How would YOU equip SADF in the 1980's?
- Thread starter ivanotter
- Start date
Upper House with an equal number of members for Black, White, Colored and Indian South Africans, with that number of seats guaranteed by population. Think Lebanon's Parliament, which would be done the same way.
Basically, I'm envisioning a 275-seat lower house and a 120-seat upper house. The 275-seat house is elected by straight majority rule in a first-past-the-post system, each seat representing a certain constituency. The 120 seat house is elected through separate voters rolls, but with 30 seats reserved for each population group.
Last edited:
I don't think you missed anything, aside from the fact that I think once the Cold War is over and after the USSR breaks up that the biggest problem the RSA face in terms of foreign policy will be gone. Without the USSR's support in this world the communist states will have to work with South Africa, unless of course they have built their own infrastructure (transport net and power supply above all else) that allows them to be independent of South Africa. But the end of communism isn't gonna be the end of the need for the SADF, of course, and Africa in the 1990s and 2000s gives lots of potential problem points, with Rwanda in 1994 being the biggest single place of mayhem. The many potential problems will also provide new needs, as a heavy armed force is unnecessary for many of the duties that will be present in Africa in the 1990s, but they will need mobility above all else - that means extra airlift capacity and helicopters, and good light infantry and motorized forces.
Has anybody been able to make Challenger 2s assembled locally? The rest of that makes sense (though I can there being difficulties with the change in main guns) and I don't know if the BRG-15 would ever be built, as much as it is an improvement in power over the Ma Deuce.
In my case, I'm thinking the Merkava IIISA I worked on will have had better electronics fitted and probably would have taken advantage of the improvements the Israelis made that they would have no problems with South Africa using, such as the stronger tracks and modular armor improvements, though with SA-developed air-conditioning and NBC protection, fire control system improvements and a new, more powerful diesel engine. As I am expecting my world's rival nations to SA would probably by this point have T-80s or Type 90s, a good MBT would be something South Africa would want and them and the Israelis would probably be communicating the various improvements both sides develop. Israel may allow the South African Merkavas to have the Rafael Remote Weapons Station, though I'm not sure on that one and in any case it would probably not be beyond the possibility of South African engineers.
I'm thinking the newer Rooikats in my world would be hybrid-electric, with two powerful direct-injection turbodiesel engines in the place of the one used in the original driving two high-output electric generators, providing power to electric motors on each wheel, improving both power and range. A compact 120mm gun allows the Rooikat to use the same rounds as my Merkava IIISA tanks, and a bigger turret and electronic sights give better room and visibility. ATGMs are also fitted to the Rooikat here.
I'm thinking that whatever replaces the Ratel would have to be made in South Africa, and this is a tossup. I'm thinking that SA might want to work with somebody developing an APC of their own, like working with Singapore on the AV-81 Terrex or Turkey on the FNSS Pars. The Patria is a possibility, though, but then so would a bunch of others, including the idea of souped-up, modernized Ratels. The smaller vehicles - Casspirs, RG-32s, Nyalas and Marauders - would probably be as OTL, though I would also suspect that lots of these would be replaced by versions of the new APC. If its the Turks that South Africa works with, stuff like the Otokar Cobra also becomes available.
I'm in agreement, though I'm thinking about having the Astros 2020 rocket system mounted on the G6-52 chassis and having the G5-2000 be mounted on a truck, like the Tarta T5-2000 developed for the Indian Army by Denel IOTL. The G7 would be towed artillery and designed to be light and easy to move, providing artillery support to fast-moving units.
The Medium-range defense would be the Aster, while the G6 Marksman would be the short-range, fitted with South African radar and fire control systems. I don't think SA would bother with ABM defenses as the Aster is plenty fast enough to knock down whatever opposition they are likely to encounter from their neighbors. The SA Asters might even have Atlas Aerospace (SA's primary aerospace firm per-Denel merger) as part of MBDA and thus have the missiles themselves made in South Africa. The Aster would probably also be planned for usage in future SA Navy ships.
Agreed, though I would think that the EC725s would be complemented by a number of upgraded Atlas Oryx medium helicopters. The NH90 isn't powerful enough or strong enough for the hot and high conditions, either, so the only real options here are either the EC725 or the Black Hawk, and I agree that European equipment is more likely than American equipment unless the price is really good - its also possible that Atlas builds these, too.
I agree again, though I think the HTH might be the big-buck deal for Atlas that puts them into the major leagues even more than the Rooivalk. The HTH is a potentially big program but none of its involved parties have much in the way of development $$$ for it, so Atlas might tell the parties "hey, we can run this for you if we know that you will buy it when we're done work on it." If this company can do an attack helicopter I would imagine that a big heavy transport unit is not out of the realm of possibility.
Agreed, and I've already got that.
Not sure about the mast-mounted fire control but the others I agree with. The AH-2A Rooivalk would be the original, AH-2A35 would be ones fitted with the 35mm cannon instead of the F2, AH-2B gets better fire control systems and AH-2C is the whole hog everything-got-done version.
South Africa would have to join the FN group to get the BRG-15 made, because it wasn't IOTL. The Carl Gustav was used in large numbers by the SADF, the RPG-7 was mostly courtesy of the opposition groups that joined the SADF post-apartheid and would probably not happen here so replacing it is probably unnecessary. The MP5 would probably still be the SMG of choice and the R6 would probably remain in use for vehicle crews. The others I agree with.
I rather suspect that South African involvement would not speed up or slow down the Eurofighter project to any particular degree, though I do agree it may well end up in this world being the SAAF's fighter of choice. With my list, I would suspect that the Mirage F1 would be retired in the 1990s but the others would still be in service, with steady improvements to the Hornet, Tornado and Jaguar fleets. The Eurofighter would be likely to replace all three, which means in this world an order of about 60 or so. Dassault would be aggressive in marketing here, too, so the Rafale would also be a possibility and Dassault would be able to play the "when has our stuff ever not served you well?" card. Boeing would also be able to point the service record of the F/A-18 for the SAAF in its marketing efforts, and also perhaps even offer the SAAF entry into the Joint Strike Fighter program. The Gripen would also be able to make a case. Personally, of those options, I'd go Eurofighter or Rafale and avoid the JSF like the plague - it would probably end up being too pricey for the SAAF in any case. My world sees the Hornets and Tornados in the early 80s and the Jaguars right after that, so they would be reaching the end of their likely lives now.
