Swedish Submarines

[Tiny]

im kinda curious to knw how the swedish subs compare with other more well known subs such as kilos, scorpene and the U212, just to name a few. so little is known about them. they have the Challenger class (formerly known as Sjöormen class), the Västergötland class which is now being upgraded to Södermanland class and lastly the newest Gotland class submarines. currently they only have 1 export which is to singapore being the challenger class and the Södermanland class in a few years. so im kinda curious to knw just how good are their subs and y they have so limited success in the export martket? anyone care to shed some light into my quries. thanks :)

[contedicavour]

Well, among the 1st to develop AIP, very silent subs ideal for brown water operations (the US leases Gotland for training)... though today's Kockums lack the marketing muscle of DCN and HDW. Btw, Kockums is an affiliate of HDW, which could also be an issue every time a Swedish sub faces a German one in international tenders...

cheers

[Tiny]

Singapore's Super Subs
November 7, 2005: Singapore will buy 2 Swedish A-17 Vastergotland submarines, which are expected to enter service starting in 2010, replacing some of current Challenger-class submarines. This fits into Singapore's traditional method of acquiring new capabilities, where old refurbished platforms are first purchased to gain operational experience before newer weapons systems are acquired.

In 1995, Singapore purchased 4 A-11 Challenger Class (ex-Sjöbjörnen Class), the first of which was launched in 1968. The Challenger Class were not only refitted for tropical conditions, but also received weapons system and sensor upgrades. These submarines performed very well in exercises against US Navy and Royal Australian Navy units, proving that these old boats, when handled well in littoral conditions, are quiet and maneuverable subs that are able to give a pretty good account of themselves.

Of the 4 submarines in the Vastergotland class that Sweden built between 1987 and 1990, the first two boats, the HMS HMS Vastergotland and HMS Halsingland were taken out of Royal Swedish Navy active service in 2004, while the other two, the HMS Sodermanland and HMS Ostergotland, received such significant upgrades in 2003-2004 that they are considered a new class.

In particular, apart from weapons system and stealth system improvements, these boats received a 12 metre (36 foot) hull extension in order to use the Stirling Air Independent Propulsion System, making them, along with the 3 submarines of the follow on A-19 Gotland Class, probably the quietest and most advanced conventional submarines currently in operational service the world. The Stirling AIP system is a propulsion system that uses diesel fuel and Liquid Oxygen in a closed system, and greatly increases a conventional submarine's submerged endurance. With AIP systems, conventional submarines can go for weeks without having to surface or snorkel in order to recharge their batteries.

Singapore has purchased the deactivated HMS Vastergotland and HMS Halsingland, and it is more than likely that part of the upgrades that these boats will receive will include the Stirling AIP hull extension, making them virtually identical to the Sodermanland Class. This means that by 2010, the RSN will be operating two of the quietest and most lethal conventional submarines in the world, and probably at a pretty good price - definitely below the cost of a new Gotland sub, which has been suggested at $100 million each, while the German U-212 Class has been estimated at $250 million a copy.

Just how lethal will these subs be? Well, take into consideration that the state-of-the-art Gotland Class, which is essentially an improved Vastergotland Class with the Stirling AIP system incorporated from the beginning, is considered so quiet and so deadly that the USN has leased the HMS Gotland for a year in order to practice and develop its ASW tactics against a first class opponent.

So is this an indication of just how good the swedish subs are?
;)

[kato]

Btw, Kockums is an affiliate of HDW, which could also be an issue every time a Swedish sub faces a German one in international tenders...

Not just an affiliate, Kockums SE is owned by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS). TKMS also owns HDW-Gaarden, Blohm+Voss, Blohm+Voss Repair, Nobiskrug, Nordseewerke, and Hellenic Shipyards. Nordseewerke has built subs too, assembly of the Norwegian Ula class (Type 210), for example.

Kockums also designed and exported the six Collins subs (though they were built in Australia).

[gf0012-aust]

Kockums also designed and exported the six Collins subs (though they were built in Australia).

and they (kockums) absolutely stuffed them up. the welds on number 1 were so bad that the boat was almost dumped. we had to redo all the initial swedish weld work as the front bow section literally would have collapsed if placed under pressure (eg done a cold shot)

all of the acoustic mods made to reduce signature footprint on Collins were made and developed in australia - all the critical hull mods were a legacy of help from the USN and NAVSEA

I'd personally never touch another swedish design again.

just as a rider, the acoustic mods and sensor system mods made to singapores subs were legacy export technology mods from australia.

