CSH-2 Rooivalk south african attack helicopter

The South African designed and manufactured Rooivalk attack helicopter comes equiped with to air to air missiles, anti-tank missiles and a rapid fire automatic 20mm cannon. It carries a crew of two. The first CSH-2 for the South African Air Force was delivered at the end of 1998, with manufacture planned at four per year until 2001. In a police support role it could be used for inntelligence gathering, surveliance, electronic soundwave jamming an as a airborne crane. The survivability of the Rooivalk is enhnaced by design characteristics that include low detection signatures, high agility, damage tolerance, dual redundant systems and airframe crashworthiness. The helicopter is able to operate in the nape of the earth environment and can operate in night and adverser wealther conditions from long standoff ranges. The helmet, HUD and nose mounted day/night stabilized sighting systems provide for fast, hightly accurate designation and delivery of anti-tank missiles, air-to ground rockets, cannon fire, and the ability to carry air to air missiles for self defence.
specs
1.country of orgin South Africa
2. builder denel aviation/ atlas aircraft co
3. role attack helicopter
4. rotor diameter 15.22M
5. length 18.65M
6.height 5.15M
7. weight 13,035 LBs, maximum takeoff weight 19,290 LBs
8. engine 2 makila 1K2 turboshaft
9. maximum speed 309 KM/H, cruising speed 278 KM/H
10. surface ceiling 20,000 FT
11. armament 20MM cannon ( with 700 rounds) 8 or 16 anti-tank missiles, 4 matra BAE, Dynamics, mistral air to air missiles, 2 denel V3P air to air missiles, 38 or 76 unguided rockets.

I think its great that South Africa goverment is investing money in systems that will help guard it's borders, and it's people.

denel.co.za

globalsecurity.org


edit: fixed the links...

[edit on 11-25-2004 by Zion Mainframe]

The site in the link is down.Found a pic of it for anyone that doesnt know what they look like. Interesting design but I would buy a Russain KA-50 Black shark over it anyday. Might be a good choice over a Eurocopter Tiger though from a price stand point.

I recon anyone who knew remotely anything to do with helicopter would chose the KA-50 Black shark, due to its impressive firepower.


Mighty Fine looking Helicopter !

Man I love that baby Black Shark all the way. Israel Aviation Industries has teamed with Kamov Industries to offer the avionics for the Black Shark.

Seems like Turkey. Malaysia and India are already in line to buy some of them.

Kamov is also working on a two-seat version know as the Alligator, Man their taking all the cool names

How do you recon the KA-50 Black shark would do against American armour, such as Abrams etc.

Personally I would rate it better than the Apache.

Well with a Russian Vichr anti-tank missile, I dont think any tank in the world is going to survive a hit from one of those. "capability of penetrating all types of armour including active armour up to 900 mm thick." Its like the US hellfire nothing can really stop those.

VS a Apache thats a hard one I think it would only be fair to compare it with the more advanced AH-64D and AH-64D LongBow.

The Apache is bigger trumped only by the HIND-D in size and carrys more rounds in the gun. Both are armoured very well for a chopter. The KA-50 is easier to fly because of no tail rotor.Over all I would give the nod to the KA-50 its got the world's first operational helicopter with a rescue ejection system. You have to like that level of Survivability.

Now if we had the Comanche that would be a different story I think stealth would have given it a unfair advantage in the first strike. Plus it would have been far more manoeuvrable.Too bad we scrapped them

www.military.cz...

[edit on 10-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]

The Black Shark and Alligator is more manoverable than the Apatche due to the fact it has counter rotating blades that means the KA50 can do flat turns at any speed where the AH64 would have to bank sharply thus losing vital airspeed.


Anyone play 'Comanche / Hokum' Flight sim by Razorworks.

look it up, i wont fly anything other than the KA50 in the game the amount of times ive out flown players online in my Alligator who fly US equipment is no ones business...

The Kamov has gone head to head with the Apache in at least four procurements I can think of, including Turkey, ROK, and Japan; it never even made it through the first downselect.