EJ2000s probably wouldn't fit in the Tornado - its a significantly longer engine - and even if it did it would require significant electronic improvements to the Tornado just to run the engines. I'm not seeing enough of a gain to justify the cost. On the others, full agreement.
Agreed.
What would be changing here as opposed to OTL? My SAAF from above has to replace the Belfast, 707-320 and 747-200 now, and I'm thinking the the A400M would be not big enough to replace the 747, though it would replace the Belfast quite nicely - the two have near-identical max payloads and the A400M flies much further with said payload. If the A400M can be delivered in good time (and with a reasonably good price) then it would replace the Belfast, while I'm thinking that the SAAF may bite big and order up a half-dozen C-17 Globemasters for the heavy loads to retire the 747s. The 707s probably get replaced by A330s for aerial refueling jobs.
The C-295 and C-27J could probably do this, but the C-130s would be new enough to still be on the roster as well, though they would probably be retired in the 2010s.
A310 Phalcon would be still out there, yes. The tanker job would probably be assigned to A330s - perhaps a big order to supply both the SAAF and South African Airways might be an option to get a volume discount. No way is an A380 used for a presidential aircraft, I figure probably an A340 for that owing to its long range and being big enough to carry an official party in the utmost comfort.
I'm thinking a T45 for the replacement for the Kidds, namely because they are already using the Aster for the army's air defense and the other equipment they all already use and so are familiar with it. The Kidds are fitted with SPG-62 radars later in their lives and also get the RAM missiles in the early 2000s, with the T45 also using the RAM. Goalkeeper with the Denel 35mm gun replaces Phalanx on the new destroyers, and they get a cruise missile for it as well. Naval G5 is used on both classes of vessel. Naval EC725s are used on the new destroyers as well.
OTL's Valour class, fitted for the Aster, would be perfect for the role. The Type 22s, however, last well into the 2010s as the destroyers eat the budget for new naval shipbuilding.
I don't think you missed anything, aside from the fact that I think once the Cold War is over and after the USSR breaks up that the biggest problem the RSA face in terms of foreign policy will be gone. Without the USSR's support in this world the communist states will have to work with South Africa, unless of course they have built their own infrastructure (transport net and power supply above all else) that allows them to be independent of South Africa. But the end of communism isn't gonna be the end of the need for the SADF, of course, and Africa in the 1990s and 2000s gives lots of potential problem points, with Rwanda in 1994 being the biggest single place of mayhem. The many potential problems will also provide new needs, as a heavy armed force is unnecessary for many of the duties that will be present in Africa in the 1990s, but they will need mobility above all else - that means extra airlift capacity and helicopters, and good light infantry and motorized forces.
Has anybody been able to make Challenger 2s assembled locally? The rest of that makes sense (though I can there being difficulties with the change in main guns) and I don't know if the BRG-15 would ever be built, as much as it is an improvement in power over the Ma Deuce.
The U55 is a custom version of the L55 designed for the Challenger 2 so the replacement of the L30 would be no problem. And if the Challenger 2 had been chosen by Greece it would have been built there by ELBO, so yes it could have been built elsewhere. The M2 is getting old and if funding and/or foreign interest had been there, it could have gone into service.
In my case, I'm thinking the Merkava IIISA I worked on will have had better electronics fitted and probably would have taken advantage of the improvements the Israelis made that they would have no problems with South Africa using, such as the stronger tracks and modular armor improvements, though with SA-developed air-conditioning and NBC protection, fire control system improvements and a new, more powerful diesel engine. As I am expecting my world's rival nations to SA would probably by this point have T-80s or Type 90s, a good MBT would be something South Africa would want and them and the Israelis would probably be communicating the various improvements both sides develop. Israel may allow the South African Merkavas to have the Rafael Remote Weapons Station, though I'm not sure on that one and in any case it would probably not be beyond the possibility of South African engineers.
This is fine so I think we can assume by now they would have the Merkava IVSA by now. I just like the Challenger, it's a good tank but it never really had a chance on the export market. Maybe you could have it ordered by Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
I'm thinking the newer Rooikats in my world would be hybrid-electric, with two powerful direct-injection turbodiesel engines in the place of the one used in the original driving two high-output electric generators, providing power to electric motors on each wheel, improving both power and range. A compact 120mm gun allows the Rooikat to use the same rounds as my Merkava IIISA tanks, and a bigger turret and electronic sights give better room and visibility. ATGMs are also fitted to the Rooikat here.
All good ideas, I agree.
I'm thinking that whatever replaces the Ratel would have to be made in South Africa, and this is a tossup. I'm thinking that SA might want to work with somebody developing an APC of their own, like working with Singapore on the AV-81 Terrex or Turkey on the FNSS Pars. The Patria is a possibility, though, but then so would a bunch of others, including the idea of souped-up, modernized Ratels. The smaller vehicles - Casspirs, RG-32s, Nyalas and Marauders - would probably be as OTL, though I would also suspect that lots of these would be replaced by versions of the new APC. If its the Turks that South Africa works with, stuff like the Otokar Cobra also becomes available.
In OTL, the AMV is being procured to replace the Ratel and will be built by Denel with 85% local content and local upgrades, so I think it will be fine. And the AMV was the only vehicle to pass their mine protection tests, but other than this I agree.
I'm in agreement, though I'm thinking about having the Astros 2020 rocket system mounted on the G6-52 chassis and having the G5-2000 be mounted on a truck, like the Tarta T5-2000 developed for the Indian Army by Denel IOTL. The G7 would be towed artillery and designed to be light and easy to move, providing artillery support to fast-moving units.
Agreed.
The Medium-range defense would be the Aster, while the G6 Marksman would be the short-range, fitted with South African radar and fire control systems. I don't think SA would bother with ABM defenses as the Aster is plenty fast enough to knock down whatever opposition they are likely to encounter from their neighbors. The SA Asters might even have Atlas Aerospace (SA's primary aerospace firm per-Denel merger) as part of MBDA and thus have the missiles themselves made in South Africa. The Aster would probably also be planned for usage in future SA Navy ships.
