SvenSvensonov
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 207
- Country
- Location
Fjord!
Nordic Defense News, pictures, videos and history
- Thread starter SvenSvensonov
- Start date
Fjord!
SvenSvensonov
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 207
- Country
- Location
Australia and Norway to Work Together on Missile
A new missile, specifically designed for the F-35A aircraft, will be jointly developed by both countries.
Today, Australian Defense Minister Kevin Andrews announced that Australia has entered into a co-operative agreement with the Norwegian Ministry of Defense to develop the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) for the Lockheed Martin F-35A, aka Joint Strike Fighter. The fifth-generation, long-range, precision-guided, stand-off missile system is designed by Norway’s Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace AS and can be deployed to conduct anti-surface warfare (ASuW) and naval fire support (NFS).
The missile is expected to be realized by 2017, and the F-35A specific version should be ready in time for Australia’s F-35A Joint Strike Fighter reaching final operating capability in 2023 (integration of the JSM should occur between 2022-2024). The JSM will be configured to fit inside the F-35’s armament bay, in order to maintain the stealth capabilities of the plane. Australia is acquiring 72 F-35A Joint Strike Fighters, whereas Norway plans to purchase 52 planes.
According to Defense News, BAE Systems Australia will help with developing an independent sensor to detect and identify hostile radars. “This agreement enables BAE Systems Australia and Kongsberg to continue their industrial cooperation on the passive radio frequency (RF) sensor supporting its transition to qualification and manufacture. We look forward to working with both governments by assisting with the JSM F-35 system integration effort, and supporting any future needs the Australian Government might have,” stated Graeme Bent, BAE’s director of Land and Integrated Systems.
Australian Minister of Defense, Kevin Andrews, noted:
“This agreement builds on the countries’ long-standing bilateral cooperation on research and development of Defense equipment, and acknowledges the importance of a robust maritime strike capability to Norway and Australia. Participating now in a co-operative JSM development program with Norway will maximize the cost effectiveness of Australia’s contribution, and ensure the weapon capability is developed and integrated onto the F-35A in the timeline required by Australia, should the Joint Strike Missile be ultimately considered for acquisition by Government later this decade.”
According to airforce-technology.com, the design features of the JSM are as follows:
“The Joint Strike Missile incorporates advanced composite materials and employs low-signature / stealth technology, thus offering a low radar signature. It offers superior flexibility in target engagement planning.
The missile system is equipped with air intakes, wings and tail fins. It has a length of 4m and a weight of 400kg. The front section of the JSM incorporates an imaging target seeker to discriminate between land and non-targets. The middle section is equipped with fuel tank and a 125kg HE fragmentation warhead.
The high-mobility JSM system is fitted with an accurate navigation system to support flight close to terrain. An advanced engagement planning system is installed to accurately engage targets using geographical information in the area.”
From Australia and Norway to Work Together on Missile | The Diplomat
The Joint Strike Missile is an adaptation of the Naval Strike Missile
A new missile, specifically designed for the F-35A aircraft, will be jointly developed by both countries.
Today, Australian Defense Minister Kevin Andrews announced that Australia has entered into a co-operative agreement with the Norwegian Ministry of Defense to develop the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) for the Lockheed Martin F-35A, aka Joint Strike Fighter. The fifth-generation, long-range, precision-guided, stand-off missile system is designed by Norway’s Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace AS and can be deployed to conduct anti-surface warfare (ASuW) and naval fire support (NFS).
The missile is expected to be realized by 2017, and the F-35A specific version should be ready in time for Australia’s F-35A Joint Strike Fighter reaching final operating capability in 2023 (integration of the JSM should occur between 2022-2024). The JSM will be configured to fit inside the F-35’s armament bay, in order to maintain the stealth capabilities of the plane. Australia is acquiring 72 F-35A Joint Strike Fighters, whereas Norway plans to purchase 52 planes.
According to Defense News, BAE Systems Australia will help with developing an independent sensor to detect and identify hostile radars. “This agreement enables BAE Systems Australia and Kongsberg to continue their industrial cooperation on the passive radio frequency (RF) sensor supporting its transition to qualification and manufacture. We look forward to working with both governments by assisting with the JSM F-35 system integration effort, and supporting any future needs the Australian Government might have,” stated Graeme Bent, BAE’s director of Land and Integrated Systems.
