The SAAF Forum

Discussion on the SAAF and other southern African air forces.
It is currently 26 May 2013, 11:36

All times are UTC + 2 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012, 07:05 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 17:19
Posts: 4242
Quote:
Plans for Salisbury Island revealed

By Dean Wingrin

The South African Navy has revealed more details of how it plans to enlarge its presence at Salisbury Island in Durban.
Salisbury Island, situated inside Durban Harbour (and no longer an island) was the location for the Durban Naval Base. However, defence cuts in 1994 downgraded the base to Naval Station status, leaving the Navy with just a portion of the island, including the quay. The balance of the site was taken over by the Army for use a General Support Base, but the Army vacated the property a number of years ago and that portion has been left derelict ever since.

Speaking to reporters at the State of the Navy presentation held at Simon’s Town, Cape Town yesterday, Rear Admiral Bernhard Teuteberg, Chief Director Maritime Strategy, gave further details of what the Navy planned for Naval Station Durban.

At present, 250 personnel serve at the naval station. As a result of the Navy’s increased anti-piracy activity off the east coast and the strategic importance of Durban, together with the projected acquisition of new patrol vessels under Project Biro, the Navy wishes to increase their footprint in Durban by re-establishing Durban Naval Base.

The National Ports Authority (NPA) has been in discussions with the Department of Public Works (DPW), as owner of all Defence Force properties, to take over the Salisbury Island site. A tentative agreement has now been reached between the Navy, DPW and Transnet in which the Navy will, in addition to their existing presence on the eastern side of the island, reoccupy the southern section whilst the northern section will be taken over by Transnet.

Chief of the Navy, Vice Admiral Refiloe Mudimo, noted that the money Transnet will pay to occupy the site will be reinvested back to re-establish the Naval Base.

The newly established Durban Naval Base will have administrative command over all naval bases in the area. The existing Warrior-class patrol vessels, as well as the replacement in-shore and off-shore patrol vessels to be acquired under Project Biro, will be home ported at Durban, but they will be deployed all over the country. The frigates and submarines will continue to be home ported at Simon’s Town.

The new base will also be home to other units, such as a Maritime Reaction Squadron, Mine Countermeasures System, maintenance and repair infrastructure for the patrol vessels and a patrol vessel functional training facility.

Rear Admiral (JG) Sagaren Pillay, Director Maritime Plans, noted that the task team appointed by the Navy Command Council is interrogating all the aspects required that will see the re-establishment of the Naval Base. “The presentation of that report will then provide the detail in relation to the re-establishment,” Pillay said.

Pillay envisaged that the Naval Base would re-establishment during the 2014/15 financial year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 16 Mar 2012, 12:21 
Offline

Joined: 14 May 2010, 16:19
Posts: 266
Finally, that sounds like real good news, especially the rebasing of the Strike Craft.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2012, 11:16 
Offline

Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 11:50
Posts: 2360
Foxtrot wrote:
Finally, that sounds like real good news, especially the rebasing of the Strike Craft.


Since they lost their missiles it is incorrect to call them "Strike Craft". Their current role Off-shore Patrol.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2012, 12:09 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 23:59
Posts: 3241
Location: 34º 05' 54" S 18º 22' 49"E
Roger the Dodger wrote:
Since they lost their missiles it is incorrect to call them "Strike Craft". Their current role Off-shore Patrol.


The entire Strike Craft community would roll about on the floor laughing at your suggestion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2012, 13:27 
Offline

Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 11:50
Posts: 2360
Eugene wrote:
Roger the Dodger wrote:
Since they lost their missiles it is incorrect to call them "Strike Craft". Their current role Off-shore Patrol.


The entire Strike Craft community would roll about on the floor laughing at your suggestion.



Ammendment: Their current role is alleged to be Off-shore Patrol.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2012, 13:56 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 23:59
Posts: 3241
Location: 34º 05' 54" S 18º 22' 49"E
Roger the Dodger wrote:
Ammendment: Their current role is alleged to be Off-shore Patrol.


Like cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes, etc an OPV is a type of vessel. Or a vessel having a certain function. Strike craft are either FPBs or FACs as a type which are now being utilised as OPVs.
It does not change the class of vessel they are.

The borders are fuzzy - you can use a cruiser as an OPV or a frigate as a cruiser but it does not change the class of vessel the ship belongs to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2012, 15:30 
Offline

Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 11:50
Posts: 2360
Eugene wrote:
Roger the Dodger wrote:
Ammendment: Their current role is alleged to be Off-shore Patrol.


Like cruisers, destroyers, frigates, corvettes, etc an OPV is a type of vessel. Or a vessel having a certain function. Strike craft are either FPBs or FACs as a type which are now being utilised as OPVs.
It does not change the class of vessel they are.

