The best SSK till date?

ssn sales question

Arising from the Australia should have SSN’s post – are the sale of SSN’s restricted/regulated in any way by international agreement?

The RAN won’t need new SSK’s for a long time, in the Collins class they have a superb SSK ( a lot has been made of problems in the class but realistically they were no worse than you’d expect in a project of that nature, sad to say) and in capability terms when they’re fully up to speed they’ll be a lot more capable than most other SSK’s out there, except the big Japanese boats.
When the RAN does look at a Collins replacement I think there would be a good argument for them looking at SSN’s, OK SSN’s are expensive, but the top end SSK’s are hardly cheap and given that the RAN operates over vast stretches of Ocean in the Pacific, Indian and Southern Oceans the performance and endurance of an SSN would be a genuine assett to them.
On the fall out between DCN and Navantia with both companies going seperate ways with Marlin and S80 I suspect it’s more to do with commercial rivalry, these alliances usually do split up like that once both companies have got what they want out of the partnership.

Spanish S-80

This is my first post, though I am an usual reader…(Sorry for my bad English)

I’m surprised for not finding a single mention to the new Spanish submarine, the S-80. Perhaps because it’s still a design.

Its origins are in the not very enthusiastic welcome by the Spanish Armada of the “Scorpene” project. This joint design by French DCN and Spanish Navantia was termed as “modest” by the Armada, and forced Navantia to develop a whole new ship.

The S-80 looks quite similar to “Scorpene”, but it is bigger, it has a Combat System of U.S. origin (by Lockheed and inspired in the Combat System of the SSN “Virginia”), it is capable of launching the Tomahawk missile (its sale has already been accepted by the US Congress and probably the Tomahawk will also be mounted in the new 5 or 6 F-100 frigates), the new Submarine integrates different electronic systems and has also an AIP system of Spanish design.

Armada has already bought 4 S-80 Submarines and it seems it has also been offered to Pakistan, what in fact breaks the Spanish-French agreement to market jointly the Scorpene (this joint venture was successful with Malaysia and Chile)

Dimensions
Total Length: 71 mts.
Diameter: 7,3 mts.
Displacement: 2.400 Tons.

Propulsion
Electrical principal engine: 3.500 kW
Diesel: 3 x 1.200 kW
Power AIP: 300 kW
Autonomy to AIP: 15 days

(this data from the Armada web. Perhaps the world’s worst web)

Could this be a good option for the Royal Australian Navy? A new ship, with US Combat System, Tomahawk capable, AIP, and already under construction for Spain…

As far as operational, armed SSKs are concerned: probably yes. Albacore and Beluga were probably a good bit faster, but both were purely experimental designs.

Thanks orko..26kts submerged…wonder if that makes it the fastest SSK.:D

Here is what I got, updates and/or corrections are most welcome:

S41 Santa Cruz:
Keel laid: 06.12.1980
Launched: 28.09.1982
Commissioned: 18.10.1984

S42 San Juan:
Keel laid: 18.03.1982
Launched: 20.06.1983
Commissioned: 19.11.1985

Both boats were built at Thyssen Nordseewerke, Emden. Contract for two boats were signed 30.11.1977. According to my understanding there was an option for four more. Construction of S43 and S44 were stopped in 1996 and both submarines were used for spare parts.

Dimensions (m): 66.00 x 7.30 x 6.50
Displacement (t; surfaced/submerged): 2,116/2,264

Machinery: 4 x MTU 16V diesels (6,720hp), 4 x alternators; 2 x Siemens 1HR4525 elektric motors (8,850hp); 1 shaft

Speed (knots; surfaced/submerged): 15/26

Range (nm): 12,000 (surfaced w/ 8kt); 460 (submerged, w/ 6kt)

Maximum operational depth (m): 270

Torpedoes: 22 AEG SST-4; Honeywell Mk37 (6 x 533mm tubes); 34 x mines en lieu of torpedoes

Radar: Thales Calypso IV (I band)

Sonar: Atlas Elektronik CSU 3-4 (active/passive; search/attack; MF); Thales DUUX 5 (passive ranging sonar)

ESM: Sea Sentry III

Command & Control: Signaal (now Thales) SINBADS

Crew: 29 (5 officers)

Make that 6900nm submerged maiden voyage and a crew of 26, with 6 spare berths. Does anyone have any info on this sub? Info is a bit scarce on the net.

Sorry to bring up an old thread, but last night I was perusing my 1986/87 edition of Janes and came across the TR-1700, a German design for Argentina.

I recall reading that it covered it’s maiden voyage with over 6000nm submerged at over 10kts with less than 2 hours snorkeling a day. Pretty impressive stuff in the early 80’s I think you will agree. A design speed of 25knts submerged and a crew of under 30 for a 2300ton boat.

