Reply With Quotehttp://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...ideos-and-News
Knock yourself out.
Swedish Navy pics
Hi, I am looking for photos of Swedish Navy ships taken from navy-ships from other nations.
Can anyone help?
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...ideos-and-News
Knock yourself out.
Great! Thanks!
However, I am more looking for unofficial photos of Swedish Navy ships.
Originally Posted by ubermensche
Didn't the Swedish Gov decide to delete both the Umkhonto vls and the originally proposed hangar? So there's going to be no AA at all for Visbys (aside from the 57mm)?
Then again, the Swedes have always been stingy with naval air defence...
HMS Malmö (K12)
The Visby class is a damned joke. The ships have been ready for years but still hasn't been put into operational service.Didn't the Swedish Gov decide to delete both the Umkhonto vls and the originally proposed hangar? So there's going to be no AA at all for Visbys (aside from the 57mm)?
That's part of the problem, they need both a helo deck aswell as a SAM capability. But the ship is to small for both and the helo deck is there while the missiles arn't and they cost money.
But as I said, they are still not operative so I guess that anything can happen, even though the acquisition of the Gripen NG will likely screw both the navy and the army over.
There hasn't been a need since the Navy's only real objective was to strike at a Russian landing parties, this would let them work under friendly or atleast contested skies and with the small hulls of the corvettes they put a priority on ASMs.
Wasn't the original (1990's) order over 200 Gripens? And now, what, 100 or less to be kept?
True, but even from Finnish point of view the Swedish navy lacks AA. Our navy has a similar mission and an even smaller size, yet has decided to equip several missile boats as well as some minelayers with SAMs.
Of course, there is one crucial difference: Sweden has its own aerospace industry, and prefers to spend more on jets rather than surface-to-air systems...
Yea, 204 if I remember correctly. It was reduced to 140 in the mid 2000 and a few years later to 100.
That is actually the main reason.
I take it that the Navy has no future plans for Frigates (or even Logistics/frigates ā la Absalon) and what you see is what there's gonna be? What's the timetable for the new subs?
No, there isn't. There were talks a few years ago about the possibility of getting a few frigates to use as C&C/expeditionary ships, I think that the absalon would be regarded as to lightly armed (weaponswise it is no more imposing then a corvette). What one actually talked about was YSNY (Surface Combatship NEW) which morphed into Visby+ that morphed into Visby++ all of these were basically frigate sized versions of the Visby corvette. But since it the swedish government didn't supply the funds they teamed up with TKMS and redesigned it as MEKO CLS. However with the current political direction which mean give the airforce new jets and screw the rest, it's not likely that anything will happen (besides the new subs since we have kockums too). The two new subs will be the A26 class that are planned to be introduced into operational service somewhere on the 2018-2019.I take it that the Navy has no future plans for Frigates (or even Logistics/frigates ā la Absalon) and what you see is what there's gonna be? What's the timetable for the new subs?
Understandable, the Absalon is little more than a self-escorting LPD / OPV. But I've understood that it's designed to be able to operate as a minelayer - a fairly useful trait.
Possible export to Norway? Or maybe Singapore? Now that the Danes have scrapped their sub force, there aren't that many potential customers. Finland might have been interested, if we hadn't been forced to agree not to have any as part of the WWII Peace treaties. Now we'd have to recreate the whole sub-arm from scratch - too much bother.
So are the Viking and Silja line ships aswell as most of our amphibious and naval boats/ships including our submarines.
On Norway, maybe. It depends on what the Germans can come up with. On Singapore, probably not. If they feel the need to expand their submarine fleet they will most likely go for the 2 sodermanland class boats that the A26 will replace (since they already operate two ships of that class (although they call them Archer class).
[/QUOTE]Now that the Danes have scrapped their sub force, there aren't that many potential customers. Finland might have been interested, if we hadn't been forced to agree not to have any as part of the WWII Peace treaties. Now we'd have to recreate the whole sub-arm from scratch - too much bother.[/QUOTE]
As you said, Finland is banned from operating submarines and have built their naval/coastal forces around a concept without submarines. They are not prepared to change their force structure, take the immense costs of starting up a submarine arm of the navy or brake their peace treaty with Russia.
Was, not is. We unilaterally denounced the obligations when the USSR collapsed. The current issue is that we'd have to create a sub force from scratch - training, doctrines etc. Singapore did it, but it took them decades. Too much hassle, for too little gain.
I know. However as soon as Finland step without the bounds set by that peace agreement Russia grumbles, that makes it a problem for Finland.
Though I doubt they'd as much as squeak if we bought Russian submarines...
Posting Permissions
