Swedish Submarines

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tiny

New Member
im kinda curious to knw how the swedish subs compare with other more well known subs such as kilos, scorpene and the U212, just to name a few. so little is known about them. they have the Challenger class (formerly known as Sjöormen class), the Västergötland class which is now being upgraded to Södermanland class and lastly the newest Gotland class submarines. currently they only have 1 export which is to singapore being the challenger class and the Södermanland class in a few years. so im kinda curious to knw just how good are their subs and y they have so limited success in the export martket? anyone care to shed some light into my quries. thanks :)
 

contedicavour

New Member
Well, among the 1st to develop AIP, very silent subs ideal for brown water operations (the US leases Gotland for training)... though today's Kockums lack the marketing muscle of DCN and HDW. Btw, Kockums is an affiliate of HDW, which could also be an issue every time a Swedish sub faces a German one in international tenders...

cheers
 

Tiny

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Singapore's Super Subs
November 7, 2005: Singapore will buy 2 Swedish A-17 Vastergotland submarines, which are expected to enter service starting in 2010, replacing some of current Challenger-class submarines. This fits into Singapore's traditional method of acquiring new capabilities, where old refurbished platforms are first purchased to gain operational experience before newer weapons systems are acquired.

In 1995, Singapore purchased 4 A-11 Challenger Class (ex-Sjöbjörnen Class), the first of which was launched in 1968. The Challenger Class were not only refitted for tropical conditions, but also received weapons system and sensor upgrades. These submarines performed very well in exercises against US Navy and Royal Australian Navy units, proving that these old boats, when handled well in littoral conditions, are quiet and maneuverable subs that are able to give a pretty good account of themselves.

Of the 4 submarines in the Vastergotland class that Sweden built between 1987 and 1990, the first two boats, the HMS HMS Vastergotland and HMS Halsingland were taken out of Royal Swedish Navy active service in 2004, while the other two, the HMS Sodermanland and HMS Ostergotland, received such significant upgrades in 2003-2004 that they are considered a new class.

In particular, apart from weapons system and stealth system improvements, these boats received a 12 metre (36 foot) hull extension in order to use the Stirling Air Independent Propulsion System, making them, along with the 3 submarines of the follow on A-19 Gotland Class, probably the quietest and most advanced conventional submarines currently in operational service the world. The Stirling AIP system is a propulsion system that uses diesel fuel and Liquid Oxygen in a closed system, and greatly increases a conventional submarine's submerged endurance. With AIP systems, conventional submarines can go for weeks without having to surface or snorkel in order to recharge their batteries.

Singapore has purchased the deactivated HMS Vastergotland and HMS Halsingland, and it is more than likely that part of the upgrades that these boats will receive will include the Stirling AIP hull extension, making them virtually identical to the Sodermanland Class. This means that by 2010, the RSN will be operating two of the quietest and most lethal conventional submarines in the world, and probably at a pretty good price - definitely below the cost of a new Gotland sub, which has been suggested at $100 million each, while the German U-212 Class has been estimated at $250 million a copy.

Just how lethal will these subs be? Well, take into consideration that the state-of-the-art Gotland Class, which is essentially an improved Vastergotland Class with the Stirling AIP system incorporated from the beginning, is considered so quiet and so deadly that the USN has leased the HMS Gotland for a year in order to practice and develop its ASW tactics against a first class opponent.

So is this an indication of just how good the swedish subs are?
;)
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Btw, Kockums is an affiliate of HDW, which could also be an issue every time a Swedish sub faces a German one in international tenders...
Not just an affiliate, Kockums SE is owned by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS). TKMS also owns HDW-Gaarden, Blohm+Voss, Blohm+Voss Repair, Nobiskrug, Nordseewerke, and Hellenic Shipyards. Nordseewerke has built subs too, assembly of the Norwegian Ula class (Type 210), for example.

