Why Sweden Is a Submarine 'Superpower'
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ส.ค. 2023
- Deep beneath the surface of the world's oceans, Sweden's submarines possess incredible capabilities that have long been shrouded in mystery. These silent predators of the deep have garnered a reputation for audacious feats and technological prowess that leaves the maritime world astounded. From "sinking" a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier to skillfully eluding sophisticated antisubmarine defenses, Sweden's submarines have proven their mettle time and again. With Sweden's recent entry into NATO, these submarines are poised to become a true game-changer for the alliance's defense strategy. Their unmatched capabilities raise an important question: How do these silent predators of depth enhance and strengthen NATO's overall capabilities?
Subscribe Now :
/ @military-tv - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
You don't use the sterling engine to run the diesel engine under water. You use it to generate electricity to power the electric motor under water.
Yup. They probably use diesel to burn in a continous flame for the stirling engine. No continous banging like in a normal combustion engine. That's why they are silent.
Got to be a record for using the words audacious and audacity in a video😄
Did you count how many? I didn't lol
Made the video at least 30% longer than it had to be... 💤
AI rules
Honestly, it seems pretty audacious to me… especially when he said “the audacious audacity to…”
And just repeated every fact again and again and again...
Ok small correction the Gotland sub does not only cost “a fraction of the cost of a single fighter “ in fact it cost about 800 million USD which is not much compared to a 12 billion dollar super carrier but it’s a lot more than a fighter
Thank you for pointing that out. There is NO way you equate a 30-40 million dollar fighter to any modern submarine. It's an insane comparison! We also don't have the whole story of this "War Game" cause it wouldn't be declassified at this point. Beware of this channels propaganda base. It's regularly pro Russian when covering that topic.
This video all like “The Gotland will bring a massive edge to NATO”
Like bitch, Sweden has 3 Gotland class subs- that means 1 in logistics terms. That aint shit…
I recall reading Pop Mech or Science back in the early 80's or late 70's about a Joint development with the DDR for developing an Inside Out Battery system that fueled a Fuel Cell for running silent electric and generating hydrogen and Oxygen under charging for More very quiet further operations, very similar to Nuc Boats but More Quiet, safer, Smaller, cheaper.
I wounder? if this was a Thing 25 Yrs ago? but our industrial military machine and Politicians Want to Keep Funding the Nucs?
Takes a WAR to really get to the GOOD STUFF.
Thanks for the correction, I thought that sounded a little fishy
yeah this channel is kind of a joke sometimes
I am fascinated by the choice of Stirling engine, great design swedes!
Stirling Engine is the greatest invention to date and is still progressing. Phillips even designed cars and busses with Stirling engines which could have been huge. The beauty of Stirling is that there are wide range of Stirling working principles and will continue this trend for years to come.
Stirling engines have the challenge of often using external combustion, making it harder to implement exhaust air quality control;/mitigation.
Why? It is most primitive of AIP, so even small nation can produce such propulsion at reasonable cost. It is also least complicated, you need just oxygen source, fuel source is same as for main engines. Disadvantages (it does not work in greater depths and it is noisier than fuel cells) does not concern Sweden, because Baltic and Northern see are quite shallow and noisy. So I would say, it is ideal choice for their mission.
I honestly dont know if what they tell you is the truth. China and Russia is gonna watch these too, and I dont think a youtube video reveals exactly how they do things. But its good entertainment
@@KittyCat-mp3rm Taigei has not AIP. Also Japan submarines are Oceangoing submarines, so not fair to compare them to coastal Gotland class. Also it is questionable, if Taigei is best conventional submarine. I would counter, that most advanced design is probably Type 212 and its derivates because their AIP allow them to be not only long time but also pretty fast on cruise. Also Taigei as other Japan modern subs are curiously poorly automated. Complement of 70 men is too much for such small submarine. Even 50 years old original Kilo needed only 50 men. Type 212 need only 27 men, 9 men per shift. For comparison immensely more complicated and capable Yasen class need smaller complement, than Taigei.
Fact is, that Taigei is quite cheap submarine, it cost cca 500 million USD. This is only medium price among conventional submarines but if you take into consideration, that every military equipment in Japan is extremely expensive, then these 500 million USD is like 250 million for normal countries and thus that submarine is to cheap to be on top of the list.
Sweden submarine was glorified, because it participated in naval exercise when she "sunk" american aircraft carrier. Also fact is, that it was Japan who bought submarine technology from Sweden and not vice versa. Soo it is arrogance and racism or overwhelming reality?
What is "electric propulsion" you mean MHD? Then I can assure you, that not China, nor anyone else is using MHD on submarines. First, their efficiency is extremely low (under 20%). Second, they are strong producer of magnetic distortions and thus easy target for MAD. Red October was just novel/film.
