New submarines for Sweden, Singapore and Australia?

[gf0012-aust]

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?

The high likelihood is a co-build. There are australian designs currently in review, but they are probably regarded as conceptul in the sense that these are designs that are enabling us to look at an optimum sized boat.. eg we're looking at what minimum fitout we want and are then looking at the optimum sized platform to carry them.

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.

I'm sure they will be. The irony of course with Collins being that if we had not gone with a maxi gotland we would have gone for a maxi 209. I have no problem with recognising how good the swedish stuff is at the core family level, but extrapolating the early gotland concept into an upsized model was destined to fail. You just can't upscale a boat.

(Dear Mr. gf, UDT and CTD would be... Underwater Defence Technology and probably not Chronic Transplant Disfunction...)

CDT = Concept Technology Demonstrator.

 

[JHC]

as far as i understand, sweden / kockums and germany / thyssen group do not co-develop subs, both companies build there own subs, developing there own technology, getting there own funds for new projects. As the topic started the swedish goverment founded the the new design phase of A26, and with out that money i dought that kockums would start to design o new sub. I have a hard feeling that Australia would buy a new sub from sweden, but a possbility is that they buy the AIP system from Kockums and buy another sub, just like Japan have done, and Singapore. Btw almost sure that Singapore will buy the new A26. But anyways, thats years from now.

Btw the price for the sub will be around 1bil SEK, atleast thats the plan

 

[gf0012-aust]

I have a hard feeling that Australia would buy a new sub from sweden, but a possbility is that they buy the AIP system from Kockums and buy another sub, just like Japan have done, and Singapore.

Sorry, thats not even remotely correct. There is a very strong desire to NOT buy anything legacied from Kockums/Sweden. The current designs are not based on anything existing.

The proposed designs do not fit within any of Kockums existing capability. AIP is also one of many different solutions being looked at. AIP was not put into Collins even though the modules were bought. They are sitting on a pallet at ASC and have been for years. Thre is no desire to buy a Stirling solution when there are better solutions in train.

None of the current Euro designs are going to be able to provide the powertrain and energy requirements for the replacement sub. They are much too small, and there is NO desire to get a European design upscaled. It will be a cleansheet based on the equipment profile.

 

[Falstaff]

as far as i understand, sweden / kockums and germany / thyssen group do not co-develop subs, both companies build there own subs, developing there own technology, getting there own funds for new projects.

Yes true, for secrecy reasons there won't be co-development until the German and Swedish governments decide to co-develop a sub. But nevertheless you'll see organisational, manufacturing, material and design technologies exchanged to a certain extent in both directions. TKMS didn't take over Kockums just to prevent any competitor/ upcoming competitor from doing so. It was a reason, yes, but there have to be other benefits as well.

None of the current Euro designs are going to be able to provide the powertrain and energy requirements for the replacement sub. They are much too small, and there is NO desire to get a European design upscaled. It will be a cleansheet based on the equipment profile.

Very interesting stuff. But it will be a conventional design? You mentioned it will be more like a SSGN without the N.
AFAIK our studies for a post U-212A sub involve (among others) some kind of a stretched U-212A-like design incorporating many of the SSGN-related features combined with much better sensor gear and much better AIP-performance. Seems to be the way to go.

 

[Red]

Btw almost sure that Singapore will buy the new A26. But anyways, thats years from now.

Any idea when the first boat will be ready? 2010 would be great.

 

[JHC]

I have a memory of 2015 in my head, dont know for sure thu. But it ist even sure if sweden gonna buy this subs yet, the Swedish gov. has just given funds for a first stage development and scetching. Nothing can be said until a report about Swedens defence forces is done, its been delayed a couple of times. When that one comes out we will know what Sweden will focus on, if we are gonna quite training in any fields, etc.

btw about the price 1bil SEK is ofc without development costs.

