Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos ru-vid.com/group/PLEMWqyRZP_LrdqB-XbqY2LocUVEaG_w7D Please click the link to watch our other Swedish Systems videos ru-vid.com/group/PLEMWqyRZP_LpBbgCM_Ndw0Lq6CMmhBsrp Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Sea videos ru-vid.com/group/PLEMWqyRZP_Lr1-xIzFrM6xUHCOgetdkmp
Great channel but I would highly suggest not having any background music. I firmly believe that background music is annoying, distracting, frequently too loud, and unnecessary (especially for educational videos with lots of talking). I also strongly believe that people want to hear you speak/get information and not hear generic background music that doesn't add anything useful and that people have to mentally filter out.
Love your videos man! Super great to educate myself when I have time. A video on an Australian ship class or aircraft would be cool too if you have the time. Respect from Australia!!!
I have seen a number of your videos on swedish weapons and as a swede i must compliment you on your pronaunciation of the swedish names as i understand that it can be hard especially the åäö but you really nail it. Great attention to detail and overall Great content. Thanks.
How many countries operate aircraft carriers these days? And to be clear, they are only the most juicy targets for submarines. Every surface and submerged vessel from an opponent is a target. 🤺🪖😉
as he pointed out in the video, buy showing several example of other submarines doing the same thing, it's not rare for a submarines as silent as the diesel electric submarine to do so. It's quite common, even among the older submarines vs modern fleet, they are just that silent. Sterling engine just give the submarine commander some extra moves on his strategy table. Other submarines that have sunk US carrier and other ships in exercise, is for example Ula class, they did it several times back in the 90's without the endurance of a sterling equipped powerplant. And it managed to get it self DNF from an another exercise, due to it was to effective... it sunk almost the entire enemy fleet on the first day and forced them to restart the entire exercise... But then Ula class was designed to hunt and defend against an massive Soviet fleet back then, it is it's speciality.
So much for the dumb Swede Jokes once common in America. Now we are the jokers, The fools. Looks like you can buy and outfit about 20 of these submarines for one nuclear attack submarine. Think about that, and a potential 20 to 1 combat situation. Who’s gonna win?
9 месяцев назад
@@steveperreira5850 A submarine with nukes can do things 20 Gotland class submarines can't.
@ "Nuclear attack submarine" only denotes the Nuclear Power Plant and the attack role as primarily ASW and ASuW. Plenty of Diesel Electric submarines can carry nuclear weapons. No ICBMs fit on any diesel-electric subs to my knowledge.
Singapore Navy operated 2 class of former Swedish submarines, Archer and Chalenger class, the Archer is also using the Stirling AIP. however the 2 archer class and 2 challenger class submarines are due to be replaced by German made Type 218SG with Fuel Cell AIP.
As a former U.S. Navy P-3C Orion Anti-Submarine Warfare type, Outstanding ! brief on this platform. Well presented and very Open Sources Intelligence (OSINT) in nature.
@@kristofferhellstrom you go on board and assess them as part of a naval exercise it' common practice if they are not part of Nato. I did the same on French SSNs.
Regarding cavitation on propellers: The bubbles for not due to heat from the friction but rather from the massive drop in static pressure due to the operation pricpple of the prop and its effect on the boiling temp of the surrounding medium, i.e. water.
Actually the Collins are based on the A17 (Västergotland-class) that is the predecessor to A19 Gotland. However both A17 and Collins are still top notch boats
Australia isn't considering AIP, the Government is going to get some advanced nuclear powered (but conventionally armed) submarines, because of the long ranges needed. In Australia we often refer to the "tyranny of distance", the country is a long way away from other countries, and our cities are a long way apart. So range is always a key priority.
8 Stirling AIP systems (some say 9 with one being a land based test bed) were purchased for the Collins Class, however due to design challenges (not related to AIP) and cost overruns they were placed in storage and never used
An honest comparison with the German modern silent subs would be very appreciated. As well as a proper strategical evaluation of the use of silent traditional subs in comparison with the much larger nuclear subs, mainly created for deep sea operations...