I just would have thought a land based Umkhonto on a truck would be a good short range SAM system to supplement the Aster, but I agree with you.
Agreed, though I would think that the EC725s would be complemented by a number of upgraded Atlas Oryx medium helicopters. The NH90 isn't powerful enough or strong enough for the hot and high conditions, either, so the only real options here are either the EC725 or the Black Hawk, and I agree that European equipment is more likely than American equipment unless the price is really good - its also possible that Atlas builds these, too.
Agreed.
I agree again, though I think the HTH might be the big-buck deal for Atlas that puts them into the major leagues even more than the Rooivalk. The HTH is a potentially big program but none of its involved parties have much in the way of development $$$ for it, so Atlas might tell the parties "hey, we can run this for you if we know that you will buy it when we're done work on it." If this company can do an attack helicopter I would imagine that a big heavy transport unit is not out of the realm of possibility.
That's what I was thinking.
Agreed, and I've already got that.
Not sure about the mast-mounted fire control but the others I agree with. The AH-2A Rooivalk would be the original, AH-2A35 would be ones fitted with the 35mm cannon instead of the F2, AH-2B gets better fire control systems and AH-2C is the whole hog everything-got-done version.
This is good, but now I think it would have a better chance on the export market with these improvements. Some customers could be Brazil, Oman, Turkey, Malaysia, and even Canada, UK and Australia.
South Africa would have to join the FN group to get the BRG-15 made, because it wasn't IOTL. The Carl Gustav was used in large numbers by the SADF, the RPG-7 was mostly courtesy of the opposition groups that joined the SADF post-apartheid and would probably not happen here so replacing it is probably unnecessary. The MP5 would probably still be the SMG of choice and the R6 would probably remain in use for vehicle crews. The others I agree with.
This is fine.
I rather suspect that South African involvement would not speed up or slow down the Eurofighter project to any particular degree, though I do agree it may well end up in this world being the SAAF's fighter of choice. With my list, I would suspect that the Mirage F1 would be retired in the 1990s but the others would still be in service, with steady improvements to the Hornet, Tornado and Jaguar fleets. The Eurofighter would be likely to replace all three, which means in this world an order of about 60 or so. Dassault would be aggressive in marketing here, too, so the Rafale would also be a possibility and Dassault would be able to play the "when has our stuff ever not served you well?" card. Boeing would also be able to point the service record of the F/A-18 for the SAAF in its marketing efforts, and also perhaps even offer the SAAF entry into the Joint Strike Fighter program. The Gripen would also be able to make a case. Personally, of those options, I'd go Eurofighter or Rafale and avoid the JSF like the plague - it would probably end up being too pricey for the SAAF in any case. My world sees the Hornets and Tornados in the early 80s and the Jaguars right after that, so they would be reaching the end of their likely lives now.
I'll go with this, but I also think the Typhoon would be chosen over the Rafale. I could see them becoming a member of the Eurofighter consortium as well.
EJ2000s probably wouldn't fit in the Tornado - its a significantly longer engine - and even if it did it would require significant electronic improvements to the Tornado just to run the engines. I'm not seeing enough of a gain to justify the cost. On the others, full agreement.
Agreed.
What would be changing here as opposed to OTL? My SAAF from above has to replace the Belfast, 707-320 and 747-200 now, and I'm thinking the the A400M would be not big enough to replace the 747, though it would replace the Belfast quite nicely - the two have near-identical max payloads and the A400M flies much further with said payload. If the A400M can be delivered in good time (and with a reasonably good price) then it would replace the Belfast, while I'm thinking that the SAAF may bite big and order up a half-dozen C-17 Globemasters for the heavy loads to retire the 747s. The 707s probably get replaced by A330s for aerial refueling jobs.
The C-295 and C-27J could probably do this, but the C-130s would be new enough to still be on the roster as well, though they would probably be retired in the 2010s.
Well I figured with the A400M replacing the C-130, the C-160 would need replacement as well, and the C-295 seemed most likely especially if they are an Airbus partner.
A310 Phalcon would be still out there, yes. The tanker job would probably be assigned to A330s - perhaps a big order to supply both the SAAF and South African Airways might be an option to get a volume discount. No way is an A380 used for a presidential aircraft, I figure probably an A340 for that owing to its long range and being big enough to carry an official party in the utmost comfort.
I'm thinking a T45 for the replacement for the Kidds, namely because they are already using the Aster for the army's air defense and the other equipment they all already use and so are familiar with it. The Kidds are fitted with SPG-62 radars later in their lives and also get the RAM missiles in the early 2000s, with the T45 also using the RAM. Goalkeeper with the Denel 35mm gun replaces Phalanx on the new destroyers, and they get a cruise missile for it as well. Naval G5 is used on both classes of vessel. Naval EC725s are used on the new destroyers as well.
Agreed.
OTL's Valour class, fitted for the Aster, would be perfect for the role. The Type 22s, however, last well into the 2010s as the destroyers eat the budget for new naval shipbuilding.
Agree as well.
The RBS-15, A320 MPA and MU90 were just some ideas of mine.
What are the possibilities of them getting a Mistral or similar ship? I think with some LCAC's to land troops and tanks with AH-2C's providing air support, they would be quite lethal.
What are your thoughts on the SSK fleet? I thought the U-214/216 would be most likely but the S80, Marlin or Scorpene are likely as well.
Last edited:
And they make quite good sense, though in my mind maritime patrol planes would be well down the SADF's list of priorities and thus wouldn't be in service until 1988ish, which means they would not be obsolete now in all likelihood. I was thinking a handful of Nimrod MRA2s (6-8 tops) are bought by the SA Navy in the late 1980s for the job, and that some of the improvements of the MRA4 project are picked up by the South African Nimrods. A320 MPA would be a potential replacement for these later on, though.
The RBS-15 is an option, but the SA Navy knows the Exocet well and would have the AM39 and MM40 series Exocets for use from patrol planes, fighters, helicopters and surface ships, with maybe SM39s from submarines later on. The MU90 is a no-brainer, however.
