Rooikat Armoured Car

Just borrowing this pic from Kaiserbill's post #235 - I meant to write about this sooner.. I've circled some of the strange bumps seen on this experimental vehicle - they are in fact part of an experimental self protection system (they were shown to me while I climbed over it by one of the current School of Armour members). They pop out spinning water sprayers that instantly cover the vehicle in a fine mist of water (and some sort of special additive), that instantly blanks out most of it's thermal/infra-red signature and to a large degree also it's visual signature. This was to work in conjunction with the Avitronics LED self protection system, as part of it's 'Soft Kill' protection layer.

It apparently worked pretty well in tests, however the carrying of extra (special) water tanks for the spray, the complex piping system, as well as the concern that the 'proud' spray nozzles would get damaged in the harsh African bush, put paid to the project as a feasible one. I cannot remember now what they system was called - but will try to find it out again.

You can pull out the extension (pop out) piece, with the actual water sprayer now extended and visible - which I took a photo of to display with this explanation, as soon as I can find it again, I will add it to this thread...
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0372+(2)A.jpg
    DSC_0372+(2)A.jpg
    40.9 KB · Views: 473
A couple of pics I got off of FB a while ago showing the "Cheetah" concept vehicle being put through some of it's tests..
 

Attachments

  • 100771537_10220013506439617_7463100619964809216_o.jpg
    100771537_10220013506439617_7463100619964809216_o.jpg
    366.2 KB · Views: 315
  • 100805855_10220013506759625_7057047655817412608_o.jpg
    100805855_10220013506759625_7057047655817412608_o.jpg
    400.9 KB · Views: 257
  • 100950447_10220013504599571_5948287438739734528_o.jpg
    100950447_10220013504599571_5948287438739734528_o.jpg
    274.3 KB · Views: 266
  • 100979677_10220013506999631_6818519294050041856_o.jpg
    100979677_10220013506999631_6818519294050041856_o.jpg
    322.5 KB · Views: 271
  • 101056707_10220013505879603_5753398165197815808_o.jpg
    101056707_10220013505879603_5753398165197815808_o.jpg
    323.8 KB · Views: 315
  • 101129669_10220013504439567_4261586724276142080_o.jpg
    101129669_10220013504439567_4261586724276142080_o.jpg
    273.7 KB · Views: 382
Graugrun said:
A couple of pics I got off of FB a while ago showing the "Cheetah" concept vehicle being put through some of it's tests..
Click to expand...

Sorry if I missed it in an earlier post somewhere - what kind of concept vehicle was the Cheetah? A precursor of the Rooikat?
 
Cheetah was part of the second round of vehicles that would lead to the rooikat, and I think it is the concept that moved forward to become the rooikat. If you read the beginning of this thread it covers the timeline.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Firefly 2 said:
I cannot detect a flaw in your logic based on my limited knowledge. Agreed.
Click to expand...

Ahh what about events? And the combined experience of the SADF after 20 odd years of war who specified the Rooikat to be what it is. Don’t they have a say in this matter? Please let me explain the subtle yet important differences between the Rooikat and a low slung recce and surveillance vehicle like the Fennek.

Firstly on size and height for visual signature this is of course directly related but in South Africa it’s a different type of battlespace than in Europe. A moving vehicle in the dusty environment is going to generate a significant visual plume no matter how small it is. Since the Rooikat was most definitely an armoured cavalry vehicle - advancing to contact all the time – and not a surveillance vehicle – only moving to get to an observation post and then being stationary to observe – in its operational environment and role more height is not such a problem because it can’t realistically stay hidden thanks to its dust signature.

So in this environment it can only avoid the enemy’s responses to its visual signature by staying on the move and displacing generating the greater need for driving endurance. Which is why it needs more volume to carry more fuel so it can cover a distance operationally at a much higher speed than smaller vehicles with first line logistic support. What this means is the Rooikat troop/squadron can carry out a patrol without the need to stop and refuel and so on which adds a lot of time. The enemy would be able to exploit this time to fix their position and attack. The speed of manoeuvre also adds to their own lethality being a product of mass and velocity.

While all this extra fuel, ammo, etc added volume the vehicle designers compensated by adding additional weight. So more weight was available for armour and so on. Which is why the Rooikat weighs in at about twice as much as a comparable vehicle (LAV 2) for role and payload.