[Tiny]

November 7, 2005: Singapore will buy 2 Swedish A-17 Vastergotland submarines, which are expected to enter service starting in 2010, replacing some of current Challenger-class submarines. This fits into Singapore's traditional method of acquiring new capabilities, where old refurbished platforms are first purchased to gain operational experience before newer weapons systems are acquired.

In 1995, Singapore purchased 4 A-11 Challenger Class (ex-Sjöbjörnen Class), the first of which was launched in 1968. The Challenger Class were not only refitted for tropical conditions, but also received weapons system and sensor upgrades. These submarines performed very well in exercises against US Navy and Royal Australian Navy units, proving that these old boats, when handled well in littoral conditions, are quiet and maneuverable subs that are able to give a pretty good account of themselves.

Of the 4 submarines in the Vastergotland class that Sweden built between 1987 and 1990, the first two boats, the HMS HMS Vastergotland and HMS Halsingland were taken out of Royal Swedish Navy active service in 2004, while the other two, the HMS Sodermanland and HMS Ostergotland, received such significant upgrades in 2003-2004 that they are considered a new class.

In particular, apart from weapons system and stealth system improvements, these boats received a 12 metre (36 foot) hull extension in order to use the Stirling Air Independent Propulsion System, making them, along with the 3 submarines of the follow on A-19 Gotland Class, probably the quietest and most advanced conventional submarines currently in operational service the world. The Stirling AIP system is a propulsion system that uses diesel fuel and Liquid Oxygen in a closed system, and greatly increases a conventional submarine's submerged endurance. With AIP systems, conventional submarines can go for weeks without having to surface or snorkel in order to recharge their batteries.

Singapore has purchased the deactivated HMS Vastergotland and HMS Halsingland, and it is more than likely that part of the upgrades that these boats will receive will include the Stirling AIP hull extension, making them virtually identical to the Sodermanland Class. This means that by 2010, the RSN will be operating two of the quietest and most lethal conventional submarines in the world, and probably at a pretty good price - definitely below the cost of a new Gotland sub, which has been suggested at $100 million each, while the German U-212 Class has been estimated at $250 million a copy.

Just how lethal will these subs be? Well, take into consideration that the state-of-the-art Gotland Class, which is essentially an improved Vastergotland Class with the Stirling AIP system incorporated from the beginning, is considered so quiet and so deadly that the USN has leased the HMS Gotland for a year in order to practice and develop its ASW tactics against a first class opponent.

hmm considering the prices and capabilities, swedish subs sounds a like a catch to mi.

[Waylander]

Maybe they had a bad day when designing the Collins? :D ;)

It seems that at least their Gotland performs very well as USN OPFOR.

[gf0012-aust]

Maybe they had a bad day when designing the Collins? :D ;)

It seems that at least their Gotland performs very well as USN OPFOR.

To be fair, the failings in the Collins programme can be shared - mistakes were made across a number of levels.

However, the interim design was not the best, and the oft much vaunted swedish workmanship was clearly not there.

The australian compay that designed the signature management solution was also responsible forfixing up noise and vibration issues on the Visbys - so we know our own capability in acoustic mgt and sig mgt was superior to what kockums claimed they could (and never failed to do)

The old "underwater rock concert" comments were made in the ugly days before we resolved to fix things ourselves. Those comments applied to No1 and No2 before they were "patched"

[Schumacher]

Size must have been one of the main factors which tripped up the Swedes ? Collins is considerably larger than Gotland & other Swedish designs.

[gf0012-aust]

Size must have been one of the main factors which tripped up the Swedes ? Collins is considerably larger than Gotland & other Swedish designs.

The swedes (kockums) did what a lot of mil-companies often do (sometimes nicknamed the Wang Cares approach).

they talked up capability that they didn't have.

you just can't upscale everything in a sub dimensionally, and in a lot of areas Collins was the guinea pig for Gotland. (except that Gotland was never intended to be a fleet submarine). part of the clear resentment in AustGov was that we were paying for Gotlands development (by association)

Collins was a cold war legacy design in the sense that it was a fleet submarine designed to be able to take the fight up to eastern russia or china (assuming that they were the hot war protagonists). Its a long range sub designed to more or less act as an underwater version of a recce/strike force

we would have had the same issues with HDW, but would have had a 3000 tonne "super" 209 instead.

the project was a bit more complex than that - but basically they did misrepresent a lot of their capability. Its really important to note that it was australian 3rd party solutions -not kockums, that started to get around their initial mistakes.

quite frankly, number 1 was a dog of a boat until modded.

