[QUOTE=gf0012-aust;612131]That article is a slightly gilded version of the truth if that was its claim.
I can think of any number of current conventional subs that are acoustically quieter than it - and quite frankly, it was leased for a number of other reasons. - and it was found and killed a number of times (as have nukes, as have other conventionals). the contact and training parameters are restricted for a number of reasons - it was not "free range".
IMO the USN would have been better served leasing the Danish squadron (available if they'd asked the right people at the right time) as it would have tested fleet contact and pack issues. The Swedish lease was for a limited requirements test and was related to other issues way beyond "smell sub, hunt sub, kill sub"
If true (and I would think its journalistic enthusiasm) its a tragically oversimplification of what, why and how it was leased.
are they a good sub? of course. was the result such a simple outcome? no
in fact, to even remotely pass comment on the results without knowing the training vectors is absolutely foolish. It is a variation of the Cope India commentary that first came out[/QUOTE]
I've searched a bit about it and these are some things I found. Aparantly the lease was for 2x12months and not 2x6months as I remembered it.
[QUOTE]According to the Swedish newspaper Blekinge Läns Tidning, U.S. interest in the Gotland class was aroused during joint naval exercises when the U.S. Navy was unable to track the Swedish submarine.
[B]During its first year in the United States, the Gotland is scheduled to conduct up to 160 training days at sea, supporting strike groups, individual ships and rescue submarines, as well as participate in testing and development of new equipment.[/B] The Gotland regularly uses its diesel engines only when entering or exiting port, going on two-week-plus "silent" patrols using its Stirling AIP engines exclusively. As of March 2006, the U.S. Navy was reportedly in talks with Sweden on extending the lease for one to two more years.[8,10]
Reportedly, during a Joint Task Force Exercise on December 6-16, 2005, with the USS Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Group off the coast of Southern California, the Gotland managed to take several pictures of the Ronald Reagan from close quarters, indicating a "strike" on the aircraft carrier. As Gotland's Lieutenant Commander Jan Westas says, the U.S. ASW forces "have had a very difficult time finding us." [B]To date, the exercises have been carried out in deep water. It is expected that exercises with the Gotland in coastal waters will prove even more challenging to U.S. ASW.[/B]
 "RSwN submarine HMS Gotland on lease to US Navy for twelve months," May 31, 2005, Kockums Website, [url]http://www.kockums.se[/url].
 "USA to lease Gotland-class sub," November 5, 2004, Kockums Website, [url]http://www.kockums.se[/url].
 "Swedish Submarine Continues to Play Important Role in Joint Training," December 20, 2005, Navy Newsstand Website, [url]http://www.news.navy.mil[/url].
Norman Polmar, "Back to the Future," United States Naval Institute Proceedings (Annapolis: March 2006), pp. 20-26; in ProQuest Information and Learning Company, [url]http://proquest.umi.com[/url].
 "Svensk Ubåt 'sänkte' USA:s hangarfartyg," Allehanda, January 16, 2006, [url]http://www.allehanda.se/lokalt/7956[/url].
 "USA vill fortsätta jaga svensk ubåt," Svenska Dagbladet, April 18, 2006, [url]http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/inrikes/did_12393415.asp[/url].
 "Kockums utvecklar ny ubåt åt försvaret," NyTeknik Website, June 1, 2005.[/I][/QUOTE]
This guy has some good info and also makes an interesting remark in the middle:
19 officers and 11 conscripts is correct. Conscripts only serve eleven months on active duty. Officers work, like really work, like a 3rd, or 2nd engineer on an MSC ship if your an engineer. Conscripts messcrank, and some are watchstanders on the one-man diving control station, and do other seaman gang kind of work.
By the way, to suggest that HMS Gotland is in some way going to compete with the speed and reach of a US SSN is nonesense. [B]That was never the purpose of bringing her to San Diego. Rumor has it that USN ASW is having great difficulty finding Gotland. Our City boats have to go active to locate her, and that is the reason the lease was extended for a year. Yep, Hymie's boys who told CNO we don't need'em, and now can't find'em are indeed being punished.[/B] Better step up your game boys!
[I]Oh, and another thing. What ever happened to the "brotherhood of the phin"? No host boat for Gotland! US boat sailors told to have no contact with the Swedes! What the hell kind of submarine Navy are the Nuc's running today??