Possible, and indeed the SA Navy IOTL wanted such a vessel and had plans for one (Project Millenium is the name for it within the SANDF IOTL), but this would have to be late 1990s at the earliest to get one. A Mistral is an option, as would a Juan Carlos I-like design (which I think is better, personally - it gives the option of STOVL aircraft later on if desired). I would call it possible, but it would require a big commitment on South Africa's part.
I agree on those - considering the Daphne class boats would have been reading for retirement in the 1990s and the Agostas would be 20+ years old by then as well a replacement SSK program would be along about that time, with the Type 214, Scorpene, Upholder (they haven't been sold to Canada yet here and may never be) and the Kockums T192, which is similar to the Gotland class. The Upholder is the only one without AIP but would also be the cheapest to buy, and such a propulsion system could be bought and fitted later one could suppose, but I'd still say the others are more likely. (The S80 and Marlin are too far in the future for this.) I think of those the best is probably the Scorpene, because the Type 214 is still on the design board and Kockums' export efforts would probably have taken a big hit because of the problems the Australians had with the Collins class.
How do you think their nuclear program would look now? I have a feeling they would still be building ICBM's and would probably develop a nuclear cruise missile for their aircraft. I suspect the RSA 4 would have been in service since the 1990's with a longer-ranged RSA 5 coming into service in the mid-2010's.
Along with their missiles carrying warheads, I wouldn't be surprised if they had developed and launched satellites by now. They could be launching astronauts to the ISS as well.
Buccaneer was supposed to carry the "traditional" nuclear bomb.
The Kentron SKUA (target drone) was to be the frame for the SA cruise missile.
However, US apparantly told SA to drop that idea.
The G5/6 were obvious choices for artillery-fired nucelar shells. The rumour was that Israel "rented" 10 nuclear artillery rounds to SA.
HOWEVER, these were for 175 or 203 mm artillery, which SA never had.
SA managed to get hold on a few US M2 155 mm Long Tom guns, used the carriage, which could handle the 175 or 203 mm barrels.
The actual nuclear device was to be the neutron bomb.
10 of these were (apparantly) also deployed to Angola in 1988 during the battle of Mavinga, where SA had intercepted radio communications authorising the use of gas on SADF.
This escalation might have been the exact reason why US-USSR came to an agreement pertaining to Namibia and the withdrawal of the Cuban forces.
SA started looking at 155 mm nuclear rounds but it stopped before any headway was made.
This according to Venter: "How SA built six atomic bombs"
Ivan
The Kentron SKUA (target drone) was to be the frame for the SA cruise missile.
However, US apparantly told SA to drop that idea.
The G5/6 were obvious choices for artillery-fired nucelar shells. The rumour was that Israel "rented" 10 nuclear artillery rounds to SA.
HOWEVER, these were for 175 or 203 mm artillery, which SA never had.
SA managed to get hold on a few US M2 155 mm Long Tom guns, used the carriage, which could handle the 175 or 203 mm barrels.
The actual nuclear device was to be the neutron bomb.
10 of these were (apparantly) also deployed to Angola in 1988 during the battle of Mavinga, where SA had intercepted radio communications authorising the use of gas on SADF.
This escalation might have been the exact reason why US-USSR came to an agreement pertaining to Namibia and the withdrawal of the Cuban forces.
SA started looking at 155 mm nuclear rounds but it stopped before any headway was made.
This according to Venter: "How SA built six atomic bombs"
Ivan
Is it me or has SA always overlooked the naval component?
I am fascinated by all the knowledge pouring out on the navy topic.
Were any of the suggested vessels nuclear capable? I have not seen any mention of any initiative to nuclear arm the navy.
I can easily see all the SADF incursions into Angola as land-based operations, but both SA and Angola have substantial coast lines.
Now, I am not suggesting an SA amphibious operation, the marines storming across the beaches of Luanda, but why was sea-based operations never an option in the bush wars?
Sailing to Luanda is immensely less complex than driving from Namibia.
Ivan
I am fascinated by all the knowledge pouring out on the navy topic.
Were any of the suggested vessels nuclear capable? I have not seen any mention of any initiative to nuclear arm the navy.
I can easily see all the SADF incursions into Angola as land-based operations, but both SA and Angola have substantial coast lines.
Now, I am not suggesting an SA amphibious operation, the marines storming across the beaches of Luanda, but why was sea-based operations never an option in the bush wars?
Sailing to Luanda is immensely less complex than driving from Namibia.
Ivan
Part of the reason the SA Navy always had less influence is the National Party being as dominated as it was by the Afrikaners, and the fact that most of the SA Navy's senior staff were always English. The old divide, so to speak. More to the point, it takes more time and money to develop a powerful Navy than a strong Army, which is probably also part of the problem.
It is possible to have operations based from ships during the Bush Wars in Angola and Mozambique, but part of that issue is the problem of hitting targets further in. It is possible (and indeed may even be a good idea if SA can get enough capabilities) to use naval-based operations against Luanda or other coastal areas, but its risky and dangerous if you cannot replace your losses, and the SA Navy couldn't.
Yes, thanks. Never thought about that. Logical really.
Also "bush war" and "navy" looks like an oxymoron after all.
Then the other question is: In the time of the 1970-80's, who had any maritime strike capability around SA (except USSR, but doubtful if they would deploy naval forces)?
Of course Angolan jets (flown by East Germans or Soviet pilots) could fly over water, but maritime strikes?
Would SA navy be used as special forces platforms? Would it give any advantage forces in the likes of 32 batallion did not already provide? (one of my friends (or acquintance really) was in 32 batallion and told me they were sitting just outside Luanda when told to pull back).
Would naval incursions be seen as more provocative by USSR/Cuba than ground forces?
Ivan
Also "bush war" and "navy" looks like an oxymoron after all.
Then the other question is: In the time of the 1970-80's, who had any maritime strike capability around SA (except USSR, but doubtful if they would deploy naval forces)?
Of course Angolan jets (flown by East Germans or Soviet pilots) could fly over water, but maritime strikes?