 

[Red]

I have a memory of 2015 in my head, dont know for sure thu. But it ist even sure if sweden gonna buy this subs yet, the Swedish gov. has just given funds for a first stage development and scetching. Nothing can be said until a report about Swedens defence forces is done, its been delayed a couple of times. When that one comes out we will know what Sweden will focus on, if we are gonna quite training in any fields, etc.

2015 as in commissioning of the first submarine? Because to launch the first in 2015 might be rather later for Norway and Singapore and these countries might opt for other options. Isn`t the first orders expected sometime in 2008 as mentioned in the europeran-defence site ? My interpretation is that the project is already at an advanced stage awaiting implementation.

 

[icelord]

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.

The reasoning is also to do with politics.
No MP with half a brain cell would even consider the same company as the ones that designed the Collins. The reason is that it would be open slather for media and Pollies to ridicule due to all the trouble that was created by the Collins. As pointed out, Swedens subs work for the swedish navy and its AOR, where as ours did not fit the profile and systems requirments. Gf is the expert on the flaws so i'll just pull up a chair and watch, buzz me for politics side of view...that means i'm staying out^_^

 

[SlyDog]

icelord: I'm so sorry :bum . I think I missinterpreted you.

Red: I read a swedish newspaper, they say production will START year 2010. Potential costumers are Norway and Singapore.

 

[Red]

Red: I read a swedish newspaper, they say production will START year 2010. Potential costumers are Norway and Singapore.

2010 would be nice. I think Singapore(not sure about Norway) might opt to build the submarines in Singapore.

 

[Rythm]

as far as i understand, sweden / kockums and germany / thyssen group do not co-develop subs, both companies build there own subs, developing there own technology, getting there own funds for new projects.

Ofc ThyssenKrupp will coordinate the development and share technology across the board with all their plants. Not doing so is financial suicide these days. We have already seen designelements from Kockums influence the german K131-study and possibly also U212A.

 

[rattmuff]

Hm... ah, found it.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4974

 

[Red]

Hm... ah, found it.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4974

Great find. Muacks. thank you. Err..this ->25-30mm automatic cannon for self defence on the surface and periscope depth. Rather unique is`nt it? Though I think it will certainly have uses and come in handy when you have no other platform around in a littoral environment. An example if you want to make a point to a pirate ship; plenty here in SEA ? Yeah, im guessing.

 

[Falstaff]

We have already seen designelements from Kockums influence the german K131-study

which would be...?

and possibly also U212A.

Definitely wrong as far as that's concerned.

 

[kato]

@Rythm:

The Type 212A subs precede HDW buying Kockums... by about a decade design-wise even.

@Falstaff:

He probably means MEKO CSL by "K131" - no, that's not the correct designation, K131 quite definitely won't be a MEKO CSL. That design does borrow some technology from the Visby though, in particular stealth-wise - and TKMS has been pushing that in marketing.

@Red:

The "25-30mm gun" is HDW's MURAENA system, a project that already failed to make it into the Type 212B design. Don't see any chance for it, but there'd be a definite chance for IDAS instead.

 

[yoron]

Ok OP, this is what I've read about the NGU' (Next Generation Ubåt/Submarine) or A26.

There seems to be different views on how it will look and function. Some sources describes it as a further development building on Swedens former class of submarines (Gotland). http://www.nti.org/db/submarines/sweden/index.html . If so, it should use a Stirling engine driven by a combination of oxygen and diesel oil.

It will have a non-magnetizing steel hull. It will also have a fluid rubber dampening, probably meaning that its interior will be hung up on those, somewhat like NORAD in the Cheyenne Mountain is said to be built? Furthermore it will be constructed as easily exchangeable modules resting on 'rubber pillows. Everything designed to minimize vibrations, and being able to take extreme G-forces created by underwater explosions protecting its crew and electronic innards.

