Read the forum code of contact
By: - 23rd October 2000 at 20:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
I think that South Africa needs new corvettes..not second hand ones.Capital ships nowadays have a lifespan of 30 - 50 years.These corvettes should last that time.They are far more sophisticated than ships even 10 years old in regards to structure design, stealth etc.Submarine warfare is a skill that takes years to build up.It's not a case of just buying subs , but maintaining current skills which would be prohibitively expensive to re-aquire.That said , although I impressed with the gripen , I'm not sure if it is a wise purchase.I also think the Hawks were a trifle expensive!!!! I believe that S Africa managed to secure the most impressive industrial offsets ever concerning a weapons deal.We will see how this takes off.S Africa also need to replace their main battle tanks at some stage..there was mention of the British Challenger.Why?South Africa make some of the best land systems in the world , bar none.They developed a TTD(tank technology demonstrator) about 5 years ago that was as advanced as projected M1 Abrams and Leopard11 variants.I've only been following the arms purchase in a half hearted way , but it seems to me that the industrial offsets are good....
By: - 23rd October 2000 at 22:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
Ive heard the SAAF is paying 4.7 billion rand,about 600 million US dollars for 24 hawks.Dividing 24 into 600 million gives 25 million per plane.I suppose someone here thinks because spares,training or support aquipment is involved in the deal that this is a fair price.No matter how you break it down,I dont see how you can pay this much for these airplanes.
By: - 24th October 2000 at 13:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
LAST EDITED ON 24-Oct-00 AT 01:58 PM (GMT)[p]LAST EDITED ON 24-Oct-00 AT 01:49 PM (GMT)
Well FFG 7 and Type23 is lot more effective ,but Meko is a bit more modular than the 2 so you fit and replace weapons,electonics,equipment a bit easier than the other 2 as time goes on (the ships will probably be used for a long time to come)as for the subs ,well belive me no navy want to loose their sub capability, because many consider it as an very effective anti surface and sub surface weapon(they are)also can do maritime SOF insertion too,and they just don't want to loose it, no matter what.
By: - 24th October 2000 at 16:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
Pat, I don´t agree with you regarding the MEKO. The larger MEKO has proven itself to be the F16 of most navies(if you get my drift). As for Standard, it depends what model the yanks will give you- the monkey model or the real thing-as the Greeks discovered.
Pat, what trainers were evaluated? My reason for asking is that the same source that provided the text in my thread reports that the Hawk actually came in third as regards the technical evaluation and second in the cost versus capability.
This whole arms deal reminds me of an old saying
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
The gravey train didn´t derail after black rule was introduced, it merely stopped to pick up more passengers.
By: - 24th October 2000 at 20:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
won't the Meko's be armed with the indigenous Umkhonto SAM(SAHV) in a verticle launch battery? I also know that the Cape of Good Hope is a vitally strategic searoute so the Submarines make a lot of sense...
By: - 27th October 2000 at 00:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
Its interesting that south africa has quite a history of replacing aircraft with modern stuff only to find the junk they retired was better.The replaced the shackeltons with the little twin engine piaggio for martime patrol then ended up having to use DC-3s.They tried to replace there harvards(texans)with modern trainers,only to take the harvards back.Now they want hawks and Ill bet they end up selling them and taking back there MB-326s.Its funny,10 years ago south africa was the most likley to be overrun bye communist hordes.}Now there closest vyeable enemy is libya.
By: - 27th October 2000 at 19:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
The DC3 Dackleton was introduced because the yanks and the French wouldn´t sell us Orions or Atlantiques.
What do you mean "They tried to replace there harvards(texans)with modern trainers,only to take the harvards back"?
I´m suprised that the MB339 wasn´t chosen. The Impala served us well for a long time. I used to see them flying at about 30-50 feet off the ground when I was stationed on the border between SWA and Angola
By: - 28th October 2000 at 00:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
I know they tried to replace the harvards,I cant remember with what now,the point is the quality of flying went down,so they went back to harvards.Also I know they flew both mirages and MB-326s about 50 feet off the ground the entire mission,and were trained to dogfight at that level.
By: - 3rd November 2000 at 16:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
Just a news item published back in August-September
South Africa sells arms to Pakistan despite of arms embargo
CAPE TOWN (Reuters) - South Africa has sold arms and ammunition to Pakistan despite announcing a freeze last October after a military coup led to the country's suspension from the Commonwealth, a government official said Thursday.
``These were signed contracts. Due to the nature of the arms being sold, it was decided to allow all existing contracts to be completed, and no freeze will be applied to any collaboration projects'' said Alan Taylor, an adviser to the government's National Arms Control Committee.
He told Reuters that no new export permits had been issued after the cabinet announced last October that it had decided to freeze arms exports to Pakistan.
In a written reply to a parliamentary question, the government said it had sold 44 million rands ($6.20 million) worth of category ``A'' arms to Pakistan since army general Pervez Musharraf ousted prime minister Nawaz Sharif in a bloodless coup 10 months ago.
Category ``A'' weapons include artillery, automatic weapons, tanks, missiles and bombs.
The opposition Democratic Alliance said Thursday it would push for amendments to a new conventional arms control bill going through parliament to ensure ``proper parliamentary review and oversight'' of all arms sales.
By: - 6th November 2000 at 01:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
Picked up on this thread very late, sorry!
Patrick, the Meko's are by far the better option than the Type 22's or 2nd hand Perry's. The Batch 1 & 2 22's are not good general purpose frigates theyre too heavily ASW oriented (that's what we designed them for) and support for Sea Wolf, other than the GWS26 VLS version is going to dry up very quick when we phase out our last Batch2. This is not to mention that the hulls of certain vessels are not in the prettiest of conditions and I wouldnt expect much more than 10 years of life out of some.
The Perry is a better choice but they will require extensive maintenance and the weapon system is not the most modern or the most capable (although I did hear that the Aussies were looking at pulling the Mk13 launcher from theyre Adelaide class Perry's and replacing it with an 8 cell Mk48 VLS system for RIM-7 Sea Sparrow and eventually ESSM)
Compared to this the Mekos will be a good deal more economical to operate i.e 100 crew against 200 for the Perry, will be very capable initially and, as has been said, are of a modular construction to allow future upgrades to be as simple as possible. Plus, again as has been stated Meko's are proven good designs. Off the top of my head Argentina, Australia, Greece, Poland and Turkey all operate varying types.
The interesting thing, for me, about the selection wasnt that it was the Meko being chosen. Rather that is was four of the A200 (which is really a 3500 ton frigate not a corvette!!) rather than a greater number of the smaller, cheaper and not terribly less capable A100 corvette's? As I see it with just the four frigates the most that will be deployed at any one time would be 2 and if one of those were to be assigned to a UN tasking say that would pretty much leave one frigate to patrol the whole of South Africa's coast? I take the argument that SA has no imminent seaborne threat, but Navies do a lot more than just sink each others ships!
Were it my choice I would have opted for at least 6 A100's (roughly similar price) each with the 16 cell VLS option and medium helicopter (something like the Kaman SH-2G SuperSeasprite that the Aussies and Kiwi's are getting) and aimed at keeping 3 deployed at any one time. The Argentine Navy operates a dumbed down version of the A100 called the A140 in the South Atlantic and theyre meant to be very pleased with them so there's no problem with the smaller size either!
The submarines I feel are a sound choice as well, the SAN has some good skills in its subsurface arm and theyre current Daphnes' are getting exceedingly lengthy of beard. The value of a few professionally operated diesel subs cannot be overstated and it far outweighs the monetary cost of the units themselves. In 1982 we were very, very nervous about the threat posed by the two Argentine T209's, they didnt do anything, but the knowledge that they existed and that they could be prowling round almost anywhere had a significant impact on our operations. So the ability to loose a couple of these boats into a maritime choke point such as the Cape, as and when needed deals the SAN into some very big card games!
Oh hell, have prattled on again!!!...usual apologies to the aviation purists.
B.Regs
Steve
By: - 6th November 2000 at 10:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
Patrick,
Hadnt heard about that incident you described - wonderful stuff!
If anything the original Meko 200's had too much of an AAW and ASuW orientation as the Turks were unhappy to find out after the purchase of theyre Yavuz and Barbaros Meko200 classes. That being the reason they aquired ex-USN Knox and Perry class frigates.
The Seawolf GWS.25 (manual load, 6 pot launcher as fitted to the 22's) will be being phased out with the last of the Royal Navy's T22's and I'm not sure how much support, for the missiles, the Brazillian's can expect for the 4 Batch 1's they got after then.
All depends on when the RN want to start decomming the Batch 3's (they are nice GP ships!) The GWS.26 VLS version of Sea Wolf has several modifications over the .25 and the two missiles are not interchangeable.
As to the SM-1/SM-2 issue the SM-1MR (as still carried by USN Perry's, I believe) has a much shorter range than its SM-2MR counterpart. 15-20 naut miles compared to 40+ for the SM-2. RIM-7's range is a topic for debate in itself but is often quoted as being 8-10nm which is probably fair. RIM-7 is a much simpler weapon than even the late SM-1's so its very much easier to operate and its about a third the price of the SM per missile so really, in this instance I think the SeaSparrow in the short term, being replaced by Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM), when available, dual or quad packed into the VLS would have been the better option. The other poster was right though, in SAN service the ships will be equipped with the SA Umkhonto(?) SHORADS missile system.
I can understand your views on the Subs, but you already have an operational sub arm and all the costly infrastructure that that requires. To my mind it seems a waste to discard that capability when the three Type 209's (not that expensive as modern SSK's go) could be such a valuable asset in the event of any future threat.
By: - 6th November 2000 at 21:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
You guys have to remember destroyers/cruisers/frigits are no longer fighting weapons as in the days of the battleship.Their modern use is either protective escort for carriers or war/peacetime suveilence.Since south africa doesnt have carriers there ships dont have to do 30 knots.A perry/spruence type ship could do 20 knots with 2 1000hp deisels.It takes an awful lot of power to give it the next 10 knots.The south africans would do well to design their own coastal protection ship with sea keeping ability emphasized as they have very rough seas,and put all the money theyll save into getting the best electronics/weapons systems they can.Interesting story-I once sat on the tie down ropes to a docked destroyer in hawaii.The antenae tower could clearly be seen to roll 10ft toward me,the crew rushed out on the other side thinking theyd been rammed.Not a ship I would want to be on in rough seas.
By: - 7th November 2000 at 06:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
I agree....the South Africans should possibly develope their own large patrol vessels(say approx 1200t) , and then integrate a range of sensors.I know that they designed and built a replenishment vessel of about 13 000t(Drakensburg?)Although not aviation related , I remember reading in the 80's that they were close to building their own subs....there was controversy that either a German firm had given them blueprints , or that espionage might have played a role...any info on this?
By: - 7th November 2000 at 11:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
I know the Israeli's provided a lot of technical assistance to the SAN for theyre Jan Smuts class 450ton missile boats (ps. if anyone knows of any photo's of these I'd appreciate a pointer!) to the extent they did most of the design and built the first few.
Israel also operated the Gal class (German design Type 206) dielectric submarine at the time so its plausible that if the SAN had a mind to develop a successor to the French designed Maria Van Riebeeck class that German assistance through Israel could have been sought.
Designing your own warships is a remarkably expensive business, much more so than designing a freighter etc, hence the Israeli connection above. Unless, of course, you plan to build enough vessels for yourself to spread the development costs over or have a strong export market. With the relatively modest purchase that the SAN seemed to have in mind and the large range of existing corvette (1200 tons is really corvette territory) designs from established manufacturers like Vosper Thornycroft, DCN, Blohm&Voss and several of the Russian yards it really makes more sense for South Africa to simply order a design that fits theyre requirements.
By: - 7th November 2000 at 19:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
The plans and technology actually went via India to South Africa- but we couldn´t manufacture the steel required(at least not in the quantity required). All of this was tied to a deal for chrome ore.
By: - 7th November 2000 at 19:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
RE: South African Arms Deal
The Gals were designed in Germany but built in the UK.
Posts: 833
By: Puffadder - 4th October 2000 at 19:24
Patrick, what do you know about the following ?
The AG weighs South Africa's arms deals and finds some lacking
3 October 2000
South African Defence Minister Mosiuoa Lekota says the country's Cabinet will discuss a report on the nation's strategic re-armament programme later this month. Last month he forwarded Auditor-General Shauket Fakie's special report on South Africa's controversial R30 billion arms deal to Cabinet for further action. At the time he said the report "help(ed) clear the air", continuing that he found it significant that Fakie had established that the goalposts in the technical evaluation of the bids for the lead-in fighter trainer (LIFT) had been moved.
Fakie, in a report tabled in Parliament in mid-September, said among other things that there were problems with the technical evaluation of the bid for fighter trainers. The contract was ultimately awarded to BAE SYSTEMS. He found that a non-costed option was used to determine the successful bidder and that this was a material deviation from the originally adopted value system. "This ultimately had the effect that a different bidder, at a significantly higher cost, was eventually chosen on the overall evaluation," Fakie said.
Lekota would not say whether this would open the government to a legal challenge by the unsuccessful bidder, saying it would be up to Cabinet to consider the consequences. Britain's The Guardian newspaper reported this week that taking into account cost, the Hawk LIFT came third in the technical evaluation and second in the overall evaluation. But it was awarded the contract after the Armaments Acquisition Council insisted that cost should not be taken into consideration, the paper said. A BAE SYSTEMS spokesman denied any impropriety, saying: "We meticulously abided by the rules. It was one of the most rigorous negotiating processes we have encountered."
The AG's office (similar to the US Congress' GAO) also recommended a special forensic audit be conducted into the subcontracts that fell outside his original terms of reference. Some of these have been the subject of repeated corruption claims. Lekota says government cannot be held responsible for any problems at subcontracting level. "Correctly speaking, it is not in the arena where government can be faulted ... The prime contracts are our responsibility. With regard to subcontractors, that cannot be our responsibility."
The SA Press Association also reported that Lekota was asked whether he believed that government officials involved in the deal might be involved in corruption. Lekota answered that he had yet to see evidence that particular individuals may have acted in bad faith.
The South African government last year signed contracts totalling R30.3 billion to modernise its defence equipment, which included the purchase of corvettes, submarines, light utility helicopters, lead-in fighter trainers and advanced light fighter aircraft. A decision to purchase maritime helicopters was deferred to a later date. The offsets in industrial participation (IP) commitments has been put at about R104 billion, with the creation of more than 65 000 jobs. Fakie warned that the guarantees underpinning the national IP (NIP) commitments were on average only about 10 percent of the contract price. He fears this might be inadequate to ensure delivery and could undermine the counter-trade element of the arms deal.
Fakie also recommended a forensic audit into a complaint lodged with his office by the Cape-based CCII Systems. In July the company objected to France's Thomson-CSF's Detexis subsidiary winning the sub-contract for the integrated management system (IMS) to be fitted to the Navy's four Meko A200SAN corvettes. The IMS is the "brains" of the ship, linking weapons, communications and vessel control systems.
CCII had developed an IMS in conjunction with Armscor with SA Navy (SAN) funds and had been selected by the service. Thomson-CSF also owns local company African Defence Systems (ADS), which was appointed to drive South African participation in the "fighting" components of the corvette programme. ADS is one of a number of firms that have raised eyebrows about their role in the acquisition process. A key director is Schabir Shaik, brother of the chief of the Departmental Acquisitions and Procurement Division (DAPD) in the Department of Defence, Shamim "Chippy" Shaik, the man who has "driven" much of the arms deal. Chippy Shaik's wife also works for the marketing department of ADS. The DAPD chief says he recused himself from the decision- making process because of a potential conflict of interest, but CCII has raised concerns about the timing and nature of this recusal.
In a letter to the AG, CCII director Richard Young said his company had come to the conclusion "that there are vested interests behind our de-selection and the most obvious of efforts to ignore our valid concerns. In particular, we are concerned that ADS have family and business links (at least indirect) with Shaik, who was also chairperson of the project control board, the body responsible for final decision-making on the corvette and other programmes. Shaik has frequently publicly declared his recusal from the deliberations and decisions of the project control board, but we have been advised on good authority that Shaik's supposed recusal could hardly be described as formal recusal."
Young also said that a report by the corvette project team, shortly before the decision was made, clearly recommended the use of the CCII management system in preference to the Thomson Detexis system, which he claimed was technically inferior. Shaik said in an interview at the time that CCII had been passed over because its system was "new technology" and that CCII had been unwilling to provide performance guarantees. As a result of this 'risk', ADS had added a 100% mark-up (about R40-million) to the CCII tender, forcing the navy to accept Detexis. Young denies that CCII had been asked to provide a performance guarantee and says his company was never approached to do a risk assessment on their system. In fact, he said, the system had exceeded development and performance benchmarks set by Armscor, and Thomson-CSF of Belgium had selected the same intrinsic CCII technology for a new generation of Nato aircraft
Meanwhile, The Star newspaper reports, Pan Africanist Congress Parliamentary chief whip, Patricia de Lille, has called on Judge Willem Heath's anti-corruption unit to investigate allegations about corruption and nepotism in the multibillion-rand deal, by asking for a presidential proclamation to investigate. De Lille says she was in particular concerned by Fakie's opinion that "the aspects of independence, fairness and impartiality could have been addressed more significantly" - a reference to Shaik. De Lille said he should now be thoroughly investigated, as should former defence minister Joe Modise, who was also alleged to have become involved in companies linked to the arms deal soon after resigning as minister. Modise has refused to comment on the allegations. De Lille was instrumental in making the allegations public. She forwarded these to the Heath unit last year. The Heath unit "acknowledged the gravity and sensitivity of the allegations" but suspended investigations pending the auditor-general's report. De Lille says they should now proceed.
Fakie's report will next be discussed by Parliament's watchdog committee on public accounts. They have already scheduled hearing for next month. The arms deal is also the subject of investigation by the Justice Department's investigating directorate for serious economic offences.