[KGB]

Why did the US choose to lease the Gotland class for OPFOR, among the available diesels? Would renting a Kilo be more edifying?

[gf0012-aust]

Why did the US choose to lease the Gotland class for OPFOR, among the available diesels? Would renting a Kilo be more edifying?

This isn't quotable as evidence of intent, but I was at a UDT Conf in 2004 and some opinons were offered by people from the USN and one of the US sub building duopoly.


Gotland is the closest sub to Collins in a lot of critical dynamics - and Collins is regarded as a successful design with demonstrated aggressor capability. Gotland is nicknamed "mini-me" in some circles.
Swedish crews were offered at an attractive price
Swedish crews were regarded as proficient - and they're experienced in operating in the littorals as well as in similar underwater terrain that SW/ASW combat could occur
Kilo is not regarded as significant a threat (contrary to internet comments). It thus makes sense to train against a harder adversary at a capability as well as acoustic/signature level.Personally, I think that there was better benefit in picking up the ex danish squadron, as it would have given greater benefit as far as multiple co-ordinated contact training etc is concerned.

The Danes would have given a bargain price for the squadron, and they could have leased experienced crews who train together and have an aggressive mindset.

Thats only a second hand opinion though. The Danish comments are wholeheartedly my opinion and thus open to forum pillory and attack. :rolleyes:

[Waylander]

Why pillory and attack.

Wait for the applause and praise of GD. :D

[contedicavour]

If I were in the USN I'd recommand to run ASW training with the Indian Navy Kilos (recently modernized and including SSMs and even short range SAMs). It would be more realistic for training against potentially hostile SSKs such as Iran's Kilo or (let's hope not) PLAN Navy Kilos.

Sweden's subs are meant to defend the coastline from amphibious attacks (possible in Soviet times), attack military convoys crossing the Baltic, and eventually lay minefields. I wonder how the doctrine has changed since the collapse of the USSR. I understand the interest Singapore has in such capabilities given its geography, but it is a bit of a niche positioning vs U212/214 or Amur/Lada or Scorpene which are much more multi-role.

cheers

[gf0012-aust]

If I were in the USN I'd recommand to run ASW training with the Indian Navy Kilos (recently modernized and including SSMs and even short range SAMs).

They aren't going to get an attachment of Kilos for a year though. There is enough data on Kilos available to give decent modelling without having to rent the capability

It would be more realistic for training against potentially hostile SSKs such as Iran's Kilo or (let's hope not) PLAN Navy Kilos.

You can set up behaviour parameters - not as good as one in your backyard, but still useful

Sweden's subs are meant to defend the coastline from amphibious attacks (possible in Soviet times), attack military convoys crossing the Baltic, and eventually lay minefields. I wonder how the doctrine has changed since the collapse of the USSR.

Bits of the mainland chinese coast are similar. eg macau to hong kong has similarities.

I understand the interest Singapore has in such capabilities given its geography, but it is a bit of a niche positioning vs U212/214 or Amur/Lada or Scorpene which are much more multi-role.
cheers

In singapores case their threat area doesn't necessarily require fleet subs. The Gotland is still able to run long events, it would get down to what they were after.

In addition to Gotland, the USN currently trains with well over a dozen navies with different sub types and with different capabilities (platform and crew). To me the value is in that disparity. Training against one type can be a delimiter.

Divergence and Disparity in this regard is "king".

[sng]

To be fair, the failings in the Collins programme can be shared - mistakes were made across a number of levels.

However, the interim design was not the best, and the oft much vaunted swedish workmanship was clearly not there.

The australian compay that designed the signature management solution was also responsible forfixing up noise and vibration issues on the Visbys - so we know our own capability in acoustic mgt and sig mgt was superior to what kockums claimed they could (and never failed to do)

The old "underwater rock concert" comments were made in the ugly days before we resolved to fix things ourselves. Those comments applied to No1 and No2 before they were "patched"

I thought that the flaws in the Collins class were due to poor construction in the Australian yards, how is Swedish workmanship relevant here?

[gf0012-aust]

I thought that the flaws in the Collins class were due to poor construction in the Australian yards, how is Swedish workmanship relevant here?

