Upgrade for SG submarines???
-
Below is the attached text from the web:
<<
Launch of HMS Södermanland after Upgrade
(Source: Kockums AB; issued Sept. 8, 2003; web-posted Sept. 12, 2003)
“The new threats that confront the Swedish Armed Forces will demand some radical changes. We shall implement this process of change while simultaneously ensuring that the defense materiel we adopt maintains a high technical standard. The modernization of the submarine HMS Södermanland provides just one example of this determination.”
So said Håkan Juholt, Member of Parliament and Chairman of the Swedish Defence Committee, when officiating at the launch ceremony for HMS Södermanland, held at 11.00 a.m., September 8th, at Kockums in Karlskrona. The submarine has undergone an extensive modernization and refit, including installation of the Stirling AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) system, which enables her to remain submerged for weeks at a time, avoiding the need to surface and risk detection.
Håkan Juholt MP went on to stress the following: “More than 50 percent of the Swedish defense budget is invested in research and the procurement of advanced materiel. In international terms, this is a high figure. It is important that we manage to sustain this ambitious level in the next defense resolution.”
Others attending the ceremony included the Inspector General of the Royal Swedish Navy, Jörgen Ericsson, as well as the head of the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV)’s Production Department, Rear Admiral Göran Larsbrink, with other representatives from the Defence Department, the Armed Forces Headquarters, the Navy and FMV (the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration). Guests from Singapore also attended the ceremony.
The modernization of HMS Södermanland and her sister vessel, HMS Östergötland, signify a major advance in the effectiveness of these submarines. They have also been modified in line with the demands of international missions. All five Swedish Navy submarines currently in active service are being equipped with Kockums’ Stirling propulsion systems.
Commenting on current developments, Kockums CEO Martin Hagbyhn noted: “We at Kockums are specialists in stealth technology, on and beneath the surface. The submarine is one element of a broader concept that we have developed. A concept whose timing has proved absolutely right, given the current threat scenario and at a time when armed forces throughout the world are in the process of readjusting to accommodate these new demands.”
“Here in the Baltic, in close association with the Royal Swedish Navy and FMV (the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration), we have developed a Maritime Security Concept for littoral waters, what we call ‘shallow waters’. It is precisely this type of shallow water that is subjected to increased threats, and this concept is now in international demand,” added Martin Hagbyhn.
In his own address, Rear Admiral Göran Larsbrink, from FMV, focused on the technical advances implemented as part of HMS Södermanland’s upgrade. “The Swedish Navy submarine HMS Södermanland was designed at the start of the 1980s for a service life of some 20 years. Over the years, however, new demands and threats have arisen, that have had to be met.”
“The most radical change is that HMS Södermanland has been fitted with a Stirling AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) system, featuring the latest MK3 version. A new climate control system permits cooling/heating/dehumidifying of the air onboard, as well as providing cooling for engines and components. This means that the surplus heat generated by the various onboard systems can now be recycled and used to heat colder areas of the vessel. This reduces battery usage.”
“A number of active and passive sensor systems have been modified and or replaced with new systems that offer improved performance. Completion of the divers’ decompression chamber permits entry or exit of divers while submerged,” noted Rear Admiral Larsbrink in his address. He also referred to the large number of advances in marine technology that have been incorporated in the upgraded vessel, citing hydraulics, air systems, water systems and corrosion protection, as well as improved availability and reduced maintenance costs.
The air-independent auxiliary system provides dramatic tactical and operational gains, greatly enhancing the vesselÂ’s effectiveness. Measures have also been taken to reduce noise, in conjunction with a considerable improvement in the vesselÂ’s own search and acquisition capabilities. The submarine has been extended by 12 meters to 60.5 meters, increasing its displacement by 430 tons, to 1500 tons.
-ends-
>>
It is a known fact that SG is working with the Swedish on submarine R&D work. This might be a the result of that and also a good upgrade option for our submarine .
Since Sg representatives are invited for this ceremony, it might mean two things:
1.either sg is involved with the upgrade from the the start or
2.that they wanted to sell this upgrade option to RSN.
Either ways, it means that this upgrade option is feasible for RSN's submarine. -
As for upgrading the existing challenger class...imo, it will be a limited upgrade if any. After all the reason they were purchased was to bring our submariners up to speed on submarine operations, period. After that they will move on to the advanced submarines, perhaps incorporating the new capabilities mentioned.
