The SAAF Forum

Discussion on the SAAF and other southern African air forces.
It is currently 24 Apr 2026, 11:52

All times are UTC + 2 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 19:33 

Joined: 07 Dec 2009, 06:30
Posts: 952
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 20:30 

Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 11:50
Posts: 4256
Correction: It's Programme 5 of the 2015 Budget, not the Defence Review.
The budget discussion is at viewtopic.php?f=16&t=8040


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 20:37 

Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 11:50
Posts: 4256
My comments in italics below:

micfradus wrote:
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
- Agree

drakies and? she cant always be ready
- The big elephant in the room, the SAN needs two support ships rather urgently

2 off shores, makes sense if we build 3 and currently the number of strike
- Agree

now heres the boggle, 3 inshores?
- yes this is confusing

i also feel as if river class are going to be squeesed for many years to come, if i read this right
-Agree, they will end up being used for inshore patrol as well as MCM until the "real" IPVs enter service


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 20:53 

Joined: 07 Dec 2009, 06:30
Posts: 952
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 20:59 

Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 11:50
Posts: 4256
micfradus wrote:
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 doesnt add up yet, unless sandf is using two platforms or more for one job? wasnt biro to have contanerised mcm equipment rendering rivers obsolete?


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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 22:11 

Joined: 07 Dec 2009, 06:30
Posts: 952
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 25 Feb 2015, 22:28 

Joined: 07 Dec 2009, 06:30
Posts: 952
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 26 Feb 2015, 06:06 

Joined: 03 Mar 2008, 08:21
Posts: 1581
Roger the Dodger wrote:
micfradus wrote:
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 doesnt add up yet, unless sandf is using two platforms or more for one job? wasnt biro to have contanerised mcm equipment rendering rivers obsolete?


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.


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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 20 May 2015, 04:21 

Joined: 08 Mar 2009, 05:05
Posts: 3549
Location: Canada
Rosh wrote:
Quote:
Pulling out all the Russian systems and replacing them would cost far too much - it's cheaper to build from scratch.

Otherwise we'd sit with the same problem we had with Outies?[

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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 20 May 2015, 07:21 

Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 11:50
Posts: 4256
micfradus wrote:
Roger the Dodger wrote:
Pulling out all the Russian systems and replacing them would cost far too much - it's cheaper to build from scratch.



But that begs the question of the joint ventures? what systems exactly? i see SANDF favouring eaast these days so i dont know exactly what it is. some education please


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!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 20 May 2015, 22:56 

Joined: 07 Dec 2009, 06:30
Posts: 952
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 21 May 2015, 00:24 
User avatar

Joined: 03 May 2005, 08:40
Posts: 3478
Location: New Zealand
Roger the Dodger wrote:
The only non-NATO-standard weapons the SANDF has are ZU-23-2 guns and RPG-7 anti-tank rocket launchers.


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

_________________
A plan is simply a basis for change.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 21 May 2015, 02:15 

Joined: 07 Dec 2009, 06:30
Posts: 952
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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 21 May 2015, 18:23 

Joined: 31 Jul 2012, 09:29
Posts: 123
Rosh wrote:
Quote:
Pulling out all the Russian systems and replacing them would cost far too much - it's cheaper to build from scratch.


Otherwise we'd sit with the same problem we had with Outies?[


And what would that problem have been Rosh?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: 30 May 2015, 14:30 

Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 11:50
Posts: 4256
Romeo Yankee wrote:
Rosh wrote:
Quote:
Pulling out all the Russian systems and replacing them would cost far too much - it's cheaper to build from scratch.


Otherwise we'd sit with the same problem we had with Outies?[


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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC + 2 hours


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group