Would SA navy be used as special forces platforms? Would it give any advantage forces in the likes of 32 batallion did not already provide? (one of my friends (or acquintance really) was in 32 batallion and told me they were sitting just outside Luanda when told to pull back).
Would naval incursions be seen as more provocative by USSR/Cuba than ground forces?
Ivan
There are some potential benefits, however, but Angolan geography means that most of the fighting is way inland, well outside the reach of the SA Navy. However, that doesn't mean they are useless by any stretch. South Africa knew where the command centers for the Army in Luanda were, and I'm surprised they never made at attempt at blowing them up using anti-ship missiles or special forces on helicopters from ships offshore. Potential losses must have been one consideration (particularly after the President Kruger was lost after its collision with the Tafelberg in 1982), but especially after the Drakensberg was built and the Warrior-class craft were available, I'd have at least tried it. The Cubans could well have tried to strike back using their fighters, but as the SAAF had 707s equipped for air-to-air refueling by this point you could have timed a SAAF air-defense mission over the ships with the Mirage F1s to protect the naval assets.
What I have in mind for this is simple. President Pretorius, President Steyn, Drakensberg, Tafelberg and four of the Minister class missile boats set off from Simonstown, staying well out to sea. SAAF fighters from Namibia sanitize the area of Angolan patrol aircraft and/or notify the SA Navy of any vessels they find. Off Luanda, the fleet takes a right turn and goes straight at the Angolan capital, closing to within missile range. At this point, the Drakensberg launches two Super Frelons with a strike team aboard, while each frigate launches a Rooivalk armed with rockets and cannons. After that's done, the four Warrior class each loose a couple missiles apiece, aimed at important military command centers in Angola. The missiles hit first, with their hundred-kilo warheads having the result of doing serious damage, followed by the Rooivalks silencing any opposition that turns up - the tanks will all be way away from there, so no need for armor weapons, but they might be good to pack along in case something expected shows up.
The Super Frelons show up and drop their teams on whatever the two choice targets are - I'd suggest the Cuban Embassy and the Angolan Ministry of Defense first of all - and make as much of a mess as can be done in a short time frame, like thirty to fourty-five minutes. Take prisoners if you can and grab any intel possible, then get the hell out. As this is happening, the armed warships bolt in to as close as possible. A nice fuck you at this point would be for the frigates to open fire with their 4.5" guns on the nice big fortress that sits on the edge of Luanda's harbor - hit it as many times as you can do so in half an hour and them scram, while the missile boats pump as many missiles into the harbor as possible - not many Soviet warships are gonna be around, but Soviet merchant ships are probably fair game here, though hitting Cuban and Angolan ones would have more of an effect. That done and the helicopters on the way out, 1-800-RUN. Get out of the area and tell the SAAF fighters to get over there - no way does this not get a Cuban AF response, and you don't need anti-ship missiles to kill these ships, a point the Argentines proved to the Royal Navy in 1982. Get out to sea, hook up with Tafelberg and head for home, job done. The SAAF fighters could find some easy shots on the Cuban fighters, as they would be loaded with armament to kill the naval ships and run head-on into missile-armed fighters, though the Cubans would probably have missiles on their attack birds.
Would this stop the Cubans? No. Would scare the hell out of them and piss them off? You bet. Would the Russians supply the Cubans with more advanced naval weapons? Maybe, but the Cubans needed lots of help supporting their forces in Angola to start with, and Moscow may force them to accept a greater naval risk. (If that's the case, send out the subs and if any Cuban navy ships show up, blast them.)
Nobody had any other than SA, but the South Africans didn't want to risk what few assets they had. The SAAF Buccs were armed with AS-30 and air-launched Gabriel anti-ship missiles, so any attacks on SA ships or on their territory from the sea could run into big problems in a big hurry. But since South Africa was focusing its resources on the fight in Angola and had little threat from the sea, the Navy always got the short end of the stick, compounded by the fact that the Navy was always the most English of the South African armed services as mentioned above.
They might be. The naval front was very quiet because neither side had much in the way of either resources or willingness to use them. If that changes, then both sides will have to spend resources fixing that, which could be a big problem for South Africa, and for Cuba if the Soviets didn't provide a lot of support.
They might. It would very certainly open up a new front in the war.
More provocative: That's my point. It is possible to deny 32 batallion's recce units, but not possible to deny a frigate.
That must be a major escalation.
The only naval power would have been USSR. However, sailing anything like a carrier force down into the South Atlantic would be rather problematic I should think.
I found a reference to: Battle of Quifangondo. The only time where SA Navy was involved in anything. This was the evacuatioon of the SADF guns and 52 soldiers north of LUanda at the time of the Angolan independence. --> Interesting reading! what a mess!
Ivan
That must be a major escalation.
The only naval power would have been USSR. However, sailing anything like a carrier force down into the South Atlantic would be rather problematic I should think.
I found a reference to: Battle of Quifangondo. The only time where SA Navy was involved in anything. This was the evacuatioon of the SADF guns and 52 soldiers north of LUanda at the time of the Angolan independence. --> Interesting reading! what a mess!
Ivan
OK, so we can do the Challenger 2 in SADF service, and in that situation it probably would be possible for the Challenger 2 to fit into this TL. I'm still not convinced for the BRG-15, namely because of the fact that the gun would require more than one partner to develop it or would require the weapon to have a real firm order. If the developers of these tanks had specified that they wanted a secondary weapon with a greater punch than the old Ma Deuce then they could have pulled it off, both other than that I'm still not seeing it. SA wouldn't be that customer unless they bought the design completely off of FN Herstal, which I don't think they'd do.Have Blue-117 said:
Have Blue-117 said:
In my world, the Merkava IIISA would probably have been upgraded with better armor, South African armor and fire control improvements and underside armor to protect it against IEDs and land mines. As I said before the possibility of SA Merkavas having the Rafael Remote weapons station is of course possible. I'm not sure South Africa would here bother buying the Merkava IV, unless of course they had a hand in developing it in which case they probably would have bought. The SADF always prided itself on fast mobility, while they have places where heavy armor is logical and necessary (especially since I'm expecting the opposition nations in this TL to have good tanks) it is not their first priority. The Israelis, who have a smaller country and more opposition with a pile more firepower, have more of a need for heavy armor.