Upgrading the challenger at this point is as good as further upgrading and pushing the envelope of the super skyhawk, already nearing the end of its effective life, with advanced night capability and other whizbang stuff. My 1 cent worth.
-
I believe that it provides Sweden an opportunity to showcase their modification and technology to Singapore as Singapore is well known in the submarine community that it will purchase a new fleet of submarines in the near future.
Singapore, as it has been mentioned, might also be somewhat involved in the upgrade project. Singapore might want to take the opportunity to learn about new submarine technologies including things like the underwater combat systems, various submarine design and silencing technologies and most importantly, the AIP technology which is sure to be incorporated in future SSKs.
I don't what to what extend is Singapore involvement in the Swedish project, but I am confident that some sort of technical knowledge and information has been passed to the ST Marine or DSTA as a push by Kockum to be the leading contender for a future purchase. It may be likely (given that the Sjoormen/Challenger purchase was done at such secrecy and the public only knows when the contract was signed) that Kockum is pushing for A19 or the Viking sub for a future RSN requirement. -
Originally posted by Joe Black:I believe that it provides Sweden an opportunity to showcase their modification and technology to Singapore as Singapore is well known in the submarine community that it will purchase a new fleet of submarines in the near future.
Singapore, as it has been mentioned, might also be somewhat involved in the upgrade project. Singapore might want to take the opportunity to learn about new submarine technologies including things like the underwater combat systems, various submarine design and silencing technologies and most importantly, the AIP technology which is sure to be incorporated in future SSKs.
I don't what to what extend is Singapore involvement in the Swedish project, but I am confident that some sort of technical knowledge and information has been passed to the ST Marine or DSTA as a push by Kockum to be the leading contender for a future purchase. It may be likely (given that the Sjoormen/Challenger purchase was done at such secrecy and the public only knows when the contract was signed) that Kockum is pushing for A19 or the Viking sub for a future RSN requirement.
Gotland
Challenger
Viking
Notice how similar they look -
Quote :IAF
______________________________________________________
As for upgrading the existing challenger class...imo, it will be a limited upgrade if any. After all the reason they were purchased was to bring our submariners up to speed on submarine operations, period. After that they will move on to the advanced submarines, perhaps incorporating the new capabilities mentioned.
______________________________________________________
I never believe what Dr. Tan said abt the challenger class been used for training for submarine operation becos if they were , it should 1 ,maximum 2 submarines not 4.
They should be under operational status & why they r chosen becos:
1. they r cheap
2.suitable for our local shallow water.(other bigger & newer sub might not be suitable)
3. opportunity for upgrade
All three r impt pts but the most impt is of cos the opportunnity for upgrade,this is based on our track record of upgrading old equipment otherwise it will be quite stupid for Mindef to buy 4 old & obsolete subs for training only.
The first few years r indeed for training,but please take note, correct me if I am wrong, I believe only two subs r back to sg ,the other 2 r still in Sweden for 'training'. I believe by now RSN should b able to conduct their own training after so many years, so why r they still there?? The training over there should be much more costlier than in sg.
It really make you think isn't it?
-
Other than the tear-drop hull shape and the X-configuration rudder, they are in fact quite different.Originally posted by IAF: Gotland Challenger Viking
Notice how similar they look
A-17 and A-19 will probably look similar but A-12 Sjoormen looks quite different though.
On the subject on Submarine (emphasising on Swedish/Kockum subs), I think they probably are the best choice for Singapore Navy due to the following reasons:
1. They are one of the most advanced SSK in the market
2. designed with high degree of underwater agility due to the X-configuration rudders.
3. AIP - the Sterling engine pioneer by Kockum.
4. Highly automated and small crew size. Royal Swedish Navy and RSN have similar operation concepts and procedure (I can only say this by observing the obviously only, perhaps some Navy experts can correct me here).
