Talk:Valour-class frigate

Frigate vs Corvette
What is the difference between a Frigate and a Corvette?

Quote from Blohm+Voss' brouchure "...The type MEKO®A-200 SAN is a new generation of MEKO® frigates..." but every where else it talks about corvettes eg "...first corvette of the Type MEKO® A-200 SAN..."

So what is the naval definition of the two types?


 * Well, I think it's due to two factors, the most important of which is the political factor. The SANDF had to sell the Armaments Procurement Package to the public, so they engaged in a little bit of spin, namely calling the ships corvettes instead of frigates, as the former sounds less expensive than the latter. Of late, with the dust having settled and the deal a done thing, the SAN is now able to refer to them as Frigates without risking protests. Of course, referring to them as frigates also helps the SAN in its latest spin exercise, which is to convince the South African public how nice and capable these ships are and hopefully engender a public pride in them. Frigates sound more sophisticated than corvettes, you see. I for one hope they manage to get it right, they are awfully nice ships.
 * However, there is a slight bit more to it than mere political factors. As far as I can recall, Frigates are by and large ships fitted out for a specific purpose (ie anti-sub warfare or air defence), whereas these ships are fitted out more along the lines of a corvette, in other words a do-all type ship. This is due to the policy followed by the SAN with the Valour class in terms of a concept known as "fitted for but not with". The ships are equipped with the requisite capacity and interfaces built in for the installation of more advanced systems, making the installation of such systems quick and painless when the time comes, but at the moment it lacks some of the more advances systems. Thus its capabilities, as far as I understand it, are midway between those of a corvette and a frigate. Not sure of the absolute definitions though. Impi 20:49, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * They border on marketing terms in the modern age, and each nation has its own interpretation, so no point in getting too concerned about which is which. If the SAN has anything purporting to be their official idea of corvette vs frigate, it's worth a note in those two articles. Stan 21:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not sure of any official SAN resource on the difference between the two, though I'll do some more digging. It seems there is still some confusion on it anyway, with some SAN official sources calling them Frigates and others referring to them as Patrol Corvettes. Impi 14:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: Well, actually I was wrong. It appears the SAN officially refers to them as Patrol Corvettes. Other sources, including AgustaWestland, and some of the project contractors, refer to them as Frigates or light Frigates. My confusion may have stemmed from the fact that I seem to recall senior SAN personnel as having referred to them as Frigates in media interviews. Regardless, the official class type is Patrol Corvette. Impi 14:24, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok, in light of my discovery that patrol corvette is the proper name, I have moved the page to reflect it. Impi 23:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the moving. Please compare the specifications of the Valour class ship with the Dutch HNLMS Karel Doorman (F 827), for instance (which is a typical frigate). As you will see, The Valour class specifications are definitely in the same class, even bigger in one or two instances. I think that Wikipedia should strive to reflect the truth, and not whatever spin the government of the day chooses to put on it. Otherwise, we might as well rename the "Invincible class aircraft carrier" article "Invincible class through-deck cruiser" (and many more examples come to mind ...). Elf-friend 09:47, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, so far as I know the definition difference between corvette and light frigate has more to do with what type of equipment is fitted than the actual size of the vessel. Though the Valour-class ships are the size of a light frigate, they have the capability of a typical corvette. Now while I agree with you that Wikipedia should not pander to governments and use the language they use, which is often used for spin purposes, the fact is that HDW also defines these vessels as corvettes. Regardless of our personal feelings, when both the manufacturer and user of a ship define it the same way, we shouldn't go ahead and define it as something else... Impi 12:17, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not WP's place to unilaterally decide what the "truth" is - we say "US Department of Defense" even when they're obviously the aggressors, because we use governments' official names for their institutions, irrespective of our personal assessments. So the move is correct. Of course, the article can say "sure looks a lot like a frigate", mention that they've been called frigates by some officials, etc. Now if the government renames something itself, we may have to decide which name is more common, and in those cases we have more of a free choice in picking a former rather than current name, if the current one is obscure. Has to be done case-by-case. Stan 14:48, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Right, and thinking about that, the title of this is now too clumsy (my fault). What does everybody think about moving it just to South African Valour class corvettes, and then clarifying in the article itself that the SAN refers to them as Patrol Corvettes? Impi 17:55, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, your whole argument for renaming the article is that the the SA Navy calls them patrol corvettes, not frigates. If you renamed the article to just call them corvettes, you wouldn't be using the "official" class name either, thereby undermining your whole argument for renaming the article. Then you might just as well rename the article to frigates again and clarify in the article itself that the SAN refers to them as patrol corvettes.