Sweden's submarines are deadly. Arguably the quietest.
Hmm the 212a is more quiet
the Barracuda class by Naval Group is advertised as having the acoustic signature of a shrimp shoal
Silent but violent? 😅
I assume You have unrestricted accsess to both subs? And then risk your career, and imprisonment. Just to tell the world here on You Tube, that the 212 is more quiet? Is there any more higly classified information you can bring to us? How much better the sensorsuit is on your beloved 212 maybe? @@SW-kb6ci
It was not on loan to US Navy when sinking RR, that was a swedish crew. Afterwards though, one or two were loaned to the US for a couple of years.
People have no idea how formidable the Swedes are. They mask this characteristic by being ultra liberal and non militant in their politics and culture, however they will tear the ass off you if you provoke them severely enough.
Amen
@@MichaelEhline Why do you say amen? Does God like this comment? Man get outta here quick.
sounds like an audacious use of AI to produce the dialogue?
Fraction of the cost for a modern carrier based fighter? Mjeh, the sub cost $150M with an additional $210M in mid-life upgrades, that's a lot more than even the most expensive F-35C at ~$90M. Gotland class is also kinda older by now, the new Blekinge (A26-class) is wildly more expensive at $670M ...
Well, every unit costed around 5-600 000 000 SEK to build in 1987. In 1997 they upgraded every A19 for 1 billion SEK. Now the Swedish defenseapartment wanted the two of the new class A26 with as today have a total cost of 14 billion SEK (7 billion SEK each) Dunno how much that are in USD tho. But HMS Gotland is way more expensive then a 90 million USD F-35C for sure if you take the built of it in 1987 and with the upgrade they did on it in 1997. Just counted that the new A26 will cost 669 million USD each. But they started with a pricetag of 8,6 billion SEK for both. They will not be ready until 2029 so I wonder how much more billions there will be until they are ready. I mean 5 billions already since 2015. 8 years, still 5 years left to 2029, soon end of 2023. I am sure that pricetag will be much more on each A26 when the built are completed.
Ok small correctionS
1] it was in the atlantic ocean
2] the sub was NOT on loan
3] it sunk the carrier 2 times in 2 drills
The sub was on loan for a year _after_ the exercise.
Sank. Sink sank sunk. It sank a carrier.
1. it was in the pacific (based at Point Loma).
2. it wasn't a loan, it was leased for 1 year, including crew, and then the lease was extended for another year.
US paid for the use of the boat and the transfer of it and it's crew, Sweden paid the crew.
3. the official tally was stated as "several times and multiple occasions"
Gotland sneaked in, took snapshots of the carrier from a good attack position, and sneaked back out again, without being noticed,
"On more than one occasion" according to the official statement by the (slightly blushing) US Navy officials.
A Dutch submarine did it before with 11 American warships
love to see those photos!! Locked up in a safe, in a vault in a mountain most likely :) respect@@andersbjansson1688
Consequently, the US asked to hire one of Swedens subs to study it and apply countermeasures. They kept it for years to study it, and now the US has countermeasures for it. Besides, this new wasn’t revealed until the US had the defenses in place. Not to give russia or china ideas.
Which boat exactly? Name.
@@tomascernak6112 FGS do your own research, this is not highschool!
@@donquixote1502 Exactly, this is not some highschool where you and your moronic friends can claim anything without evidence. Sweden never lent any of its submarines to USA nor allow american specialist to study their secrets. So it is on you and your lyiing fellow to prove, which exact submarine was given/lent to USA for study .
@@tomascernak6112 It was the lead ship of the class the Gotland.
@@AndrewinAus So Sweden according to you borrowed its top secret Sub to potential enemy and left Sweden unprotected. When this happened and for how long?
Word of the week: audacity
"audacity of this audacious display" sounds like the script was written by dredging a thesaurus
Rubber acoustics were invented by the Germans in WW2 & were used with great success near the end of 1944
It is actually HMS Gotland!
The submarine at 0:40 is not a Swedish submarine. It is U137 a Soviet Whiskey class submarine stuck on a rock in the hard navigated archipelago in the south of Sweden in 1981. And of course it was dubbed "Whiskey on the rocks" 😁
It's hard to see the border under the sea's surface.
“Whiskey on the rocks;” that’s funny shat.
@@rickwhite4137 The U137 (real designation S-363) was running on the surface when it ran aground.
@@dishusse I never explain a joke.
No carrier was harmed in this scenario….
