Talk:South African Navy

Union Defence Force

There was never a Union of South Africa Defence Force. There was a Union Defence Force (UDF) between 1912 and 1958, when it was renamed the South African Defence Force (SADF) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.55.44 (talk • contribs)

Fixed. Impi

City class Training ships

Anyone knows when did these 6 ex-German minesweepers were acquired. (4 are used as training ships and 2 for spare parts). Are they still in commission

City-class Minesweepers (Lindau-class, Type 351 Troika)

• SAS Kapa, M1123 (FDS Düren, M1079)
• SAS Mangaung, M1222 (FDS Paderborn, M1076)
• SAS Thekwini, M1125 (FDS Wolfsburg, M1082)
• SAS Tshwane, M1073 (FDS Schleswig, M1073)
• (FDS Konstanz, M1081)
• (FDS Ulm, M1083)

--Jcw69 10:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

All six of the ships arrived in Simonstown on 9 March 2001, and the first two (SAS Kapa and SAS Thekwini) were commissioned on the 5th September of that year. So far as I can tell, these were the only minesweepers of this class to be commissioned. In March this year, SAS Thekwini was observed in storage at Simonstown (though it was operational in November 2004 when it formed part of SAS Mendi's escort). SAS Kapa is still operating, and was most recently seen at the Knysna Oyster Festival last month. Impi 12:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

One of them was used as a target and sunk during a live fire excercise by 2 Exocet anti-ship missiles fired from 2 Valour class frigates on 1 November 2007. Unfortunately the SABC television news report did not identify which one it was. Roger 19:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Decommissioned Ships

Please help to complete the section on decommissioned ships, and how they were disposed of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrates2008 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Started..... but a long way to go! Farawayman (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Are these ships still in commission? I have added them under the section "Decommissioned Ships," but they may in fact still be in service.

• Air-Sea Rescue Launch P1551 (Guess not, because there is a new P1551 Farawayman (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC))
• Air-Sea Rescue Launch P1555 (Guess not, because there is a new P1555 Farawayman (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC))
• Replenishment ship SAS Outeniqua
• Torpedo recovery vessel SAS Fleur
• Tugs SAS De Noorde, SAS De Nuys, and SAS De Mist (Moved to current ship list Farawayman (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC))

Farawayman (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

President class frigates

The Presidents were incorrectly identified as Leanders. The superstructure and stern marks them as either Whitby or Rothesay class ships. I haven't been able to find any documentation to confirm the actual class, but the President Kruger's commissioning slots in between the last of the Rothesays and the leadship Leander. If supposition is unacceptable, change the Presidents' class to Type 12 frigate. 61mei31 (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a book by Helmoed Romer-Heitmann somewhere (will have to look for it sometime) that calls them Whitby Class. Roger (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jane's and other sources such as this say says Rothesay. Anyway, good spot! Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

USN submarine conducts 'historic' exercise with South African Navy

Helmoed-Römer Heitman JDW Correspondent, Cape Town

Date Posted: 05-Nov-2009

Jane's Defence Weekly

The US Navy (USN) Los Angeles-class attack submarine (SSN) USS San Juan arrived in South Africa on 4 November for a first-ever joint submarine exercise with the South African Navy (SAN).

The San Juan will exercise with and against the SAN's Type 209/1400 SAS Charlotte Maxeke in the waters off Cape Town, renowned as ideal submarine waters, in manoeuvres that highlight the developing links between the two navies.

The visit marks the third by a USN vessel in 2009, one year after the historic visit in October 2008 of the first US aircraft carrier to Cape Town in 40 years. [ ed: USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71), [1] ]

The USN is likely to be looking to improve on the results of NATO's Standing Maritime Group 1 in September 2007, which did not have a single vessel able to obtain a prosecutable contact on the South African submarine SAS Manthatisi . The latter, on the other hand, was able to 'sink' some of its attackers in two serials, as well as penetrate the convoy screen and 'sink' the German Navy replenishment tanker Spessart and some of the escorts in the two other scenarios.