Australian Minister of Defense, Kevin Andrews, noted:
“This agreement builds on the countries’ long-standing bilateral cooperation on research and development of Defense equipment, and acknowledges the importance of a robust maritime strike capability to Norway and Australia. Participating now in a co-operative JSM development program with Norway will maximize the cost effectiveness of Australia’s contribution, and ensure the weapon capability is developed and integrated onto the F-35A in the timeline required by Australia, should the Joint Strike Missile be ultimately considered for acquisition by Government later this decade.”
According to airforce-technology.com, the design features of the JSM are as follows:
“The Joint Strike Missile incorporates advanced composite materials and employs low-signature / stealth technology, thus offering a low radar signature. It offers superior flexibility in target engagement planning.
The missile system is equipped with air intakes, wings and tail fins. It has a length of 4m and a weight of 400kg. The front section of the JSM incorporates an imaging target seeker to discriminate between land and non-targets. The middle section is equipped with fuel tank and a 125kg HE fragmentation warhead.
The high-mobility JSM system is fitted with an accurate navigation system to support flight close to terrain. An advanced engagement planning system is installed to accurately engage targets using geographical information in the area.”
From Australia and Norway to Work Together on Missile | The Diplomat
The Joint Strike Missile is an adaptation of the Naval Strike Missile
SvenSvensonov
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 207
- Country
- Location
That time when Sweden almost when nuclear
Olkiluoto -1 and -2 were build by a Swedish (originally) nuclear arms company
Swedish Defence Research Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - FOA's old building in Ursvik, Sundbyberg. This building is now a pre-school.
Swedish Nuclear Weapons
The same argument advanced for chemical weapons development came back 20 years later, when the Swedish nuclear weapons program began: in order to protect themselves against Atomic weapons, one must know how they work and how they can be manufactured. It seemed that Sweden, as a major power in the Nordic countries, on whose shoulders rested the defense against the Soviet Union, would need to have nuclear weapons.
Shortly after the atomic bombing of Japan, the Swedish National Defense Research Establishment (FOA) began to examine the possibilities of production of nuclear weapons. This was connected to the Swedish non-alignment policy; politicians and military leaders argued that Sweden needed a strong defense equipped with nuclear weapons in order to uphold her neutral policy.
The first step towards Swedish nuclear energy was taken in 1945 when the Atomic Committee (atomkommittén, AC) was founded to work out plans and prioritize between alternatives for developing nuclear energy in Sweden. The initiative to establish AC came from the military which shows that the nuclear weapons plans played an important role in the creation of “the Swedish line”. Co-operation between FOA and Atomenergi [AE] was initiated in 1949 to explore the possibilities of manufacturingnuclear weapons. In theory, the corporation AE would be responsible for the civilian nuclear development while FOA should be in charge of the military aspects of this new technology.
Swedish uranium reserves, al though of low grade quality, had been deemed as one of the richest in the western world by American and British investigations shortly after World War II. By 1948 a method for extracting uranium had been developed, and in 1950 the board of the AE decided that a uranium extraction facility would be built in Kvarntorp, Närke, with an annual production capacity of five tons. The facility was completed in 1953. In 1954, Sweden’s first reactor R 1 went into operation.
By the late 1940s Sweden had started basic research on nuclear weapons, and by 1960 the question had already arisen within Sweden of whether it should develop or otherwise acquire an atomic capability. Without some outside assistance, however, particularly in the form of weapons designs and permission to purchase Western equipment, this process would be costly and lengthy and could result, during an interim period, in a diversion of resources to this purpose which might otherwise be used to sustain Sweden’s present power position, for example, by modernization of its existing forces.
If Sweden decided to acquire nuclear weapons, Denmark and Norway might be encouraged to accept nuclear warheads within the NATO framework. Sweden’s membership in NATO was not necessary to Western defense. It would contribute to the over-all defensive strength of the Western powers for Sweden to modernize its defense posture and to establish in Sweden early warning, air control and advanced weapons systems (without nuclear warheads) which are compatible with and complementary to those planned for installation in the territory of neighboring US allies.
The three Scandinavian nations, particularly Sweden, had the most highly-developed civil defense programs in the Free World. In each of these nations the incorporation of shelters in new building construction and registration for civil defense duties are required by law. Civil defense in Sweden and Norway is characterized by large deep rock shelters for elements of the population and industry, and in Denmark by an extensive fallout shelter program.