As far as exports go, I'm assuming you mean the Challenger to Saudi Arabia and Jordan, as I don't think there is any way in hell you'd get Saudi Arabia to order the Merkava or Israel to sell it. As far as that goes, the best option I think for selling the Challenger 2 in numbers must go to Canada (which bought the Leopard 2) and Australia (which went with the M1A1 Abrams), as well as some places in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is a possibility if the Challenger 2 really hauls ass in the first Gulf War, but it will be competing against the Abrams and the Al-Yamanah arms deal has run into trouble enough times in many countries, which hurts the Challenger 2's case. One other potential option might be for Iran to change horses under Khamenei in the 1990s and 2000s and choose in the later 2000s to order the Challenger 2 to replace its old tanks - after all, the Chieftain served them well.
Have Blue-117 said:
This is all true, but this effectively is a license-built design from Patria. I think that SA in this world might still be running a souped-up Ratel or want to make their own design or get involved in a promising project that has the sort of results they want. If they get in good with Patria in the 1990s and are involved in the AMV's development, to the point that the AMV in South Africa can be called the Armscor AMV, then you can call it likely. But SA has in this world built a very strong indigenous defense industry and they will surely want to keep it that way.
Have Blue-117 said:
I think we can do better than that.
What I have in mind is a "air-defense battery unit" consisting of a number of trucks - a command van, communications van, a pair of generator trucks, two radar trucks (air search / tracking and fire control) and six to eight missile units, each one with a truck with an eight-box launcher. Integrate both the Umkhonto and Aster 30 missiles into the launch system (they are the same width, so if its long enough to fit the Aster 30 into the box, the Umkhonto will also fit) and then make the fire control radar able to provide regular guidance to the Aster missile. The result would be fairly similar to what is used by most modern naval SAM systems, and if the radar systems are good the only real limit of the range is the missile's range, which for an Aster 30 is 120 kilometres plus. Combine that with a G6 Skyguard on each side of the battery for protection from incoming anti-radar missiles (or low-flying aircraft) and you have a truly scary air-defense system ideal for making sure nothing shows up in your airspace unless you approve of it being there.
This is the sort of thing that the defense industry of South Africa would have to challenge itself to pull off, but other than the Norwegian NASAMS, who else makes something like this? This combination would be something that everyone else in the world with air-defense concerns would want, which means for the companies involved means potentially enormous $$$.
Have Blue-117 said:
It's also logical. Atlas comes up with a basic design that SA can use (and as at this point Atlas is really only working on the Oryx in my world) and so can everyone else. My design idea is fairly similar to the CH-53K idea - a seven-blade composite rotor, mostly-composite fuselage with a fenestron-style tail rotor, fiber-optic controls (get somebody in Europe in on this one, I think) and four engines, using Rolls-Royce Turbomeca engines of about 8000 horsepower each. This gives a payload of about 40,000 lbs maxed out and a range of about 400 km depending on payload. Large enough inside to move an armored personnel carrier and able to carry a load underneath it if needed.
Have Blue-117 said:
Those are possibilities, and I'd start with the developing world, which has less-developed such industries and where lower-cost options will have a strong pull. The AH-2C probably won't be up to the tank-killing abilities of the Apache Longbow, but the AH-64D is somewhat difficult to maintain and has difficulties in some environments (the British and Dutch have found this out the hard way) whereas the Rooivalk (though the A129 Mangusta and Eurocopter Tiger are also this way) has been designed to be less maintenance-intensive. I don't think the UK would buy the Rooivalk, but Brazil, Oman, Turkey and Malaysia are possibilities, as would India, many portions of Latin America and perhaps even some countries which want less maintenance-intensive aircraft, of which Canada and Australia are potential options.
Have Blue-117 said:
I'm not sure about the Typhoon getting the nod over the Rafale because of what I mentioned above about industrial benefits and the fact that Dassault has gotten really aggressive in its marketing and the French could throw a few quid pro quos our way for buying the Rafale, like perhaps replacing their old rocket artillery units with the Brazilian-South African Astros II or buying the G5-2000 howitzer, or perhaps buying the air-defense system envisioned above. More to the point, the Rafale has always been sold as a package deal with support, and if South Africa comes up with an improvement for the Rafale, they could not only use it themselves but sell it to other Rafale users. As South Africa has its own missile programs, I think this may be a benefit to them and others.
Have Blue-117 said:
The problem here is that the C-295 is big enough or powerful enough to replace the Transall. I'm thinking that the 747s are replaced by the C-17 Globemaster III (bigger payload and tougher but shorter range), the 707 tankers by A330 MRTTs (improvement in capability all around), the Belfasts by the A400M (almost identical payloads but the A400M has a considerably longer range with said payload) and the C-160 by the Alenia C-27J. The C-130 would be in service until the mid-2010s, at which point the A400M or C-130J retires the older Hercules aircraft.
Outside of this, I am anticipating the executive jet fleet be filled by either British Aerospace (BAE 125) or Dassault (Falcon 900) for the whole fleet of such planes, though if relations with Canada are good the Bombardier Challenger 600 is an option as well. With Atlas an Airbus partner than the Presidential jet would be an Airbus product, probably an A340 for its long legs, while the smaller plane fleet would be mostly occupied by the Beechcraft Super King Air, those probably being imported.
Have Blue-117 said:
These are all also true for the Exocet, and the problem of going with what you know also comes up. It's possible that they use the RBS-15, but I still think its more likely to go with later models of the Exocet, particularly considering the level of hardware in this SADF is French in background. I'm also thinking that the later-model Exocet purchase, knowing the aggressive French marketing, may also lead to some Storm Shadows making their way to the SAAF.
Have Blue-117 said:
What this is is a whopper of a job. Atlas here may be up for it, but I think this one would actually work better with someone else. The Yak-141's use of two engines for hovering isn't all that smart, and I'm not sure if its possible to do what the Harrier does and develop a way of vectoring thrust from its engines. (The lift engines are dead weight once flying, and that much extra weight can't be good for payload, fuel load or maneuverability.) If Atlas wants to really be ballsy, they may hook up with Yakolev as the USSR comes down and take over development of it, developing a way of keep the Yak-141 from rolling without using lift engines. Now, having fought so much with the Russians in the 1980s, this may not be very likely to start with, and it may be beyond South Africa's capabilities and finances. I agree on the F-35, and more to the point I think it might just be better to have their assault ship use Rooivalks for the support job than VTOL fighters.
