- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #21
eliaslar
Actually no. The AH-64 and the Mi-28 have their designs based on much older doctrines and scenarios than the Mangusta.
We have to remember that both the American and Russian birds were the result of evolvement of their older respective models and were designed with a mass tank battle across european continent between the two opposing forces, USA and Soviets.
And we all know how the Americans like to do things "big" in everything they do and how the Soviets had to answer this, due to military equality and political image race.
The design priorities behind the Mangusta are different, sure effectively aimed at the same "end-user", the tanks and armoured ground targets, but on a different scale than their American or Russian counterparts.
Of course it is without doubt as a pilot one would prefer a top-notch Longbow Apache due to its "grunt" not only in performance but also image.
But national defence procurements rely on more things then such a "grunt". Just as a simple summary of selection criterias:
-Longbow Apaches are not on the menu when one seeks a chopper, you have to settle for a downgraded one.
-Even if it was available, it could be an "overkill" to use in certain scenarious, geographies, climates and foes. Thus the spending, not just moneteraly, of resources that could be made better use of.
-Buying the rights to a chassis and working on it, developing your technological/production capabilities is a greater rewarding intelligence than driving/flying around in a "grunty" machine for your neighbours to see.
-The (Turkish) Undersecretariat of Defence Industries has a plan to localy produce everything feasable in time, and this includes rotary air platforms. Its coordination and procurement is based on this long term strategic plan, the T-129 is just a small part of this.
-Finally, with the mentioned aspects of the T-129 in the above posts, I think it is a wise decision/selection, in context of the above criteria.
-T-129 becomes even more a wise selection the deeper we analyse in all aspects, capability,technical offset, strategic values, economic gains etc.
Like the saying goes, its not the size its the function thats important.
Lets hope we dont screw it up.
Cheers.
Actually no. The AH-64 and the Mi-28 have their designs based on much older doctrines and scenarios than the Mangusta.
We have to remember that both the American and Russian birds were the result of evolvement of their older respective models and were designed with a mass tank battle across european continent between the two opposing forces, USA and Soviets.
And we all know how the Americans like to do things "big" in everything they do and how the Soviets had to answer this, due to military equality and political image race.
The design priorities behind the Mangusta are different, sure effectively aimed at the same "end-user", the tanks and armoured ground targets, but on a different scale than their American or Russian counterparts.
Of course it is without doubt as a pilot one would prefer a top-notch Longbow Apache due to its "grunt" not only in performance but also image.
But national defence procurements rely on more things then such a "grunt". Just as a simple summary of selection criterias:
-Longbow Apaches are not on the menu when one seeks a chopper, you have to settle for a downgraded one.
-Even if it was available, it could be an "overkill" to use in certain scenarious, geographies, climates and foes. Thus the spending, not just moneteraly, of resources that could be made better use of.
-Buying the rights to a chassis and working on it, developing your technological/production capabilities is a greater rewarding intelligence than driving/flying around in a "grunty" machine for your neighbours to see.
-The (Turkish) Undersecretariat of Defence Industries has a plan to localy produce everything feasable in time, and this includes rotary air platforms. Its coordination and procurement is based on this long term strategic plan, the T-129 is just a small part of this.
-Finally, with the mentioned aspects of the T-129 in the above posts, I think it is a wise decision/selection, in context of the above criteria.
-T-129 becomes even more a wise selection the deeper we analyse in all aspects, capability,technical offset, strategic values, economic gains etc.
Like the saying goes, its not the size its the function thats important.
Lets hope we dont screw it up.
Cheers.