The SAAF Forum

To add to that from what I understood, simple item's had fitting issues. It is like moving to SA from North American and you bring along your North American appliances and power tools. The electrical plugs don't fit, the voltage is different, the tumble dryer ducting is a different size, nuts and bolts are imperial size. And if it is from Canada, can you get a "Robertson" (square) screw driver for Robertson screws in SA?

She was launched in 1991 and the SAN got her in the beginning of 1993. Well used? Spares were available the SAN just had to go fetch it. Which it didn't. Servicing definitely wasn't that difficult. Costing more than it was worth I don't know so much and do not know on what you base that argument. We sold her for more than we paid for her. In fact per sea mile she cost a pile less to run than DRAKENSBERG, and in fact most of the surface fleet at the time, due to her fuel (HFO) being less than a quarter the price per volume than that of diesel. What is true is that she was definitely not utilised to her full capacity whilst in SAN service. As for simple items having fitting issues true to an extent, her power supplies were 380 V primarily for the rotating electrical machinery and 220V for domestic use as with most ships, but so has almost every foreign SAN project I am aware of including ones built to SAN specifications. Then again I might be slightly biased on this one.

What a response romeo, may i ask, as to your bias please. very informative stuff here guys, thanks

Lets just say I served on both OUTENIQUA and DRAKENSBERG and a few other ships as well.

I had a feeling, your expertise is very apreciated. thank you for sharing

Thank you. Passionate subject.

@ Romeo Yankee... You probably know a good friend of mine Clive Hampshire. He was one of the electricians on the Drakies from the late 90's to early 2000's. He went on that trip to the Americas back in the day.

Sorry for the late response...for some reason i dont get all the email notifications of threads that i've posted in.

It's a fact that it was too expensive to maintain Outies. It was in the media. Inside info.
If she was amongst the cheapest ship in the fleet to maintain and operate, why would they sell?
Why did the owners, post SAN, sell and scrap in such a short space of time?
Leads me to think otherwise...

Do you honestly think the SAN would sell her for just 'any' reason? I think not.

She was bought and sold for the same price - R40m.
She only spent a third of her OPERATIONAL career at sea...

I would have liked and wish she was still around in the Navy.
She was a good asset to have. Good size with multiple role cabalilities.

_________________
Roshan Bachan

I remember Mr Hampshire , as my dad was on board her over the same period.

_________________
Roshan Bachan

Rosh

Firstly she was sold for a little bit more than 40 million. Not being derogatory but maybe my inside info is slightly better. Also if you dig back in the ARMSCOR records available online you will find exactly what they paid for her. Secondly the immediate owners post sale had an ambitious business plan that folded. The company that then bought her to convert her to the biggest arctic offshore support vessel completed the first part of the conversion in Alabama then shipped her to Tyne in Scotland for the second part. Unfortunately they were bankrolled by the Royal Bank of Scotland and when the financial crisis hit went belly up. The shipping industry unfortunately since then hasn't got any better and eventually they scrapped her after lying alongside Tyne for a number of years. One of the main arguments given by the SAN for selling her was to use the money for the frigates. Well that certainly helped. In reality not many ships spend more than a third of their operational careers at sea. Being operational does not necessarily mean being at sea. The ship could be at standby alongside whether local or lying alongside somewhere north of the RSA's borders. Ships go to sea during their operational periods if and when they are tasked. With diesel at anything between R7,000 to R12,000 a ton having larger ships racing around the ocean, burning anything between 20 to 25 tons a day at economical speed, becomes a bit of a budgetary balancing act. Running navies with limited budgets leads to choices being made and ultimately with the acquisition of the new vessels at the time the SAN had to make a decision. Whether it was a wise one will be debated for many years. Often penny wise ends up being pound foolish. Do the SAN want Mistrals or similar vessels. Any navy that potentially has to be involved in any expeditionary operation would love to have them. Are they affordable. Most certainly not in an environment where the budget cannot cater for them. It is well known, as with the other services, that presently keeping 4 frigates, 3 submarines, SAS PROTEA, SAS DRAKENSBERG and the small ships going is a struggle within the Navy budget allocation. With the problems the country is facing in terms of infrastructure etc having to be developed I do not see any substantial changes in the budgetary allocation for many years to come. So the struggle will continue.