While the previous discussion on Swedish nuclear weapons had a hypothetical element, over time it became increasingly concrete, and part of the political establishment became ever more negative to the military nuclear weapons program. Instead, priority was given to civil energy program, and the Social Democrats began to exhibit a clear disagreement on the issue of Swedish military nuclear weapons. The government considered nuclear energy preparations in general for the first time in November 1955, and on 23 November 1955 it addressed specifically the question of Swedish nuclear weapons. Defense minister Torsten Nilsson stressed the importance for the armed forces to have modern weapons. The Prime Minister declined to take a position, while Foreign Minister Östen Undén, Finance Minister Gunnar Sträng and, not least, Ulla Lindstrom, with the entire Social Democratic Women's League, were strongly opposed.
Consent was given in the hand for further research work on ABC weapons and protection against these, and also design work on the Swedish atomic bomb. Knowledge of the construction of nuclear weapons had now been improved. The military position on nuclear weapons acquisition became final in the fall of 1957 when a new policy, Supreme Commander-57 [OB-57] was published. The Swedish armed forcescould be equipped with nuclear weapons within a decade. Leading soldiers declared simply that Swedish defense without its own nuclear weapons was not credible.
The years 1959-1964 highlighted the Government's agreement on the military program. By referring the question of Swedish nuclear weapons to a study group, decisions were delayed until the issue had lost its topicality. FOA had in 1961 produced a concrete design dossier for Swedish nuclear weapons, and which required plutonium acquisition. An earlier proposal to use the R4 nuclear reactor reactor for the extraction of plutonium from Swedish uranium appeared unlikely to materialise. The civil users preferred to use a completely different type of reactor, which meant that fissile materials must be imported from the United States, with all that this meant in the way of inspection and control from the United States. In the end, the new Commander in Chief, Torsten Rapp, cancelled investment in a Swedish military reactor, and Swedish production of weapons-grade uranium was thus no longer possible.
The nuclear weapons proposal was approved by the Supreme Commander, with the title “PM rörandekärnladdningsfrågan i ÖB-65” (Memorandum concerning the nuclear device issue in ÖB-65). The memorandum contained a cost calculation for a nuclear weapons program comprising 100 nuclear explosive devices (including weapon carriers, testing and development costs). The total cost was estimated at 1,950 million SEK. The basic information for a chiefs of staff meeting on 15-16 March 1965 stated that the "freedom of action" approach should apply for the time being, to support a later decision to purchase nuclear weapons. The time between decision and production was estimated at 5.5 years.
The main weapon carrier systems would be the A 32 Lansen and theplanned A 37 Viggen attack aircraft. The Saab Draken was designed to intercept high altitude and high speed bombers. The Draken was active in the Swedish Airforce between 1960 and 1998. It was a true cold war product, unique with its double delta wing concept, given the abilty to carry nuclear weapons, although nuclear weapons were never produced. Submarines could also be equipped with nuclear weapons, in the form of torpedoes. Another possibility mentioned was a ground-based missile system. SAAB was working on such a system.
During the 1960s, when the Viggen project tended to swallow up more resources than intended, the Air Force examined the Swedish nuclear bomb. In the choice between an atomic weapon and the SAAB AJ 37 Viggen and the Swedish atomic bomb - an imaginary weapon - the Air Force chose the Viggen. The Swedish Navy invested heavily in underground protection for warships. The Air Force did the same for several squadron of aircraft. This showed that the atomic bomb threat was taken seriously. The Commander in Chief Torsten Rapp gave to the final death knell for the Swedish nuclear weapon program. In the choice between an atomic bomb and the SAAB AJ 37 Viggen, he chose the latter.
It turned out that the plans outlined in the studies of the nuclear device group were difficult to carry out in practice. There would be both technical and financial difficulties in accommodating the weapons program in the framework of civilian nuclear energy development. The government maintained in the budget proposals for 1966 that it was not possible to meet FOA’s request. In practice, this decision means that the Swedish plans to acquire nuclear weapons hadbeen abandoned.
The 1968 defence bill maintained that it was not in Sweden’s interest to acquire nuclear weapons. Parliament passed the bill and with this the "freedom of action" option disappeared from the security policy agenda. The nuclear weapons plans were abolished in 1968, when Sweden signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And it completely disappeared on 09 January 1970 when Sweden ratified the NPT.
The government controlled AB Atomenergi (AE), which dominated “the Swedish line” was dissolved in 1968 and its resources were transferred to the new private company ASEA-ATOM owned by the Swedish multi-national corporation ASEA.In the 1970 white book Svensk atomenergipolitik (Swedish atomic energy policy), the Minister of Industry Krister Wickman summarized the nation’s experience of developing nuclear energy. Twenty-three years had passed since the government owned company AB Atomenergi was created, responsible for the Swedish research and development of nuclear power based on heavy water technology where domestic uranium would be used. This huge and capital-intensive project was called “the Swedish line” for its ambition to reach independence in the nuclear energy field. It was abolished and replaced by the light water reactor technology that had started to dominate the nuclear market in Sweden and globally since the beginning of 1960s.
