Home
SPF Top Rated
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Secret (Unbuilt) Projects
Secret Naval Projects
Unbuilt Kockums Submarines: Early Type 471 (Collins Class) Proposals
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TinWing" data-source="post: 75204" data-attributes="member: 10"><p><strong>Re: Unbuilt Kockums Submarines and Early Type 471 (Collins Class) Proposals</strong></p><p></p><blockquote data-quote="Abraham Gubler"><blockquote data-quote="TinWing"><p>Nearly a decade later, the design was offered to Australia, where it was apparently the preferred bid, losing only to a far less developed Kockums proposal.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>The IKL/HDW T.2000 was rated the highest on the initial tender submission but it would be wrong to say it was more developed than the winning Kockums T.471. For example the T.2000 would have needed more modification to carry the US technology Rockwell combat system than the T.471. The T.471 also had a lot more battery power and discretion which was a key consideration for the long range, tropical waters requirement. The real difference between the bids was the engineering capability IKL and HDW held in building and transferring submarine technology compared to Kockums. Balancing that and ultimately winning it for Kockums was their more advanced and modular building technology.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>There were a number of irregularities in the selection process, with accusations of influence being directed first at a certain German bidder, and finally, anecdotes about Saab automobiles in the driveways of certain officials. </p><p></p><p>What is remains clear is that Australia's insistence on a high-end "combat control system" was based on a non-existent Soviet threat. Vladivostok is a very long way from Darwin. Just as significantly, the Soviet presence in the former USN base at Cam Rahn Bay never developed into a major threat. It's also worth remembering that at this point that Indonesia had been pro-Western since 1965 (and only possessed two Type 209 submarines) and China was most decidedly an ally against the Soviets. The requirement for high end CCS didn't even make sense against the backdrop of recent RN experience in the Falklands.</p><p> </p><p>In the end, the RAN wrote a very lofty requirement and Kockums answered with the least developed paper design. In hindsight, Kockums had absolutely no experience in export orders, other than an unsuccessful bid to India, and the Type 471 had very little commonality with any of small Baltic submarines in Swedish service. However, the Kockums bid did answer the requirement, and in the end, the requirement was the problem.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TinWing, post: 75204, member: 10"] [b]Re: Unbuilt Kockums Submarines and Early Type 471 (Collins Class) Proposals[/b] [quote="Abraham Gubler"] [quote="TinWing"]Nearly a decade later, the design was offered to Australia, where it was apparently the preferred bid, losing only to a far less developed Kockums proposal. [/quote] The IKL/HDW T.2000 was rated the highest on the initial tender submission but it would be wrong to say it was more developed than the winning Kockums T.471. For example the T.2000 would have needed more modification to carry the US technology Rockwell combat system than the T.471. The T.471 also had a lot more battery power and discretion which was a key consideration for the long range, tropical waters requirement. The real difference between the bids was the engineering capability IKL and HDW held in building and transferring submarine technology compared to Kockums. Balancing that and ultimately winning it for Kockums was their more advanced and modular building technology. [/quote] There were a number of irregularities in the selection process, with accusations of influence being directed first at a certain German bidder, and finally, anecdotes about Saab automobiles in the driveways of certain officials. What is remains clear is that Australia's insistence on a high-end "combat control system" was based on a non-existent Soviet threat. Vladivostok is a very long way from Darwin. Just as significantly, the Soviet presence in the former USN base at Cam Rahn Bay never developed into a major threat. It's also worth remembering that at this point that Indonesia had been pro-Western since 1965 (and only possessed two Type 209 submarines) and China was most decidedly an ally against the Soviets. The requirement for high end CCS didn't even make sense against the backdrop of recent RN experience in the Falklands. In the end, the RAN wrote a very lofty requirement and Kockums answered with the least developed paper design. In hindsight, Kockums had absolutely no experience in export orders, other than an unsuccessful bid to India, and the Type 471 had very little commonality with any of small Baltic submarines in Swedish service. However, the Kockums bid did answer the requirement, and in the end, the requirement was the problem. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Secret (Unbuilt) Projects
Secret Naval Projects
Unbuilt Kockums Submarines: Early Type 471 (Collins Class) Proposals
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