Expensive is not equal to better. We see this today in Ukraine with a $1000 drone killing a $5 million tank. On the other hand, a Carrier and a submarine isn't comparable when it comes to cost due to the different size and roles, but very gladly we (Sweden) are on the same side as these mighty carriers ❤
Don’t forget you have to maintain the sub and pay those sailors and it ain’t cheap. Drones are the future and will be launched from any where land, air or sea. Glory to Ukraine 🇺🇦
I was the project engineer and lead designer for one of their sonar systems. The small protruding object you see at the bow is one of the three sensors we developed specifically to their operating requirements. It was nice to see it in action off the coast of San Diego where we developed the sonar system.
why would you be talking about this in the comment section on youtube?? was it important for you to mention this for attention or what?
Pls delete this comment as our enemies surely would like every ounce of information they can get on swedens military assets and development of our weapons. Förlåt att jag måste vara så jobbig men min käre Landsbroder, ta bort kommentaren ❤️
@@beefgrass5784 If he can talk about it on youtube it's public knowledge one google search away.. Sluta vara så jobbig istället.
Tror du verkligen att det är känslig information han sitter och delar på youtube ? haha@@beefgrass5784
@@beefgrass5784 jag tror att ifall han inte hade fått prata om det hade han nog vetat om det
Greetings from Sweden. You're welcome!
welcome to the alliance 🇺🇲🤝🇸🇪
These Swedish submarines are not DIESEL-powered - they have Swedish super quite STERLING engines!
The Gotland-class submarines of the Swedish Navy are modern diesel-electric submarines, which were designed and built by the Kockums shipyard in Sweden. They are the first submarines in the world to feature a Stirling engine air-independent propulsion (AIP) system, which extends their underwater endurance from a few days to weeks.[2] This capability had previously only been available with nuclear-powered submarines.
So yeah, they still got diesel engine in them. How do you think they run the AIP system to get the Stirling engine to work? He also said that they using the fumes from the diesel to propulse the Stirling engine in the video. They also uses the diesel engine to generate the elctricity to the batteries.
So the diesel engine has two work to do. Propulse the Stirling engine with fumes and generate electricity to the batteries. The Sterling engine can not work alone. It needs air flow to work, fumes from the diesel engine, which explains that only nuclear subs was able to use Stirling engines so that means Stirling engines was electric from the beginning. And yes the Stirling engine almost doesn't make any sound. The diesel engine in submarine almost doesn't either because it is super muffled because the fumes goes directly to the Stirling engine. Sonars had heavy problems to detect the diesel engine itself when they tested the sonars to catch the submarine.
So you are wrong, the sub is both dieselpowered AND electric powered to run the Stirling engine.
Diesel is a fuel, what do you think those sterling engines run on? Hopes and prayers?
@@NecronomousDo they run the diesel and sterling engine underwater? I'm wondering how long before the diesel uses up all the air in the sub needed by the crew? Otherwise it's a diesel-electric powered sub.
@@bullettube9863 They can use the dieselengine under water as well yes. It is needed to power up the sterling engine. The dieselengine is one of the most quiet there are. They used it also under water under tests when USA borrowed the sub and they couldn't ping the sub even if it ran with the dieselengine on. The fumes from the engine will not affect the crew or anything. So yes it is a diesel-electric powered sub.
Some older subs acctually got a dieselengine in them, but was later scrapped because of the envolvment of the sonar. Look at the movie Hunt of Red October, the american sub got dieselengine in it but the russian sub is a nuclear sub driven by electricity. That's why the Red October can hear "kachunk kachunk kachunk" because it is the rythm of the dieselpowered submarine. And yeah, these days the dieselpowered sub needed to reach surface to get air into the sub more often.
But with the new technology and with the swedish submarine they have calculated that it needs to reach surface once a month so it is second to the best from a nuclear powered submarine. Using both the sterling and dieselengine is the outcome of that. So there, I hope that I could answer your question.
@@bullettube9863It does not run diesel engines when submerged, only sterling engine that runs on liquid oxygen.
A Danish submarine "Sælen" did the same in 1992 - using a design from the 1960s - a German type 207. Diesels/Electrics are very quiet....
Sweden has always been very secretive about their weapon technology.
Especially their cloaking technology.
Bla bla bla blaha......@@KittyCat-mp3rm
And why would anyone not be? otherwise it would be like playing poker and you tell everyone what you have on hand.
until this video
"Audacious audacity" Really?
Let's keep in mind, Sweden has the largest number of islands in the world in its archipelago. This submarine is designed to operate at is best in a such environment. Silently and undetected, crawling around islets and rocks for weeks waiting for its prey come within range. Sweden joining NATO not only brings the submarine, it also makes this archipelago NATO land.
Aircraft carriers and huge atomic submarines are not designed to operate at its best there.
Keep in mind that the sinking of U.S. Carrier was in restricted training area (box of ocean) that was not designed to the carriers protective strengths as the battle group had training restrictions put in place. With this said, the Swedish crew did an excellent job.
If you have an operation area (to be efficient in the theatre with your flight wing) you have the same limits.