 * Not that there existed a ship class called "patrol corvette" before the Valour class, but there you are. Which just goes to show (IMHO) that the invention of a whole new class of ships called "patrol corvettes" are just to explain away the fact that they look suspiciously like frigates. (I can almost hear the explanation ... "Why yes, Mr. Inquisitive Newspaperman, of course our ships are bigger and more capable than what is usually understood under the term corvette, that is why they are called patrol corvettes.")


 * "the definition difference between corvette and light frigate has more to do with what type of equipment is fitted than the actual size of the vessel" ... have you compared the equipment between the Valour class and the HNLMS Karel Doorman (F 827), for instance?


 * Karel Doorman: Oto Melara 76 mm anti-air/anti-surface gun, Oerlikon 20 mm light cannon, Sea Sparrow Missile Vertical Launch System (VLS), Harpoon Missile, Goalkeeper (point defence guns), Mk. 46 Torpedos, Lynx helikopter.


 * Valour class: One 76 mm Oto Breda gun, Two 35 mm LIW (Denel) 35DPG dual purpose twin-barreled guns, Two 20 mm Oerlikon Mk1 cannon, Eight MBDA MM 40 Exocet Block 2 surface-to-surface missiles (mounted in two four-cell launchers), Sixteen Umkhonto surface-to-air missiles (mounted in two eight-cell vertical launchers), Torpedoes using two twin 324mm tubes (i.e. four tubes in total), Westland Super Lynx helicopter.


 * Really no difference in the type of equipment fitted - nope, sorry, the Valour class are bog-standard frigates. (Actually a bit superior, taking into account their stealth capabilities.)


 * And HDW (like any company) would probably happily call the type anything their client wanted in order to sell their ships. I'm willing to bet that if the SA Navy wanted to call the Valour class something like "light destroyers", they would have gone along as well.


 * Oh yes, and then there is the small issue of pennant numbers. Frigate pennant numbers always seem to start with an "F" ...


 * Elf-friend 09:33, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * You can argue all you want, but it doesn't change the basic situation that the nomenclature is not something that you have the authority to change. In fact, your repeated insistence that we should invent a term based on your personal analysis makes me wonder about the other articles that you've worked on. As cumbersome as "patrol corvette" is, that's how it needs to be called (not shortened to "corvette" either). Fill the article with ridicule of the government and its schemes if you like, but let's not create an alternate reality. Stan 12:57, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * "Frigate" is not an invented term - "patrol corvette" is.


 * "In fact, your repeated insistence that we should invent a term based on your personal analysis makes me wonder about the other articles that you've worked on." ... You know, article talk pages are supposed to be forums for people to (sometimes vigorously) debate issues concerning those articles, without resorting to something as infantile as edit wars and without personal attacks. Frankly, your remark comes close to being a personal attack; go on, read a few of my articles - I think you will find them to be (mostly) of a high quality and striving to be as NPOV as possible. Elf-friend 13:47, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Fill the article with ridicule of the government and its schemes if you like, but let's not create an alternate reality. ... My concern is solely regarding the accuracy of the naming of this class of ship - you're reading motives which I certainly don't have into this whole debate. Why do you assume this? Please tell me, I would be very interested to hear. And even if I did, a Wikipedia article is certainly NOT the place for ridiculing a government and its schemes. Although, Wikipedia could probably do with a good article or two about the whole SA arms deal controversy and its reprecussions, like the Shaik trail. Elf-friend 14:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry to make it sound personal, but your line of argument is so bizarre as to defy belief; I just don't know what to make of it. I notice you didn't answer my question about the "Department of Defense" for instance. Now there's one of the primo examples of government spin in the modern age, and yet no one seriously suggests retitling the article "because it's really just a Department of War, and to let them call aggressive actions 'defense' is clearly going along with the slanted government POV". Every name for a ship type had to be invented at some point, so newness of a term does not make it invalid. After all, up to the 1950s "frigate" itself meant a single-decked sailing vessel, and if it were up to me, I would disallow its reuse for modern vessels because of the ambiguity, and because there are plenty of other fine terms from which to choose. But it's not my choice; it's the right of the ships owners/builders to name the type as they desire, and it's my job to report their choice exactly, not to impose my opinion of what things really should be called. Stan 14:54, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, no, “bizarre” would have been if I had, completely on my own, started insisting that we should call them “Valour class triremes”, for instance.


 * But the truth of the matter is that there has been quite a bit of confusion in this matter, with some senior SA naval officials, members of the press and websites naming them as “frigates” and others as “patrol corvettes”. So, this is not an issue that I, all on my own, invented. (And neither did I write the original article, by the way.)