Basically it's simple. The Swedish submarines have the performance edge but very complicated rules for export, and a smaller country for counter business (as most defences contracts comes with demand on return business). The German subs has the commercial advantage with NATO to NATO, bigger opportunities for counter counter investments and easier arms export rules.
Well, nuclear subs are a little bit noisier, but much faster and have endurance until the end of the world. Diesel/electric subs are quiet when submerged and running electric motors. Otherwise they are very noisy and have to snorkel regularly to recharge batteries. This makes them slow, noisy at times and visible on radar. Also, diesel/electric subs are slow. So, if (and that is a big if) you can detect them outside 10 km radius with a nuclear submarine, you fire the torpedo, and with 100% certainty you destroy it. If the diesel/electric sub fires back, the nuclear sub is fast enough to outrun the torpedo before it reaches it. The only chance the diesel/electric sub has, is that it sits quietly at a spot where it expects a nuclear sub to pass in the vicinity and fire the torpedo from less than 10 km distance. Neither sub will probably survive that encounter.
@@ronaldderooij1774 I belive that a 50 knots torp are a bit too fast, even for nuclear subs. I even don't think that the old Soviet Alfa could do that, not even if it was facing the right direction. And if it was doing any significant speed at all it would be noisy and detected from a longer distance. Decoys are also a thing that is used. The whole purpose of the AIP is that it doesn't need to snorkel to charge the batteries, not for 2 weeks that is. In the open ocean a nuclear sub has a big advantage as it doesn't need fuel and can keep high speeds for extended periods of time, but they are big and more noisy. In littoral waters they are at a disadvantage because they are big and harder to maneuver in confined spaces and shallow water, speed isn't even a factor that could be relied on when there are many obstacles and shallow waters. The encounters will also be at closer ranges where the size combined with the higher noise floor may be what determines if you are detected or not.
@@joakimwohlfeil do they really have the edge? they are very similar in capability and performence. The 212A, 214 and 216 classes (the later 2 are export models) ar about 200t heavier and larger than the Gotland, but are also a bit faster than the Gotland, also the 212A is heavier armed with 6 heavy weight torpedo tubes. The main reason is the production run. Germany alone build 6 for itself, then there are 4 in Italy and about a dozen in other operators hands. The Gotland only has 3 in total. Btw the Kockums shipyard where the Gotland was designed and build was part of the german HDW Group when the Gotland was designed and build. HDW is the designer and builder of the 212A. Another reason why there was little export.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 True HDW actively opposed any export deals of the Swedish built subs, this is also one of the reasons the Swedish government took control of the shipyard (later to hand it over to Saab for a symbolic sum) to protect strategic assets back in 2014. However the Sub was designed at Kockums shipyard by Swedish designers for the Swedish navy and its specific requirements.
@@Movetheproduct what about the official Dutch Government Communication paper? There are 3 bidding parties, one of them is SAAB/Damen which has the highest chance at this moment, the other two are France and Germany.
After the training exercises when it sunk an American air craft carrier during excerises the Americans borrowed one for a year ... So they might never have sold and but you can be assured they have been copied... Thank you for your excellent videos much appreciated...
Ex british submariner: in my time we had a mix of diesel/electrics & nuclear boats, today if offered the choice i would 100% vote for the AIP boats for survival. They can hide anywhere.
Well, they are good for defending UK home waters, but as we know UK likes to project sea power in more oceans than the North Atlantic and nothing beats nuclear on that.
8 of the follow-on class to these SSKs, in addition to the 7 x 'Astute' SSNs for blue water, ocean deployment, would again give us the control of the "narrow seas" that's ALWAYS been our 1st, most essential defence need and remains so now.