Have Blue-117 said:
It's not coincidence that the nuclear program went out with apartheid. I think that once the problems with the neighbors are sorted out after the end of the Cold War that if South Africa did build H-bombs (a fairly large assumption IMO) they would halt the nuclear program and the RSA 4 along with it, though they may well be able to repurpose them to launch satellites. I think in this scenario, the greater use might be a tactical ballistic missile with a (big) conventional or thermobaric warhead rather than a nuclear weapon. Launching astronauts to the ISS is highly unlikely - too pricey.
The USSR never really had aircraft carriers as you think of them, either. The best the Soviets could do here was the Yakolev Yak-38, which was a piece of crap the Mirage III could smoke without much effort if it turned into a fight. The Soviets couldn't really easily deny the sea to the South Africans without sailing a big force all the way to Angola or sending nuclear submarines out there and shooting first and asking questions later, the latter of which may well get the apartheid state's attempts at being NATO's southern flank across quite clearly and result in much more help to the South Africans, which is NOT in the Russians' best interest. The SA Navy would probably see a Russian fleet showing up and stay well clear, they go back to raising a shitstorm once the Russians are gone.
As far as it being a major escalation, even if such an attack as I described is done, what can the Angolans or Cubans do? Neither one has much of a Navy, and Cuba's naval forces are 6000 miles away, way out of their range. Ask the Russians for Navy equipment is a possibility, but that costs money and manpower that neither side can much afford. Building sufficient naval ability to cut down the SA Navy in a battle isn't gonna be cheap, and resources spent there aren't spent fighting the SADF on the ground and in the skies over Angola. In addition, SA's Navy started improving its abilities in the 1980s thanks to the Drakensberg and the Minister class, both of which were developed and built at Sandock Austal in Durban. Pushing them to the point of building frigates (or potentially buying from somebody who doesn't give a damn about apartheid) isn't in the best interest of the Angolans, either.
They got lucky on that one, that's for sure.
True, the Kiev class were a bit hybrid but wouldhave been an escalation anyway.
If the Tblisi was to have been deployed, it would be serious stuff.
That said, the amount of support ships and tenders and anything in-between would have outnumbered SA Navy.
As you said, it would really bring home this "NATO Southern Flank" that SA tried to sell to US/UK.
Nobody could have been nterested in a USSR carrier force sitting across the oil routes to Europe.
But then again: Why would they do that? A major land offensive might be less "threatening" than a huge naval force.
If SADF would have made landfall from a naval platform, I would have hammered them with the latest and greatest of Soviet attack aircraft.
SAAF would have had serious problems encountering the latest Sukhoi, operated by Soviet personnel.
Ivan
If the Tblisi was to have been deployed, it would be serious stuff.
That said, the amount of support ships and tenders and anything in-between would have outnumbered SA Navy.
As you said, it would really bring home this "NATO Southern Flank" that SA tried to sell to US/UK.
Nobody could have been nterested in a USSR carrier force sitting across the oil routes to Europe.
But then again: Why would they do that? A major land offensive might be less "threatening" than a huge naval force.
If SADF would have made landfall from a naval platform, I would have hammered them with the latest and greatest of Soviet attack aircraft.
SAAF would have had serious problems encountering the latest Sukhoi, operated by Soviet personnel.
Ivan
The Merkava is way too tailored for a conflict that Israel would fight. As a result of the tight geography in the area, Merkavas are slow, ultra heavy and fuel hogs.
Meanwhile, South Africa with vast distances needs a tank that is faster, easier to transport and has a lower fuel consumption. The best choice would be to wait for the French LeClerec (mass production in 1990). It is light, yet lethal and protected. It also does not duplicate the design flaws of the T-72 and its spinoffs. If the SADF does not like auto loaders - U.S., Germany and UK have concluded that four humans make the optimal tank crew, they can ask the French to design a three man turrent for their version.
As for the 1980s tank needs before the Leclrec arrives, I imagine that South Africa could order a minimal number of U.S. M-60 A-3 rebuilds or use upgraded Centurions. South Africa was not facing an imminent competent heavy armoured threat and could afford to wait until 1990 for the truly modern tank that fits all their needs.
Yes, it would work, but the Challenger is far more "Fulda Gap" than "Bush War". South Africa needs a credible tank can both be a deterrant and that can supply rapid fire power while using light logisitics in a bush war situations. The Leclerec is definetly the tank for them.
French equipment alone may well be the best for South African needs. France never bought into the "heavier is better" design philosophy. This is exactly the same design philosophy that South Africa also rejected for bush wars. As a result, the French offered a full line of armoured cars and wheeled apcs long before "light" became trendy in the USA. Even their fighter designs were kept light. A 1980s South Africa could just shop French exclusively, keeping it simple while demanding a volume discount.
Last edited:
A heavily enemy armor and AT saturated battlefield? Sort of like any other cold war era tank?
1. Fales.
2. True, yet only if you refit for an urban setting. Otherwise it's not that much heavier then the heaviest non-Merkava tank.
3. False, and in comparison to the Abrams it's way cheaper.
Going for the autoloader option just so you can remove the autoloader? Why not buy a tank with no autoloader in the first place? All you would do is provide a less armored tank at best, or the same as any other 4-man tank, only it would cost more for the refit.
Logical if there is no option available at the time, but there was. During the 1982 Lebanon war the Merkava I was proven to be far superior to the M60. Not to mention that the Challenger I was also mentioned as an available contender. It too is more then the SADF needs.
First of all I don't think the Leclerc's logistic tail is that ligher then the Challenger's, but there are a couple of problems that may arise from what you are suggesting.
Comparing the philosophies behind tank design is not that simple. Right now the "lighter is better" trend is pretty much coming to an end from what I gather.