• Ends*

Future Programs Section

I do not think this section (as well as frequent other comments to future procurements or planning) belong in the article. They should be added only when they actually materialise! Opinions? Farawayman (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

If its properly sourced it can stay. I took a quick look at that section. It is currently unsourced but I immediately recognised that it came from http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6479:q&catid=79:fact-files&Itemid=159 Some of those programmes have already been completed and some have been cancelled. It is really important that such sections must be kept up to date. Roger (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Consolidated all "future project" information into single section and added "This section needs additional citations for verification." banner. Farawayman (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

i agree that it should be removed Gbawden (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Ensigns

I have created a table representing the different Ensigns used by the SA Navy (and its predecessors) since 1922. However, those available on Wikimedia Commons all have different proportions and different shades of green. It would be super if some Graphics Whiz could update these flags in Commons with PNG's that have the correct proportions and colours! To me, correct and accurate heraldry is essential! Farawayman (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The proportions and colours really did change over the years. I'll try to find a RS for them. Roger (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the images in Wikimedia Commons are correct. Flag proportions and colours were changed: Pre 1981 flags had a 1:2 proportion and post 1981 the proportion was 2:3. See here for proportion and colour details (as well as images of other flags which were proposed but never accepted by the Navy). Farawayman (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a great source! Roger (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

File:SA-Army-badge.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SA-Army-badge.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

explanation

Another contributor reverted an entry I added to the article's "see also" section. See also sections are suppoed to link to related article. Readers might confuse the patrol vessels I linked with the navy's patrol vessels, so the link I added is approprate. Geo Swan (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

That link has a problem. It is a redirect to the Lillian Ngoyi class article, thus it creates the impression that those are the entire Fisheries patrol fleet. There is no article that covers the entire fleet as a single entity. Roger (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring

I have added 2 sections that I felt were missing - I used the Royal Navy page as a guide They are Current Role and Command, Control and Organisation

Units should be moved under Command, Control and Organisation. Thoughts? Comments? Gbawden (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Biographical info

Does anyone know where I can find biographical info on the Chiefs of the SA Navy who don't yet have pages of their own? Gbawden (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Baartmann

I see in this article that the Sarah Baartman has been commissioned as the SAS Sarah Bartmaan. This looks like its going to be permanent http://www.navy.mil.za/archive/1207/120712_Sarah_Baartman/article.htm Gbawden (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The DAFF fisheries patrol boats all had to be commissioned as SAS for legal reasons (licensing, insurance, etc) but they still belong to DAFF. The SAN operates them for DAFF on the basis of being paid monthly for all expences. I believe we may see a proper Coast Guard being formed in the near future. Roger (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment Feedback

I asked for the page to be assessed and this was the feedback received:

The article still has lots of unreferenced material, as well as material marked as being out of date. Some photos of ships, sailors, bases, etc, would also be helpful. As such, I think that start class remains appropriate. Given that the SAN doesn't operate all that many ships, it would make sense to identify them in the article rather than direct readers to separate articles.

I will have a look at the referencing Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No mention of the MRS's Project Xena boats and mobile base equipment

The Project Xena boats and portable base equipment entered service several years ago but are not mentioned here - except in the hopelessly outdated "Future Programmes" section. The boats can be seen in False Bay and on Zeekoeivlei fairly regularly. I think we should remove the whole "Future Programmes" section from the article. Cut and Paste it here so that we can follow-up and verify the actual current status of each item in the list. The source list was originally published several years ago and the source (DefenceWeb.co.za) has not kept it up to date. Roger (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Great idea! Gbawden (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Future Programmes

The South African Navy is at present considering additional acquisitions, although it is not clear when or if they will be funded:

• Project Biro: A programme for the acquisition of multi-purpose vessels as replacements of the current three T-Craft IPV and the three remaining strike craft. It is expected that these ships will be built in South Africa. To run in conjunction with Project Hotel. Replacement for remaining Warrior Class strike craft. Estimated to be between 80 to 85 meters in length and will be capable of carrying a helicopter, although it is unknown if it will be able to house one as well. They are to be armed with a 76 mm gun and light machine guns. No missiles are planned to be fitted at this time. The OPVs will also carry Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV). Replacement for remaining T Craft vessels. Estimated to be between 53 to 55 meters in length. They are to armed with a 30 mm gun and light machine guns. No missiles are planned to be fitted at this time. The March 2012 issue of Jane's Navy International reported that current plans called for the acquisition of eight OPVs and six IPVs. Status: Work is being done at a slow rate - RfI issued in 2011

