Originally posted by gf0012-aust
View Post
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.
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.[6]
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.[7] 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.[8] 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.[9] As Gotland's Lieutenant Commander Jan Westas says, the U.S. ASW forces "have had a very difficult time finding us."[8] 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.[8]
Sources:
[5] "RSwN submarine HMS Gotland on lease to US Navy for twelve months," May 31, 2005, Kockums Website, http://www.kockums.se.
[6] "USA to lease Gotland-class sub," November 5, 2004, Kockums Website, http://www.kockums.se.
[7] "Swedish Submarine Continues to Play Important Role in Joint Training," December 20, 2005, Navy Newsstand Website, http://www.news.navy.mil.
[8]Norman Polmar, "Back to the Future," United States Naval Institute Proceedings (Annapolis: March 2006), pp. 20-26; in ProQuest Information and Learning Company, http://proquest.umi.com.
[9] "Svensk Ubåt 'sänkte' USA:s hangarfartyg," Allehanda, January 16, 2006, http://www.allehanda.se/lokalt/7956.
[10] "USA vill fortsätta jaga svensk ubåt," Svenska Dagbladet, April 18, 2006, http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/inrikes/did_12393415.asp.
[11] "Kockums utvecklar ny ubåt åt försvaret," NyTeknik Website, June 1, 2005.
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.[7] 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.[8] 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.[9] As Gotland's Lieutenant Commander Jan Westas says, the U.S. ASW forces "have had a very difficult time finding us."[8] 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.[8]
Sources:
[5] "RSwN submarine HMS Gotland on lease to US Navy for twelve months," May 31, 2005, Kockums Website, http://www.kockums.se.
[6] "USA to lease Gotland-class sub," November 5, 2004, Kockums Website, http://www.kockums.se.
[7] "Swedish Submarine Continues to Play Important Role in Joint Training," December 20, 2005, Navy Newsstand Website, http://www.news.navy.mil.
[8]Norman Polmar, "Back to the Future," United States Naval Institute Proceedings (Annapolis: March 2006), pp. 20-26; in ProQuest Information and Learning Company, http://proquest.umi.com.
[9] "Svensk Ubåt 'sänkte' USA:s hangarfartyg," Allehanda, January 16, 2006, http://www.allehanda.se/lokalt/7956.
[10] "USA vill fortsätta jaga svensk ubåt," Svenska Dagbladet, April 18, 2006, http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/inrikes/did_12393415.asp.
[11] "Kockums utvecklar ny ubåt åt försvaret," NyTeknik Website, June 1, 2005.
This guy has some good info and also makes an interesting remark in the middle:
DBFTMC said...
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. 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. Better step up your game boys!
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......
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.
Ya'all Keep a zero bubble.....
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. 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. Better step up your game boys!
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......
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.
Ya'all Keep a zero bubble.....
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.
Which is why the US Navy really wants to use her for OPFOR excercises.
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.[10] The exercise was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the US Fleet against modern diesel-electric submarines, which some have noted as severely lacking.[11][12]
References:
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.
References:
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.
And heres a 6page thread that has some good info in it:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...ad.php?t=94929
Comment