Now as to the effect this has on its mobility due to being very big for roads and gap crossing (which don’t just have to be wet) again it is the South African environment that is important. African roads are not constrained by being built in like European roads – they are basically tracks in the bush – and the width of the Rooikat is not going to face problems trying to fit through and corner in tight road verges. It has a wider wheel track than most trucks but that probably is a good thing as it won’t add to dirt road degradation for the following force.

Again when it comes to gap crossing the nature of the South African water cycle is not favourable to any kind of partial amphibious vehicle capability. Your typical partial amphibious armoured car can only handle slowly moving water and in Southern Africa its either drought or flood. To cross these kinds of rivers you need a lot more power going to your water propulsion than most military river crossing vehicles. Also considering the propensity for swamp formation as well during the wet season you are going to need a lot more than just a propeller on the back of the vehicle to traverse this kind of gap. During the dry season a long, four axle vehicle is better suited to traversing dry river beds than something smaller. Much better. As to bridges… what bridges?

The key issue is there are two main roles that are commonly grouped together under the reconnaissance banner (because many units carry out both roles). They are cavalry and mounted surveillance. You can carry out the later mission with a Hummer if you want but not the former. For that you need something like the Rooikat.
Click to expand...
The above comments were born out by the limited use of tanks - the long logistical trail was a major problem for them as well as reliability over long distances. There was a squadron of Oliphants based at Ruacana, but were seldom used. The Ratel 90 could and did take on the Angolan/Cuban tanks, but really only under enfiladed situations.
 

Attachments

  • SPAAG-10.jpg
    SPAAG-10.jpg
    513.5 KB · Views: 309
  • SPAAG-11.jpg
    SPAAG-11.jpg
    396.4 KB · Views: 373
Last edited:
Hello everyone. Do you have documents on MTTD ? Interested in reloading the gun
 
perhaps you have this document ?
sJim_twnTow.jpg
 
Good afternoon. What is known about the GT-6 and GT-12 120 mm guns? What is their muzzle velocity, for example?
 
Reading all the pro's and con's regarding wheels vs tracks, there are two criteria where the wheeled version is far, far better than a tracked version, mainly because some writers do not understand the local conditions dictate the former.
The first is speed of deployment; reaction to a
threat hundred of kms away cannot be answered by tracked vehicles without tank transporters as they are not designed to go battling through the bush or in and out of dry riverbeds. While the thought of meeting Rooikats barreling down our motorways at 120 kms an hour makes my bowels turn to water, the fact is that they can.
The second criterion would be the speed of response. Tanks have to loaded on transporters, tied down, driven at a slow speed to a deployment point, unchained, started up, dismounted and then driven into action. With the distances involved, even on main roads, the time taken could be days. Add to that a logistical tail and the short range of a tank, there is no doubt that the Rooikat is far superior to a tank.
 
Denel is adapting the 105mm G-7 LEO (Lightweight Experimental Ordnance) howitzer to be a component of the US Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS). The weapon has a range of 24 km and can reach 30 km with ERFB (extended-range full-bore) base-bleed ammunition or 35 km with VLAP assisted projectiles. Lethality is equivalent to a 155mm NATO L15 projectile against light targets. The drawing below is of a Rooikat 8x8 armored vehicle with a multipurpose turret with the G7 cannon.
Click to expand...
Source (in Portuguese) from 2002
Can someone confirm if this is actually a G7 LEO turret or if its one of the South African L7 derived 105mm guns?
The turret looks completely different from the Denel GD T7 turret. Its a manned turret with the ammunition in the bustle. It seems much more optimized for direct fire, thats why i am skeptical of the description.
 

Attachments

  • G7Rooikat.jpg
    G7Rooikat.jpg
    8.3 KB · Views: 163
Last edited:
Voltzz said:
Source (in Portuguese) from 2002
Can someone confirm if this is actually a G7 LEO turret or if its one of the South African L7 derived 105mm guns?
The turret looks completely different from the Denel GD T7 turret. Its a manned turret with the ammunition in the bustle. It seems much more optimized for direct fire, thats why i am skeptical of the description.
Click to expand...
Consider for a moment that the rear engine of the Rooikat pretty much mandates ammunition storage in the turret bustle. This concept might pre-date the GD joint venture or might be a concurrent domestic SA proposal for the retrofit of existing Rooikats. The Striker/LAV-III is front engined and the US Army certainly had the budget to develop, procure and maintain an autoloader…..If they hadn’t procured the M777 for Stryker formations.
 