The borders are fuzzy - you can use a cruiser as an OPV or a frigate as a cruiser but it does not change the class of vessel the ship belongs to.


I always thought "strike craft" meant "Small (corvette sized or smaller) fast ship with 'full size' anti-ship missiles as the primary weapon".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2012, 15:52 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 23:59
Posts: 3241
Location: 34º 05' 54" S 18º 22' 49"E
Roger the Dodger wrote:
I always thought "strike craft" meant "Small (corvette sized or smaller) fast ship with 'full size' anti-ship missiles as the primary weapon".


The appellation "strike craft" as pertaining to an FAC is almost unique to South Africa. A few other countries briefly used it - notably Singapore in the seventies and Vosper in Britain used it as a sales pitch with no success. The difference between an FPB and FAC is difficult to discern. When the strike craft first arrived here the missiles were not ready yet - in fact for more than a year we had no missiles - and they were known as the Patrol Boat Squadron. This was also a political ploy to play down the intended aggressive role that craft were supposed to play. The actual people involved were not impressed with the name and much bitching resulted. We were SAS Scorpion and we were NOT patrol boats. Sting and kill. Unfortunately that role never materialised to any discernable extent.

When the acquisition of FACs was first mooted in 1972 the idea was for a "strike craft" - a vessel that would rush out, kill it's opponent and rush back into harbour. Six corvettes would have done the necessary patrolling. When the corvette option dwindled and died the strike craft were pressed into service in a role they were neither designed for nor really suited to. A racehorse was now pulling the vegetable cart - out of sheer necessity.

We could dump missiles onto the things at the drop of a hat. But there is really no need - and missiles have a definite shelf life, are expensive and there is currently absolutely no need other than training to have them in the SAN. If war was to break out tomorrow the strike craft could have missiles - even Exocet - in weeks (or days at a push).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2012, 17:56 
Offline

Joined: 03 Mar 2008, 08:21
Posts: 610
They are strike craft but are used has OPV's same has the UM boats and T crafts are not IPV's but are being used has such. The T crafts are really under strain has there they where never designed to sail around for days on end. That why project BIRO is so important our entire patrol force is of boats that are not patrol boats.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2012, 18:03 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 23:59
Posts: 3241
Location: 34º 05' 54" S 18º 22' 49"E
sob wrote:
They are strike craft but are used has OPV's same has the UM boats and T crafts are not IPV's but are being used has such. The T crafts are really under strain has there they where never designed to sail around for days on end. That why project BIRO is so important our entire patrol force is of boats that are not patrol boats.


You've said it - the trouble it what we need are cheap coast guard type boats not expensive naval vessels. Both cheap to operate and with small crews. Built for the long haul and not the dash.
Something like the fisheries boats with a few guns stuck on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2012, 18:07 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 02 Dec 2009, 10:47
Posts: 331
Location: Cape Town
I noticed that all the remaining Stikecraft still have their fire/tracking radars fitted when it was used with the Gabrial/Scorpion missiles. Are they still keeping them fitted for a "just in case" situation? I had a good look a P1553 moored down by the graveyard and was wondering what are the chances of her going back in service now that Project Biro is dragging on. She needs quite a bit of work though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2012, 18:15 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 23:59
Posts: 3241
Location: 34º 05' 54" S 18º 22' 49"E
gripen1 wrote:
I noticed that all the remaining Stikecraft still have their fire/tracking radars fitted when it was used with the Gabrial/Scorpion missiles. Are they still keeping them fitted for a "just in case" situation?


The same system also directs the 76 mm gun. Without it the gun is virtually useless.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 18 Mar 2012, 18:20 
Offline

Joined: 03 Mar 2008, 08:21
Posts: 610
My thoughts on the new IPV's

They will still need speed so I was thinking a dual propulsion. A cheap easy to run prop and high powered water jets. At least a 20mm main gun and a 35mm DPG would be better. Extra cabin space for MRS and/or law enforcement. At least 7 days endurance.

I have a feeling the navy is going to buy OPV's. That are corvets and IPV's that are OPV's.


We could get the same boats the fishery guys have and just mount weapons on them and paint them grey.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2012, 11:34 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2011, 23:59
Posts: 3241
Location: 34º 05' 54" S 18º 22' 49"E
sob wrote:
I have a feeling the navy is going to buy OPV's. That are corvets and IPV's that are OPV's.


That is more than likely - the navy is being asked to perform a coastguard function and just cannot wrap their egos around the idea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 19 Mar 2012, 15:12 
Offline

Joined: 07 Apr 2008, 11:50
Posts: 2360
Something like the Sarah Baartman but with a 35mmDPG as a main weapon plus a couple of 20mm makes a lot of sense IMHO.

Make provision for light missiles such as a navalised version of Mokopa to be fitted if the going gets rough.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC + 2 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group