1) read my comments properly

2) I was on the Collins Project - so I know intimately the project issues

3) The swedes absolutely stuffed up number 1 - it was almost considered a right off as their welding was sub standard and had to be done. In fact all of their work was redone as a safety issue

Its entirely relevant, They misrepresented their capability and messed up any work that they actually had a mechanical contribution to. We paid the price because they assumed that building bigger submarines was a linear scaling issue - its not. It was australian contractors who identified those problems and fixed them up.

Thats why we also got the job of fixing one of the Visbys.

In fact I could fill a book with the amount of problems that they caused us. Faulty assumptions means flawed construction.

We would have been better off going for a super sized 3000 tonne HDW 209 (the alternative)

[contedicavour]

An interesting question would thus be : what mattered most in reducing the Swedish sub industry to today's doldrums :

> HDW commercial interest in pushing U212/214 vs Gotland/Viking
> Proven flaws on the Swedish side on the Australian Collins programme
> Perceived superiority of competitive products Scorpene, U214 ?

I'd vote for the first item, since the 3rd is debatable and the 2nd hasn't stopped US interest in Gotland or Singapore's interest in Viking programme.

cheers

[gf0012-aust]

An interesting question would thus be : what mattered most in reducing the Swedish sub industry to today's doldrums :

> HDW commercial interest in pushing U212/214 vs Gotland/Viking
> Proven flaws on the Swedish side on the Australian Collins programme
> Perceived superiority of competitive products Scorpene, U214 ?

I'd vote for the first item, since the 3rd is debatable and the 2nd hasn't stopped US interest in Gotland or Singapore's interest in Viking programme.

cheers

Australia provided Singapore with signature management solutions developed as a result of fixing up Kockums stuff ups. We've also co-operated on a joint venture which was tied into acoustic management.

An Australian signature management company has also been working with the USN and NAVSEA since 2004.

The same australian company also was responsible for going in and fixing up the acoustic anomalies of the Visby when she did her US tour.

As for superiority - well, thats always a relative view. But, I'd rather have Collins as a fleet submarine than anything else except for an Oyashio. You can keep your Scorpenes. ;)

[contedicavour]

Australia provided Singapore with signature management solutions developed as a result of fixing up Kockums stuff ups. We've also co-operated on a joint venture which was tied into acoustic management.

An Australian signature management company has also been working with the USN and NAVSEA since 2004.

The same australian company also was responsible for going in and fixing up the acoustic anomalies of the Visby when she did her US tour.

As for superiority - well, thats always a relative view. But, I'd rather have Collins as a fleet submarine than anything else except for an Oyashio. You can keep your Scorpenes. ;)

Australia should have bought Kockums instead of HDW with all the help you provided to fix their mess ;)
I'm for U212A for our Mediterranean, and even the French build Scorpenes purely for export :rolleyes:

cheers

[gf0012-aust]

Australia should have bought Kockums instead of HDW with all the help you provided to fix their mess ;)


One of the tragedies of ASC is that the AustGovt was not in a position to greenlight the sale to another company as AustGov was midstride in cleaning up its reputation. It was quite apparent that Kockums would be kept out - and we certainly weren't going to give them the IP rights to those things we developed to fix up their mistakes.

The Singaporeans had some similar problems but it was buried from their public - they actually came straight to Oz and asked for access to our solutions. Kockums were kept away from some of the tech that was licensed to them (Singapore).

[Tiny]

SILENT KILLERS IN SHALLOW WATERS:
SINGAPORE’S DEADLY SUBMARINE FLEET
by
Mokhzani Zubir, MIMA

By the end of this decade, Singapore’s deterrent capabilities will be multiplied with the coming into service of two refurbished Type A 17 Vastergotland-class attack submarines. The Vastergotland-class submarines are expected to enter the Republic of Singapore Navy service from 2010 and will replace some of the Republic of Singapore Navy’s Challenger-class submarines. The submarines, Vastergotland and Halsingland, are being purchased at a cost of USD128 million from Sweden’s Kockums AB, the same company that sold five Sjoormen-class submarines to Singapore in the mid-1990s. The sales agreement includes a logistics package, comprehensive training for the crews by the Swedish Navy in Karlskrona, weapon systems and sensor upgrades, and modifications for operation in tropical waters. The procurement of the submarines from Sweden is a result of the close relationship Singapore has with Sweden on submarine training and operations. In a statement, the Ministry of Defence (MINDEF) Singapore said that “we have a long co-operative relationship with Sweden in the area of submarines. We had purchased the Challenger-class submarines from Sweden for training and experience in operating submarines”.