The Dutch Walrus type, diesel electric subs are working together in NATO. On a training mission there was one who “sunk” 9 ships, among the “sunk” ships was the carrier Theodore Roosevelt, I can tell you one thing, the US navy was not amused, especially after the sub got away to tell the story.
Good video and analysis. Why should a country buy a new and expensive submarine from Sweden if even the 1970s-vintage Type 206 classes could threaten the U.S. Navy?
Australia has been penetrating US Carrier groups in war games since the 1970’s with the Oberon class submarine, and in later years with the Collins Class
I think it's a crime that the UK has no fleet of advanced diesel electric submarines, as a maritime nation, we should be on the cutting edge of this stuff.
Finland is not allowed to have Submarines due to the peace agreement with Soviet efter WWII !! ( It´s very unfair as Soviet attacked Finland early in the war during the Molotiv-Ribbentrop pact when Russia-Soviet and Nazi-Germany where allies)
@@joakimwohlfeil If Finland gets some other sexy toys Sweden will get more subs anyway, win win. And knowing you Fins I know you will find your way to some sexy toys one way or another :)
has a bit of bad history here in australia we attempted to basically build our own version the collins which is basically a derivative design based on the Västergötland predecessor . lets say it didn’t go swimmingly.
True, but Collins is actually a very capable submarine. The problem came with the lack of routine to maintain and support a submarine fleet, the demands to use Australian products in a limited time plan (nothing wrong with Aussie steel and other technology but you need time to build extremely advanced with new materials), and the sometimes unlucky combination of technologies like the untested fire control systems. Today Australia has a state of the art submarine force...
No po co budować skoro pod ręką mamy coś co jest i dobre i sprawdza się pod każdym względem. Szweckie okręty nawodne i podwodne. Czy trzeba czegoś więcej..?
Norway went for the german sub. I wanted this. But as sweden was not a nato meber it was more sense to work whit the germans. But its great stuff the swedes make. And propably more coperation wepons wise in the future.
@@josefstalin4532 The current "business model" puts othe NATO countries at the front for supplying large systems. That have been the case with acquisitions in the past.
@@secularnevrosis Yeah, but what does that have to to with them blocking anything else? Just because these countries decide nato equipment is the best doesn't mean the US "blocked" anything...
@@josefstalin4532 It happened to the JAS 39 sale. Delayed the AESA for it, but Norwegian politicians asked for it to be delayed...so not only the US on that one. SAAB found another supplier after a while. The US blocked possible JA37 sales to India on behalf of the P&W engine. A Volvo modified JTD8. The basic engine is found on a plethora of commercial jets and the modifications were Swedish patents. Blocked anyway. So it's not uncommon that it happens
If you could combine the stirling engine and a fuel cell hydrogen I think you would be the best of both worlds adjust the hydrogen one burned wood give off clean water that is hot to power the Sterling I would see great possibility for that design
It faces the insurmountable problem of being sold by a passive neutral country with strong control drives. A buyer would need to have Swedish assurances that supply and tech support as well as evolution remain available even during war. It would need to have Swedish permission to go to war. This is an impossible hurdle to surmount as some owners of Leopard tanks and US produced weapon systems are discovering.
I think it is an error of the US and Russians totally to focus on nuclear submarines, as they can be relatively easily detected because of their 'boilers'. Swedish Gotland class and German class 212A subs are much easier to hide, and much cheaper of course. China is also building a lot of Diesel boats.
as long as you dont operate long range deep water operations like SSBN´s and you are just protecting your coastal waters and shallow waters like the North Sea, Baltic Sea or south china sea, you dont get much out of a nuclear sub
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The Gotland & 212A subs can dive as deep as the SSBNs but do not have their reach. When you need the sub to travel from Hawaii to the Black Sea a nuclear-driven boat has the advantage against a Diesel drove one, which has to travel much slower at the surface and needs a fuel supply.