I guess when you think you know everything, you can't learn nuthin!! Sounds pretty stupid to me......[/I]
[B]Oh yea, my source for the above comments are a Swedish Navy Lt. Engineer type who gave me a tour of the boat, and a Submarine Squadron MCPO who is pretty disgusted with the way the Swedish crew is treated.[/B]
Ya'all Keep a zero bubble.....
[QUOTE]While she's kind of useless out on the wide ocean, she's purdy mean within the confines of the Persian Gulf.
Which is why the US Navy really wants to use her for OPFOR excercises.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]HMS Gotland managed to penetrate the massive defensive measures of a carrier battle group undetected and snap several pictures of the USS Ronald Reagan during a wargaming exercise in the Pacific Ocean, effectively "sinking" the aircraft carrier. The exercise was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the US Fleet against modern diesel-electric submarines, which some have noted as severely lacking.
10. ^ "Pentagon: New Class Of Silent Submarines Poses Threat". KNBC. 2006-10-19. Retrieved on 21 July 2006
11. ^ Polmar, Norman (March 2006). "Back to the Future". U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 132 (3): 22–23. 0041-798X.
12. ^ "US Navy Struggles to Recapture, Keep ASW Proficiency". The Nav Log. Retrieved on 2008-04-06.[/I][/QUOTE]
And heres a 6page thread that has some good info in it:
Cut and pasted from that militaryphotos thread that partly deals with the prelude to why the US wanted to lease the HMS Gotland and not anything else:
[QUOTE=Thor]Good info, but then again not so much news really. We do have one of the most apt and capable militaries and we are listed as a technological superpower. So my point is that the US should see it for what it is, an exercise. They asked for what's probably the best opposition and got it. It doesn't change the fact that US Navy would probably not have much problems with 95 percent of the world's subs. After this that number might reach 98 percent instead. That's how you should view this whole thing.
But I want to give some cred to the crew on the sub. No matter the planes, tanks, subs etc. you have in your inventory, you'll still need professionals to take the hardware to it's full potential. So congrats on a job well done.
[QUOTE=sp2c]except it's nothing new, Dutch, Australian, Canadian diesel electric subs have been doing it every once in a while too.[/QUOTE]
You obviously missed the prelude that lead up to US Navy initiating two years of full-time exercises. HMS Gotland toured NATO excercises in the Med and North Sea and routed all opposition.
[QUOTE=Crazed Aussie]Although not widely reported, the aussie Collins class subs have regularly sunk US vessels[/QUOTE]
The Collins Class is basically an upgraded swedish design. Good sub.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Thor][QUOTE] You obviously missed the prelude that lead up to US Navy initiating two years of full-time exercises. HMS Gotland toured NATO excercises in the Med and North Sea [B]and routed all opposition[/B].[/QUOTE]
no I did not, I've been following it very closely and it isn't all that special to kill a capitol ship with diesel electric subs ... aip or not[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=sp2c][QUOTE]no I did not, I've been following it very closely and it isn't all that special to kill a capitol ship with diesel electric subs ... aip or not[/QUOTE]
You missed it again ([B]look for the key word[/B]). ;)[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=8thidpathfinderpower]See what alot of people do not realize, is that the US military is very dependant on technology to make up for the fact,that it is an honor to not serve in the military. And, finally the rest of the world has woken up, and now the US isn't the big terrible oger that it was thought to be, and we are losing.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=LazerLords]One of Singapore's Challenger-class (ex-Sjoormen) SSKs performed similarly well against an aircraft carrier during an exercise in the South China Sea, if I remember correctly.
The Singaporean Navy is getting two likely-to-be AIP equipped Vastergotland-class SSKs as addons to the 4 Challenger-class subs.[/QUOTE]
Aparantly the really old ones are doing good to.
[QUOTE=Bernie Mac;615203]Cut and pasted from that militaryphotos thread that partly deals with the prelude to why the US wanted to lease the HMS Gotland and not anything else:
Aparantly the really old ones are doing good to.[/QUOTE]
Tell me, how did the Gotland find the battle group in the first place?