5. Baltic condition (swallow water) are similar to Singapore, Melacca Straits and some part of South China Sea. However, temperature and salinity will be quite different
Going with Kockum is not without any risks, have a look at the Australian Collin subs project and one will quickly realised that the swedes still do not produce boats like the major players such as the Americans, British, German and French. -
Did the fact that the collins subs were built totally by the ozzies who had no prior experience of building subs result in problems? THe western nations you mentioned build their boats for ocean-going purpose but not the swedes who just wanted their boats to patrol their shallow coasts. Perhaps the aussies, with their ocean-going navy, had selected the right design for the wrong purpose?Originally posted by Joe Black:Going with Kockum is not without any risks, have a look at the Australian Collin subs project and one will quickly realised that the swedes still do not produce boats like the major players such as the Americans, British, German and French.
Of course, i stand corrected
-
There were quite a number of things that went wrong with the Collin class subs. Most of the problems can be trace back to 2 major attributes, Australian lack of submarine building and combat system integration skills and Swedish lack of building ocean going sub skills.Originally posted by IAF:Did the fact that the collins subs were built totally by the ozzies who had no prior experience of building subs result in problems? THe western nations you mentioned build their boats for ocean-going purpose but not the swedes who just wanted their boats to patrol their shallow coasts. Perhaps the aussies, with their ocean-going navy, had selected the right design for the wrong purpose?
Of course, i stand corrected
The Australian company did relatively well in such circumstances not without massive help from the US (GE Boats) though.
The Collin class design were based on a scaled up A-17 design with greater integrated combat systems. Problems were identified in the area of:
1. the cavitation noise from the sub hull (design problem), which resulted in US modifying the sail with an added curve to smooth out water flow, etc.
2. Propeller generated cavitation noise. Redesign of the propellers with US help again
3. Integrated combat systems design locally with Swedes help were not performed as well. After the purchase of Kockum by HDW, the German wanted to rectified that but the Aussie govt had already engaged US Navy for help resulting in Raytheon getting involved in a redevelopment of the combat system
4. Periscope problem. Resolved quickly.
5. Disael engine problem. Resolved.
6. Burst pipes which flood 1 compartment. Problem traced to welding quality done in Sweden.
etc.
I won't say, therefore, Kockum sucks. On the contrary, they are good, but they still lack significant skills in developing subs for different environment from the Baltics. The German with that U209 and the French with the A209 Agosta seem to fair better. -
Yeah... how can we possibly buy 4 subs for training. It will be an overkill. It is not as if we have 20+ operational subs and need 4 subs to train the crews. I wonder how many Navies in the world (less the major powers) have 4 subs for "training".Originally posted by gary1910:Quote :IAF
______________________________________________________
As for upgrading the existing challenger class...imo, it will be a limited upgrade if any. After all the reason they were purchased was to bring our submariners up to speed on submarine operations, period. After that they will move on to the advanced submarines, perhaps incorporating the new capabilities mentioned.
______________________________________________________
I never believe what Dr. Tan said abt the challenger class been used for training for submarine operation becos if they were , it should 1 ,maximum 2 submarines not 4.
They should be under operational status & why they r chosen becos:
1. they r cheap
2.suitable for our local shallow water.(other bigger & newer sub might not be suitable)
3. opportunity for upgrade
All three r impt pts but the most impt is of cos the opportunnity for upgrade,this is based on our track record of upgrading old equipment otherwise it will be quite stupid for Mindef to buy 4 old & obsolete subs for training only.
The first few years r indeed for training,but please take note, correct me if I am wrong, I believe only two subs r back to sg ,the other 2 r still in Sweden for 'training'. I believe by now RSN should b able to conduct their own training after so many years, so why r they still there?? The training over there should be much more costlier than in sg.
It really make you think isn't it?
Our 4 subs are operational subs, And we also have a new sub-surface command center or something (in the Straits Times). Why bother to have a dedicated command center for submarines if the subs are only used for training. I think they are classified as "training subs" to mitigate the impact of operating submarines before our "neighbour".
As to whether they are to be upgraded or not, I don't know. But I am sure when they "tropicalized" the subs, the RSN would have put all the gizmos that they want into the subs.
The subs are relatively "new" in that they are only recently refurbished. It may not make sense to upgrade them so soon.
