New submarines for Sweden, Singapore and Australia?
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
Yes. I think it ought to be the A26 too. Not unless they have upgraded the original design. Im pretty certain Singapore will be involved in this program. Otherwise, we might end up buying german submarines or designing them from scratch. I do not expect the RSN to continue using the old challengers post 2010 for long. The Vastergotlands are just interim submarines to cover the time frame/period for the construction and acquisition of the new submarines and help ease the burden of the old challengers. My guess is that the first 4 Challenger submarines will be replaced by 4 A26(or A29) submarines. This will be followed by 2 more A26 submarines to replace the Vastergotlands which could be disposed or turned into training submarines.
Last edited:
HAHAHA i and many many others here hope to god they don't, i could think of nothing worse. then again we have the same party that purchased the Collins...stay out of it bomber beazley!-don't care if ur at ASPI, stay!
Lets hope we follow our own path and don't restrict ourselves to others plans.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Couldnt agree more!
Sorry to break it to you guys but the Australian next gen SSK/G will be 100% home grown, the planing has allready started. After the collins problems I dont think we will be buying sweedish anytime soon as far as naval systems go.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
I have not heard of any problems with the Challengers along the lines of the Collins; even with my buddies currently serving in the navy. The only concern would seem to be the ageing hull. And Singapore has even gone a step further in ordering the Vastergotlands. If Singapore purchases the A26, I reckon she will likely build them in Singapore but it will probably be very similar to the original Swedish/Norway version with Israeli add-ons.
Was the RN`s problem due to the enlargement of a basic small Nordic designed submarine into a larger and blue-water one; albeit conventional submarine? I do not think the Swedish folks have built anything as large as the Collins before.
Was the RN`s problem due to the enlargement of a basic small Nordic designed submarine into a larger and blue-water one; albeit conventional submarine? I do not think the Swedish folks have built anything as large as the Collins before.
Collins was larger than other submarines designed and built by Kockums but my understanding was that there were also huge quality control problems with a hull section built by Kockums for the first of the class (HMAS Collins) and she was close to being a failure. The problems were eventually fixed by ASC (Australian Submarine Corporation) and the class has ended up as a success after much modification.
gf0012-aust could provide more detail.
Tas
gf0012-aust could provide more detail.
Tas
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It would be unlikely that the Challengers had problems similar to those the Collins encountered. Prior to the Challengers entry into Singapore service, they had seen service in the Royal Swedish Navy A-11/Sjoormen "Sea Serpent"-class submarine, entering Swedish service in the 1960's. Starting in the mid-90's, an upgrade and conversion project was initiated to modernise the Sjoormen and adapt it to tropical conditions before they were handed over to Singapore. Given that the class had already seen considerable service, many conditions that could be expected in a new design were already known and fixed. Other issues I would expect was a result of the design being larger than Kockums was used to designing, as well as being for different conditions (bluewater vs. littoral sub). I am certain others here could explain the difference better than I and hopefully that can expand a bit more about the early history of the Collins SSK, but IIRC some of the Collins systems development was used in the latter Gotland-class SSKs.
Incidentally, just wanted to point out that the RN is the Royal Navy, the acronym for the Royal Australian Navy is RAN.
I would not expect to see a great deal of Israeli content in any future Republic of Singapore Navy subs, since I do not believe they make a great deal of relevant sytems for use aboard subs. AFAIK much of the systems found aboard the Israeli Dolphin-class submarines are of European origin, which makes sense since the subs were built in Germany by HDW and Thyssen Nordseewerke (now both part of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems) with funding support from the Germany governemnt. Kockums (the main Swedish sub designer/builder) is also now part of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, so any future sub is likely to a good deal of German influence in the sub design.
As for any future RAN subs, given Australian satisfaction with the initial performance of the Collins, I would expect Swedish involvement to be kept at a minimum. The Collins II or 'Son of Collins' is I believe already being bandied about in terms of capability requirements, but I am uncertain on whether there is sufficient design capability and experience in Australia to successfully execute a solely Australian design. IMV it would be quite likely that there would be some participation by ThyssenKrupp given their experience in designing and exporting subs.
-Cheers
Icelord and others: May, I ask...is there other occations when something like this have happened with submarines from kockums? Does it seems to be a "typical" outcome of the projecs when kokums is involved? I dont have much knowledge about submarines and kockums. I just say - it seems like our (swedish navy) submarines have served us well.
Sorry, if you have anything to do with the RSNavy and DSTA you'll know that you're using Australian tech developed for Collins. I know this is so because I used to work for the Oz company that provided the solution.
I seriously doubt that anyone serving on those subs is aware of what aust'n sig mods have been made. DSTA certainly do.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not quite sure what you are referring to, do you mean how Collins came out initially?
If that is what you are referring to, then I would guess no, or at least, no more problems than usual for a new sub design.