But more importently, if you want to get a cheaper option by buying in bulk, you need to be prepared to buy items that do not necessarily fit your needs better then others, and in some cases may be inferior. If you don't mind, go ahead.
Yes, and then some. The Merkava was designed from top to bottom top suit Israel's needs. Export, and the potential needs of customers were never considered. As a result, protection was prioritized over speed. Merkava's MK1 and MK11 had a top speed of 30 mph and weighed 65 tons. Meanwhile, the Leclrec is 9 tons lighter and has "one of the best power to weight ratios and top speed of any modern tank".
The Leclrec has a range of over 400 MPH. I also bet the Leclerec's 8 cylinder engine is more fuel efficient than the Challenger's 12 cylinder. Then factor in less wear on bridges, roads etc.
That is true, but alot of French equipment does fit SADF needs. I am sure that a hypothetical "total package" South African purchase of bush war oriented Leclrecs, Mirage 2000-5s, Mistral manpads, Exocets, and french radios would give the SADF excellent equipment at an attractive savings.
Sure, I would want the very best, "cost no objection" equipment, but I would also need to be concerned about other national needs balanced against realistic threats. South Africa is not facing a "Fulda Gap" type scenario, so the global "par excellence" tank may not be needed. Likewise, German submarines may well have better performance than Agostas, but are they worth the additional cost given other national needs? Maybe, maybe not.
Last edited:
@ Cryptic: The Leclerc isn't the best tank design in the world. It is not bad per se, but the autoloader is a big loss and tank speed really doesn't matter as much as you think it does, particularly since they are not likely to be driving the tanks all the way across South Africa if they need to be moved quickly. The SADF, like all modern tank-equipped armies, has lowboy trailers and trucks for that. Once in a combat zone, speed and maneuverability can play a difference, but a Leclerc tops out at 72 km/h, which when compared to the 64 km/h of the tuned-up Merkava IIISA really isn't all that much of a difference to pay. In addition, SA did not often use the Olifant tanks in battle, as most of their maneuver warfare was done by Eland and Rooikat armored cars and versions of the Ratel IFV. Plus, by 1990 the market will have closed.
In my scenario, SA will start working on new tanks in 1980-81, by which time the Merkava III is in development and South Africa, which worked often with Israel on weapons programs at the time, would know about it and probably want to get involved - and as Israel was at the time suffering from economic problems and paid a stiff premium for the development of the tank, they would surely welcome South African involvement just to lessen the financial load and gain insight from the South African engineers. That's why I figure the Merkava IIISA would start showing up in the SADF in late 1986 ad early 1987, two years ahead of OTL's arrival with the IDF. In the meantime, why bother buying the M60A3? It's an upgunned version of a design that by that point is nearly 25 years old in 1980-81 and is in the process of being replaced, in addition to being rather little improvement over the souped-up Centurions the SADF already had.
As far as buying everything French, if you are gonna spend the money, you want the best equipment for the situation, and there are areas where the French can't sell something to start with. The armored vehicles job is done at home, as are attack helicopters. It's cheaper to use ex-SAA jets for the refueling and cargo jobs, and nobody in France has a heavy lift helicopter. The Transalls are old by the 1980s and the Belfasts I had in mind are much bigger and more powerful, and carry a much bigger load, than the Transall or any other European replacements until the A400M in the 2000s. In addition to that, if you look at the lists we have drawn up here, the French get a goodly portion of the work to start with....
In my scenario, SA will start working on new tanks in 1980-81, by which time the Merkava III is in development and South Africa, which worked often with Israel on weapons programs at the time, would know about it and probably want to get involved - and as Israel was at the time suffering from economic problems and paid a stiff premium for the development of the tank, they would surely welcome South African involvement just to lessen the financial load and gain insight from the South African engineers. That's why I figure the Merkava IIISA would start showing up in the SADF in late 1986 ad early 1987, two years ahead of OTL's arrival with the IDF. In the meantime, why bother buying the M60A3? It's an upgunned version of a design that by that point is nearly 25 years old in 1980-81 and is in the process of being replaced, in addition to being rather little improvement over the souped-up Centurions the SADF already had.
As far as buying everything French, if you are gonna spend the money, you want the best equipment for the situation, and there are areas where the French can't sell something to start with. The armored vehicles job is done at home, as are attack helicopters. It's cheaper to use ex-SAA jets for the refueling and cargo jobs, and nobody in France has a heavy lift helicopter. The Transalls are old by the 1980s and the Belfasts I had in mind are much bigger and more powerful, and carry a much bigger load, than the Transall or any other European replacements until the A400M in the 2000s. In addition to that, if you look at the lists we have drawn up here, the French get a goodly portion of the work to start with....
I am not sure the Rooikat was ever used in Angola.
The requirement came out of the heavy usage of the Ratels, but I could be wrong on that.
In the last battles (1988), SADF had 22 Olifant (Fred Bridgland: War for Africa). They had even been running for 800 hours and were badly in need of major service.
Not sure how many Ratel's were deployed, but they worked well with the Olifants.
If the development and massive deployment of the Rooikat had been speeded up, would SADF have left the Olifants at home and taken more Rooikats along?
Speed is of course an issue, but the FAPLA nad Angolan mining of the countryside was also a factor. Olifants were good with anti-personnel mines whereas a Ratel could damage a tyre or the suspension if hitting a mine.
One of my friends claimed that they used the G6 to clear a path through the bush. He claimed a G6 was even more efficient in that than the Olifant!
Ivan
The requirement came out of the heavy usage of the Ratels, but I could be wrong on that.
In the last battles (1988), SADF had 22 Olifant (Fred Bridgland: War for Africa). They had even been running for 800 hours and were badly in need of major service.
Not sure how many Ratel's were deployed, but they worked well with the Olifants.
If the development and massive deployment of the Rooikat had been speeded up, would SADF have left the Olifants at home and taken more Rooikats along?
Speed is of course an issue, but the FAPLA nad Angolan mining of the countryside was also a factor. Olifants were good with anti-personnel mines whereas a Ratel could damage a tyre or the suspension if hitting a mine.
One of my friends claimed that they used the G6 to clear a path through the bush. He claimed a G6 was even more efficient in that than the Olifant!
Ivan