South African Armour Corps (re)thinking role

[buglerbilly]

Out-manoeuvre, Out-fight, Out-last: Armour is About Mobile, Protected Firepower

06:54 GMT, October 24, 2011 The South African Armour Corps last week mulled its future, philosophy, strategy, doctrine and capabilities at a well attended symposium, the third since 2005. Brigadier General Chris Gildenhuys in a briefing note reminded the theme of the 2005 event was “Armour in African Peace Support Operations in the Year 2020.” At that seminar it was clear that armour will have a role to play in peace support operations and that doctrine, appropriate capabilities and training were the primary issues, Gildenhuys avered.

The 2008 symposium held under the aegis of “The Multi-role Deployment of Armour in the African Battle Space” confirmed these requirements.

Gildenhuys said it could be asked what had happened since those conferences. He explained: “Firstly, our doctrine development has been profoundly influenced. Although it remains a slow process, a number of significant changes have been made, the most fundamental one being the development of a concept doctrine for a light armour reconnaissance capability, specifically designed around the inputs and lessons learnt from those symposia,” he said.

“This year we experimented for the first time with armour in peace support operations during a simulated brigade planning exercise named Chest of Steel III. With regard to peace support operations we learnt that the most difficult aspects were command-and-control, logistic support, understanding and interpreting the legal and policy implications and the illusive nature of the opponent. Inter-operability and joint, inter-departmental, inter-agency, multi-national (JI2M) operations must be understood and practiced to the lowest level.

“Secondly, we also moved forward with regard to the development of a light armour reconnaissance capability. Such a capability is not only regarded by us as a high priority, but has been approved at various forums and a project has been registered. The exact requirements are in the process of being defined.

“Thirdly, our strategy has been updated. The new Armour Strategy is in the process of being approved. The new strategy includes, amongst others, a number of armour-specific scenarios based on the dynamic inter-action between the type of operation and the employment of prime mission equipment or not. This also emphasises the need for armour to operate dismounted. Where prime mission equipment is deployed in operations-other-than-war the emphasis will be on influencing the situation by diplomacy, maintaining a presence, the threat of force or the restrained use thereof, thus referring to this scenario as 'The Iron Hand in the Velvet Glove'. The new strategy confirms our mandate and mission of providing appropriate armour capabilities and combat-ready armour forces. Preparing forces for contingencies and specifically developing our people and capabilities in general remains at the heart of our strategy.

“Finally, we reworked our philosophy. We realise that armour is about mobile, protected firepower. The purpose is to out-manoeuvre, out-fight and out-last the opponent. Armour’s niche is based on platforms, sensors and effectors, combining man and machine in combat vehicles where the core of the mission is carried out mounted. Fundamental to armour is our mindset. We strive for excellence, innovation and solutions. We adapt, develop and renew. We take responsibility, initiative and act proactively. What we do makes a difference, how we do it makes more of a difference, but why we do it makes all the difference therefore it matters and because it matters it is important. Because it is important we care, and because we care we make a difference. That is why being an armour soldier is not just a job or a career, it is a calling.

“Back in 2005 or 2008 none of us foresaw the recent events in Egypt or Libya, nor Sudan or anywhere else in Africa for that matter. As we brace ourselves for the future we know that whether to deploy or not remains a political decision,” Gildenhuys concluded.

(Courtesy by defenceWeb; First published at http://goo.gl/pYUxe)

[Poor_Canada]

Are SA Army's procurement plans still in a mess per usual? Last I heard the new IFV project was close to being cancelled, then there was supposed to be a Leo 2 purchase coming, but nothing. Also, I wonder if they are working towards a Riookat replacement for the Ligh Armour capability.

[buglerbilly]

From what is published its still a mess.........seems to be the "normal" African cause of indecision, dubious decisions and lethargy, if a decision can be delayed then it usually is..........

There is a true policy difficulty here as well, as in what are they defending against?

They still haven't placed the production contract, as far as I know, for the Patria AMV's under Project Hoefyster (Horseshoe) albeit Denel got a contract in 2007 (limited to pre-production prototypes?). Lots of talk about Leo 2's, no contract...........

They have got Upgrades happening in some areas............

Trucks etc, a counterpart to our Project Overlander, are still to be committed.......

[ADMk2]

Funny how often "doctrine" gets brought up when there's no cash for new capability. They'll be changing the operational employment of the 60 year old Centurions they are still trundling around in too next. Doctrine based of course. Nothing to do with the vehicles being largely US or breaking down every 5k's or so...

[buglerbilly]

Zuma appoints “arms deal” inquiry

Written by defenceWeb Monday, 24 October 2011 15:54



And just to complicate and potentially delay things further we have this...................

President Jacob Zuma has appointed Mr Justice Willie Seriti of the Supreme Court of Appeal to probe the 1999 Strategic Defence Package (SDP).

“On the 15th of September I announced that I would, in terms of section 84 (2) (f) of the Constitution, appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate allegations of wrongdoing in the Strategic Defence Procurement Packages, generally known as the 'arms deal',” Zuma said at a news conference called at short notice this afternoon.

“I have appointed the Commission.” The members are as follows:

1. Honourable Mr Justice Willie Seriti, Judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
2. Honourable Mr Justice Willem van der Merwe, Deputy Judge President of the North Gauteng High Court.
3. Honourable Mr Justice Francis Legodi, Judge of the North Gauteng High Court.

Seriti will chair the commission, “which is expected to complete its work within two years. We wish Mr Justice Seriti and his team well in the execution of this important task.”