As Tas mentioned, GF could explain it quite a bit better, but Collins was different than previous Kockums/Swedish designs in a number of areas. For example, the Collins SSK has a displacement of roughly twice that of the Gotland SSK and nearly three times that of the previous Vastergotland, Nacken and Sjoormen classes. While the physical dimensions where not so much greater, the increased displacement I expect cause the vessel to perform differently than the Kockums designers had expected based on previous experience. Also, the area where the Royal Swedish Navy operates is quite different, and less varied, than where a RAN submarine could potentially be found. Given a less varied environment, certain conditions might have been assumed which would not necessarily be the case operationally for the RAN.
Given these potential design issues, as well as where new tech (of which I do not know, can only guess) being introduced and quality control issues combined to have the Collins-class less effective initially, then originally intended. Given additional development in Australia as well as input from the US, the Collins AFAIK has met and/or exceeded original specifications.
-Cheers
The issue of Kockums subs working as expected for the Swedish Navy is not contested. What is contested is the capability of the work they did in Aust - esp with Number 1. ASC/ASCE had to rebuild the work done in Sweden on number 1. It was almost ready to be written off and used as a non diving systems mule.
There are a number of threads in here already on the subject.
I was involved with various parts of the Collins Project and still have an assoc with sig management tech for underwater warfare platforms.
Exactly
- My question was maybe not so claer as I belived.gf0012-aust: I dident contested the "mishappening" with the "Collin project".
I contested ICELORD´s point of view about cockums "in general"
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #15
Doubt such information would be released to the crew too. I would sometimes hear some stuffs courtesy of some friends in the navy. Nothing classified though and rightly so. But it`s good to know that we will be learning from Australia as she have had years of experience in submarine usage and technology. My general feeling is that they are testing a lot of things on the challengers and still are.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I believe the RWR (radar warning receiver) is from Elbit and some radar systems aboard the Dolphin are from Elta. The combat data system as well as the sonar IIRC came from Atlas Electronik.I cannot comment about the Israeli part as Im not privy to what is being done. I assume that they might add in a bit of thier own stuffs on the Dolphin subs and that it might end up in the Challengers as well. Just guesses.
Cheers
Personally, I doubt significant levels of new/high technology was installed in the Challengers or that Singapore is using them as testbeds for new underwater technology. I think it more likely given the age of the vessels when they were purchased that they were intended to give Singapore a limited (but significant for the area) sub capability for a relatively low cost. Having done this, the Challengers could then be used to gain experience and 'corporate knowledge' in submarine operations and doctrine as the possibilities are examined. From there, with the capability established, new(er) subs could be acquired where technology could be developed and/or an indigenous design planned. Given that the Vastergotland-class will be getting phased in, while the Sjoormen/Challenger-class is being phased out would seem to give some support to the idea.
-Cheers
PS Saw GF's comment. My thinking is that of the UDT development, much of it is being planned for incorporation into the Vastergotlands, as opposed to being used to extend the useful life of the Challengers.
Last edited:
No. not the case at all. The Sings are very active in UDT development. The older subs are useful as CTD mules - and thats what a number of countries do with their older gear. Israel being a good case in point. esp wrt their old subs.
We're even using a U-205 class sub as testbed... even for the AIP-plants...
Me too I'm wondering if Australia has the capacity and experience to design and build a sub from scratch. Perhaps you could elaborate? I know you guys did a hell of a job fixing the Collins. But designing and building subs is a costly and experience laden thing to do. So isn't it probable a new Australian sub will be based on an existing design or will be designed together with a US or EU shipbuilder?
BTW, TKMS has a lot of experience using quality management systems and most surely will bring a lot of that stuff to Kockums. I honestly don't know what they were using, probably nothing that would enable comprehensive quality planning.
So I guess the next Swedish submarine will be built using design and manufacturing knowledge from both Sweden and Germany. And for their cost they sure will be excellent boats.
(Dear Mr. gf, UDT and CTD would be... Underwater Defence Technology and probably not Chronic Transplant Disfunction...)
Me too I'm wondering if Australia has the capacity and experience to design and build a sub from scratch. Perhaps you could elaborate? I know you guys did a hell of a job fixing the Collins. But designing and building subs is a costly and experience laden thing to do. So isn't it probable a new Australian sub will be based on an existing design or will be designed together with a US or EU shipbuilder?
BTW, TKMS has a lot of experience using quality management systems and most surely will bring a lot of that stuff to Kockums. I honestly don't know what they were using, probably nothing that would enable comprehensive quality planning.
So I guess the next Swedish submarine will be built using design and manufacturing knowledge from both Sweden and Germany. And for their cost they sure will be excellent boats.
(Dear Mr. gf, UDT and CTD would be... Underwater Defence Technology and probably not Chronic Transplant Disfunction...)