The gotland aint an offensive weapon, but if you want to move anything by sea in (lets say the baltic) its a force to recon with
the carrier was protected by several smaller ships, subs and destroyers tho, there was half a fleet around the carrier as the gotland sub "sunk"it
bla bla bla bla, we sink you anytime anywhere...
Even the old German U24 diesel sub from the 70`s was able to penetrated a carrier group and was able to conduct a successful simulated sinking of the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier. They took a picture of the carrier as proof.
That's why these simulations exist, to test for weaknesses and take care of whatever is found.
Unimaginable Capabilities? I can imagine all these capabilities without difficulty.
🤣🤣
The audacity! 😂
Literally just technology that fucken makes sense on a submarine xD
More in this short video than I have heard in 40 years.
The simulated sinking of ships has be carried out many times by Swedish submarines even in the Mediterranean Sea with other nations. A submarine is always hard to find.
It was on rigged exercises. The carrier was going slow. In real life the Gottland would not come that close. But still really well done by the Gottland.
@@elefteriosmouratidis Subs are able to shut down most systems and wait for the target to come to them.
also heard swedes were using sterling engines on some of their subs so they can produce power on relatively low noise at zero fuel cost since sterling engine uses temp differentials to produce power they could use the cabin to water temp difference, if efficient enough they may be able to go for ages before needing fuel.
@@andrebarreto9177 they are using sterling on all the subs. But just shut down and just wait in the middle off the ocean is just stupid. Again in simulations the CSG travels at a lov speed in resteicted areas. In real life situations CSG are to fast for the swedish subs.
But still its well done by us sweeds
@@elefteriosmouratidis not sitting in the middle of the ocean.
If you have intel on were the fleet is going you can predict their path.
Than it's a matter of getting the information soon enough to prepare a trap.
I'm certain that just as in land there will be some choke points or routes that cannot be avoided.
But yes, I imagine any sub probably has issues keeping up with a fleet, subs not renowned for their speed
here why?, because it is chasing Russian logs in stockholm archipelago not a days, for months,! .....and found few old shoes
already in 2005 Sweden managed to sink the USS Ronald Reagan Supercarrier several times with a single submarine of the Gotland class as they say in the program
no other country has succeeded in this
the sweden submarines have not gotten worse, now the gotland class submarines are being replaced with Blekinge class submarines and these are light years better than the gotland class submarine
but the USA still has the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier even if these are now to be replaced by the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier
the usa were not particularly satisfied, here you can say that you get value for money
now we are on the same page, and the idea is that Swedish submarines will sink Russian ships
but the USA couldn't believe their eyes what technology the Swedish submarines have in this "read flag exercise"
so the USA leased Gotland for 2 years and that was not the idea from the beginning
The next generation A26 will be even deadlier.
@@petter5721This is the Blekinge Class👍
Swedes know how to make weapons and use em. Sweden has always been an underdog that has a surprisingly tough bite. Tho submarine warfare are moving into the drone realm, i believe Sweden will loose its edge due to not investing money into those technologies.
You are both right and an smaller wrong in your concern. You are right since our tradition is the country's needs that govern which tech is worth developing and using by our own military without becoming dependent on a larger country e.i. the US.
Wrong? It is with great certainty that Sweden will also develop its own drones on a larger scale than what we already do. Current drone packages mostly cover our need for training and reconnaissance missions. The facility is a multi facility where tests for new weapons are developed, in addition to offering training and counter training for threats that exist today as an singel nation. There are very interesting videos on TH-cam of a very interesting training facility high up in Northern Sweden, check it out for yourself.
Secondly, it will happen thanks to our membership in NATO today which will accelerate this development through increased need for this type of tech as well as meeting the new threats that arise. 2nd through our support in the prozy war happening in Ukraine now, where the data collection is shared between members of NATO. Most people can agree that Sweden is a fantastic country for simple and cost-effective solutions that go BOM. Here the war in Ukraine is a very interesting factor for the acquisition of these solutions, add the Swedish touch to things that work today and imagine what will come in the future.
To those who love technology and the development of smart solutions, will not be disappointed in the future either.
SAAB Kockums and WASP here in Sweden has worked together on turning our submarines into drones for many years. They conducted a successful test 2-3 years ago. It's something they've invested a lot of time and money on completing, i reckon they are close to have such capabality by now.
In the ends of 1980s, a portuguese submarine sunk, in NATO/OTAN war game, a aircraft carrier, some destroyers...
A old german 206 Class had sunk in a exercise for several years the USS Enterprise
This was indeed an audacious video with the audacity to display several audacious claims.
In fairness, almost all of the simulated torpedoes had simulated problems that prevented their simulated detonations. The two that didn’t simulated going off course.