What is the family lineage of this design? Why did it not sell better? Did Argentina buy the design outright from the Germans? Apart from the 2 German built examples in service in Argentina, I do know that the intention was to build 3 or 4 more in Argentina, but althought 3 were started they were never completed due to financial difficulties. I have searched the net but there seems to be little on this class out there..anybody know any more?

International arms sales are a sewer and full of kick backs and bribes, however I don’t see the British, American, French, German etc. members making some claim to sit on a moral high horse on the issue. Sweden plays the arms export game like other countries and uses the same tricks and incentives to sweeten customers. If you are going to try and claim that Sweden exists on a higher moral plain then don’t whinge when you get called on it.
And unfortunately for Sweden, as others here have pointed out, more and more of the profits of Swedish arms sales are going elsewhere, to Germany and the UK to name just two countries that have bought into Swdedish industry in a major way.

I´m certainly not claiming some sort of high moral here. The only “high moral” I can think of when it comes to swedish foreign arms sales is that it is regulated by some of the toughest export-limits (by law all swedish arms sale to a foreign country is forbidden, every country has to be approved at each sale) and we could never export goods to some of the countries british, american, french or german companies are selling to. I think all this is rubbish and I hope that sweden will view things in a more sain way. Hopefully they are, just a few month ago an agreement with Saudi-Arabia (!!!!) was closed including some cooperation regarding AEW&C and such. A deal with such a country would have been impossible just a few years ago and that deal is still being discussed over here. C´mon, even sales to countries like Denmark, USA, england, Thailand, france etc is right now being discussed over here to be “illegal” and “immoral”- thanks god we just got a new government.

When it comes to bribes etc were just as bad as other countries, or at least getting there (wich is a good thing). In many markets (that has been closed due to our restricted export-policies) were newcomers and naive but I hope we´ll get as good as the competitors when it comes to “tricks” and all that.

Yes, most of the swedish armed industry is more or less owned by multinational companies, wich in it´s turn are owned by even bigger multinational banks/companies etc… But that has´nt affected the swedish industry negative a bit, on the contrast – it´s been the best thing that could have happened! Now after the cold war (when sweden was allmost the sole buyer of our gadgets) we can export much more thanks to these big companies behind us. In fact, after the end of the cold war the swedish armed industry is booming, swedish companies have bought companies all over the world and is expanding (just in the last few months SAAB has aquired companies in Denmark, Norway and southafrica and Volvo Aero has taken some work from the JSF-project). AFAIK not a single factory or company have been closed in sweden after the end of the cold war, wich is pretty good considering the devastating effect it could have had on the industry.
All the workers, engingers etc are still working in sweden, the companies are still swedish and the money goes to sweden – not germany, UK or wathever. And the most important thing – the know-how stays in sweden…

Well, I suppose Bofors is the only company in the world that have been suspected for bribes (they were never found guilty AFAIK). But despite that scandal, India still wants to buy the new Bofors howitzer – the Archer. Why? Cause it´s the best solution for them…

(BTW, Australia is also considering Archer. But they will probably rename it to Doobidoo or something and members here will think its a true australian product. I don´t care. As long as australia gets the best equipment and the money goes to sweden)

International arms sales are a sewer and full of kick backs and bribes, however I don’t see the British, American, French, German etc. members making some claim to sit on a moral high horse on the issue. Sweden plays the arms export game like other countries and uses the same tricks and incentives to sweeten customers. If you are going to try and claim that Sweden exists on a higher moral plain then don’t whinge when you get called on it.
And unfortunately for Sweden, as others here have pointed out, more and more of the profits of Swedish arms sales are going elsewhere, to Germany and the UK to name just two countries that have bought into Swdedish industry in a major way.

I can clarify Unicorns comments by saying it was the longest range Meko varient when it was being built.

I don’t have any directly comparable figures between the two but they would appear to be simular.

It doesn’t take away from the fact that Australia has special requirements and needs unique solutions that it generally has to design and build themselves.

long range navy, long range radar, long range communications, long range aircraft refuelers etc.

Most non superpowers do not need this kind of projection. But Australia does to just patrol its territory. And super powers generally purse expensive, much larger solutions that are impractical for Australia.

An example is the RAN’s Anzac class frigates, a MEKO 200 variant, it has the lonngest range of any of the family, prcisely because it may be thousands of nautical miles voyage to reach an operational area

Incorrect. The South African Navy Meko-200 comfortably outranges the ANZAC class.

Well, Sweden is also a large country, with less then half the population of Australia (nearly 9 mill.) Despite that we have/or are still designing and producing every military gadget you can think of (except military jet engines (only producing) and AAM´s (co-producing ).