On 27 March 2012 Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs, stated at the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit "I would like to announce the recent removal of separated plutonium from Sweden. This plutonium was the product of research programs carried out in previous decades, also related to weapons. Over the course of the last two years, we have worked jointly with the United States to safely and securely stabilize, package and transport the separated plutonium we still had to the United States.
"Our objective is a world without nuclear weapons. Securing vulnerable nuclear material is one step towards that goal. We should also make every effort to see to it that the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty enters into force and that negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty can commence. Building on the successful New START Agreement, nuclear arms control efforts need to continue, also including non-strategic, tactical nuclear weapons. And we must implement the action plan agreed at the NPT Review Conference in 2010 and advance in all three pillars of the non-proliferation regime: nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy."
Projekt 1300 was to be Sweden's nuclear bomber - it was cancelled in 1957
The Saab 37 Viggen entered service, but was used as an interceptor instead
Sweden also studied the use of the Bandkanon 1 as a nuclear delivery system
The US MGR-1 Honest John too
Sweden's nuclear program ended in the 1960s, it was voluntarily terminated
@Gabriel92 @Nihonjin1051 @AUSTERLITZ
Olkiluoto -1 and -2 were build by a Swedish (originally) nuclear arms company
Swedish Defence Research Agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - FOA's old building in Ursvik, Sundbyberg. This building is now a pre-school.
Swedish Nuclear Weapons
The same argument advanced for chemical weapons development came back 20 years later, when the Swedish nuclear weapons program began: in order to protect themselves against Atomic weapons, one must know how they work and how they can be manufactured. It seemed that Sweden, as a major power in the Nordic countries, on whose shoulders rested the defense against the Soviet Union, would need to have nuclear weapons.
Shortly after the atomic bombing of Japan, the Swedish National Defense Research Establishment (FOA) began to examine the possibilities of production of nuclear weapons. This was connected to the Swedish non-alignment policy; politicians and military leaders argued that Sweden needed a strong defense equipped with nuclear weapons in order to uphold her neutral policy.
The first step towards Swedish nuclear energy was taken in 1945 when the Atomic Committee (atomkommittén, AC) was founded to work out plans and prioritize between alternatives for developing nuclear energy in Sweden. The initiative to establish AC came from the military which shows that the nuclear weapons plans played an important role in the creation of “the Swedish line”. Co-operation between FOA and Atomenergi [AE] was initiated in 1949 to explore the possibilities of manufacturingnuclear weapons. In theory, the corporation AE would be responsible for the civilian nuclear development while FOA should be in charge of the military aspects of this new technology.
Swedish uranium reserves, al though of low grade quality, had been deemed as one of the richest in the western world by American and British investigations shortly after World War II. By 1948 a method for extracting uranium had been developed, and in 1950 the board of the AE decided that a uranium extraction facility would be built in Kvarntorp, Närke, with an annual production capacity of five tons. The facility was completed in 1953. In 1954, Sweden’s first reactor R 1 went into operation.
By the late 1940s Sweden had started basic research on nuclear weapons, and by 1960 the question had already arisen within Sweden of whether it should develop or otherwise acquire an atomic capability. Without some outside assistance, however, particularly in the form of weapons designs and permission to purchase Western equipment, this process would be costly and lengthy and could result, during an interim period, in a diversion of resources to this purpose which might otherwise be used to sustain Sweden’s present power position, for example, by modernization of its existing forces.
If Sweden decided to acquire nuclear weapons, Denmark and Norway might be encouraged to accept nuclear warheads within the NATO framework. Sweden’s membership in NATO was not necessary to Western defense. It would contribute to the over-all defensive strength of the Western powers for Sweden to modernize its defense posture and to establish in Sweden early warning, air control and advanced weapons systems (without nuclear warheads) which are compatible with and complementary to those planned for installation in the territory of neighboring US allies.
The three Scandinavian nations, particularly Sweden, had the most highly-developed civil defense programs in the Free World. In each of these nations the incorporation of shelters in new building construction and registration for civil defense duties are required by law. Civil defense in Sweden and Norway is characterized by large deep rock shelters for elements of the population and industry, and in Denmark by an extensive fallout shelter program.