I think going forward, we will probably buy another 4 subs to form another SQN. -
I think that the current submarines which we are operating are actually heavily upgraded in tne interior in terms of electronics,weapons,FCS.... Only the exterior looks like the original A-12. Why i think so is because it will definitely be more cost effective to train on an upgardeded one as compared to training in an old design so that it will be upgraded later. Singapore almost always upgrade 2nd hand equiptment before using them, its just a matter of time. Why they don't reveal this is very similar to why MINDEF insist that they are only training submarines(bunch of crap! 4 training subs???): political and security reasons. Agree?
-
makes senseOriginally posted by tankee1981:I think that the current submarines which we are operating are actually heavily upgraded in tne interior in terms of electronics,weapons,FCS.... Only the exterior looks like the original A-12. Why i think so is because it will definitely be more cost effective to train on an upgardeded one as compared to training in an old design so that it will be upgraded later. Singapore almost always upgrade 2nd hand equiptment before using them, its just a matter of time. Why they don't reveal this is very similar to why MINDEF insist that they are only training submarines(bunch of crap! 4 training subs???): political and security reasons. Agree? -
This topic was actually discussed a couple of years ago in another forum. Does anybody go to Warships1 forum on submarines? If you do, you would probably remember this guy posting by the name of Per Nordenberg, who had wrote a quite comprehensive description on the upgrade of the SJOORMEN class submarines BEFORE they were bought over by Singapore. In fact, 2 of these subs were actually upgraded in 1990~92 period with new combat systems, sonar, new diesels and likes. SO that gives you an indication of the state of the subs in RSN service, which would most likely be further modernised...
-
Err......when he said training i think he meant more of familiarization.To help Mindef know more abt sub ops so that they can make a smarter buy the next time round.Also gives us a good way to practise our ASW.Ofcause when we upgrade we also get our hands on some technology to play with and learn more about.IMHO that's what it's meant by "training".
-
One thing about current Swedish subs are that they employ two different types of Torpedoes for different roles, ie. The anti-ship 533mm orpedoes Type 613 and 400mm Type 43 for anti subs. If RSN is to purchase new subs for Sweden, I reckon they should look at getting the newer Torpedo 2000 or from source such as Whitehead or the EuroTorp.Originally posted by |-|05|:Err......when he said training i think he meant more of familiarization.To help Mindef know more abt sub ops so that they can make a smarter buy the next time round.Also gives us a good way to practise our ASW.Ofcause when we upgrade we also get our hands on some technology to play with and learn more about.IMHO that's what it's meant by "training". -
What torps do we currently use for our subs?Do you know?Originally posted by Joe Black:One thing about current Swedish subs are that they employ two different types of Torpedoes for different roles, ie. The anti-ship 533mm orpedoes Type 613 and 400mm Type 43 for anti subs. If RSN is to purchase new subs for Sweden, I reckon they should look at getting the newer Torpedo 2000 or from source such as Whitehead or the EuroTorp. -
Does the torpedoes have different calibre, similar to that of the type of rounds to be used for different weapons(eg artillery,infantry)? Or are they more or less standardised by the NATO?
-
Torpedoes is another form of artillery shell or missile but fired from below the sea using the submarine as a platform (instead of an artillery gun, tank, multi-rocket launch system, or from an airborne platform).
An extract from the followings website will give information on the current design of torpedoes:
Torpedoes
The torpedo has been the staple weapon of submarines since WW I but it is now a much more sophisticated and reliable device than back then. No longer a 'point and shoot' weapon the modern torpedo is almost always wire guided with its own sonar built in for the terminal homing run.
Propulsion is either via the traditional propeller or the more advanced pump jet, with power supplied either by large batteries or the more powerful (but not very safe to be near if it leaks) OTTO hydrogen peroxide fuel, giving a maximum speed of 50 - 65 knots (92 - 120 km/h) and a range of 10 - 15 nm (18 - 27 km) at high speeds or 20 - 30 nm (36 - 55 km) at low speeds.
