The SAAF Forum

https://mybroadband.co.za/news/governme ... war-2.html

Can this be verified as true

R60 mil isn't going to buy too many torpedoes.

Begs the question. If no torps, then why bother with subs in the first place ? It's not as if they're armed with 76mm guns . Yes I know they can be used for clandestine ops. Why not sell the subs and buy some OPVs ?

I saw the article this morning. Has to be one of the most ill-informed defence related articles for a long time. Clueless.

_________________
How come every time my ship comes in, I'm at the airport?

From my point of view there's a lot more important things to give attention to
Maybe get the fleet up and running as it should, maybe appoint some permanent members that want's to be in the Navy
Just saying

I have not checked Amazon recently, just out of interest how much does a torpedo go for these day's?

I am not an expert but R60 mil each sounds a tad high, could we not get a bulk discount?

_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/141742650@N08/albums

R60mil is less than €4mil, so it's not an unreasonable cost estimate.
Can anyone confirm that there have only been three torpedo engagements since WW2? I know of only one, the sinking of the Argentinean ship General Belgrano during the Falklands war, but I'd be surprised if the various wars in the Middle East have not involved several uses of torpedoes.

Do you mean from submarines, or any kind of torpedo? For example, the USS Liberty was hit by a torpedo from an Israeli torpedo boat during the USS Liberty incident, so I would assume it was not the only torpedoes launched by them during the various Israeli/Arab wars.

It's anyone's guess whether the article's claim is about all torpedoes or only submarine launches.

The implication is that (after nukes) subs are arguably the most "useless" modern weapons. High deterrence value, but hardly ever actually used.

India / Pakistan ?

I see indeed that is in fact what a torpedo costs. That is astonishingly expensive.

I wonder in a real world scenario if the cost would cross the mind of the Captain engaging a target.

To your question, are torpedo's still a relevant weapon?

_________________
https://www.flickr.com/photos/141742650@N08/albums

1971 Dec 9 - PNS Hangor, a Pakistani Daphné class submarine, sank the Indian frigate INS Khukri. The first ship sunk by a submarine since World War II. Hangor also damaged another Indian warship, INS Kirpan.

Block 2 Harpoon anti-ship cruise missiles cost around $1.2mil, roughly half the price of a heavy torpedo.

A large warship could probably "absorb" a Harpoon hit or even two, in a non-critical area, and still be able to sail, but a single hit by a heavy torpedo is not survivable, the target <will> sink, because a modern torpedo does not simply punch a hole in the side of the hull, by detonating under the hull it breaks the ship's keel.

Speaking about torpedos...I came across this article.

http://navaltoday.com/2017/10/16/tanker-carrying-1000-tonnes-of-fuel-lifts-torpedo-on-anchor/

_________________
Roshan Bachan

The article is pretty poor in telling us whether they are stock replenishments (we surely haven't fired many) or if they are to completely replace existing stock, or if its a new system they are implementing for the subs. Can someone more in the know clear up the confusion?

The new torpedoes will replace the existing SUT 264s, which were only intended as an interim weapon.

_________________
How come every time my ship comes in, I'm at the airport?