While the previous discussion on Swedish nuclear weapons had a hypothetical element, over time it became increasingly concrete, and part of the political establishment became ever more negative to the military nuclear weapons program. Instead, priority was given to civil energy program, and the Social Democrats began to exhibit a clear disagreement on the issue of Swedish military nuclear weapons. The government considered nuclear energy preparations in general for the first time in November 1955, and on 23 November 1955 it addressed specifically the question of Swedish nuclear weapons. Defense minister Torsten Nilsson stressed the importance for the armed forces to have modern weapons. The Prime Minister declined to take a position, while Foreign Minister Östen Undén, Finance Minister Gunnar Sträng and, not least, Ulla Lindstrom, with the entire Social Democratic Women's League, were strongly opposed.
Consent was given in the hand for further research work on ABC weapons and protection against these, and also design work on the Swedish atomic bomb. Knowledge of the construction of nuclear weapons had now been improved. The military position on nuclear weapons acquisition became final in the fall of 1957 when a new policy, Supreme Commander-57 [OB-57] was published. The Swedish armed forcescould be equipped with nuclear weapons within a decade. Leading soldiers declared simply that Swedish defense without its own nuclear weapons was not credible.
The years 1959-1964 highlighted the Government's agreement on the military program. By referring the question of Swedish nuclear weapons to a study group, decisions were delayed until the issue had lost its topicality. FOA had in 1961 produced a concrete design dossier for Swedish nuclear weapons, and which required plutonium acquisition. An earlier proposal to use the R4 nuclear reactor reactor for the extraction of plutonium from Swedish uranium appeared unlikely to materialise. The civil users preferred to use a completely different type of reactor, which meant that fissile materials must be imported from the United States, with all that this meant in the way of inspection and control from the United States. In the end, the new Commander in Chief, Torsten Rapp, cancelled investment in a Swedish military reactor, and Swedish production of weapons-grade uranium was thus no longer possible.
The nuclear weapons proposal was approved by the Supreme Commander, with the title “PM rörandekärnladdningsfrågan i ÖB-65” (Memorandum concerning the nuclear device issue in ÖB-65). The memorandum contained a cost calculation for a nuclear weapons program comprising 100 nuclear explosive devices (including weapon carriers, testing and development costs). The total cost was estimated at 1,950 million SEK. The basic information for a chiefs of staff meeting on 15-16 March 1965 stated that the "freedom of action" approach should apply for the time being, to support a later decision to purchase nuclear weapons. The time between decision and production was estimated at 5.5 years.
The main weapon carrier systems would be the A 32 Lansen and theplanned A 37 Viggen attack aircraft. The Saab Draken was designed to intercept high altitude and high speed bombers. The Draken was active in the Swedish Airforce between 1960 and 1998. It was a true cold war product, unique with its double delta wing concept, given the abilty to carry nuclear weapons, although nuclear weapons were never produced. Submarines could also be equipped with nuclear weapons, in the form of torpedoes. Another possibility mentioned was a ground-based missile system. SAAB was working on such a system.
During the 1960s, when the Viggen project tended to swallow up more resources than intended, the Air Force examined the Swedish nuclear bomb. In the choice between an atomic weapon and the SAAB AJ 37 Viggen and the Swedish atomic bomb - an imaginary weapon - the Air Force chose the Viggen. The Swedish Navy invested heavily in underground protection for warships. The Air Force did the same for several squadron of aircraft. This showed that the atomic bomb threat was taken seriously. The Commander in Chief Torsten Rapp gave to the final death knell for the Swedish nuclear weapon program. In the choice between an atomic bomb and the SAAB AJ 37 Viggen, he chose the latter.
It turned out that the plans outlined in the studies of the nuclear device group were difficult to carry out in practice. There would be both technical and financial difficulties in accommodating the weapons program in the framework of civilian nuclear energy development. The government maintained in the budget proposals for 1966 that it was not possible to meet FOA’s request. In practice, this decision means that the Swedish plans to acquire nuclear weapons hadbeen abandoned.
The 1968 defence bill maintained that it was not in Sweden’s interest to acquire nuclear weapons. Parliament passed the bill and with this the "freedom of action" option disappeared from the security policy agenda. The nuclear weapons plans were abolished in 1968, when Sweden signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. And it completely disappeared on 09 January 1970 when Sweden ratified the NPT.
