The SAAF Forum

That's not fair!
The navy did not have anything in the pipeline for replacement, so they had to try and suck out more out of a design to stay alive.
the Fw190A-8 was at a disadvantage with it's BMW radial engine at altitude, when Focke Wulf installed a liquid cooled engine designed for a bomber as they were not allowed the preferred Daimler Benz engine, they were take by surprise by the improved performance. Some allied pilots said the Fw190D was more than a match.

So flog it and see what happens.

I do not see why one would want to continue a design that, although quite good for its time and era, is now surpassed by more modern designs.
BAE-SA, now part of Denel Land Systems (DLS), has taken all the lessons learned over the years and came up with the RG-41. That is the vehicle we should have gone for. The RG-41 can accommodate the same towers as the Badger, is a 8x8 and has better armour and protection than the Ratel. Has the access doors at the back, with some side access still available and is mid-engined.
I'm of the opinion that if there is a new competition for a Ratel/Badger replacement or supplementary vehicle, the RG41 will be the ideal solution.

_________________
Da-di-da-da-da

America is building the Stryker witch is based on a 1970s era mowag.

The RG41 was to late. By the time it rocked up the Army had spent far to munch on the badger to drop it. I truth a complet replacment of the ratel by the badger is the best opstion. We can't affored mutipil IFV. The ikwela though is a relatively cheap way to extened the life of the ratel since it is a upgrade not a new build. After they replaced the ikwela can serve in other roles like a APC, armoured ambulance, command vehicle, extra.


The RG41 will proberly never sell. The RG35 may though.