@@gottfriedheumesser1994 SSN/SSBN have greater range and higher average speed plus longer operation times. Those are ships that are intended to stay out in the atlantic and pacific for 6 months in a go. due to this these boats ar significantly larger than Gotland and 212A Uboats. And nuclear subs have severe disadvantages in shallower waters, as they need a certain amount of free water below the keel, so that the intakes and outlets for the coolant system etc properly work, they are louder than AIP Dieselelecttric boats etc. All has its pros and cons. For defense of the baltic and north sea, dieselelectric boats are perfect. For hunting russian SSBN´s under the polar icecap? not so much.
@@zhufortheimpaler4041 Thanks, nothing new to me. Although the Black Sea is much deeper than any military submarine can dive mentioned Diesel subs seem to fit better for attack and defense in this environment. Nuclear subs are also better for accompanying a carrier battle group. No Diesel boat can go fast and far when dived.
It's because of Swedish arms export laws, no one can buy something, you can't sell it to almost anyone. Nlaw is a good example of moving production to Great Britain and saying it was a joint venture total BS. It is 100% Swedish design and a British company owns 51 percent and viola! so the export laws have been circumvented. So now you can sell it under British export arms laws. Hope you understood my bad English.
9:10 "The operational diving depth of the Gotland class is 150 meters." Is that correct? It sounds like that's not much more than WW2 submarines, right?
@@TheXmabax I'd think it'd give a commander more options, to hide under a thermocline layer or something. But I don't know, I don't know that much about submarines 😚
It can probably go much deeper. But waters around Sweden are not that deep, most of the Baltic sea, the Öresund strait and the Kattegatt strait is less than 75 meters deep. Contrary to popular belief, Sweden does not arm itself to go and attack the US pacific navy.
The problem is not the boat but marketing plan, If I'm the company president, my priority is 1st Australia, 2nd Indonesia and Brasil, Egypt, Greece and Turkey by buying the old 209 back.and Replace by the Gotland, and offer very special price to China to build the sub by themselves.
Few people tell the complete Tale of the Gotland, which makes readers think that carriers are more vulnerable than they are in real life. One exception is the Australian youtuber Hypohysterical. According to his more complete telling, as part of the war games the carrier was subjected to various artificial limitations, limitations that gave the Gotland a better chance of getting within range for a torpedo shot. For example, the carrier could use neither its sonar buoys nor its (simulated) anti-torpedo torpedos. There were other limitations that I can't recall, but I do recall that they would make a difference in real life. That is, the odds that in real life combat the Gotland could have hit the carrier are lower -- probably much lower -- than the odds implied by the incomplete Gotland Tale as it is usually told. The real life odds that the Gotland could've not only torpedo the carrier but also SUNK it are even lower. Lower still are the real life odds that the Gotland could not only sink the carrier but also get away without itself being destroyed. In short, the standard, incomplete telling of the Gotland Tale makes people think US carriers are much more vulnerable than they actually are. It might also make people think that diesel electric submarines are less vulnerable than they actually are.
I believe that Sweden herself was not mich interested in exporting this fine product , else the could have gone hunting for potential clients with flexible terms. Only other reson could be the US concers regarding its vulnerability to yhese machines.
The most efficient airplane was Bombardier, but their were not "BIG", so nobody cares for them "lack of prestige" (even they were the better and most reliable", just Canada had not the pull; and they had to sell the company
The author AIP. ( Air Independent Power) there is only one way to propel a non-submarine when dived that's via the main motor. As has always been the same and won't change. You are mistaken as AIP is simply a limited way to partially charge the batteries nothing else. There is no magic that drives the vessel via other means.
I think a lot of countries don't buy from Sweden cause its embarrassing to buy from a country smaller or same size as yours. It's a prestige thing and also they want to be good friends with for example USA.
Akıncı videonu bekliyoruz :) SOM ve TRG230İHA'ya değinirsen seviniriz, daha önce bir IHA da bu kadar (300km+) standoff kabiliyeti olmamıştı diye biliyorum, illaki ilgi çekecektir.
