I'd say the Rooivalk Mk2 is worth considering.
1. The "export failure" point is a non-factor for us since the goal is to get a platform that works well and isn't subject to sanctions. And when countries not named Pakistan have way more options to explore (esp Apache), an alternative heavyweight attack heli like Rooivalk is redundant. It was borne of a sanctioned country with no other option, and that's the thought process we should have.
2. The Rooivalk Mk2's critical components of issue are its engine, transmission, etc. And they come from France via Airbus Helicopter, and are further based on the proven Makila engine and Puma helicopter.
It isn't exactly like the JF-17 (a design that was on paper until the PAF signed on). The Rooivalk is more of taking a project that exists and works, and reviving it with an upgrade.
It isn't a new development program as the new Mk2 uses the same airframe, engine and dynamic parts (so new R&D there). Rather, it's integrating new subsystems, avionics and weapons, all of which are available COTS (with some Pakistani suppliers too).
The real challenge is securing the critical tech from Safran and Airbus. The good thing is that the tech in question not cutting edge (and the French are working on way more high end stuff with the Chinese now, so fear of Chinese access is a non-issue too).
So, there's scope for getting it (e.g. license prod in Pakistan), provided we push for it. I don't know if that idea crossed our leadership's table, but if the thought process stops at "there's only 1 squadron in SA" or "it isn't economical" while pouring $300 m a year on an import (and more if we factor in the CSF/FMF for the AH-1Z), then I doubt it.
It's for situations like this a real equivalent to the Indian CAG to document the selection process and make it available to outside experts is key, for accountability and exploring all options very thoroughly.
@Ahmet Pasha @denel