According to this article http://www.africanglobe.net/africa/south-africa-has-what-it-takes-to-meet-navys-new-vessel-requirements/ responses will be in by end 2012. And according to this one it has been budgeted for http://www.armsdeal-vpo.co.za/articles15/acquisition.html Gbawden (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The original source of the second one you've cited is http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13953:naval-acquisitions-to-start-in-2013&catid=51:Sea&Itemid=106 so we should rather use it than a "recycling" site. Roger (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Project Hotel: Acquisition of a new generation maritime survey ship to replace the Hecla-class SAS Protea. To run in conjunction with Project Biro. Award scheduled for 2009. Ship to have a secondary OPV role and equipment fit. Will be similar to Biro OPV and establish a mobile hydrographic survey team. Status: Work is being done at a slow rate - RfI issued in 2011

• Project Millennium: Two, possibly three, multi-mission "strategic support ships", to be used for sealift, command and control, medical evacuation and humanitarian assistance and search and rescue. 200m LPD/LPH vessels contemplated. Likely acquisition cost based on a similar French design. Estimated €340 million per ship. Status: Postponed

• Project Xena: A new class of 15 10.3m patrol boats and a command & control system for the Operational Boat Squadron of the Maritime Reaction Force (MRF). - Status: Completed

• Project Mapantsula: Acquisition of an "offboard" mine counter-measure system (autonomous underwater vehicle) for use by surface fleet. SeaOtter UUV shortlisted. Scheduled for completion: 2010. Status: Postponed

• Project Stanchion: Acquisition of an underwater signature measurement system. Phase 1 (the signal measurement system) scheduled for delivery December 2007. Phase 2 (magnetic treatment centre) scheduled for completion December 2009. Status: Unknown

• Unknown: Design and development of an indigenous OPV combat suite. Status: Unknown - intended to be a "lite" version of current frigate combat suite

• Unknown: Purchase of several deep-sea salvage vessels in 2011. Status: Postponed

I've found this article from February 2012 that gives a fairly good overview of the state of some of these projects - "Biro moved right again?". DefenceWeb. 2012-02-22. Retrieved 2012-07-31. - it should help clear up some of the items. Roger (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

References

List of ships

Why is this currently creeping back into the article when there's a separate article specifically dedicated to this? Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggested it as part of a B class review. Previously the article had no material at all on the navy's small number of ships, which seemed a significant omission given that it's one of the main topics readers will be interested in (and is covered in roughly comparable articles such as Royal New Zealand Navy). Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Last time round, this was modelled on United States Navy and Royal Navy. I think we need some consensus here. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Given that the SAN only has a small number of ships and the article is pretty small, I think it makes sense to identify them in the main article rather than ask readers to look at a separate article. Leaving the ships out makes sense for large navies, but for small navies it seems unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Do mean ships or ship classes? Royal Australian Navy is different again... Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Either works for me :) (there's also a List of current ships of the Royal New Zealand Navy article). That said, listing classes here and individual ships in the dedicated article is my preference as it allows for fairly sophisticated listings such as List of current ships of the Royal Australian Navy. Nick-D (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the RAN model to the RNZN one. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As the person who added the list of ships (and images) I think it looked good (But then I would say that). I followed what was done on the Royal Australian Navy. There is no one page like ours - I like to think we're using the best ideas of all the other pages. Gbawden (talk) 12:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead then - no more issues from me. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Country flags

Interested to hear the thinking behind there being two country flags in the infobox, as I've not seen this pattern on other naval pages where the country flag has changed over time. The connotations of the old SA flag are certainly WP:POV. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no POV problem as such - except for people who try to deny that the SAN existed before 1994! This usage is common all over WP for countries that have changed their flag and is endorsed by WP:MOSFLAG. The SA Army and Air Force in fact existed under three different flags - The "Orange-while-blue" only became the SA flag in 1928. So depending on what date we acept as the founding of the SAN we might have to add (one or both versions of) the Red Ensign here too. See Flag of South Africa#History Roger (talk) 12:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I see only one flag under German Navy - please show us an example of another navy that has historical (country) flags in its infobox. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember when the flags were first added but I see it's become a bit of a standard on the South African Army and other SA military related pages. Gbawden (talk) 12:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

...where it's an issue too. I've been digging through these and can't find any other examples. I suspect the old flag is there only because of the demographics of the editors of South African military articles. Socrates2008 (Talk)

