One of three submarines purchased by SA for an estimated R8 billion has now spent more than three years on dry land and is set to remain out of the water for months to come as the navy waits for new batteries.
The SAS Manthatisi, commissioned in November 2005 and delivered to the navy in April 2006, was taken out of the water some time in 2007 and, according to Defence Minister Lindiwe Sisulu, has been held “in reserve” since October that year.
In all, the submarine spent 18 months in service and more than 41 months out of service – at a reported operational cost of R30 million a year.
Responding to a parliamentary question from IFP MP Albert Mncwango on the status of the submarines, Sisulu recently revealed that the stricken vessel would remain on dry land for several months longer as its new battery “has been ordered”, but would only arrive in the country “later this year”.
The navy’s chief director for maritime strategy, Rear Admiral Bernhard Teuteberg, told Parliament’s defence committee in November 2010 that the SAS Manthatisi was unlikely to return to water before 2013.
Sisulu has explained that the stationary vessel “serves as a platform for training and for planning of maintenance, repair and refit (overhaul) purposes”.
This prompted FF Plus MP and defence spokesman Pieter Groenewald to remark that, at a price tag of about R2.7bn, the SAS Manthatisi was “one of the most expensive test beds and training platforms in the world”. Groenewald also accused the minister on Tuesday of “misleading the public” by referring to the submarine as being “in reserve” when in fact the boat was “out of commission”. He also questioned why, after spending barely 18 months at sea, the submarine required an “overhaul”.
The SAS Manthatisi – the first of three Type 209 submarines purchased as part of the controversial R70bn arms deal – has suffered several setbacks since becoming operational. Just months into service it struck a quay during bad weather, causing damage to its aft plane, which helps to steer and trim the sub underwater.
Though the accident did not affect its watertight integrity – or the functioning of the buckled aft plane – the sub did require repairs.
In a second incident, a hapless sailor plugged the wrong end of an electrical cable into the submarine’s “shore service” – or external power supply – blowing a couple of fuses and doing further damage to the electrical system.
Following a board of inquiry, the guilty sailor was “reprimanded”, according to Teuteberg. But the cost of the damage has yet to be revealed.
The navy later discovered that the batteries, of which there are 480 on board, were being damaged by a build-up of hydrogen gas believed to have been caused by faulty manufacturing. The Greek manufacturer has since undertaken to replace “some” of the faulty cells at no extra cost.
DefenceWeb reported in September that the navy had placed an order for a “replacement propulsion battery system” – assumed to be for the SAS Manthatisi – from Germany’s Exide Technologies at a cost of about R25.5 million. And despite “adequate logistical support” being one of the main factors used to decide on the submarines, the navy continues to spend millions on maintenance and spare parts.
On top of R90m a year in running costs, DefenceWeb reports that an additional amount of about R270m has been spent since 2007.
These costs have included:
* Maintenance and support services for the “submarine action information systems” – R7m (2009/2010).
* Maintenance and support services for the fire control system – R48.3m (2010).
* Procurement of a “circuit breaker test facility” – R15.8m (2010).
* Procurement of “submarine depot spare parts” – R47.1m (2009/2010).
* Commissioning of a “shore-based combat suite test bed” – R46m (2009).
* Spare parts for a “weapon control unit” – R5.8m.
Political Bureau