The Mail & Guardian reported in September President Jacob Zuma told the ANC's national executive committee (NEC) afterwards that he had decided to appoint a commission of inquiry into the controversial multibillion-rand arms acquisition 12 years ago to prevent the Constitutional Court from taking charge of the matter and prescribing the terms of reference for him.

The M&G said the Constitutional Court was expected to rule on November 17 on activist Terry Crawford Browne's application to force Zuma to reopen the investigation into the SDP. Three NEC members who spoke to the M&G on condition of anonymity, told the M&G Zuma had told the NEC he was aware that the majority of the court's judges would rule in favour of Crawford Browne. According to the NEC members, Zuma said he took the decision to appoint the commission of inquiry because he didn't want a situation where the courts would be seen to be running the affairs of the government on his behalf.

Some in the NEC believe Zuma called for a commission of inquiry to save the ANC, not necessarily to get to the bottom of the alleged corruption that marred the multibillion-rand transaction. Calling for a commission of inquiry was an attempt to stay ahead of the court, said an NEC member, who pointed out that if the matter was left to the court the type of commission and its terms of reference would be stricter and more binding on many party leaders and the party itself. "If the Constitutional Court was to make the decision to have a commission of inquiry it would have been messy and would possibly have changed the political landscape of the country."

Crawford-Browne has said he will consider withdrawing his Constitutional Court case against President Jacob Zuma only if “credible” people are appointed to head the process. Crawford-Browne has said he wants the deals cancelled, the money paid refunded and the equipment returned.

South Africa in 1998 announced that it was to acquire frigates, submarines, helicopters and fighters from a number of European suppliers to rejuvenate the prime mission equipment of the South African Navy and Air Force. Preferred bidders were announced at the Defence Exhibition SA in September that year. Negotiations followed with deals signed in December 1999. The contracts, worth some R30 billion at the time, became effective on April 1, 2000.

The deals would see South Africa gain four sophisticated German-built Meko A200SAN frigates, three state-of-the-art Type 209 MOD1400 submarines (also German-built), 26 Swedish generation 4.5 SAAB Gripen fighter aircraft, 24 British-built BAE Systems Mk120 fighter trainers and 30 Italian-built AgustaWestland A109 light utility helicopters. All of these, except for the last few Gripen have now been delivered and paid for.

Minister of Defence and Military Veterans Lindiwe Sisulu in June this year said the cost of the SDP had grown to R 42 362 053 814. In addition to this amount, she added interest on an Arms Procurement Loan Facility (APLF) “so far amounted to R7 860 569 013”, adding to R50 222 622 827. The total ceiling approved by the National Treasury for the SDP – excluding the APLF is R47 225 627 631, Sisulu said. In August 2008 her predecessor, Mosiuoa Lekota, said the contract price was R30.049 billion (in 1998 Rand) and was expected to climb to R43.828 billion, based on projected fluctuations in rate of exchange at the time.

In June this year, Swedish defence multinational SAAB announced BAE Systems had paid Hlongwane R24 million to help secure the Gripen contract. The Swedish company adds that news of the payment was hidden from it by its partner in the deal. Dow Jones Newswires reminded that the British defence giant last year reached an agreement with the SFO over allegations that it failed to provide accurate records in connection with the supply of an air-traffic control system to Tanzania. It admitted the charge and agreed to pay a penalty of £30 million, while the SFO waived its right to investigate other allegations. BAE Systems in June sold the last of its shares in the Swedish defence company.

In August the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported that Ferrostaal, part of the German Submarine Consortium, had made R300 million in “questionable” payments to secure its SA contract. Themba Godi, the chairman of Parliament's Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) said the development was startling, given the fact that the Hawks had closed the German arm of the investigation, citing a lack of evidence. "These revelations do indicate that unless this matter is thoroughly investigated, we will continue to have information coming to the public that shows us that maybe our anti-corruption agencies have not been doing their work."

[buglerbilly]

S. Africa Investigators Could Nix Deals: Minister

AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

Published: 27 Oct 2011 10:11

CAPE TOWN, South Africa - Investigators looking into South Africa's $5 billion arms purchase could recommend cancelling contracts or taking legal action against government officials, a minister said Oct. 27.

President Jacob Zuma on Oct. 24 named a top judge to lead the investigation into the 1999 deal, which has cast a long shadow over South Africa's democracy and implicated top officials, including Zuma.

Justice Minsiter Jeff Radebe told a news conference that the investigation marks "a watershed moment in the history of democratic South Africa in the quest to rid our nation of what has become an albatross that must now cease to blemish the reputation of our government and the image of our country.

The commission of inquiry, headed by Justice Willie Seriti from the Supreme Court of Appeal, will have the power to subpoena witnesses, to compel testimony, and to conduct search and seizures, Radebe said.

That includes the power to subpoena Zuma or his predecessor Thabo Mbeki, who presided over the arms purchases, he said.

"They are acting independently, but ... they have the power to subpoena anybody, including members of the executive," Radebe said.

Failure to cooperate with the inquiry could be punished by up to one year in prison, he added.

The panel will not make prosecutions but only recommend if legal action should be taken against individuals. It can also recommend the cancelation of contracts, he said.

"Its recommendation will be taken very seriously. It's a very serious issue," Radebe said.

Zuma faced charges of fraud, money laundering and racketeering in connection with the deal. But charges against Zuma were dropped just before his election in 2009, after roiling South African politics for a decade.

When prosecutors withdrew the charges, they implied that Mbeki had meddled in the prosecution of the case, which led to Zuma's dismissal as deputy president in 2005.

South Africa spent about $5 billion to modernize its military, in a deal that included the purchase of 12 trainer Hawk jets and naval patrol boats from five European groups, including BAE Systems and French arms firm Thales, formerly Thomson-CSF.