Voltzz said:
Source (in Portuguese) from 2002
Can someone confirm if this is actually a G7 LEO turret or if its one of the South African L7 derived 105mm guns?
The turret looks completely different from the Denel GD T7 turret. Its a manned turret with the ammunition in the bustle. It seems much more optimized for direct fire, thats why i am skeptical of the description.
Click to expand...
Looks like it has separate propellant charges and shells. That suggests its a howitzer.
 
Last edited:
Voltzz said:
Source (in Portuguese) from 2002
Can someone confirm if this is actually a G7 LEO turret or if its one of the South African L7 derived 105mm guns?
The turret looks completely different from the Denel GD T7 turret. Its a manned turret with the ammunition in the bustle. It seems much more optimized for direct fire, thats why i am skeptical of the description.
Click to expand...

This turret, I think?

 
The turrets are different.
The photos of the one at AAD is lacking the step at the rear of the turret that clears the raised engine deck of the Rooikat.
The computer image shows the step in the turret bustle if you look closely.
The G7 is touted at a variety of platforms, so I guess the turret configuration differed.

I wonder where, or in what context, that computer image was sourced by that website originally?
 

Attachments

  • denel_leo_105mm_turret_9_of_9.jpg
    denel_leo_105mm_turret_9_of_9.jpg
    845.8 KB · Views: 125
Last edited:
Voltzz said:
Source (in Portuguese) from 2002
Can someone confirm if this is actually a G7 LEO turret or if its one of the South African L7 derived 105mm guns?
The turret looks completely different from the Denel GD T7 turret. Its a manned turret with the ammunition in the bustle. It seems much more optimized for direct fire, thats why i am skeptical of the description.
Click to expand...
Looks like 24 rounds ready in the loader. Should also be space for reloads in the bottom part of the turret.
 
Wavertree said:
Reading all the pro's and con's regarding wheels vs tracks, there are two criteria where the wheeled version is far, far better than a tracked version, mainly because some writers do not understand the local conditions dictate the former.
The first is speed of deployment; reaction to a
threat hundred of kms away cannot be answered by tracked vehicles without tank transporters as they are not designed to go battling through the bush or in and out of dry riverbeds. While the thought of meeting Rooikats barreling down our motorways at 120 kms an hour makes my bowels turn to water, the fact is that they can.
The second criterion would be the speed of response. Tanks have to loaded on transporters, tied down, driven at a slow speed to a deployment point, unchained, started up, dismounted and then driven into action. With the distances involved, even on main roads, the time taken could be days. Add to that a logistical tail and the short range of a tank, there is no doubt that the Rooikat is far superior to a tank.
Click to expand...
Yet South Africa still maintains some Olifant tanks.

Some jobs just require a 105mm.
 
your right not all armored cars and tanks require a 120mm to get the job done still good to have the latest and greatest guns though
 
Just wanted to say thank you to everyone who has contributed to this! It has been very great to read!
 
Are there any new developments to replace the Rooikat with a successor vehicle?
 
Noveos said:
Are there any new developments to replace the Rooikat with a successor vehicle?
Click to expand...
Not that I know of - and I doubt it anyway - our 'new' government (ANC) of the last 30 years have stolen and corrupted away practicaly all the money that our country had.

There's very little left for almost anything, let alone new major weapons development or purchasing..
 
Graugrun said:
Not that I know of - and I doubt it anyway - our 'new' government (ANC) of the last 30 years have stolen and corrupted away practicaly all the money that our country had.

There's very little left for almost anything, let alone new major weapons development or purchasing..
Click to expand...
Badger exemplifies that. I'm by no means an expert, but it seems to me SA has gone from the leading designer of wheeled AFVs (and artillery) to a country that can't seem to modify an already excellent platform (AMV) to their needs.
 
apparition13 said:
Badger exemplifies that. I'm by no means an expert, but it seems to me SA has gone from the leading designer of wheeled AFVs (and artillery) to a country that can't seem to modify an already excellent platform (AMV) to their needs.
Click to expand...
You're mostly right - we do have some development and skill in a few selected SA companies, however sadly for SA - a large portion of our development skill and talent is now overseas in the UAE and Saudi Arabia (plus in the US and a couple of European countries)..
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom