Sweden's IKEA of Weapons

Messages
6,237
Location
Kalifornia Kollective
Originally Posted By: mk378
Two weeks at 6 mph will cover 2000 miles. Have a little patience and you're 2000 miles into enemy territory and they don't know you're there.
Depends on how good the hydro-phone array is, and how good the wake tracking satellites image processing is ... At 6 knots you'll still throw a wake to the surface that is visible as a wave pattern unless you drive in circles, in which case you will not get there ... But, having allies with sneaky subs is a very good thing smile
 
Messages
214
Location
Finland
Jas Gripen got a reputation of being unreliable because of two crashes that happened in 1989 and 1993. It made marketing of the new fighter hard those days. Without those crashes I believe it could have better global market share today. https://youtu.be/6X-kXrVbNKo “The first two crashes, in 1989 and 1993 respectively, occurred during public displays of the Gripen and resulted in considerable negative media reports. Both the 1989 and 1993 crashes were related to flight control software issues.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen
 

Al

Messages
19,161
Location
Elizabethtown, Pa
We overpay bc of our "Requirements" that won't ever change. But their best plane can't match the antiquated F-15. Subs..um..no contest. Their stuff is good bang for the buck but.....
 
Messages
1,537
Location
Georgia
Originally Posted By: Al
We overpay bc of our "Requirements" that won't ever change. But their best plane can't match the antiquated F-15. Subs..um..no contest. Their stuff is good bang for the buck but.....
Yep. Their AIP approach is optimized for the Baltic, a body of water that doesn't even have tides. So one less reason to go fast. sailing
 

Astro14

$100 Site Donor
Staff member
Messages
12,329
Location
Virginia Beach
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
It would be good if the Baltic NATO countries bought a dozen of these subs and learned how to use them, to keep Russia honest on the value of Kaliningrad as a port.
Well...CINCGERFLEET already did that for us... The German 1st Flotilla (in Kiel, on the Baltic) had about a dozen Type 212. Air-Independent Propulsion, decent range on fuel cells, lethal torpedoes. Absolutely silent when on AIP. For all those who like to bash our Allies, they contribute meaningful forces, often with unique capabilities, and generally in important locations... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,443
Location
New England
Relying on ANY other country for weapons is nuts. They can cut you off with a political change. Military hardware should always be self supplied.
 
Messages
1,537
Location
Georgia
Wiki says 20 kt. submerged and 8,000 mile range, 3 weeks submerged at 8 kt. Impressive to say the least. And how cool is it that it has, or can have, a 30MM auto cannon that extends from the conning tower? The 14 year old in me boggles. laugh
 
Last edited:

Nickdfresh

Thread starter
Messages
6,156
Location
Buffalo, NY
Originally Posted By: madRiver
Relying on ANY other country for weapons is nuts. They can cut you off with a political change. Military hardware should always be self supplied.
Largely a myth that can be dealt with via "licensing". We don't always build the best stuff, the Swedish derived AT-4 is far better that this god awful thing that was supposed to replace the LAW AT rocket launcher: FGR17 Viper We actually still use versions of the LAW with HEAP rounds because they're cheap and effective... And I wasn't necessarily advocating buying the Gripen, but to learn some lessons from it or perhaps co-develop the improved version...
 
Messages
1,537
Location
Georgia
To this day I can't figure out why the Viper had so much support. I know it was the favorite of the Director of the Army Missile Laboratory, Dr. McCorkle, in Huntsville but it was such an utter failure in all respects. Later he would poke fun at me when I carried in the AT-4: Here he is with the perfect weapon- it weighs nothing, costs nothing and kills everything (with snark dripping off each word). Well for $700 or so ( proably one fourth the projected Viper cost) it went three hundred yards and punched a 500mm hole through rolled homogeneous armor (UNCLAS). Darn fine weapon and, with a little help on the Hill, the USArmy and others have bought about a million of them at last count. Thanks for the memory Nick.
 

Nickdfresh

Thread starter
Messages
6,156
Location
Buffalo, NY
I remember the difference firing an AT4 over the LAW. Like your fatigues get sucked into skin whereas the LAW is like a giant bottle rocket....
 
Messages
13,195
Location
Maricopa Arizona
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
IDK, you could ask that question about the F-35 as well, and a whole host of fighters that haven't seen combat. It is based on simulations... The Swede sub A-26 did cause fits and "demoralization" of U.S. Navy sub-hunters though, that's from a variety of sources... PS: The U.S. Air Force and Naval Aviation should not be putting all its eggs in the stealth basket, IMHO...
Whoopie doo. Romeo-class submarines operated by the North Koreans causes fits and "demoralization" for the U.S. Navy. Literately they can surface .5 NM aft of an Areligh Burke DDG and the Sonar Techs could not even notice it was there. Spent the next 40 hours chasing ghosts.
 
Messages
1,537
Location
Georgia
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
I remember the difference firing an AT4 over the LAW. Like your fatigues get sucked into skin whereas the LAW is like a giant bottle rocket....
The final straw in that items life cycle was the poor showing of the LAW during the Grenada operation. The LAWs were just wiping off the fronts of the BMP/BRDMs of the Cubans, useless. That was the end of the line for LAWs as "antitank" weapons; the Army's confidence in it was destroyed. Good for keeping the soldiers confidence up and the enemy's head down but little else. Glad to hear they've improved it and it still finds some use.
 
Messages
16,434
Location
Silicon Valley
US export a lot of weapons, useless to our allies weapons, for very high prices as a sort of "protection money". The flaw of the logics of "if we sell a lot of weapons to foreign nations we can pay less for our own" is that we still don't pay less for our own weapons.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,537
Location
Georgia
Useless to our allies? How do you reach that conclusion? Large multinational procurements like the F-16, MLRS, F-35 and others have indeed allowed lower unit prices for them and us. Direct sales to others supports well paying jobs here and keeps our industrial and mobility bases warm. Even "foreign aid" sales dollars are almost totally spent in the US for US materiel also supporting jobs and readiness for us. National Defense is not magic and if the foundations of it do not exist on Day 1 of when it's needed a lot of guys are going to die unnecessarily while you play catchup. These days warfare, real warfare, is so lethal that the luxury of time to catch up may be nonexistant.
 
Messages
4,758
Location
down in the park
Our military is looking to replace the F-16 soon. The SAAB is a contender, as is the Eurofigher, Rafale and the Super Hornet. But I think the F-35 will be acquired only because the perceived need to carry US made and owned B61 nuclear bombs. But if US participation in NATO isn't guaranteed in the near future, what use it that capability?
 
Messages
9,990
Location
Bye
Originally Posted By: dave1251
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
IDK, you could ask that question about the F-35 as well, and a whole host of fighters that haven't seen combat. It is based on simulations... The Swede sub A-26 did cause fits and "demoralization" of U.S. Navy sub-hunters though, that's from a variety of sources... PS: The U.S. Air Force and Naval Aviation should not be putting all its eggs in the stealth basket, IMHO...
Whoopie doo. Romeo-class submarines operated by the North Koreans causes fits and "demoralization" for the U.S. Navy. Literately they can surface .5 NM aft of an Areligh Burke DDG and the Sonar Techs could not even notice it was there. Spent the next 40 hours chasing ghosts.
You mean to tell me that the Navy cannot track what is essentially a copy of a Type XXI-C U-boat at half a mile?!
 
Messages
1,537
Location
Georgia
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Our military is looking to replace the F-16 soon. The SAAB is a contender, as is the Eurofigher, Rafale and the Super Hornet. But I think the F-35 will be acquired only because the perceived need to carry US made and owned B61 nuclear bombs. But if US participation in NATO isn't guaranteed in the near future, what use it that capability?
Forgive me I don't know what country you are in but I understand your concerns. I don't think though that the F-35 purchase is tied directly to the B-61. The F-16 and F-18 are cleared to carry the weapon as are a number of legacy aircraft. The F-35 is a tactical vehicle as are the aircraft it is seen replacing. The B-61 is seen by anti-nuclear activists as destabilizing for that reason (lower yield, more carriers makes for easier use in their minds). As to the viability of NATO, I don't worry too much about it, the common concerns are real, and it's too early to speculate on any changes. My personal view is that the Europeans have gotten a little too comfortable with the status quo funding in a time of Crimean takeover, Ukrinian invasion and intimidation of the Nordic and Baltic states. Spending around 2% of GDP in many cases does seem careless and somewhat free-riding. There is very little doubt in my mind that, left to their own comfort, it would go on down to 1% or less as long as the US would guarantee their security. For that reason alone it is time to give them a wakeup call. Not to put too fine a point on it and not to give offense but - Much of the social-democratic "good life" in Europe has been and is funded by not spending the 4-5% or more that would be required to maintain a proper defense without the US. Whenever Europeans mock the US about infrastructure or social services that don't equal their own I know they don't have an appreciation for how they pay for their social welfare state at least in major part. Sorry if this seems to veer off topic but the areas are highly related as to NATO commitment and funding with regard to possible Gripen versus other types purchase and the carriage of B-61 that you raise.
 
Messages
1,537
Location
Georgia
Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Some are beginning to express serious concerns with the F-35 being a stealth turkey that isn't very steathly... http://www.fool.com/investing/general/20...on-stealth.aspx
Long ago I worked for a Colonel who had a plaque mounted on the wall behind his desk. It said, "Nothing is ever as good or as bad as the first reports of excited men would have it". Don't know whose quote it was but that article and headline made me think of it. In this case the headline and the article are barely related to each other. Like you I am concerned that we get our money's worth and wonder if we will.
 
Top