Kockums also designed and exported the six Collins subs (though they were built in Australia).
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Kockums also designed and exported the six Collins subs (though they were built in Australia).
and they (kockums) absolutely stuffed them up. the welds on number 1 were so bad that the boat was almost dumped. we had to redo all the initial swedish weld work as the front bow section literally would have collapsed if placed under pressure (eg done a cold shot)

all of the acoustic mods made to reduce signature footprint on Collins were made and developed in australia - all the critical hull mods were a legacy of help from the USN and NAVSEA

I'd personally never touch another swedish design again.

just as a rider, the acoustic mods and sensor system mods made to singapores subs were legacy export technology mods from australia.
 

Tiny

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
November 7, 2005: Singapore will buy 2 Swedish A-17 Vastergotland submarines, which are expected to enter service starting in 2010, replacing some of current Challenger-class submarines. This fits into Singapore's traditional method of acquiring new capabilities, where old refurbished platforms are first purchased to gain operational experience before newer weapons systems are acquired.

In 1995, Singapore purchased 4 A-11 Challenger Class (ex-Sjöbjörnen Class), the first of which was launched in 1968. The Challenger Class were not only refitted for tropical conditions, but also received weapons system and sensor upgrades. These submarines performed very well in exercises against US Navy and Royal Australian Navy units, proving that these old boats, when handled well in littoral conditions, are quiet and maneuverable subs that are able to give a pretty good account of themselves.

Of the 4 submarines in the Vastergotland class that Sweden built between 1987 and 1990, the first two boats, the HMS HMS Vastergotland and HMS Halsingland were taken out of Royal Swedish Navy active service in 2004, while the other two, the HMS Sodermanland and HMS Ostergotland, received such significant upgrades in 2003-2004 that they are considered a new class.

In particular, apart from weapons system and stealth system improvements, these boats received a 12 metre (36 foot) hull extension in order to use the Stirling Air Independent Propulsion System, making them, along with the 3 submarines of the follow on A-19 Gotland Class, probably the quietest and most advanced conventional submarines currently in operational service the world. The Stirling AIP system is a propulsion system that uses diesel fuel and Liquid Oxygen in a closed system, and greatly increases a conventional submarine's submerged endurance. With AIP systems, conventional submarines can go for weeks without having to surface or snorkel in order to recharge their batteries.

Singapore has purchased the deactivated HMS Vastergotland and HMS Halsingland, and it is more than likely that part of the upgrades that these boats will receive will include the Stirling AIP hull extension, making them virtually identical to the Sodermanland Class. This means that by 2010, the RSN will be operating two of the quietest and most lethal conventional submarines in the world, and probably at a pretty good price - definitely below the cost of a new Gotland sub, which has been suggested at $100 million each, while the German U-212 Class has been estimated at $250 million a copy.

Just how lethal will these subs be? Well, take into consideration that the state-of-the-art Gotland Class, which is essentially an improved Vastergotland Class with the Stirling AIP system incorporated from the beginning, is considered so quiet and so deadly that the USN has leased the HMS Gotland for a year in order to practice and develop its ASW tactics against a first class opponent.

hmm considering the prices and capabilities, swedish subs sounds a like a catch to mi.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Maybe they had a bad day when designing the Collins? :D ;)

It seems that at least their Gotland performs very well as USN OPFOR.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Maybe they had a bad day when designing the Collins? :D ;)

It seems that at least their Gotland performs very well as USN OPFOR.
To be fair, the failings in the Collins programme can be shared - mistakes were made across a number of levels.

However, the interim design was not the best, and the oft much vaunted swedish workmanship was clearly not there.