[QUOTE=Thor][quote=Posted by Crazed Aussie]
Although not widely reported, the aussie Collins class subs have regularly sunk US vessels[/quote]
The Collins Class is basically an upgraded swedish design. Good sub.[/quote]
The Collins was the base design for Gotland. But, and this is the big "but" that Thor seems to be oblivious of, (Gotland is referred to as a "Mini-me Collins" down here)
examples of grief.
1) the original boat nose was built in sweden, it was rejected by australia as it had over 10,000 weld defects. it was that bad that number 1 was almost going to go to the submarine knackery - and if it had not been fixed by ASCE (not ASC) then that sub could have been risk at the first proximity tests. The urban myth was that the defects were ASC welds, but it was the entire nose section done in Sweden (and in the subsequent Govt report
2) the problems with the Kockums scoping was so bad that in the end we managed to get it's acoustic signature down by using US properllor technology (the swedes material science level was such that the props could have sheered under load). the hull management tech was australian, the hull flow changes were american, the combat and detection systems were british (then half french) then american
3) the aust and US gov refused to share the final propellor tech mods developed by the americans
all of the significant hull, sig management and system changes were australian, american and UK/French.
Thor might want to tone down his enthusiasm for the swedish side of the project (and yes I worked on 3 of the subs for over 6 years at different levels)
He might want to realise that the sig management tech used for collins was also used on singapores subs.
as for Gotland - lets not get carried away. Collins, Oberons, Walruses, HDW209's, and HDW 212-24's have all had a successful poke. These underwater exoercises are not about scorecards - like DACT for aircraft they are designed to force sides into avenues of action - there is no winner and loser in this. and conventionals (esp small greenwater emphasised) are limited by the size of the box, so achieving always starts in favour of the sub as they don't have to go through the palaver of wandering through thousands to millions of cubic kilometeres of water to find and hunt - let alone find and kill.
This is always about context - and quite frankly, again, I stand by my prev that all this feelgood stuff is within a Cope India mentality and needs a bit of caution. As soon as you play in a defined box, it's an assisted action or activity - so the claims need to be comprehended in that context.
Nice sub, but the hype is amateurish.
and before I get belted by some nationalistic swede, I don't have problems with swedes, I work with at least one of three swedish companys every day and I deal with swedish systems at a sig management and sensor level.
I like their gear - but I have a bit of an issue with claims about their input when all the fixes were done without swedish help. for that (in some very significant areas) we owe a bit to the americans. (but we pay it back through JORN, Hypersonics and CBASS ;))
Has anyone [mainly Aussies] seen the TV series ''Submariners'' first came out some years back, and has been repeated a few times. [it was on DVD, not sure if you can still find it]
This is what the series was about.........
The US Navy has described HMAS Rankin as “a formidable opponent” after her performance in the last major training exercise before the start of RIMPAC.
Rankin (LCDR Steve Hussey) was the centrepiece of Exercise Silent Fury as a “hostile” submarine, pitted against a highly capable US Navy USW task group last month.
The US guided missile destroyers USS O’Kane and USS Paul Hamilton, guided missile frigate USS Reuben James, nuclear submarine USS Key West, Destroyer Squadron 31, six Patrol Squadron anti-submarine P-3C Orion combat crews and Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light 37 united themselves against the Australian “Black Knight”.
“Silent Fury was an excellent opportunity for us to challenge our air crews in our primary mission area of undersea warfare,” said CMDR David Smith, Commanding Officer of the US Patrol Squadron 4.
“Rankin was a formidable opponent and provided unique training opportunities for the entire task force and us,” he said.
“Silent Fury was an outstanding precursor for us as we get ready for RIMPAC.”
The US recognises that the Collins class diesel submarines are superb at exceptionally silent underwater operations.
Rankin took a break from an 18,000 nautical mile odyssey, completing a maintenance period in Pearl Harbour Naval Base prior to the exercise.
The submarine will take part in further operations with the US Navy before returning to Australia in September.
It was a long journey for the Black Knight, having departed Australia in April.
Her first port of call was Jinhae, Republic of Korea, for a quick rest before participating
in Exercise Pacific Reach, an escape exercise off the coast of Korea.
Here the team swapped tales with submariners from across the Pacific Rim and enjoyed some of the local hospitality and cuisine.
The Black Knight became the second Australian Collins class submarine to visit the land of the rising sun, arriving in the naval port of Kure, Japan, in May via the Inland Sea.