The Gotland class is developed 1996, Why do you bring that up now? When Sweden is building a new class ( Blekinge) A26.
We are small in numbers but we are high tech and we are cunning, we have started to sharpen our axes yet again.
You don’t realize how big and long submarines are till you see one on land or in the sea. As a fisherman who fishes the East Coast off New England I have come across a few submarines and stare at awe when they pass by. Proud to be an American Veteran
As a swede, this is funny, people stating that it's a technological marvel yet it's just mechanics that makes sense on a submarine.
The Swedish people prove their intelligence of sensible mechanics with their Gotland sub! Small and maneuverable with detection evasion technology incorporated throughout! Perfect for securing much of the shallow Baltic Sea! Welcome to NATO, Sweden!!!
If the torpedo detonates under the steam-turbines, it is goodnight. They would brush their turbine blades into the stator blades. "Teeth-Brushing" ,no more power, no steering, no launching of aircraft. Floating might be ok though. Perhaps even no greater fire. A slight list perhaps, like a Canada-Goose fouly shot by a poacher with a .22LR Rifle, it would not "honk" for a while.
Your excited hype is amazing! The sub was leased and the crew had knowledge about America's anti-sub techniques that no one else had! It did not shock anyone except you and others who know little of subs and anti-sub warfare. Despite the ability to be quiet, the Swedish diesel subs have a limited range, still have to surface to recharge their batteries,and cannot carry out extensive operations like nuclear subs can. While their torpedoes are powerful, it would take a whole lot of them to sink a 100,000 ton US carrier with it's anti-torpedo hull protection. Basically the Swedish sub fleet is a coastal defense fleet instead of a global fleet.
"...A small diesel powered sub with a price tag nearly a fraction of a single fighter jet on board the carrier..." Wait, what??
A 7th gen naval fighter, that can take off/land vertically, is optically invisible, and can fly underwater.
@@ronjon7942 Makes sense.
Absolutely Brilliant,
That will Put the Wind up the Khyber, as they say.
Finally you say simulated. Stop saying HSMS Gotland sunk an American Carrier as we're allies and the overuse of "Audacity" was not only redundant but just sounds immature?
Thanks, Military TV.
We're not yet in NATO, my hope is in Erdogan and Orban to halt and stop Sweden joining NATO completely. Then we just have to leave EU also.
And what, become isolationists?
No thank you. I much prefer the ability to freely travel all across EU.
But hey, if you wanna sponsor me with a space ship so I can leave the planet all together then I wouldn't have anything to say!
@MartinLindelof Now what do you think Martin?
Ahem….. I have updates😂
Sorry buddy…
Audacious video!! Thanks
Isn't there a British sub called Audacious???
@@d1.004 Good Question. Do you know the answer??
I love how humanity is now looking at the Stirling engine from hundreds of years ago as cutting edge ❤
My high school physics teacher was on the development team for this submarine
A German submarine ( Type 207 ) also "sank" an American carrier ( the Enterprise ) during exercise in 2001.
I believe the Danish too.
In this naval exercise, where the Swedish submarine prevailed over an US aircraft carrier, it seems that there were no US submarines deployed to protect the aircraft carrier. Did this exercise take place in shallow waters, or in the Baltic Sea? I don't think the exercise took place in the Baltic Sea. I don't think Gotland Class submarines can travel long distances into oceans, because perhaps they cannot carry adequate fuel to do that, due to their smaller size. Has any other Baltic nation tried to buy this submarine from Sweden? Does any other nation operate this submarine? How does it compare to German submarines?
Pls, do your own research before you write what you think. Your questions show that you know nothing. It´s sad.
The exercise was in the pacific ocean, a full carrier battlegroup including US attack subs participated. The very same tech that enabled it to land multiple critical hits on the carrier and leave undetected is a limiting factor in terms of global range for bluewater operations. But the sub isn't designed to operate in blue water.
The Swedes has always designed their weapons to suit themselves and the defense of Sweden.
Since Sweden does not have an offensive military and a need to project military power, they do not need nuclear subs or ships, so why would they build one that adds range they don't need and loose the benefits of stealth that AIP gives over nuclear. US needs the range because their Navy is more useless to patrol around the US coast, so it's worth it to them to loose stealth and add range. And they try and make up for that by moving around all the time and not operate in a single area only. The disadvantage comes when their pathing can be predicted or they are forced to enter a specific area that the enemy knows of and have stealthier subs. Like say US trying to get in to the baltic sea.