This sub can beat US Navy As it has proven several times!! So to the point the US asked to borrow it, and they did^^ Best time was when the Gotland surfaced 30 meters from a aircraft carrier and have gotten past the protection^^ It shows that you don't have to be the biggest sub to win a battle^^
German ThyssenKrupp group that used to own Kockums blocked them from participating in many bid orders just to be able to sell their own domestic subs. Luckily they finally started to fiddle with Swedish state secrets so they got raided by the Swedish military to secure the secrets. After that, I did not take long until Saab bought Kockums back from the Germans.
Gotland-class (a19) is actually more advanced than Collins that is based on the Vastergotland class (a17). However both a17 and Collins (once the initial problems was handeled) are excellent boats and still top-notch for many years.
@@joakimwohlfeil How is it more advanced - AIP is useless with the distances the RAN needs to travel? Given that the Los Angles Class combat system and MK48 ADCAP torpedo is used on the Collins it is not that bad
@@pauljohnstone9275 I think there might be a misconception that a A19 sub is just a A17 with original AIP instead of added. There are many years of development between the classes, even if SAAB/Kockums might not make an open list ;-) One thing that has been more public is taking shock-resistance to new heights although no data are public. Agree with your points on AIP for a sub that has to do long transfer it's not the ideal solution.
@@pauljohnstone9275 And Collins is NOT a bad boat, it's a top notch boat. The trouble in the beginning is not at all unusual when you try to combine technologies, and at the same time rebuilding construction, service and training capacities. Collins will make a great job keeping the flag hight until the new SSN class comes to service
@@joakimwohlfeil I worked on Collins it is getting long in the tooth and I seriously doubt it can perform until the Virgina Class arrive. I am certainly one of those who view the Son of Collins as low risk high end capability incorporating new technologies such as non penetrating periscopes, potentially use Lithium batteries, take the AIP bought for those boats out of storage and upgrade and ensure that there is enough power to support the combat system at all times which does not currently occur.
The trouble with the stories aboaut various submarines *defeating* U.S. Navy battle groups is the nature of the contest. The agreed upon terms of the encounter go something like this. We will sail our fleet around in circles in a box a hundred miles by a hundred miles for a week. We agree not to have a dozen sonar dipping helos in constant operation within that box. You have a year to bring your boat and crew up to scratch. You have a couple of months to get your sub fueled, supplied and into prepositon in the box. We will provide the in theater fuel and supplies. We agree to temporarily halt the exercise if requested to provide the fuel and supplies if needed. You have one week from the start of the exercise to get your already prepositioned silent sub into a possible encounter. Let's see how you do. Results....once in a while the sub will win. Interesting and very useful for upgrading defenses. But not as significant as made out to be by some.
Horsecrap. Taiwan has been looking for a supplier willing to sell them advanced conventional submarines for decades but no one in Europe wanted to incur the wrath of China after the Netherlands sold two Zwaardvis class subs in the late 80s. So your claim that "no customer" wants to buy the Gotland is incorrect. Taiwan would buy it, and even pay premium for a good quality boat like the Gotland, but Sweden (and, to be fair, the rest of Europe as well) is too cowardly to sell which is why Taiwan is currently building their own boats with the help of the U.S.A.
@@ornestal2615 Okay, then tell me why not? What "rules and regulations" are we talking about here? Tell me what it is about Taiwan that prevents Sweden from selling the submarine this video whines and moans about not being able to find a customer for? Is Taiwan at war with anyone? No. Have they invaded anywhere? No. Is Taiwan in any way a threat to Sweden or any nation Sweden is on friendly terms with? No. Do they engage in espionage, piracy or terrorism? No. Are they oppressing anyone? No. Are they even threatening anyone? Again, no. Other than cowardice, tell me the reason why not?