 * And, as I tried to point out above, the ambiguity continues to this day, with all the ships of this class having been given pennant numbers starting with the letter prefix “F”, which is the standard Western European/NATO prefix for frigates. I submit that this is as good an indication as the SA Navy website as to how they really see their vessels. If they had seriously thought of this class as patrol craft, they could have used the “P” prefix, which is usually used for patrol craft; alternatively, they could have invented a new prefix, like “PC”, for instance.


 * I would also like to point out that at least part of my writings above are in objection to the argument that (I’m paraphrasing here) “the Valour class ships have the capabilities of corvettes and should thus be named as such”. While I’ll concede that saying “the official SA Navy and the manufacturer’s websites say that they are patrol corvettes” is at least a valid argument, I just cannot agree that capability/equipment/speed/size, etc. –wise, the Valour class are anything but frigates.


 * (And, if the “patrol corvette” article name stands, as it seems it will, I see nothing wrong with adding a paragraph stating that the capabilities of the Valour class are identical to those of most frigates and that the class naming is generally thought to have been done for political reasons (i.e. to make buying the ships more palatable for members of parliament and the taxpayers).)


 * Now, if you are defining a whole new class of ships called “patrol corvettes”, then you are of course free to define what the capabilities of such a class should be (even if they are basically identical to a frigate’s), but that is not the line of argument that was followed by Impi.


 * (BTW, Impi, I hope you don’t take this whole debate personally, because you are really doing sterling work on Wikipedia.)


 * Regarding your Department of War/Department of Defence question/statement (and leaving aside the relative merits of your statement as well as the sometimes-quaint spelling of some words in American English, but I won’t blame you personally for that ;-) ):


 * The US DoD predates Wikipedia by a number of decades; so debating that issue now would be a bit pointless (unlike the naming of the Valour class ships, which is a current issue). However, if the DoD was being formed today, I think there would be at least a good argument for naming the article the Department of War, if one or more of the following were the case:


 * - If the “Department of Defence” was referred to as the “Department of War” by (at least some) senior defence and government officials and members of the press.
 * - If the official designation/abbreviation used for the Department of Defence was DoW.
 * - If similar government organizations in other countries were actually named “… of War”; the “United Kingdom Ministry of War”, the “Australian Ministry of War”, for instance.


 * Analogous statements for the Valour class are all true, of course.


 * And I think I will probably close my part in the debate with the above statements … I could spend my time better writing more Wikipedia articles.