US knows this so they wanted to see how one of these subs fared against them if they are ever forced in to the operational range of one of these subs. So they chose to fight one of the absolute best in this class. And they got so caught with their pants down that they leased the sub and Swedish crew for another year to try and find ways to counter it. Some people blatanty claim they have effectively countered it by know, but they base that one a superiority complex only (surely the might USA with it's huge military can match little Sweden) and not facts and logic. Very few knows the actual results. Most likely they can adapt responses and tactics when entering the area etc and maybe try to get data for new tech for future subs, but it is very unlikely that they have solved the problem on the existing fleet. If they do that training again with the same tech, they are for the most part probably getting the same results. To claim they have counters for it as in "AIP subs are no longer a problem for them" is just plain stupid. A nuclear sub or ship is very noisy relative to AIP, you can't just change that without rebuilding the entire thing. And of course those AIP subs also advance in tech so there will be a constant cat and mouse game.
HMS Gotland and it's A26 Blekinge class successors doesn't need to hunt down carriers or other ships in the open ocean, it only needs the capablity to keep them so far away from Sweden that it either cripples/hampers their operations or makes them unable to be used as intended. And considering the geography around Sweden and that there is only one way in or out, they would pose a huge threat and very big stick in the american navys cogs. Not that Sweden realisticly expects to ever fight US carriers, as with most of Swedens doctrine, it is specifically designed to fight and counter Soviets and now Russa, they have for centuries been the only realistic threat of invasion to Sweden. Most likely the purpose in a real situation would be to destroy the Russian Baltic sea navy and blockade Russia and Kaliningrad in addition to block any russian reinforcements to enter Kattegatt.
You can see it in the doctrine, the fighters, the ifvs everything they do is made to counter what the russians use. And they are very good at it, there is a reason why they are one of the largerst weapons exporters in the world, the biggest if you factor in their size and population, and why even the mighty USA itself has a lot of Swedish weapons in their inventory.
Australia has these submarines, serving as the Collins Class.
@@donquixote1502Seems a bit rude. Nothing wrong with gleaning info from asking questions in the comments. For example, I’m doing a bit of research by reading them.
@@KittyCat-mp3rm if you read the entire thing and looked it up it was exactly with that setup including the us sub and sub protection it went up against. Otherwise there would be no point in testing for vulnerabilities now would it.
In a real war where these kinds of subs would be a danger would be in situations US approach close enough to a country that has these kind of subs to actually use their carriers. If that for some reason would be Sweden that would be worse due to swedens geography where it is extremely predictable where the carries would go. They wouldn't hunt them down over the open ocean, they would lie in wait.
Again there is a reason the navy hired the swedes for another year to train and figure out how they can protect themselves against a sub like that.
Sweden makes high quality weapons, gripen one of the best fighter jets in the world, costs less than half to maintain compared to US jets, anti tank weapons, bofors guns, diesel engine scandia and volvo etc. all super quality
'fueled by the audacity of this audacious display'
This guy😂😂😂
“The audacity of this audacious display” was audaciously audacious.
Can't imagine how unimaginable that is.
To my memory, german submarines did the same at NATO exercises. German submarines are as quiet as swedish submarines and have a similar small size.
Welcome to NATO Sweden. As an American Veteran I salute you and your military. May Peace and Harmony keep us safe.
During a 2013 War Game, a Japanese Sub Sank a U.S. Aircraft Carrier as well as several escorting vessels. The name of the captain of the sub is Toshiyuki Ito.
The cost of two new submarines for Sweden was placed at around USD965m in 2015, somewhat more than two new aircraft!
its not only tech , its manpower capabilities too.
could never understand why secrets of advanced technology gets released to the world.
This vid could have taken 10 seconds: "A Swedish sub sunk an American aircraft carrier in a simulated attack."
Germany also makes excellent air independent and non-magnetic hull Dolphin subs.
Very romantic narrative of a simulation. 3:42
Well written and delivered video 👏🤙🏼
i like the gotland class. but the new blekinge class is really something!
You failed in your homework, Gotland has a STERLING engine, NOT diesel.
Martin Lindelof which country are you from?
OK, after 1min and 42 sec I decided to stop. In the matter of this time period there are so numerous misinformation that I dare to say, this channel is not more than a propaganda.
EXACTLY
The hype is a bit over the top in this video... The Sweeds have fantastic subs, this is true. They pioneered air independent propulsion, and have fantastic/modern combat systems... But, it's not magic and it's not some kind of super special naval officer that other navies don't have. From a personnel perspective, they have four submarines so they can be VERY selective about who is chosen to Captain those subs. Also... The subs Some of what makes them so capable also illustrates a tremendous weakness: conventional power = slow with limited endurence = very quiet.
A desel/electric/AIP submarine can best be thought of as a mobile mine field. They aim to get infront of the targets or sit astride a choke point and then wait for those targets to come to them - no "sprinting and drifting" as a nuclear boat might. The principle advantage for those conventional subs is that without a nuclear power plant they don't have the machinery noises from cooling pumps that are always on to some degree that must be contended with. They also displace only 1/5 as much as a US Submarine, meaning they are a much smaller target to detect, radiate less noise energy, have a much smaller hull to shield (with anechoic coatings) and a much smaller surface area, a much smaller crew, etc..