Romeo, I agree completley with this: With the problems the country is facing in terms of infrastructure etc having to be developed I do not see any substantial changes in the budgetary allocation for many years to come. So the struggle will continue.

However i feel the years are closer to 5ish going on 6 from my understanding of events and what will be required by sandf. I also have very high hopes for this new alliance regards development funding.

That being said as you are clearly an expert on maritime matters and i would love to hear your take please on a mistral like requirement.
I believe elsewhere the trucking was mentioned but being as this thread is here and your qualifications are known, ....id for one love reading it

Sorry I am only replying now. “Mobility, both strategic and tactical, is the partner of flexible organization. We must be to shift combat strength rapidly to any threatened point in the world. Strategic airlift troops by the Air Force is the answer to the requirement of speed. While airlift adds our strategic mobility, it does not supplant Navy transport for maintaining the lines of supply and reinforcement to overseas theatres. The Navy has provided this for the Army throughout our history; we cannot foresee the day when it will not needed.” (General Barksdale Hamlett – US Army)(23:4-1)."

This statement is just as true for the SANDF on the continent because we are talking strategic distances. Supporting a platoon in Burundi, the DRC or Sudan when that support has to take place over half a continent is not a tactical exercise anymore. I believe move most of the troops by air apart from those you need to secure a port and airfield for a period and move the heavy equipment by sea. Aircrews have limitations of how much flying they can do continuously and to fly it all you will need a huge amount of aircraft and aircrew. Bearing in mind that a return flight to the northern part of the continent takes almost up to a day if not more. Secondly huge airfields are few and far between so accommodating large numbers of aircraft will be a problem.

On the other hand large ships cost money to run as I have said previously apart from the cost of infrastructure to support it. MISTRAL sized vessels will require major alterations to present facilities. Whatever one decides on needs to be able to use current facilities. Inherent cost and current SANDF budgetary constraints negate the option of multiple platforms performing different functions. Multi-purpose vessels will be preferable. Whether a full amphibious capability is required is debatable, as this will greatly increase acquisition and maintenance costs and not onl the vessels but all the associated equipment. In addition there are few places along the African coast where "over the beach" will take you straight to infrastructure. You are either going to hit coral, sand or forest and will then have to fight your way through that first. Invariably one will have to offload at a port somewhere. RO-RO is a must for quick offloading and loading but an inherent crane capability (70 tons) is also required for those ports where the ramps either cannot be used continuously or at all due to quay heights and tidal levels.

Not taking the amphibious option does also mean the spaces for the tanks utilised for "flooding the well" or "docking down" can be utilised for other liquids which will greatly increase the ability to support other vessels bit also to increase in area endurance. Will be surprised how little fuel in comparison to their size amphibious vessels carry. Obviously a medium helicopter capability is required (3 to 6 hangar-ed) and a flight deck with 2 to 3 spots. Bear in mind additional helicopters can be carried in the holds and assembled ashore. Taking into consideration the periodic major maintenance requirements of vessels the acquiring of one vessel will most certainly impact on force readiness levels. The availability of two smaller vessels might ensure that at least one vessel is continuously available which more than suffices for the normal "drama" on the continent.

Have always been a fan of the Dutch Royal Schelde ENFORCER family of vessels. Probably looking at between 160 to 180 meters in length and about 10 to 16000 tons. Lastly it will always be a balance between funds and requirements and one needs to look realistically at the requirement. There is always nice to have but there must be a need for using what you have. Unfortunately the nice is what often ends up costing the money.

WOW. thank you, thank you! i have nothing to say to argue, i just loved the read. Much apreciated. bring alot to my mid as far as roro multipurpurpuse and such.

I think something very similar to this would be more fitting for the SAN, especially as a replacement to Drakkies.
Bigger ramp...landing craft...containers, etc.
Not forgetting general stores and refueling abilities.

http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/logistic-support-vessel

_________________
Roshan Bachan