The government controlled AB Atomenergi (AE), which dominated “the Swedish line” was dissolved in 1968 and its resources were transferred to the new private company ASEA-ATOM owned by the Swedish multi-national corporation ASEA.In the 1970 white book Svensk atomenergipolitik (Swedish atomic energy policy), the Minister of Industry Krister Wickman summarized the nation’s experience of developing nuclear energy. Twenty-three years had passed since the government owned company AB Atomenergi was created, responsible for the Swedish research and development of nuclear power based on heavy water technology where domestic uranium would be used. This huge and capital-intensive project was called “the Swedish line” for its ambition to reach independence in the nuclear energy field. It was abolished and replaced by the light water reactor technology that had started to dominate the nuclear market in Sweden and globally since the beginning of 1960s.
On 27 March 2012 Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs, stated at the Seoul Nuclear Security Summit "I would like to announce the recent removal of separated plutonium from Sweden. This plutonium was the product of research programs carried out in previous decades, also related to weapons. Over the course of the last two years, we have worked jointly with the United States to safely and securely stabilize, package and transport the separated plutonium we still had to the United States.
"Our objective is a world without nuclear weapons. Securing vulnerable nuclear material is one step towards that goal. We should also make every effort to see to it that the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty enters into force and that negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty can commence. Building on the successful New START Agreement, nuclear arms control efforts need to continue, also including non-strategic, tactical nuclear weapons. And we must implement the action plan agreed at the NPT Review Conference in 2010 and advance in all three pillars of the non-proliferation regime: nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy."
Projekt 1300 was to be Sweden's nuclear bomber - it was cancelled in 1957
The Saab 37 Viggen entered service, but was used as an interceptor instead
Sweden also studied the use of the Bandkanon 1 as a nuclear delivery system
The US MGR-1 Honest John too
Sweden's nuclear program ended in the 1960s, it was voluntarily terminated
@Gabriel92 @Nihonjin1051 @AUSTERLITZ
Tshering22
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 18,431
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
For a small, peaceful region, Scandinavian countries have some serious military firepower. Impressive!
Víðarr
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
Type 210 Ula (Type P 6071)
The Ula is a Norwegian diesel electric submarine. The boats were constructed during 1989-1992 by Thyssen Nordseewerke in Emden Germany. In the Norwegian Navy six boats are currently operational: KNM ULA S300, KNM UTSIRA S301, KNM UTSTEIN S302, KNM UTVÆR S 303, KNM UTHAUG S304, KNM UREDD S305. The Ula-class in the Norwegian Navy (Hunter Killer's) bear the names of islands in the near proximity of the base. They are quite outstanding in terms of operational capabilities. The cost was 2.4 billion NOK each when purchased and built in the beginning of the 1990's. ULA Class submarine, including on board equipment, weapons, investment in bases etc, had a calculated price per submarine of approximately 1,197 million.
During World War II KNM Ula was one of three Norwegian submarine, which comprised the Norwegian Section in the 9th Submarine Flotilla. Overall this fleet consisted of Norwegian, British, Dutch, Polish and French submarines. Construction of the Ula was started in autumn 1941 at an English shipyard, where also some Norwegians were hired and participated in the work. The boat was christened by King Haakon VII 28 mars 1943. March 1943. During the ship manager Reidar M. Sars' command completed "Ula" a number of expeditions in the Atlantic, Channel, North Sea and Skagerrak. The submarine did strongly noted, because it was the Allied submarine that sunk the most enemy ships. It was also the only one who succeeded to sink an enemy submarine in submerged condition, and was also the one who survived the most depth charges in an attack - 114 pcs. The submarine was in service until August 1964, when it was discarded.
The Ula class began a series of upgrades in 2006. By 2008, Norway's fleet will have new sonars, periscopes, communications equipment, and electronic warfare systems. With these additions, the Ula will remain in service until 2020.
On 09 May 2008 Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace signed a contract with the Armed Forces` Logistics Organisation for the delivery of a new Combat System Integration Infrastructure, a new passive sonar system and the upgrading of a tactical simulator for Norway`s six Ula Class submarines. With a scope of MNOK 179, the contract was won in an open international competition. Delivery was scheduled for completion within 52 months.
For more than 30 years, KONGSBERG has delivered command and weapon control systems for Norwegian, German and Italian submarines, and this contract marks an important further development of products within submarine systems. The contract is a response to a campaign conducted over several years to strengthen the company`s position as a supplier of complete, integrated sonar and command and weapons control systems for submarines. The world market includes a rather significant number of submarines that are or will soon be in need of life extension programmes. In this context, this is an important reference contract.