But... In the open ocean, against something like a convoy crossing the atlantic, they'd be unable to even catch up to their targets. The Gotland class, for example, has a reported maximum speed of 20 kts on battery while submerged - that's more than 12 knots slower than the maximum reported speeds of US escorts and US submarines and probably near the rate of advance of a us CVBG if they're conducting ASW operations.
And it's not surprising the US had trouble with this - we kinda' stopped worrying about blue water naval warfare after the soviets went away... So, we didn't train as much in ASW as we used to... It's the whole reason the US asked to "borrow" the Gotland. But the lesson was well learned and has informed the fleet...
But... LOTS of hype in this one... Not much perspective...
Here's a wannabe novelist. "In an extraordinary example of stealth & cunning, HSMS Gotland skillfully weaved its way through the depths of the ocean eluding the clutches of its pursuers. It moved like a phantom, silent & invisible to the probing sonar beams that sought to unmask its location." (Summary: A Swedish sub with a USN crew managed to get close enough for a simulated torpedo attack.) I doubt the USN ever planned to fight Sweden. However, the USN crew was likely quite familiar with USN CTG standard operating procedures. I suspect the results of this exercise was assigned undue significance by the media & public. The Swedish Navy has been playing cat & mouse with the Soviet & later Russian Navy since the beginning of the Cold War. Unlike most other nations, the Swedes never stopped expecting to need a defense against Russia some day. That's why NATO is very happy to have Sweden all in. They are ready, willing & experienced at military exercises versus the Russian Federation.
Gotland sub was never intendet to operate in the atlantic , its designed to operate in shallow arcipelago coastal enviroments
if it works in open ocean it an unintended bonus.
Swedish subs, weren't the only ones to achieve that. If I'm not mistaken, the old Daphne class(French made), from Portuguese navy, did the same, in may 1983. Also a French navy sub did it in February 2015. Aircraft carriers are vulnerable and need a proficient and well trained escort.
Won't mind if Sweden is a submarine superpower as long as it's not the bully nation to the east
Australian Collins Class subs, which are larger versions of the HSMS Gotland, have also embarrassed US Navy vessels in exercise. Being simply a larger version of the Swedish Gotland Class, they have some additional capabilities and endurance.
Do we think we used audacity and audacious
a bit much?
I say welcome. 🇸🇪 Together we stand and divided we fall.
2 × Kockums v4-275R Stirling AIP units Makes the submarine vibration-free and silent during attack
The title of the video has me cracking.
Good laugh ))
"The audacity of this audacious display..." !?
Similarly, same familiar similarity is familiarly similar to familiarity....
Have you heard the story when a JAS 39 Gripen suddenly appeared on the side of a euro fighter on a training. Totally invisible until it turned of its stealth. Radar stealth technology is next level. And no one know how they do it :)
Sweden: Only has 3 submarines.
TH-camr: Why Sweden is submarine superpower.
Me: 😯
Capacity wins over quantity.
wrong we don't have 3 we have 5 submarines
We have 5, during the cold war we had 25. We can go back to 25. Does Russia have 25 Aircraft Carriers we can sink? Note that all 25 submarines remain after we sink 25 Russian aircraft carriers.
Sweden is not a full member of the NATO - yet. Turkey and Hungary still have to ratify the accession.
Sweden: "Can Vlad come out and play?"
3:33 Ayo who let David Tennant on da military naval vessel?
The Sweden 5 submarines are an excellent enhancement for NATO because they know their difficult undersea in the Baltic Sea better than anyone.
Together with Germany’s 6 submarines of similar performance and experience they form an excellent force to defend Europe’s coast from the Arctic down to baltic coasts of mainland Europe.
When did Sweden join NATO?
They haven't yet, but Turkey's parliament will do what Ergodan wants. Hungary isn't standing in the way and Orban is also somewhat of an autocrat.
Hungary is wrongly viewed, I think, as yes-sayers, albeit late such. My opinion is that they are blocking us just as much as Turkey. If they wanted they could have said yes and urged Turkey to do the same.
Orban wants some money eu have frozen and Turkey man he just want more and more to let Sweden join i think we will never join Nato
On the 7th of March 2024. 🤪
Few people tell the entire Tale of the Gotland. Instead, most people leave out crucial facts. One exception is the Australian youtuber Hypohysterical. According to his version of the Tale, artificial limitations were imposed on the US carrier as part of the war game to give the submarine(s) a better chance at getting within range and making a shot. Unfortunately, I can remember only one the limitations that he recited, specifically, that the carrier couldn't use its sonar buoys. I don't recall the other limitations imposed but I do recall that they would make a huge 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 Tale as it's usually told. The real life odds that the Gotland could've not only hit but also SUNK the carrier are even lower. Furthermore, the real life odds that the Gotland could've not only sunk the carrier but also gotten away without being destroyed are lower still. In short, the standard version of the Tale makes people think US carriers are far more vulnerable than they actually are. It might also make people think that diesel electric submarines are less vulnerable than they actually are.
