The SAAF Forum

some schooling needed please.

according to program 5 of the defence review, this is what the fleet should look like:
-a surface combat and patrol capability of 3 frigates, 1 combat support vessel, 2 offshore patrol vessels and 3 inshore patrol vessels in each annual operational cycle
– a sub-surface combat capability of 2 submarines in each annual operational cycle
– a mine warfare capability of 2 vessels in each annual operational cycle to ensure safe access to South Africa’s harbours, and mine clearance where required

4 to 3 frigates, one maintenance, sounds rightish
drakies and? she cant always be ready
2 off shores, makes sense if we build 3 and currently the number of strike
now heres the boggle, 3 inshores?
i also feel as if river class are going to be squeesed for many years to come, if i read this right

Correction: It's Programme 5 of the 2015 Budget, not the Defence Review.
The budget discussion is at viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8040

My comments in italics below:

rivers being used for inshore and mcm make sense then. how much life is left in them? surely they are just as freil as the strike craft or is it because the hull isnt metal?

the number doesn't add up yet, unless sandf is using two platforms or more for one job? wasnt biro to have contanerised mcm equipment rendering rivers obsolete?

i hate and love trying to figure out sandf acquisitions.

The MCM equipment is actually very small - the whole system fits in a car boot - a small towed sidescan sonar and a RPV with lights, cameras and a robot arm to place a demolition charge. It is intended to be used by the IPVs - or even on a RHIB deployed by the IPV.

well rtd, im gonna add a spanner in the works for the elephant in the room, hows about this for down the line:
There are requirements for helicopter-capable support ships, particularly in South Africa, but the cost of the standard Mistral BPC 210 is too expensive. Countries less likely to engage in combat operations need something more like a multi-role support or logistics ship.
Mistral 140? if i may vear off topic for one second, here is the write up:

The MISTRAL 140 is 160 Meters long and have a full displacement of 13.460 Tonnes, a top speed of 19.2 kt, a range of 10.000nm at a speed of 12 kt, five helicopter spots, a deck for six helicopters, a 1200 Meters² hangar for wheeled and tracked vehicles, 400 Meters² space for a command post and 680 Meters² for a Level 3 hospital. 4 LCM´s boats can operate from the vessel. The vessel is manned by a crew of 160 and can transport 130 Tonnes of ammunitions and 500 fully equipped troops. Defensive systems include two MBDA SIMBAD air defence units and 30mm and 12.7mm heavy guns.
The company is also looking to sell the MISTRAL 140 to Turkey and South Africa.

ive only known biro and hotel to get the green light and millenium was tanked if i recall.

i am aware of that, it is something i came across whilst looking for a possible signing for combat support ships.

bare with me now for a second and go to dream land with me. dcn is already partnered, and if gowind is the opv of choice, i can see these mistrals 140 in the fleet.
ive played around now with this site http://ports.com to see distances and concluded sadc can easily be travelled with valours range without drakies, if the range of 8000nm is accurate. that being said, the ranges all add up across the line for valour, mistral and drakies. again, this is dream land here for a second, but assuming the gowind is the choice, then these are viable support ships for the budget to be accurate

Normally they use one of the hydro survey boats. But it was test on the T craft and can be used on just about anything that floats. It a cheaper faster way to sweep a harbour. Imagine a mine threat I Durban. Either you sail a river class up there. That could take some time depending on maintce cycles and what not and the trip it's self is long and slow. Or just fly it all up in a C130.

I would be against acquiring the ships for two reasons, but.

The SA government could decide to purchase them if they were cheap enough, ignoring the problematic experience the navy had with Outies.
I guess it would be a status symbol for the government, a headache for the navy's maintenance department.

The only non-NATO-standard weapons the SANDF has are ZU-23-2 guns and RPG-7 anti-tank rocket launchers. Both are a legacy of the border war and sanctions era. I see no evidence at all of "favouring east" - what items has the SANDF acquired from outside Western Europe since 1994? The only one I can think of is Paveway bombs from the US!

I thank you jeff, it means alot that you respond, i had a leading question elswhere to see if i still had "friends" after my food for thought turned into ....well...that.

RTD, i look at things purley economically. you are always ontop of other things, but if one thing i learned from opa, your friends pay the bills. Business' no matter what kind rely on ecomomic partners. i cannot make the conclusion to "my personal theory" untill i read the words joint military exercise with sa/china. but when i say favour the east i look at current (past decade) ventures throughout government. IMHO this economic alliance will soon be worded differently again. off topic but i thought id share my thoughts.

The education i seek which im probably not going to get is the joint venture systems. what is it that SA/ russia and sa/china are working on. the only thing thats know publicly is that there is a new internet in the works. that being said, what specifically is tailered to russia on the mistrals?

Again purley ecomomics, but out of the economic alliance, SA is the only one without a carrier cabability. mistrals fit the bill for me. india s building more like the one russia converted for them, china is basing theirs on a russian design and russia is building more. Brazil, well, internet is there for all. all im saying is that money will increas but not for anything more than mstrals. and its a needed capability if what i read the stand by force is to be

... and the Type 63 rocket launchers, the 14.5mm anti-materiel rifles.

_________________
A plan is simply a basis for change.

Thanks H1...Ja ive said "we" modernised captured russian equipment but what truly intrigues me is today.
but looks like SAN wont get what i want. I dont know why moscow would take this approach but it seems wrong, russia should build their own at this point unless the IP is already transferrered and nmoscow is building mistrals as per original agreement?
It said "Moscow does not agree with such an approach," assesses its "expenditures and losses in connection with the broken contract at €1.163 billion and does not intend to issue any permits for re-export until the money is returned."

Guess we will have to wait now to see what money is returned....+ russia build

And what would that problem have been Rosh?

Hard to find spares, incomplete documentation, difficult servicing. The Outeniqua ended up costing more than it was worth, but keep in mind it was a well used second hand ship when we got her.