The australian compay that designed the signature management solution was also responsible forfixing up noise and vibration issues on the Visbys - so we know our own capability in acoustic mgt and sig mgt was superior to what kockums claimed they could (and never failed to do)

The old "underwater rock concert" comments were made in the ugly days before we resolved to fix things ourselves. Those comments applied to No1 and No2 before they were "patched"
 

Schumacher

New Member
Size must have been one of the main factors which tripped up the Swedes ? Collins is considerably larger than Gotland & other Swedish designs.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Size must have been one of the main factors which tripped up the Swedes ? Collins is considerably larger than Gotland & other Swedish designs.
The swedes (kockums) did what a lot of mil-companies often do (sometimes nicknamed the Wang Cares approach).

they talked up capability that they didn't have.

you just can't upscale everything in a sub dimensionally, and in a lot of areas Collins was the guinea pig for Gotland. (except that Gotland was never intended to be a fleet submarine). part of the clear resentment in AustGov was that we were paying for Gotlands development (by association)

Collins was a cold war legacy design in the sense that it was a fleet submarine designed to be able to take the fight up to eastern russia or china (assuming that they were the hot war protagonists). Its a long range sub designed to more or less act as an underwater version of a recce/strike force

we would have had the same issues with HDW, but would have had a 3000 tonne "super" 209 instead.

the project was a bit more complex than that - but basically they did misrepresent a lot of their capability. Its really important to note that it was australian 3rd party solutions -not kockums, that started to get around their initial mistakes.

quite frankly, number 1 was a dog of a boat until modded.
 

KGB

New Member
Why did the US choose to lease the Gotland class for OPFOR, among the available diesels? Would renting a Kilo be more edifying?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Why did the US choose to lease the Gotland class for OPFOR, among the available diesels? Would renting a Kilo be more edifying?
This isn't quotable as evidence of intent, but I was at a UDT Conf in 2004 and some opinons were offered by people from the USN and one of the US sub building duopoly.

  • Gotland is the closest sub to Collins in a lot of critical dynamics - and Collins is regarded as a successful design with demonstrated aggressor capability. Gotland is nicknamed "mini-me" in some circles.
  • Swedish crews were offered at an attractive price
  • Swedish crews were regarded as proficient - and they're experienced in operating in the littorals as well as in similar underwater terrain that SW/ASW combat could occur
  • Kilo is not regarded as significant a threat (contrary to internet comments). It thus makes sense to train against a harder adversary at a capability as well as acoustic/signature level.
Personally, I think that there was better benefit in picking up the ex danish squadron, as it would have given greater benefit as far as multiple co-ordinated contact training etc is concerned.

The Danes would have given a bargain price for the squadron, and they could have leased experienced crews who train together and have an aggressive mindset.

Thats only a second hand opinion though. The Danish comments are wholeheartedly my opinion and thus open to forum pillory and attack. :rolleyes:
 

contedicavour

New Member
If I were in the USN I'd recommand to run ASW training with the Indian Navy Kilos (recently modernized and including SSMs and even short range SAMs). It would be more realistic for training against potentially hostile SSKs such as Iran's Kilo or (let's hope not) PLAN Navy Kilos.

Sweden's subs are meant to defend the coastline from amphibious attacks (possible in Soviet times), attack military convoys crossing the Baltic, and eventually lay minefields. I wonder how the doctrine has changed since the collapse of the USSR. I understand the interest Singapore has in such capabilities given its geography, but it is a bit of a niche positioning vs U212/214 or Amur/Lada or Scorpene which are much more multi-role.

cheers
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If I were in the USN I'd recommand to run ASW training with the Indian Navy Kilos (recently modernized and including SSMs and even short range SAMs).
They aren't going to get an attachment of Kilos for a year though. There is enough data on Kilos available to give decent modelling without having to rent the capability

It would be more realistic for training against potentially hostile SSKs such as Iran's Kilo or (let's hope not) PLAN Navy Kilos.
You can set up behaviour parameters - not as good as one in your backyard, but still useful

Sweden's subs are meant to defend the coastline from amphibious attacks (possible in Soviet times), attack military convoys crossing the Baltic, and eventually lay minefields. I wonder how the doctrine has changed since the collapse of the USSR.
Bits of the mainland chinese coast are similar. eg macau to hong kong has similarities.

I understand the interest Singapore has in such capabilities given its geography, but it is a bit of a niche positioning vs U212/214 or Amur/Lada or Scorpene which are much more multi-role.
cheers
In singapores case their threat area doesn't necessarily require fleet subs. The Gotland is still able to run long events, it would get down to what they were after.