The reasons for that are simple. The KA-50 is primarily a paper airplane, with few operational units, an absolutely horrible logistics tail, a reputation as a hanger queen (not Kamov�s fault, necessarily; they�re simply too complex from a mechanical point of view), and the fact that, with only a single pilot, the modern C4I2 battlefield is simply too complex for them to take care of business. You can barely fly, do ASE, designate, communicate with other assets, evade enemy assets and shoot them -- all at 50 ft agl in pitch darkness -- with two people; one guy simply can�t do it.

How many rounds the gun has is probably the least important thing going. In a digital battlefield it�s communications interoperability and handoff that counts more.

I cannot say whether or not the KA-50 is easier to fly because of no tail rotor; I do not know of anyone who has flown both (probably more than thirty percent of the people in my department are retired Apache pilots and none of them have).

As far as the �level of survivability� with the Kamov�s downward ejection seat, I think that�s a red herring. The AH-64 has layered protection which starts with it being harder to track, then harder to hit, then better armored against the hit, and, if the worst happens and it does sustain a hit that defeats it, the Apache�s collapsing gear and stroking Pilot and CPG seats will enable the crew to get out and walk away.

That�s the kind of level of survivability I like.

Now obviously I am biased in favor of the AH-64; I have been hustling them for thirteen years. Nonetheless, look at the countries which have chosen the AH-64 (The United States Army, Singapore, Japan, Korea, the UK, Netherlands, UAE, Egypt, Israel, and Saudi) and compare them to Australia (which chose the Tiger and is now in litigation against Eurocopter); and Turkey, (which chose the AH-1W and now is litigating with Bell).

And no one has picked either the Kamov or the Denel, despite their incredible offset offers and low prices.

Go figure.

Great post Off_The_Street I never knew they ever went head to head.

About coaxial helios most info Ive found on them suggest they are easier to pilot because I think they have less controls to worry about. You dont have to control a tail rotor at all. I think this is one reason Russia went with this type of design.

I know its a Kamov market site but I have heard this before other places.
www.kamov.ru...

One con of the design I know of is a coaxial system requires more complex, heavier gearboxes and swashplates. More parts has a direct effect on maintenance cost, and of course more parts the more things that can go wrong. This might be why theyhave a rep as a hanger queen.

But I guess the proof is in the pudding if they went head to head and the Apache came out on top that pretty much says it all.

By the way where they Apache-longbows?

Shadow, please understand that when I say they went "head-to-head" with us, it wasn't on the battlefield, but in the procurement cycle! The customer simply realized that the other aircraft didn't meet the requirements which incluede, in addition to its operational capabilities, delivery schedule, logistics (which are often as much as the aircraft itself, since it includes spares, operator/maintainer training, depot support, etc.), cost, offset package, and a bunch of other things.

You're right, of course, in that a co-ax system eliminates the torque and thus avoids the need for a tail rotor. To be honest, I don't know the control laws for co-ax rotor helicopters, although one of our chrome-domes tried to explain it to me once.

With a conventional helicopter, the cyclic angles the "disc" of the moving rotor blades to a forward, aft, left, or right tilt, which enables the aircraft to move forward, backward, or sideways. The collective changes the angle of the blades themselves to apply or remove lift, and the rudder increases/decreases the pitch of the rotor to enable yaw. Our CH-47 (which is built in Philadelphia, not Mesa, so I don't see many of them) has two rotors which are controlled separately, and that, rather than the tail rotor (since the Chinook doesn't have one) is what makes it yaw.

I do know that the United States has tried on several occasions to build counter-rotating propeller aircraft, including the two "pogo" fighters in the late 1940's and, I believe, the XB-49 in an early configuration. None of them worked out well. The Russians, God bless 'em, have been the only people that can make those systems work right.

And yes, it was the AH-64D that competed and won. Actually, there are three Apaches: The AH-64A, which the army had about 800 of, as well as a couple of international customers, has 1970's technology and analog gauges, etc. The AH-64D is the same basic airframe and engines, but is built on a MIL-1553 digital bus and has a glass cockpit (no gauges, just interactive LCD screens) The Longbow is that AH-64D with the Lockmart millimeter wave fire control radar (FCR) on the mast. You can upgrade any D-model to the Longbow configuration in the field in about sixteen hours, I believe.