The 'heavyweight' torpedoes employed by submarines are about 6 - 7 m long and usually have a 250 - 350 kg warhead designed to explode on impact (best against submarine targets) or upwards from underneath the target (to 'break the back' of a surface vessel).
http://www.shima.demon.co.uk/modnuke.htm#Torpedoes
----------------------------------------------------
Since the Submarines used in the Singapore Navy are purchased from Sweden, perhaps the following information taken from the Swedish Navy website will give an insight of the torpedoes used by the RSN :
http://www.empire.net/~xmp/list_s-y.htm
http://homepage.eircom.net/~steven/swedish_navy.htm
Submarines :
SSK Gotland Class (TYPE A19)
Kockums were awarded the contract in March 1990 to build three Gotland Class submarines, HMS Gotland, Uppland and Halland. The first of class, HMS Gotland, was commissioned in 1996. The second and third, HMS Uppland and Halland, were commissioned in 1997.The submarines are fitted with four 533mm torpedo tubes and two 400mm torpedo tubes. The Bofors Underwater Systems Type 613 torpedoes are fired from the 533mm tubes. The Type 613 is a heavy-weight anti-surface ship torpedo.The submarine is equipped with a CSU 90-2 integrated sonar sensor suite from STN Atlas Elektronik.
-----------------------------------------------------
Torpedoes used in the US Navy
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapons/wep-torp.html
Torpedoes used in the Russian Navy
http://www.militarism.navy.ru/torpedoes.htm -
Singapore acquired the following Torpedoes for the Sjoormen (Challenger) subs:Originally posted by |-|05|:What torps do we currently use for our subs?Do you know?
32 Type-43 ASW torpedo (ordered in 1997) (delivered in 2000-2001) Type-431 version for Sjöormen (Challenger) Class
submarines
80 Type-613 AS torpedo (1997) 2000-2001 For Sjöormen (Challenger) Class submarines
Source:
http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/SWE_EXPTS_93-02.pdf -
In the referenced website that you have provided, in the page or section that Singapore was mentioned, it was reported that ONE Sjoormen Class submarine was delivered during 1995 -1997 and remaining in Sweden until 2003 for training.Originally posted by Joe Black:Singapore acquired the following Torpedoes for the Sjoormen (Challenger) subs:
32 Type-43 ASW torpedo (ordered in 1997) (delivered in 2000-2001) Type-431 version for Sjöormen (Challenger) Class
submarines
80 Type-613 AS torpedo (1997) 2000-2001 For Sjöormen (Challenger) Class submarines
Source:
http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/SWE_EXPTS_93-02.pdf
It was further reported that another THREE Sjoormen Class Submarines will be modernized with ONE submarine to remain behind in Sweden for training.
It was further mentioned that ONE MORE submarine has been delivered for the purpose of "Spares only" .
So we actually would have bought FIVE submarines, and not four as reported. -
according to janes...
we did bought 5... subs -
A bit out of context, did you notice the last page of the pdf attachment, it says we probably got 3 Arthur fire-locating radars, never seemed to have heard this before...anyone can verify this??Originally posted by Joe Black:Singapore acquired the following Torpedoes for the Sjoormen (Challenger) subs:
32 Type-43 ASW torpedo (ordered in 1997) (delivered in 2000-2001) Type-431 version for Sjöormen (Challenger) Class
submarines
80 Type-613 AS torpedo (1997) 2000-2001 For Sjöormen (Challenger) Class submarines
Source:
http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/SWE_EXPTS_93-02.pdf -
huh?Originally posted by Atobe:In the referenced website that you have provided, in the page or section that Singapore was mentioned, it was reported that ONE Sjoormen Class submarine was delivered during 1995 -1997 and remaining in Sweden until 2003 for training.
It was further reported that another THREE Sjoormen Class Submarines will be modernized with ONE submarine to remain behind in Sweden for training.
It was further mentioned that ONE MORE submarine has been delivered for the purpose of "Spares only" .
So we actually would have bought FIVE submarines, and not four as reported.
yea we bought 5 leh....that was announced... -
Arthur Arty weapon locating radar is a product from Ericsson Microwave System with a range of over30 km to locate enemy Arty, mortar and rockets position.
SAF already has six AN/TPQ-37 radars which have the same range , maybe the Arthur are not for sg?
Anyway MAF bought two of them.
If the SAF need more , they should go for the AN/TPQ-47 which is the upgarde version of the 37s, has a range for conventional artillery (60 km) and tactical ballistic missiles (250+ km) locations. -
Should we include anti aircraft missiles on our submarines since we are operating in shallow waters and very prone to ASW aircraft?. I heard thet certain Russian diesel submarines have such missiles for self protection.