A small point that you seem to have overlooked is that Sweden is located close to a vast market for its goods and services, hundreds of millions of consumers and producers located a short drive or short ferry ride across the Baltic. That means the actual and opportunity costs for Swedish enterprises are vastly lower than for Australia and market access is both much cheaper and easier for the Swedes. It also means that a vast amount of economic activity is generated simply by geography.

Australia is so vast that driving from Sydney to Perth is like driving from Madrid to Moscow, or New York to Los Angeles, but there is almost nothing to support human life for much of that vast area. It is then thousands of miles from the northern part of Australia to the main Asian markets, and another 8-10 thousand miles beyond that to Europe.

What this means is that Australia has has had to overcome a vast tyranny of distance, which has proven to be a significant economic burdon, hampering the ability of Australian companies to compete on a world scale until the last 25 or so years, as the telecommunications revolution has shrunk the world.

Since then, Australian companies have been able to compete on a much more level playing field, allowing the most competitive Australian companies to compete on the world economic stage, hence News Limited, BHP, Westfield and so forth, all global heavyweight players in their fields. This was simply not possible before.

The reason for this economics lesson is to explain why Sweden and Australia have vastly different arms industries.

Sweden makes equipment which is designed for its environment and which is built by companies which can take advantage of Sweden’s closeness to natural markets (SAAB for example builds cars for the local market which include Europe and this helps subsidise the operations of SAAB’s aircraft business).

Australia lacks that advantage, and furthermore is restricted by the extremes of distance and climate. That means that equipment designed for the European environment is often unsuitable for Australian conditions and requires significant modification.

An example is the RAN’s Anzac class frigates, a MEKO 200 variant, it has the lonngest range of any of the family, prcisely because it may be thousands of nautical miles voyage to reach an operational area, whereas the European navies operating the Meko do not need the same range.

The Collins was derived from a Swedish design, however that design needed significant modifications to enable it to meet Australia’s critical operational requirements, which demanded a range and size unparralleled by the Swedish Navy, which does not face the same requirements.

Thus Sweden or Gemany can sell submarines that meet their national requirements to Norway or Finland or Italy or Greece or Portugal, who have very similar operational requirements, whereas there are only a very few navies in the world who require a submarine with the capabilities that the RAN require.

All of this is a roundabout way of saying your comparison is completely erronious, as you are comparing apples and oranges, and then saying that Sweden is a better orange.

Australia is completely different from Sweden, and meaningless comparisons do you no benefit.

unicorn

The USA isn’t providing SSK technology. They are providing SSN technology which Australia will adapt to its SSK. Australia (and its contractors ie boeing I think was the origional) seems to really struggle on combat systems. Too much reinventing the wheel, so they got raython in and hooked up the SSN setup with SSN sensors and electronics.

Australia will nodoubt further develop their SSK’s. Using unique solutions and hybrids of US SSN technology.

These 3000+ ton blue water capable SSK’s have less in common with ~1000 ton brown water SSK’s and more incommon with blue water SSN’s. Atleast from Australia’s point of view.

The US is clearly looking for a partner country with SSK experience. To be able to provide it much needed SSK information and expertise. Australia is looking for a partner country with extensive SSN experience. Gotland is essentially a minime Collins.

The next collins replacement is more likely to be Australian designed with the support of a several strong key (US) contractors. Look at the switch to Raython over all other experienced SSK contenders that sent heads spinning. Australian and US relations have never been closer.

Ideally Australia wants a diesel SSK with all the advantages of SSN’s such as more powerful blue water electronics, longer patrols, longer range etc.

While it doesn’t become profitable for Australia to continue to develop there own submarines, they are forced to.

They aren’t going to run SSN’s. The Europeans aren’t interested in developing 3000+ ton SSK’s. The japanese won’t sell on. And the russian stuff is mostly crap and not in the same class.

There is no way Australia is going back to a sub less than 3000 tons. If anything they will most likely going to look at something bigger. With crews being harder to comeby, cost cutting, it cheaper to run several large boats than several more small boats.

As soon as a country offers ~4000 ton diesel with <45 crew, monster range and the ability to run US SSN system they will ditch indigionous developments. Until then Australia will continue.

so they will have even less to do with Australian submarines in the future, most likely the collins replacement with include even more idigionous designs possibly in partnership with the Americans.

The US has not designed an SSK in decades, and have no ready SSK design facilities. See the Taiwan submarine procurement for details. Basically, America wanted to provide SSK’s to Taiwan. They would have had to licence produce a foreign design in a shipyard that had no recent SSk experience. Naturally the project foundered.

It really does not pay for Australia to develope a wholly indigenous design considering the limited numbers they can afford. It is no surprise that the Germans bought out Kockums. I forsee a few major players only in this market. Australia , like many other nations , will continue to licence produce designs that are then modified for local requirements/ job creation / cost of maintenance issues.

Kockums isn’t swedish anymore its german.