While in port the ship’s company was treated to outstanding traditional Japanese entertainment care of host submarine JDS Fuyushio and once again everyone indulged in the delicious local fare.
Rankin also became the first Collins submarine to conduct a goodwill exercise with the Japanese Self Defence Force, dodging typhoons to work with both Japanese surface units and aircraft.
They had TV crew travel with Rankin, showing episode by episode what happened in a fascinating series.
It shows how the Rankin's crew were eager to follow their fellow submariners in having a go at penetrating a carrier task force [by all accounts Collins have "sunk" a Virginia class sub and two or three CVN's in wargames.]
But they were disappointed when the Americans changed their minds and called it off.
They set the Rankin the task of trying to get past the US guided missile destroyers USS O’Kane and USS Paul Hamilton, guided missile frigate USS Reuben James, nuclear submarine USS Key West, Destroyer Squadron 31, six Patrol Squadron anti-submarine P-3C Orion combat crews and Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light 37 which united themselves against the Australian “Black Knight”.
The Rankin had to pass through a narrow choke point of two islands after it had been detected by choppers, and it's task was to throw off it's taggers, which it did by pushing in close to the littorals and breaking the contact by background clutter.
Then the hunted became the hunter, and it showed what happened on TV through the periscope of the Rankin, a Burke steaming across it's bows, unaware that it was going to receive a salvo of torpedoes.
Scratch one Burke.
On Richard ''Mack''Machowicz's future weapons programme, he was given a tour and spin on one of the Germans U212 subs, and it's ability for silent running was impressive, the submarine can operate at high speed on diesel power or switch to the AIP system for silent slow cruising, staying submerged for up to three weeks without surfacing and with no exhaust heat. The system is also said to be vibration-free, extremely quiet and virtually undetectable, and the U214 is an improvement again.
Type 212 is the first of the only two fuel cell propulsion system equipped submarines ready for series production by 2007.
Never could understand why the Aussies went with the Swedish subs ahead of the Germans, IIRC the Navy wanted the German 209 back then, 'may' have saved a lot of grief [and a truck load of money]
Never could understand why the Aussies went with the Swedish subs ahead of the Germans, IIRC the Navy wanted the German 209 back then, 'may' have saved a lot of grief [and a truck load of money][/QUOTE]
The pro swedish lobby group was better than the pro german lobby group. :P
Quite frankly, we would have been better going with the US legacy design that was used for Oyashio, although I am fond of the German subs (I like the swedish subs as well, but further down the tree).
The americans seemed to like Collins as well, i was always getting free beers in Hawai'i as soon as they found out where I was from.
All the stats and all the other stuff, really does not mean a thing unless combat tested! The German type IX and the US Gato class. Unless you want to cout the Argenine Sante Fe? Which was forced to the surface back in april 25th 1982.
[QUOTE=gf0012-aust;618637]The pro swedish lobby group was better than the pro german lobby group. :P
Quite frankly, we would have been better going with the US legacy design that was used for Oyashio, although I am fond of the German subs (I like the swedish subs as well, but further down the tree).
The americans seemed to like Collins as well, i was always getting free beers in Hawai'i as soon as they found out where I was from.[/QUOTE]
Must remember that if I'm in Hawaii some time.:))
I know you'd probably have to read a book on where the blame lay with the snafu on the Collins [Peter Yule/Derek Woolner?] this has a good overview by Woolner........[url]http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2001-02/02rp04.htm[/url]
Some sneaky stuff on the reason Kockums won.
[QUOTE=Master Chief;618826]All the stats and all the other stuff, really does not mean a thing unless combat tested! The German type IX and the US Gato class. Unless you want to cout the Argenine Sante Fe? Which was forced to the surface back in april 25th 1982.[/QUOTE]
And the Churchill class.
[QUOTE=ANZAC;618997]I know you'd probably have to read a book on where the blame lay with the snafu on the Collins [Peter Yule/Derek Woolner?] this has a good overview by Woolner........[url]http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2001-02/02rp04.htm[/url]
Some sneaky stuff on the reason Kockums won.[/QUOTE]
Shared guilt all round, but Kockums work on No:1 was appalling. The bow section was completely built in sweden, it was so bad that even the Swedes couldn't get around that it was their workmanship - hence why they re-did it and took the penalty.
you would need a book beyond woolners to add some extra clarity, but I guess OSA has its place. :) Wooner gave a speech at RUSI the other day on subs... quite an interesting perspective when not confined to a book and in a military environment. Less "gentle" is an approp euphemism.