In addition to Gotland, the USN currently trains with well over a dozen navies with different sub types and with different capabilities (platform and crew). To me the value is in that disparity. Training against one type can be a delimiter.

Divergence and Disparity in this regard is "king".
 

sng

New Member
To be fair, the failings in the Collins programme can be shared - mistakes were made across a number of levels.

However, the interim design was not the best, and the oft much vaunted swedish workmanship was clearly not there.

The australian compay that designed the signature management solution was also responsible forfixing up noise and vibration issues on the Visbys - so we know our own capability in acoustic mgt and sig mgt was superior to what kockums claimed they could (and never failed to do)

The old "underwater rock concert" comments were made in the ugly days before we resolved to fix things ourselves. Those comments applied to No1 and No2 before they were "patched"
I thought that the flaws in the Collins class were due to poor construction in the Australian yards, how is Swedish workmanship relevant here?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I thought that the flaws in the Collins class were due to poor construction in the Australian yards, how is Swedish workmanship relevant here?
1) read my comments properly

2) I was on the Collins Project - so I know intimately the project issues

3) The swedes absolutely stuffed up number 1 - it was almost considered a right off as their welding was sub standard and had to be done. In fact all of their work was redone as a safety issue

Its entirely relevant, They misrepresented their capability and messed up any work that they actually had a mechanical contribution to. We paid the price because they assumed that building bigger submarines was a linear scaling issue - its not. It was australian contractors who identified those problems and fixed them up.

Thats why we also got the job of fixing one of the Visbys.

In fact I could fill a book with the amount of problems that they caused us. Faulty assumptions means flawed construction.

We would have been better off going for a super sized 3000 tonne HDW 209 (the alternative)
 

contedicavour

New Member
An interesting question would thus be : what mattered most in reducing the Swedish sub industry to today's doldrums :

> HDW commercial interest in pushing U212/214 vs Gotland/Viking
> Proven flaws on the Swedish side on the Australian Collins programme
> Perceived superiority of competitive products Scorpene, U214 ?

I'd vote for the first item, since the 3rd is debatable and the 2nd hasn't stopped US interest in Gotland or Singapore's interest in Viking programme.

cheers
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
An interesting question would thus be : what mattered most in reducing the Swedish sub industry to today's doldrums :

> HDW commercial interest in pushing U212/214 vs Gotland/Viking
> Proven flaws on the Swedish side on the Australian Collins programme
> Perceived superiority of competitive products Scorpene, U214 ?

I'd vote for the first item, since the 3rd is debatable and the 2nd hasn't stopped US interest in Gotland or Singapore's interest in Viking programme.

cheers
Australia provided Singapore with signature management solutions developed as a result of fixing up Kockums stuff ups. We've also co-operated on a joint venture which was tied into acoustic management.

An Australian signature management company has also been working with the USN and NAVSEA since 2004.

The same australian company also was responsible for going in and fixing up the acoustic anomalies of the Visby when she did her US tour.

As for superiority - well, thats always a relative view. But, I'd rather have Collins as a fleet submarine than anything else except for an Oyashio. You can keep your Scorpenes. ;)
 

contedicavour

New Member
Australia provided Singapore with signature management solutions developed as a result of fixing up Kockums stuff ups. We've also co-operated on a joint venture which was tied into acoustic management.

An Australian signature management company has also been working with the USN and NAVSEA since 2004.

The same australian company also was responsible for going in and fixing up the acoustic anomalies of the Visby when she did her US tour.

As for superiority - well, thats always a relative view. But, I'd rather have Collins as a fleet submarine than anything else except for an Oyashio. You can keep your Scorpenes. ;)
Australia should have bought Kockums instead of HDW with all the help you provided to fix their mess ;)
I'm for U212A for our Mediterranean, and even the French build Scorpenes purely for export :rolleyes:

cheers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top