I refer to the Malaysiakini report Letter questions 'shady' chopper deal.

While I'm sure the world of military contracts and arms-dealing is never on the straight and narrow, the fact that this letter of complaint comes from someone who is a competitor, who lost out on the contract, and who would gain from the sale of his own choppers, makes his letter highly suspect.

It is also an unfair comparison to compare the two companies (Eurocopter and Kelowna) as apples and apples.

Firstly, comparing the savings from buying the Kazan MI-172 over Cougar EC-725 would be like talking about the savings over buying the Proton Perdana over the BMW 3 series.

Sure, you are going to save more on the Proton but which vehicle do you think has better technology and safety features?

Soviet equipment have a reputation of robust durability that work under any environment but lack accuracy and advanced technology etc.

Take the AK-47, the symbol of the Soviet arms success story. Cheap, durable and packs a punch in firepower. You can drop it in dirt, mud, water, sand and still fire the weapon. But it lacks accuracy and versatility when compared to the M-16.

On the one hand, the M-I6 is a high maintenance weapon but with it's patented rail system, it can add on a laser not only for the soldier to aim at targets but also to guide air strikes onto targets.

The M-16 can also accommodate a huge range of sights and other ad-ons like grenade launchers and shotguns to expand on the efficiency and firepower of the weapon.

So the key here is what is it that was required of the choppers? Did the government call for cheap choppers which fulfilled just one role or for helicopters that could be fielded in a broad scope of roles from attack, to support and transport?

It is unfair for Mentari Services Sdn Bhd chairperson Capt Zahar Hashim to simply state that the Kazan would save Malaysia money. Note that he said that the Kazan fulfills 'nearly' all the roles specified by the government.

That can mean it has many things lacking in terms of ability. For example, it might not be able to accommodate certain support weapons like machine guns to provide ground units with support fire, or it might not be able to adopt heavier weapon systems like missiles to change it's role to an assault helicopter.

The letter sounds like a case of sour grapes to me.