Old country flags removed per WP:MOSFLAG#Overbroad use of flags with politicized connotations Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

SAS ship prefix template

FYI, template:SAS is now available for use with SA naval ships. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed Issues with crew competence section

I've removed the 'Issues with crew competence' section, because not only were half the claims unverified by the linked sources but there there is no proof that any of the mentioned incidents were specifically caused by crew incompetence.Darren (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. While (as I understand it) the SAN is having problems manning all three subs, those kind of accidents are pretty routine in any submarine force. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that User:Qoncept and User:Vghj526 (whom I believe to be a sockpuppet of Qoncept) are continuing to revert back this section despite repeated requests to engage in discussion here first. Darren (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Funny how Impi turned this into a race issue (as evidenced by my talk page). He has a dog in this fight. So much for NPOV.

For the case of crew competence, I cite:

"Rear Admiral Bernhard Teuteberg told the Portfolio Comitee on Defence and Military Veterans yesterday that there were three issues involving the Manthatisi. The first was that when the submarine is in harbour it is plugged into a shore service to keep its 250 tons of batteries charged. The South African Press Association elaborated that “someone” had connected the submarine to this “the wrong way round", blowing fuses in the submarine, apparently because the wires had not been marked properly. The sailor responsible had been disciplined. "A board of inquiry was convened and... a person was held responsible; he was reprimanded," Teuteberg said."

Now, are you going to claim that this was sabotage? There are two possible causes for this incident, sabotage or incompetence.

Secondly, I have no idea who Vghj526 is, but because someone else was against you, you falsely claimed they were a "sock puppet" of me. You truly are a sniveling worm. And believe me, if you insist on making a battle out of this, I guarantee that you'll lose. User:Qoncept —Preceding undated comment added 01:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a source which discusses poor training standards in the SAN, then it could be added. However all navies regularly bang up their ships, and submarines seem to be particularly frequently damaged (not surprisingly given how complicated they are to operate, and the nature of what they do), so you can't make such broad claims without strong source. No-one would seriously accuse the Royal Navy of incompetence, yet the skipper of HMS Astute (S119) managed to run the boat aground during routine trials. Likewise, the US Navy is generally agreed to know its stuff, but the USS Porter (DDG-78) somehow managed to run into an oil tanker a few days ago. The Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Australian Navy are also well regarded navies which have struggled to have more than one or two subs operational in recent years, and regularly break those which are working. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

If anything notable operational incidents should be posted on the individual ship pages IMHO - without the references to the race of the people concerned. Gbawden (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not turn this into a race issue, User:Qoncept, you did when you added large sections to these articles that explicitly implied that black crew-members were to blame for each incident despite having no evidence for it. Your mention of the battery issue is also irrelevant, as at no point has the race of the person been mentioned. Sailors, even those trained by competent navies, make mistakes and unless you can prove that this is as a result of a generally incompetent personnel base it does not help your case for adding the contentious section. As User:Nick-D has shown, even the world's best navies have experienced incidents and accidents like those the SA Navy has.

As for the link between you and User:Vghj526, it is indeed curious that this enigmatic user not only edits pages in which you have become involved (and in some cases, reprimanded) but that the edits made are virtually identical to yours. Darren (talk) 09:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

To draw a line under the "plugged it in wrong" saga: I heard from someone currently serving in the SAN (not a citable RS but under the circumstances it's as close as we are ever likely to get) the naval person who was "reprimanded" was the Lieutenant who had the bad luck to be the OOD when it happened. The person who actually did the wrong connection was a civilian harbour worker. Roger (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Roger. I've also heard from SAN personnel and others that it was a civilian who connected things up incorrectly, but sadly it's not something we can cite here. Darren (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. The biggest issue of crew competence in the SAN arguably relates to the sinking of the PK - more serious accident, with loss of life and the vessel, and well-document crew competence issues. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Not part of RN

The SAN is the navy of South Africa. It was not "From 1922 to the 1950s the SA Navy was effectively part of the Royal Navy"!Royalcourtier (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Jack in 1994?

In 1994, when the RSA's national flag was used as the ensign, what was the SAN's jack at this time? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Jack pre-1994

What was the SAN's jack before 1994? Was it just the national flag? – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 07:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)