As such, the Rooivalk-type systems were not qualified or productionised for use on the Oryx, much like the F-35 radar was test flown aboard a BAC 1–11 (airliner) airborne laboratory. If I recall correctly, the weapons pylon and support structure of the XTP-1 went through the main cabin doors, meaning that the doors (and pax cabin) could not be moved with the pylons attached.

Thanks Dean.

My question is more, what is the rational behind a dedicated attack helicopter when a seemingly well armed transport helo can do the same job. (BattleHawk mentioned in my first post.)

PS. I know it can't else we would not have dedicated attack helo's, but I would like to understand the why part of my question. Thanks for the replies so far.

Looking back to when the Rooivalk started (I did some exploratory work on the avionics in 1985 and 1986), the Rooivalk was (maybe) the perfect solution to those invading Russian / Cuban / Angolan tanks.

As a practical solution in the South African theater, I've always wondered whether something more like the XTP1 in layout (but based on Oryx rather than Puma) would not have been a whole lot more cost effective. Productionising XTP-1 would have been a tiny fraction of the cost of developing Rooivalk from scratch.

Of course, those wimpy loose-wing combat pilots (apologies, Martin Hutchings, if you read this. I don't mean you) would probably prefer to try to stop a bunch of tanks with associated air defence using Rooivalk instead of Oryx gunships. And I don't blame them.

But hypothetically, suppose you could produce 50 Oryx gunships (productionised XTP-1, with similar avionics and armament to Rooivalk) for the same total price as 12 Rooivalk. I think a fleet of 50 Oryx gunships would kill more tanks than a fleet of 12 Rooivalk (but with significantly higher aircraft and pilot "attrition"). OK, so what if you could only do 20 Oryx gunships for the same price as 12 Rooivalk - maybe then Rooivalk would do a better job.

I don't know the answer. But given that the SAAF always put high priority on keeping the pilot safe, I'm not surprised the Rooivalk project survived.

Great reply. Thanks.

This is along the same line of thinking that I had. Why not develop a weapons kit for the Oryx. (Based on the XTP-1). The Oryx could be converted in the field to a gunship or transport as needed? An Oryx carrying 16 AT missiles can surely kill as many tanks as a Rooivalk carrying 16 AT missiles? At 5 to 8Km from the tank, how much more survivable is the Rooivalk than the Oryx?

Having these weapon kits would allow you to have more Oryx helicopters for use in peace time?

Rooivalk being more survivable. I what way is this and would it not be possible to implement these in the Oryx program at the time? Armour kits, etc?

Rooivalk being more agile. What is this used for in combat? Dodging missiles and bullets? Flying NAP of the earth? How important is this agility in combat and why? (PS. I know it has to be, but again I don't understand why?)

Thanks for your patients and time to respond to my questions.

I watched a TV program a few years ago on the Rooivalk, and maybe the reason for it being heavier, will be revealed a little further down.
Firstly, great attention was paid to keep the pilot safe - like they said in the program - Rooivalk was made to withstand damage from being hit. The line they used was something along the line of:" If the helicopter was hit, the systems & engine should still work, should those fail, the pilot must survive. And here is what I think RE: the Rooivalk's weight - obviously there must be some form of armour plating used.
Something else, where Rooivalk was apparently groundbreaking tech - the heli doesn't have the normal vibration just before it lifts off, that other choppers have. I have no idea how much longterm damage it prevents / what the cause was to have this technology, but they made quite a fuss about it in the program. I suppose some of the weapons systems could get thrown out RE accuracy, but that's my own guess.
Hope this helps...

Yes. If I base my assumptions on a documentary on the Apache, I think we can safely assume the following.

1. Pilots sit in armoured tub. (Titanium or some composite armour)
2. Cockpit glass is highly armoured. (As much as weight and transparency allows)
3. Pilot seats are crash worthy. (Absorbs some of the vertical impact force)
4. Landing gear absorbs some of the vertical impact force. (Probably while collapsing)
5. Vital systems (computer, hydraulic, fuel, etc.) are (triple)redundant on both sides of aircraft. (Added weight)
6. Engine and possibly cockpit fire suppression systems.
7. Possibly armour around vital aircraft systems?
8. Heat suppression systems. (Masking of IR signature)
9. etc.

Non of these can't be fitted to the Oryx production model or even as a add-on kit in my opinion. I'm obviously missing something big.

I suspect the greenhouse type cockpit arrangement would make for a significantly higher weight when it comes to armouring that glass. If we're already heavier for the same powerplant, you'll have a tough time including all this extra weight.

I should also point out that not all engagements are going to be anti-tank roles at maximum range (ie, where the bullets aren't flying); gunships need to be versatile, and while this project does provide a fair amount of all-around (generalist) versatility, it doesn't provide all that much in the way of combat capabilities. One wouldn't for example, want to be providing close air support with a 20mm cannon in a tub this big and not manoeuvrable. Your radar signature is larger, you're a pretty big target for small and large arms.

Your versatility comes from stripping out the weapons and going for the transport role, but how would your armour and redundant systems weight factor into that? Needless to say it can't be field stripped of that, so your utility value drops. You end up with a helicopter that isn't really that good at anything. Yes it's cheaper, and yes it'll perform all the anti-tank roles just as well if not better due to larger numbers being available, but it won't do any of the other stuff. And you could probably get a UAV (could probably improvise one and it'd cost less than the armament it'd carry) to do that for a fraction of the price again.


Again, unprofessional viewpoint here, I don't know anything about helicopters, and I don't like them =P

I agree. There is an old military adage: "The more something does the less it does well."

And another: "better is the enemy of good enough"

I'm no expert but my 2c is that one must consider that an XTP type platform would most certainly, in the roles that it was envisaged for, have encountered ground fire from small arms / RPG-7 + AAA. As has been alluded to in earlier posts, armour would need to be considered for this role. Armour adds more weight which changes the flight / handling characteristics of an aircraft, add more weapons and the same problem occurs. Add the targeting and fire control systems to drive those weapons effectively and the problem is exacerbated. Add RWR receivers, jammers etc and and and...

Not only that but converting 50 or so Puma airframes (the Oryx did not enter service until very near to the end of the war) to XTP type platforms would essentially have deleted the SAAF's helicopter transport capability (apart from some Frelons) and thereby eliminated it from being able to support the army effectively in theater. Even if the great columns of Warsaw Pact tanks which the Rooivalk was developed to counter, did arrive to bring P.W. et al's "Total Onslaught" to reality, by then it would have been tickets for the SADF anyway as there would have been absolutely no way that they would have won a war of attrition.

I think that ARMSCOR / DENEL had no choice at wars end, but to develop the concept in its entirety to try and gain some ROI as they'd have poured billions (and continued to) into a project which would otherwise never have been fully developed. Sadly for them the funds dried up, government changed hands and most importantly, technology overtook it.

_________________
A plan is simply a basis for change.