Great channel. And yeah. The “Gotland incident” reminds me of the time F-16’s killed an F-35 and the media went nuts. Not mentioning anything about the forced limitations on the F-35, not using stealth coating being the major limitation…
They loaned the sub for one year, and then extended the loan another year.
If it were that easy to find it, why extend the loan one year.
In modern warfare no aircraft carrier would be deployed to the Baltic Sea. Not even to the North Sea. Modern carriers are designed for operating in blue waters around the world, where long distances between target areas and airbases ashore require them. That's not the case, however, with littoral waters like the Baltic, the North Sea or the Black Sea, where plenty of land-based military airfields are available within short range.
Deep blue seas like the Indopacific or Atlantic on the other hand, where we can find the US supercarriers, are not a suitable ops area for diesel/stirling driven littoral combat subs as used by the Swedish, Norwegian or the German Navy due to their restricted size and fuel capacity. Larger nuclear powered subs with no limitations as to fuel consumption and sea endurance do the job there. So in a real war there's little to no chance of conventional uboats versus aircraft carriers being directly engaged in a dog fight.
Did the destroyers defended the Carrier? And Sonobuoys are launchable by Helo's anyways so it doesn't mean the carrier has to launch Helo's, the destroyers could..
Wow, this is what we call a rTumpf truth. It has nothing to do with the real world!
NO diesel ! is Stirling
Thankyou
I often compare Australia to Sweden, we cannot make our own designed submarines yet Sweden can, plus their woman are prettier😅. Not fair.
"... ECHO THROUGH THE AGES...! "
come on... 😂
It was on rigged exercises. The carrier was going slow. In real life the Gottland would not come that close. But still really well done by the Gottland.
Oh is that so, that's why the US asked fore one more year of leasing the sub and crew, I have always wonder why.....
@@coole6825 yes thats why....
Awesome Sub 😊!
Amazing 🇸🇪technology👍 from🇫🇮
We need to buy a bunch of these subs to patrol our lines, each sub cost as much as 1 F35, crew is small very stealthy, would maybe be as quiet as japans newest subs wich ar deisel subs
This is not true. The cost of HMS Gotland latest upgrades alone is 1 billion sek which is roughly 90 million usd. That is the pricetag a lot of people mistakenly put on the sub itself. It has upgraded multiple times and the initial purchase price is a lot higher. Estimates are around 800 million USD total from purchase to all upgrades. Obviously it is cheap compared to larger nuclear subs or carriers, but it definately isn't in fighter territory in terms of cost.
The initial purchase price for Sweden of the new A26 is tagged at 390 ish million dollars for each sub with a big IF... at least one other country has to also buy a least one sub. If there are no other buyers but Sweden, they have to pay a lot more for them.
…and the current price of an F-35A is around $80million USD.
Swedesh are badasses of military. And they got some brains so we are happy
Next game changer of Ukraine 😊
🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺💪💪💪😎
@putrakdg677 so what's the goal for this russian invasion ?also what's your thoughts on child kidnapping,rapes and deliberately bombing civilian populations?are you happy about this ?
........
Ukraine is losing.. but the U.S. leftist media won't admit it.
@@putrakdg.19KARMA you looters and for ur' war crimes!
"The audacity of this audacious display" LOL 😂
yep I remember time when they were chassing logs(Russian subs) through Stoholm archipelago , wow what a hunt ..hehe
You use too many descriptive adjectives to make your point.
Everytime he says Audacious or Audacity you take a shot.
If their subs are so good, why did no country on planet ordered one in decades ???
I think the main reason is that purchasing a weapon system is a long term commitment and it is quite a risk buying from a small country compared to the US or similar. Also Swedish weapons are mostly very tailored to the specific needs of Sweden, that often differ from the needs of other countries. Our need has always been focused on a large scale invasion from the east, combine that with a quite unique doctrine and unique terrain (the Baltic has brackish water (had to look that up :)) and you have a capable weapon system that only fits one country in the world.
@@nadjanda ... Germany is not much bigger and their 212 and 214 are selling very well
@@_Alfa.Bravo_ Well, I never mentioned size as a reson but as you mention it, Germany has almost ten times the amount of people.
@nadjanda ... oh thanks Sir, as a german I have to admit that Swedish people look much better
They are not cheap......
Good i fel safe here in sweden now