It will be manned by 17-29 personnel depending on type of mission. It is also expected to have at least two UUV (unmanned underwater vehicles) and is planned to be able to be used in a lot of different missions, not only warfare. At a main speed of nine knots it is expected to be able of reaching North America and back without refueling, and is expected to be fifty percent faster than the Gotland class. Its price seems to be around three four times cheaper than the German equivalence, as the German equivalent submarines are of a more recent development using fuel cells instead of a Stirling engines. AS it has AIP (air independent propulsion) it should be able to stay under water up to a month, maybe more?

As for the electronics?
Don't know, but it will use what electronics IR sonar capabilities we have for Gotland at least. Probably a lot like The US submarines. Sufficient I would presume. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=94929

 

[PeterM]

It is interesting that people question Australian capability to build the Collins successor. I think it is likely the RAN will leverage US experience to a considerable degree in some kind of partnership arrangement.

I wouldn't be surprised if Collins II ended up being somewhere between an enlarged Collins class and a conventionally powered Virginia class (with additional new technologies in either case)

 

[Palnatoke]

The Swedish take of the Collins

I think the swedish side would argue that while there were inefficiencies and problems - something to be expected in any larger development work like this - the main problems were not swedish submarine building proficiencies, testified by the simple fact that sweden has and are producing some of this planets finest and most sophisticated attack subs, submarines that f.ex. the USN leases when they want to test their ASW cababilities against "emerging threaths" and ships that over the years have beensuccesfully exported to a number of customers, but more likely that the Australien partners weren't up to the task at hand.

 

[yoron]

I think the swedish side would argue that while there were inefficiencies and problems - something to be expected in any larger development work like this - the main problems were not swedish submarine building proficiencies, testified by the simple fact that sweden has and are producing some of this planets finest and most sophisticated attack subs, submarines that f.ex. the USN leases when they want to test their ASW cababilities against "emerging threaths" and ships that over the years have beensuccesfully exported to a number of customers, but more likely that the Australien partners weren't up to the task at hand.

Australia seems to have had some bad experiences with the first bow delivered from Kockums for their (then) new Collin class submarines. I've tried to find some Swedish papers on why that bow was so miserably welded but so far not succeeding in finding anything from the Swedish (Kockums) side.

I wonder if it was happening at that same time when Kockums was bought up? But reading http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RP/2001-02/02RP03.htm#what the whole Collin program seems to have had a troublesome beginning,.to say the least. But their subs seems good, and have proved themselves against the US navy too, as I understands it. We are not the only navy with silent subs

But we are the ones 'sneaking around' for a whole year in American waters without detection And that's good news for our Swedish submarine industry I think.

-----
What I understand as being the main problem for the Us submarines is the cooling system (pumps) and cavitation in their nuclear subs, but I've got the impression that they mostly have succeeded in adjusting those problems?

---

As for Germany and Sweden building submarines together? Depends on how one mean. Germany have their concept of how they want their submarines to behave, we have another. The amount of 'insight' they have in Swedish technology should be strictly regulated, but as we build similar vessels there must be some 'crossbreeding' just as it was/is with Gripen. Btw: Kockums AB, is owned by the German shipyard HDW, who in turn is owned by Thyssen Krupp and the American investment bank OEP through the Company Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems so there seems to be a lot shared if so

 

[Palnatoke]

Australia seems to have had some bad experiences with the first bow delivered from Kockums for their (then) new Collin class submarines.

Well seems like Krockums made some bad wielding, and that is ofcourse not something Krockum is proud of and they have probably also paid the bill to make it up to requirements. But sh..t happens in every major work of this nature, that's a fact of life.

What I am objecting against is the singling out of Krockum as responsible for what seems to be a long array of problems: 12 years of development process, resulting in subsystems obsolete before completion, leaky pipes, a general design failure of being to noisy etc etc etc. That points to problems that are not Krockum's making, since they absolutely have demonstrated that they can build subs (something that Aus have demonstrated that they can't). But I quess that it's politically convenient to blame the foreign contractor, instead of one's own "constituency".