Im never said Australia invented the concept of the submarine. Yes it was based off a swedish design, but there has been a great deal of development. Kockums has gone german, so they will have even less to do with Australian submarines in the future, most likely the collins replacement with include even more idigionous designs possibly in partnership with the Americans.

Australia always adapts technology where it can. Because most other countries don’t have Australia’s special needs. Sweden for example doesn’t need a 3,000 ton sub. Wedgetail, F-111, Seaking (disaster), destroyers, frigates all have to be extensively modified for Australian use.

Sweden doesn’t have any overtly specialist needs compared to most other european countries, so you will see these swedish companies merge and bought out by others. Hence Kockhams and the germans.

What Australia does compared to countries that get shipped prefab parts in a kock down kit, and using a ikea allen key assemble them together is completely diffrent.

Would those be the strict arms export controls that prevented Bofors getting involved in that mega fraud scandal for bribing India to get artillery orders? Wait a minute, that’s not right is it……. :dev2:

Well, I suppose Bofors is the only company in the world that have been suspected for bribes (they were never found guilty AFAIK). But despite that scandal, India still wants to buy the new Bofors howitzer – the Archer. Why? Cause it´s the best solution for them…

(BTW, Australia is also considering Archer. But they will probably rename it to Doobidoo or something and members here will think its a true australian product. I don´t care. As long as australia gets the best equipment and the money goes to sweden)

Would those be the strict arms export controls that prevented Bofors getting involved in that mega fraud scandal for bribing India to get artillery orders? Wait a minute, that’s not right is it……. :dev2:

Maskirovka, you may also want to look up the following before you make a fool of yourself;

Nulka
Jindalee
Metal Storm
Kalkara
Jindavik
Wundarra
Mulloka
HMAS Jervis Bay
Armidale Class patrol boats

Australia is a large country geographically, but only has 20 million people, spread across an area larger than (all of) Europe.

Well, Sweden is also a large country, with less then half the population of Australia (nearly 9 mill.) Despite that we have/or are still designing and producing every military gadget you can think of (except military jet engines (only producing) and AAM´s (co-producing ). The only similar country I can think of that can compare to sweden is Israel, but they don´t produces their own subs, fighters, etc and still they have a massive support from USA.
Sorry, it just makes me laugh when some people thinks that australian subindustry is the top notch of the world (compared to Sweden, Japan, Germany, France etc) when they have produced a half a dozen swedish designed subs (yeah, you may call them aussie subs as much as you want, but Kockums and sweden got the money for them). Compared to the Sweden for example wich have been designing and building subs for a 130 years…

Australia will never be a major arms exporter, particularly of major stand-alone items such as destroyers or main battle tanks or fighters.

It’s capabilities lie in niche programs and systems optimised for use in Australia’s demanding environment.

Neither will Sweden due to it´s (specially in the past) strict armsexportingpolicies. And many of the system were tailormade for the swedish defences needs. Today, its a different story. A month ago we got a new government and hopefully they allow us to export more, but still , were newcomers in the international armsmarket and don´t have a powerful country behind it to support it.

It also has the capability to build systems designed elsewhere, such as the Oliver Hazard Perry frigates, the Collins class submarines and the Hobart class Air Warfare Destroyer. In most cases the end product is as good as anywhere (in the case of the OHP the two Australian built ships are substantially better than their US counterparts). Similarly the capabilities now inherent in HMA Ships Kanimbla & Manoora are light years ahead of what those vessels were capable of when they were in service in the USN.

Unicorn

So does Sweden, the different is we design it ourselves. But some things we have actually bought from abroad and adjusted (and produced offcourse) to swedish needs. Like the RBS-17 Hellfire anti-shipmissile. An ordinary US. Hellfire made into an anti-shipmissile, it was so good Norway bought it from Sweden and USA is planning to buy back the modernized missile from sweden.

But this is not a pissing-contest between australia and sweden, everyone knows now country with such a small population can compare to Sweden.
I just got enoyed over the laughs about japan and swedish submarineindustry made by some aussie members on this board. Talk about throwing bricks in a glasshouse….

I agree that the RAN buying three or four of the last batch of Arleigh Burke class destroyers would have resulted in their receiving the ships faster and cheaper, however as Stingray points out, the through life costs are the killer.

If Australia can develp and maintain the capability to build and upgrade surface ships in country, it will mean significant cost benefits over the life of type for each system.

It also keeps open the possibility of developing indigenous capability in specific areas and being able to integrate them in upgrades and refits, something much harder when you buy off the shelf with no understanding of the build process.

For example it may be possible to envision the RAN seeking to fit CEA’s CEA-FAR phased array radar system to the AWD and other combatants in the future, which would probably not be possible if the expertise in system integration was not developed in country.

Buying off the shelf is often the quick and cheapest option in the short run, but you often end up paying a lot more over the long haul.

Unicorn