@@MarchHare59: Contact them yourself if you have questions about it, i dont sitt in or represent either the swedish goverment or the swedish armsindusty.
@@ornestal2615 I don't need to contact them, I already know the reason why. Don't get me wrong, I'm not specifically blaming the Swedish government or arms industry for anything because they aren't alone in their cowardice. Selling arms to Taiwan is bad for business. I get it. If Sweden sold Gotland class submarines to Taiwan, China would place tariffs on Swedish goods imported into China, or China could refuse to sell goods to Sweden or the PLAN could even harass Swedish ships at sea that have to pass through the Straits of Taiwan and the South China Sea. It's mafia-style intimidation, it works and there is nothing Sweden can do, economically or militarily, to stop it. So like so many other nations, Sweden took the easy route and decided not to sell to Taiwan. It's cowardly but I can see the logic behind it. If I were in Sweden's shoes I might have done the same thing. But please don't insult my intelligence by saying Sweden couldn't find a buyer for the Gotland Class subs because one was out there and at the right moment in history too. When the last (of 3) Gotland class submarines was launched in 1996, Taiwan was actively looking for more submarines to supplement the two Zwaardvis class subs they bought from the Netherlands in the 80s and to replace the two ancient WWII vintage submarines they acquired from the USA. At a build rate of one boat per year, Swedish shipyards could have had a decade worth of work, paid for in cash, not taxpayer funds. In other words, it wasn't a case of no one willing to buy, but Sweden's refusal to sell, which is a pity because I think the Gotlands would have been ideal for Taiwan and could have resulted in at least a half dozen or more submarine sales for Sweden which would have made the type a genuine export success that could have garnered even more sales.
It’s because they want to hold the intellectual property for even the front door handle which more than likely would be modifying and made better by the nation proposing to purchase it
Not many countries is allowed to buy this stuff to begin with. Those who can dont have a submarine fleet or have afford to buy this, those have afford to it have its own program (Germany, Netherlands)
I believe it does need to be near position - basically waiting in ambush. The AIP is more for the final approach where sonar might pick them up. The Russia Baltic fleet, for instance, has to pass a couple bottlenecks on it's way out to the North Sea. These can just sit there. Likewise an American carrier group is likely keeping station somewhere if there is an extended conflict, so AIP mode would be the final approach to the area. Now a carrier group even at cruising speed isn't going to be caught unless going almost full out and AIP isn't going to help getting out of town after launching torpedoes.
easy answer on question :politics, you buy your heavy stuffs from USA. countries are buying f16 instead of jas 39 gripen. even tho f16 only have 1 base in each country( EASY AS SHIT TO DISSABLE) and jas 39 gripen land and service in a shoppingmarket parkinglot , whats a f16 worth if u cannot service it ?
im sorry but A) thats not true for either fighter plane, and B) its scale 4600 F16s have been produced and licensed with US producing a plethora of spare parts and secondary markets for the plane. Jas 39 has like 300 units in total with spare parts in much shorter supply and available in limited markets.
I'm sure most European countries have more airstrips that the F-16 can land on, though I agree that the Gripen is made to land on roads. But Egypt and India have the people and parts to service the F-16, I highly doubt most European countries couldn't. Though again, I agree that the Gripen has lover service requirements. Which is why I want it for Ukraine.
@@vmedhe2 you cannot compare US to Sweden, you has like 52 separate state forming a country together. We are alone. big as one of your states, less people in whole sweden than many of US citiez
@@sveannnnnnn7578 And the rest of mainland Europe? Germany is pretty big. A search showed that Denmark has one fighter base, one air base that for transports and can therefore land F-16s. There are also a large number of airports that should be able to land F-16s. Service has to do with parts and personnel and that stuff can be moved around.
Sweden produces excellent weapons, but being a peace loving nation, she is self imposed and limited exports. The Gotland class is excellent but they are small, proper for littoral defense only.