[QUOTE=gf0012-aust;619822]Shared guilt all round, but Kockums work on No:1 was appalling. The bow section was completely built in sweden, it was so bad that even the Swedes couldn't get around that it was their workmanship - hence why they re-did it and took the penalty.
you would need a book beyond woolners to add some extra clarity, but I guess OSA has its place. :) Wooner gave a speech at RUSI the other day on subs... quite an interesting perspective when not confined to a book and in a military environment. Less "gentle" is an approp euphemism.[/QUOTE]
GF0012, this is quite interesting...
When Norway started building the Nansen frigates in Spain we also had some nasty surprises. Some modules were fitted in Norway, and the comments from some of the workers at the Norwegian shipyard displayed both surprise, shock and frustration at the work done in Spain.
My theory is that, after obtaining the contract, the Spanish shipyard hired a lot of temps to do the actual work.. some of them should definitely not have been near a shipyard. This is just speculations on my part, but perhaps something similar happened in Sweden? The shipyard wants to maximize their income, and once the contract has been obtained the only way to do that is to -- try to keep expenses at a minimum.
Didn't Australia decide to go for Navantia for their Frigates? Beware... but I guess you have learned your lessons and will check every step the Spaniards do... that's the only way if you want to avoid nasty surprises in the end!!!
I'm sure if you contact some of the Norwegians involved with the construction of Nansen at Navantia they can give you some hints and tips. Although there may have been issues that were never made public, the general impression is that after a lot of back and forth the Norwegian Navy is becoming quite satisfied with the work. Although it took much longer than anybody expected...
Loke, a few project managers in maritime have indicated that the norwegians have been complaining long and loud about the quality of the spanish builds - and it's been noted.
oddly enough, every man connected to the project wanted the G&C Burke derivation but it came down to cost - I'm hoping that we don't rue the day on this one..
as a piece of trivia, the two presses that were used to form the pressure hulls on the Collins class were spanish (nicknamed "Little Bazan" and "Big Bazan"). We purchased then from Bazan just before they got merged with Izar into a new entity.
personally, i think the value for money for us would have been far better if we'd bought the Burke derivative and had the hulls made in Sth Korea (we have a strong relationship with them and it's getting stronger). We could have done the fitouts here and ended up saving money. That money could have been used to help retain sailors in the fleet (who have been jumping off like lemmings up until the global financial crisis hit)
as it is, at a manning level the RAN is starting to look like a NATO fleet, canadians, americans, poms, danes etc... have joined up (plus a fair smattering of kiwis), money saved from a sth korean hull build could have come in handy.
but, one F-100 will outgun all of the ANZAC class combined in missile terms, so we're trying to convince ourselves that we got a good deal.
Seems like the Koreans have the ultimate Burke when you read the specs for their Aegis type destroyer [or cruiser at up to 10,000 tons] looks very impressive with 128 missiles as opposed to 96 in the American Burke, & can fire virtually any missile for any threat, plus RAM, Goalkeeper, a Korean version of Tomahawk, two choppers & all the bells and whistles, and they claim it costs around US$1 billion.
Makes the Bazan type look slightly undernourished, perhaps Hyundai might have been the place to start.
[QUOTE=dundonrl;608579]if your not listening for a submarine, and are just in a regular transit it's easy to sneak up on a surface tin can.. if it's looking for you, that's another matter..
During an exercise off of Southern California, my last ship, the USS Momsen was able to find and keep the HMS Gotland (Swedish AIP submarine) from attacking the surface ships.. was it hard, yes, but not impossible with modern active sonar..
also, the modern US nuclear submarines are INCREDIBLY quiet.. I'd say as quiet or more so than a modern diesel.. (the technology that went into the pumpjet propulsor and other stuff that makes noise is incredible)[/QUOTE]
Use of active sonar and you is doomed with tp 62.......
[QUOTE=Walkinginshadow;634607]Use of active sonar and you is doomed with tp 62.......[/QUOTE]
No, not an absolute. There are a number of recent examples where active has not worked as advertised.