KONGSBERG is a multinational, knowledge-based group with more than 4400 employees in more than 25 countries. The Group delivers high-technology systems to discerning customers engaged in offshore oil and gas production, the merchant marine, and the defence and aerospace industries. KONGSBERG is listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange (Ticker: KOG) and had a turnover of NOK 8.3 billion in 2007. The subsidiary Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace is Norway`s premier supplier of defence and aerospace-related systems. The company had operating revenues of NOK 3.3 billion and more than 1600 employees in 2007.
Type 210mod
HDW presented a new submarine at SUBCON 2007, the Type 210mod. The design is obviously based on the Type 210, which is better known as the Norwegian Ula class. Several subcomponents will be identical to or derived from Type 212A/214 hardware, others (as with Type 210) will come from the proven Type 209 line. With the Type 210mod HDW said it was trying to tackle "budget" markets, in particular in South America and South-East Asia, to be able to directly compete on price with the current Russian export offensive in those areas. HDW planned this sub as a direct competitor to Amur and SMX-23. Additionally, HDW saw the Type 210mod as a good potential "entry submarine", for navies without submarines. A secondary market is to sell certain navies a new budget submarine instead of costly modernization of existing submarines. And the third market is as a "low-end" supplement to navies with Type 214 or Type 209/1400 (or similar) subs, as HDW will market it with interoperability and straight compatibility (including crew training) to those classes. Type 210mod apparently garnered a lot of interest at SUBCON 2007, at which time TKMS/HDW was in the final design phases and expected to have the design ready for biddings in 2008.
Type: Submarine
Displacement: Surface: 1,040 tons
Submerged: 1,150 tons
Length: 59 m (194 ft)
Beam: 5.4 m (18 ft)
Draft: 4.6 m (15 ft)
Propulsion: Diesel-electric
2 MTU 16V 396 diesel engines (970kW each)
1 electric motor, 6,000 shp
Speed: Surface: 11 kn (20 km/h)
Submerged: 23 kn (43 km/h)
Range: 5,000 miles at 8 knots (15 km/h)(9275 Km)
Test depth: 200+m (700+ft)
Complement: Approx. 18–21
Sensors and
processing systems: Radar: Kelvin Hughes 1007 Surface Search
Sonar: Atlas Elektronik CSU83
Thomson Sintra flank array
Armament: 8 bow 21" torpedo tubes
14 Atlas Elektronik DM2A3 torpedoes
The Ula is a Norwegian diesel electric submarine. The boats were constructed during 1989-1992 by Thyssen Nordseewerke in Emden Germany. In the Norwegian Navy six boats are currently operational: KNM ULA S300, KNM UTSIRA S301, KNM UTSTEIN S302, KNM UTVÆR S 303, KNM UTHAUG S304, KNM UREDD S305. The Ula-class in the Norwegian Navy (Hunter Killer's) bear the names of islands in the near proximity of the base. They are quite outstanding in terms of operational capabilities. The cost was 2.4 billion NOK each when purchased and built in the beginning of the 1990's. ULA Class submarine, including on board equipment, weapons, investment in bases etc, had a calculated price per submarine of approximately 1,197 million.
During World War II KNM Ula was one of three Norwegian submarine, which comprised the Norwegian Section in the 9th Submarine Flotilla. Overall this fleet consisted of Norwegian, British, Dutch, Polish and French submarines. Construction of the Ula was started in autumn 1941 at an English shipyard, where also some Norwegians were hired and participated in the work. The boat was christened by King Haakon VII 28 mars 1943. March 1943. During the ship manager Reidar M. Sars' command completed "Ula" a number of expeditions in the Atlantic, Channel, North Sea and Skagerrak. The submarine did strongly noted, because it was the Allied submarine that sunk the most enemy ships. It was also the only one who succeeded to sink an enemy submarine in submerged condition, and was also the one who survived the most depth charges in an attack - 114 pcs. The submarine was in service until August 1964, when it was discarded.
The Ula class began a series of upgrades in 2006. By 2008, Norway's fleet will have new sonars, periscopes, communications equipment, and electronic warfare systems. With these additions, the Ula will remain in service until 2020.
On 09 May 2008 Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace signed a contract with the Armed Forces` Logistics Organisation for the delivery of a new Combat System Integration Infrastructure, a new passive sonar system and the upgrading of a tactical simulator for Norway`s six Ula Class submarines. With a scope of MNOK 179, the contract was won in an open international competition. Delivery was scheduled for completion within 52 months.
