I don't think this is the case.
The Turks offered the T129s with a Turkish Gov't credit facility. The way it worked was that the Turkish gov't paid for the production, and we'd pay for the helicopters when we take delivery.
Obviously, delivery didn't happen, so we didn't pay. Basically, it was a no-risk deal for the PA, which is a huge reason why we signed the deal. The PA has no reason to be angry, and it isn't.
Credit for a borderline pariah on FATF isn't easy to come by, so the PA will keep the Turks as an option. But if we're a borderline pariah, then we're approaching this all wrong
@denel
It's starting to dawn on the PA (and PN) that buying attack and special mission helicopters off-the-shelf isn't an option. Be it a gunship or an anti-sub/ship chopper, we're talking about valuable offensive systems, and only two countries are willing to talk to us about them: China and Turkey.
If we want a 'perfect match,' we'll need to develop our own. There's no excuse why we didn't work on a Dhruv/LCH-type of project. With our own asset (which we can run through multiple variants for 30-40 years), we can build a large close air support (CAS) and air mobility force.
To be honest, I'd start with the optimal design approach (like the PAF is doing with AZM). Basically, skip the lightweight stuff, and go for a 'heavyweight' -- i.e., 9-10-ton-class -- design from the start for both the attack helicopter and transport helicopter.
Buy the engines and dynamic components from a single source (e.g., Ukraine). Design the attack and transport helicopter with a common engine, rotor, and transmission system. You can contract design help from abroad if need be, e.g., Denel (which had worked on the Rooivalk and Oryx).
Basically, let's revive this bird with Mi-17 DNA (engine, transmissions, etc via Ukraine).
View attachment 716827