Typically when we sell aircraft, we sell D-models, about half of which are Longbows. All Longbows are better, of course, but there is a tremendous cost increment.

The US Government is in the process having us re-man their fleet to the D-model configuration (most of which will probably be Longbows), which means our factory will be open until I retire and then some.

Personally, I think the Russians would be better off not trying to compete with the big western gunships.

Too me, it seems like the KA-50 would be best suited for a scout / light attack / anti-helicopter role. Take alot of the overly complex fire control and tracking equipment out of this bird, and put in alot of fire-and-forget weapons, unguided rockets and a healthy chain gun. Then lower the price and market it as a less expensive one-man gunship than can quickly scout the battlefield, pick off selected LAV's, C3 vehicles, and mobile SAMs and radars. Reduce the need for complex front-line maintenance and increase its sortie rate, and market it as an asset to a front line battalion, not a hanger queen that requires a big support system in rear areas. I bet more people would be interested in it that way.....

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
Shadow, please understand that when I say they went "head-to-head" with us, it wasn't on the battlefield, but in the procurement cycle!

Sorry I thought your were talking about them going head to head on the battlefield my mistake.

Thanks again for another well informed post on helicopters

here is the specs

main rotor 14.5 metres
length with rotating rotors 15.9 metres
overall height 4.9 metres
wing span 7.3 metres
empty weight 7,692 KG
normal takeoff weight 9,800 KG
maximum takeoff weight 10,800 KG
weight of consumable combat load 610 KG
weight of maximum combat load 1,811 KG
maximum level flight speed 310 KM
diving speed 390 KM
cruise speed 270 KM
hovering ceiling 4,000 metres
service ceiling 5,500 metres
range of flight with normal takeoff weight 460 KM
ferry range 1,160 KM

KA-50 link

the Guiness book of records named the Black Shark the most heavily armed helicopter in the world, I give it two thumbs up.

12 Ka-50's have been delivered so far, so the Helicopter still has hope.

I heard the Netherlands was thinking of upgrading their AH-64A's to D's, is this true?

Hey all, welcome my wife, Sniper Banshee

She loves Russian choppers, she can't type very well right now but I help her

Hi All,
Having read the discussion on the helicopters, I find myself having to add to it. Firstly, the Rooivalk has been around and active since 1981. The manufactures of this aircraft have not designed a concept craft, but a tried and tested piece of equipment. It can do what the specs say because it has done so in some of the harshest combat and climatic situations that helicopters could possibly find themselves.

It is nice to have new specs and potential, but if I were to risk my life on a piece of equipment, the dam thing had BETTER work. It is this point that I believe puts the Rooivalk way above any of the new prototype gismos that are claiming to be able to compete against the Rooivalk. Need I remind us all what happened to the Apache when it was taken into a "dusty" environment. Maybe they should have used a piece of equipment that actually has been tested and works.

PS: nice forum you chaps have, hope you are not offended with my input.

South African Border War Veteran.

You have to take into consideration what and where the AH-64 was designed to fight. In central Europe there is no sand.

My point exactly. So when you go into the desert, when you go to fight a desert war, surely the powers to be would be intelligent enough to take one that does. Like the Rooivalk.

I would favour the AH-60L Battlehawk. As well as its commonality with the Blackhawk (easier logistics!) it has huge firepower, good survivability and fantastic versatility; as well as being a highly effective blower upperer it can carry troops and supplies in the cabin or 9000lbs on the cargo hook. This allows it to act as its own forward supply base, meaning more ordnance on target per sortie. The main disadvantage as far as I can see is that it would be harder to hide behind cover.
That said, the Kamov, the Rooivalk and the Apache are all excellent aircraft and, really, it's a matter of personal preference. Every aircraft is a comromise of design. You can't have the best of everything.