For more than 30 years, KONGSBERG has delivered command and weapon control systems for Norwegian, German and Italian submarines, and this contract marks an important further development of products within submarine systems. The contract is a response to a campaign conducted over several years to strengthen the company`s position as a supplier of complete, integrated sonar and command and weapons control systems for submarines. The world market includes a rather significant number of submarines that are or will soon be in need of life extension programmes. In this context, this is an important reference contract.
KONGSBERG is a multinational, knowledge-based group with more than 4400 employees in more than 25 countries. The Group delivers high-technology systems to discerning customers engaged in offshore oil and gas production, the merchant marine, and the defence and aerospace industries. KONGSBERG is listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange (Ticker: KOG) and had a turnover of NOK 8.3 billion in 2007. The subsidiary Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace is Norway`s premier supplier of defence and aerospace-related systems. The company had operating revenues of NOK 3.3 billion and more than 1600 employees in 2007.
Type 210mod
HDW presented a new submarine at SUBCON 2007, the Type 210mod. The design is obviously based on the Type 210, which is better known as the Norwegian Ula class. Several subcomponents will be identical to or derived from Type 212A/214 hardware, others (as with Type 210) will come from the proven Type 209 line. With the Type 210mod HDW said it was trying to tackle "budget" markets, in particular in South America and South-East Asia, to be able to directly compete on price with the current Russian export offensive in those areas. HDW planned this sub as a direct competitor to Amur and SMX-23. Additionally, HDW saw the Type 210mod as a good potential "entry submarine", for navies without submarines. A secondary market is to sell certain navies a new budget submarine instead of costly modernization of existing submarines. And the third market is as a "low-end" supplement to navies with Type 214 or Type 209/1400 (or similar) subs, as HDW will market it with interoperability and straight compatibility (including crew training) to those classes. Type 210mod apparently garnered a lot of interest at SUBCON 2007, at which time TKMS/HDW was in the final design phases and expected to have the design ready for biddings in 2008.
Type: Submarine
Displacement: Surface: 1,040 tons
Submerged: 1,150 tons
Length: 59 m (194 ft)
Beam: 5.4 m (18 ft)
Draft: 4.6 m (15 ft)
Propulsion: Diesel-electric
2 MTU 16V 396 diesel engines (970kW each)
1 electric motor, 6,000 shp
Speed: Surface: 11 kn (20 km/h)
Submerged: 23 kn (43 km/h)
Range: 5,000 miles at 8 knots (15 km/h)(9275 Km)
Test depth: 200+m (700+ft)
Complement: Approx. 18–21
Sensors and
processing systems: Radar: Kelvin Hughes 1007 Surface Search
Sonar: Atlas Elektronik CSU83
Thomson Sintra flank array
Armament: 8 bow 21" torpedo tubes
14 Atlas Elektronik DM2A3 torpedoes
Armstrong
RETIRED TTA
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 19,390
- Reaction score
- 94
- Country
- Location
Whats with this Nordic Defense News ? 
@Víðarr - All we need to do is to tell the Swedes that Norwegian ladies are more pretty and to tell the Finns that the Danes are the real Vikings for all hell to break loose !
All the while @SvenSvensonov is preaching unity; I and @Nihonjin1051 would be preparing an invasion of Scandinavia !
As if even the Vikings can stand a united onslaught by a Samurai and a Pakistani warrior !
And I expect you side with us; Asians ought to stick together !
@Víðarr - All we need to do is to tell the Swedes that Norwegian ladies are more pretty and to tell the Finns that the Danes are the real Vikings for all hell to break loose !
All the while @SvenSvensonov is preaching unity; I and @Nihonjin1051 would be preparing an invasion of Scandinavia !
As if even the Vikings can stand a united onslaught by a Samurai and a Pakistani warrior !
And I expect you side with us; Asians ought to stick together !
Víðarr
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
Specialförbandets operatörer har just bordat en Gotlandsfärja efter att ha skjutit upp sina stegar från gummibåtarna
Yeah, any other jokes. Asian unity
. No such thing, PDF is wrought with examples of that.
I side with the US now, Scandinavia is a side interest.
Besides, no one would want to invade this.
Would they
.
And I expect you side with us; Asians ought to stick together !
Yeah, any other jokes. Asian unity
. No such thing, PDF is wrought with examples of that.I side with the US now, Scandinavia is a side interest.
Besides, no one would want to invade this.
Would they
.Similar threads