 * Elf-friend 11:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't be easier to drop South African in the name and have Valour class patrol corvettes--Jcw69 13:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, if we're sticking with patrol corvettes - yes, that would be a sensible way to shorten the name. Elf-friend 13:47, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I think regardless of which class name we eventually decide to adopt, we should drop the "South African" from the title in line with other ship class articles. Now, with regard the ship class type, you've got some good points Elf-friend, I'm just asking what authority we have to determine ship class type when both the operator and manufacturer of the ship determine it as something else, whether the choice was political or not. In any case, I've emailed HDW and the SA Navy, asking for clarification. Hopefully I'll get a meaningful response.
 * I've got no problem with inserting a paragraph if we do keep the patrol corvette title that explains the class type controversy, after all that's part of the story for these ships. Btw Elf-friend, I'm not taking it personnally at all, and thanks for the compliment, the feeling is mutual, your work on S.African articles is excellent. Impi 14:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, I just got back a comprehensive email from the SA Navy. Turns out the decision to name the vessels Patrol Corvettes is a South African Navy decision, which is nothing surprising. Now, the rationale behind calling them Patrol Corvettes as opposed to frigates was in some part political, but it also had a lot to do with the intended role of the ship. Frigates are generally specialised for one task or another, whereas due to the limits in equipment levels the budget enforced on the Valour-class, they are in a way "Jacks of all trades, masters at none." Also, their primary task will be patrol, especially enforcing South Africa's EEZ.
 * The decision was not, as I wrongly surmised, due specifically to weapons fit. Now, another thing is that there are no hard and fast rules as to which ships fit into which category, it's pretty subjective, and really depends on the operating navy. For instance, during the Cold War the USN reportedly modified some ship class designations in order to make superficial comparisons between it and the USSR look better to ignorant journos. Also, sometime after WWII a number of navies decided to abandon the term corvette and use light frigate instead for many ships. So, the thing is the issue is subjective, and different navies have different criteria for what determines what class a ship is. Pennant numbers are not always a guide, as if you look at the Laksamana-class corvettes of the Royal Malaysian Navy, they weigh only 650t, are closer to the strike craft than anything else. Yet their pennant numbers begin with F. Also, another example is the Israeli Sa'ar corvette. It's not as big as the MEKO A-200SAN, but it has a very similar weapons fit, and carries a helicopter. It seems there is some controversy over this one too, with some claiming it should really be called a frigate as opposed to a corvette, so it seems we're not alone in this. :)
 * Ultimately, I agree that it should be termed a frigate, but for various reasons it is not. However much this annoys us, it's not up to us to give the vessels a class name different to the one the operating navy and manufacturer give to it. So I think the name should remain as patrol corvettes, except that in line with the Wikiproject:Ships standard, we should change the title to: "Valour class patrol corvettes". However, we cannot ignore the controversy over whether they are frigates or corvettes, so I think we should add a comment to the opening paragraph or directly beneath to the effect that there is controversy over this.
 * Incidentally, as a separate issue, I discovered something interesting. The SAS Amatola shares her pennant number with the former SAS President Pretorius, while SAS Spioenkop shares hers with the former SAS President Steyn, which were both the last frigates South Africa operated.
 * Impi 22:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Eh?
Hi Impi ... you had me convinced that we should call them patrol corvettes ;-) ... why did you change the text back to frigate? We could easily copy the article to Valour class patrol corvette and redirect ... or has the SAN changed its naming policy again? Kind Regards, Elf-friend 07:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, it appears that the SAN has finally seen the light, and is quietly changing the ships' designation to "frigate", presumably to make the ships sound more capable now that they've been bought and paid for. I've suspected for a while that the SAN would do this, especially because I know quite a few of its top brass were unhappy with the "patrol corvette" designation, but the change itself caught me by surprise. One day the SAN's website page on the Valour class said "patrol corvette", and the next day it said "frigate". No announcements made. In the last couple of days though, the change has been confirmed by others, and it's about time too. Notwithstanding our above discussion, I've always detested the "patrol corvette" designation, and I'm glad that the pretence has now been abandoned and it has been officialy acknowledged that the SAN is indeed operating frigates once more. &mdash;  Imp i  11:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info! :-) And may I add a "yay!" for the fact that the SAN has seen the light? :-D Kind Regards, Elf-friend 10:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks you both for that great article,

would you have details about fuel load and the kind of torpedo that is planned to be used aboard?

cheers,

Jan

Merge with MEKO?
I oppose the suggestion on the grounds that this page is a fairly comprehensive article on just one of dozens of MEKO types whereas the MEKO article is really just a "list" of dozens of different MEKO ships, many of which have their own articles, just like this one. Roger (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I also oppose the move, on the grounds that the MEKO article is a catch-all article for a wide variety of vessels based on the MEKO platform and that a dedicated article is needed to describe the unique nature of the Valour class MEKO A200SAN ships, which have significant differences compared to other vessels of the MEKO platform. Were the MEKO article to incorporate all the information on the subtleties of the various ship classes which have been built on the MEKO platform, it would grow far too large, unwieldy and complex. I think the current approach, which has the MEKO article focused on the platform itself and separate articles on each of the unique ship classes based on it, is just fine. &mdash; Impi (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Torpedoes
Is there any public information available about the type(s) of torpedoes these ships use? Do the Super Lynx helicopters use the same ones? Roger (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Buying a 5th ship?
If this is true, does it mean that "Project Millenium" (aquisition of an LPD/LHD) is cancelled? AFAIK the original order for 5 was reduced to 4 in order to fund "Project Millenium". Roger (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo
The current infobox photo shows an incomplete ship - no weapons, radars, etc. Surely a more recent phot showing the ships as they look in service would be better. Roger (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do we still not have a better photo? The incomplete "naked hull" is really not representative of what they actually look like in service - with all the weapons and other fittings. Roger (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is still not resolved. Roger (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Operational Deployment - Air defence
The 2010 World Cup saw operational deployment of these ships in an anti-aircraft role. They were deployed off stadia in Durban, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town to enforce the no-fly zone over the stadium. This presumably to deter any attempt at a September 11 style aerial attack on a crowded stadium. Craigallan.za (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a few errors and assumptions in your proposed text.
 * They were not tasked with shooting down any aircraft so saying "anti-aircraft role" is incorrect.
 * My suggestion is: "The 2010 World Cup saw operational deployment of these ships in an airspace control role. They were deployed near Durban, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town to monitor the no-fly zones in effect over these cities using their radar systems in co-operation with the South African Air Force and the South African Civil Aviation Authority. "
 * Read the sources I reference. Roger (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/meko/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/meko/index.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)