Now thats what i call a bargain. USD128 million for a pair of refurbish AIP subs! read that the malaysians are paying close to USD1 billion for their pair of new scorpene.

[Ding]

the 128m is (most probably) for the subs only, since the Singaporeans have the capability and history and experience of having a submarine arm. The 1Bil the Malaysians paid is for 2 new scorpenes and 1 agosta 70(?) second hand, plus all other training programmes with the French, since Malaysians had never have a submarine arm and we have no experience in it whatsoever. you can't compare the 2 figures.

[Awang se]

plus scorpene is the latest design compare to the A17. in truth i prefer HDW U212/214 over the scorpene.

[Rich]

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2001-02/02RP04.pdf

I must say there were a lot of surprised people around the world when the Swedes were chosen. And as painful and expensive as the Collins evolution has been there is the small payoff that overall the Aussie submarine community is stronger then its ever been.

Those boats are a force to be reckoned with in that neck of the woods, as Ive said in other posts.

[gf0012-aust]

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2001-02/02RP04.pdf

I must say there were a lot of surprised people around the world when the Swedes were chosen. And as painful and expensive as the Collins evolution has been there is the small payoff that overall the Aussie submarine community is stronger then its ever been.

Those boats are a force to be reckoned with in that neck of the woods, as Ive said in other posts.

Thats the unclassified woolner document. As far as information goes its pretty vaccuous. :rolleyes:

Collins became a completely different weapons system after 2002 - its almost like comparing apples with oranges.

[Rich]

Thats the unclassified woolner document. As far as information goes its pretty vaccuous. :rolleyes:

Collins became a completely different weapons system after 2002 - its almost like comparing apples with oranges.

You meant vac-u-ous right?:D And I agree they are totally different boats after all the upgrades. Unfortunately most of the info we are able to glean about them is from unclassified sources. Which is kinda frustrating because many have taken a keen interest in these boats since the get go. Despite their head-aches they are, now in 2007, remarkable boats with very capable crews.

But all I am is a former grunt and a video maker who occasionally poses as a street cop. I have to hash thru numerous reports of others in order to get any kind of picture of military matters.

[gf0012-aust]

You meant vac-u-ous right?:D

No, I meant vakuous. ;) Every now and then the phat fingerz win out and one slips through to the keeper....



And I agree they are totally different boats after all the upgrades. Unfortunately most of the info we are able to glean about them is from unclassified sources.

which is how it should be!


Which is kinda frustrating because many have taken a keen interest in these boats since the get go. Despite their head-aches they are, now in 2007, remarkable boats with very capable crews.

Considering the hammering that these boats got from the idiotic broadsheet journalists and armchair admirals, these boats are one of australias great unsung and underappreciated success stories.

They're a singularly spectacular example of how an ill informed press can tarnish a platform to the exact opposite direction of their actual capability. Its why I get wound up on the RAAF F-111 and JSF issue as its history being played out again.

[Grand Danois]

An update on the Visby's (there is no Visby thread, so its posted here).

According to this (http://www.nyteknik.se/art/50119) Swedish article, the Swedish defmin has submitted a proposal to parliament to spend 4.1 Billion Swedish Kroner on modernising the Gripen and "a number of hundred millions" [up to a billion?] on Umkhonto missiles for the Visby's.

[Systems Adict]

To go WAY off Topic, but within the realms of the thread

Earlier in the thread, you mentioned the Singaporean's buying "spare/2nd hand subs" from Sweden.

Can you think of any reason why no-one (Malaysia/Singapore or even Oz), thought of acquiring the 4 Upholders from the UK (pre-2001)?

I appreciate that they had "some issues" (which IMHO had nothing to do with the accident that the renamed HMS Upholder subsequently had on her voyage across the pond), but did these issues limit their sale to A N Other?

Finally, how would you rate them as operational assets in comparrison to the Kilo's & the Collins's ?

Systems Adict

[riksavage]

Once had a beer with a former Oz submariner who served on Oberon’s and an Oz Cop who was assigned to the Royal Commission into the Collins fiasco. Both were equally perplexed why the Aussies didn’t buy the Upholders, cheap as chips, very capable (once upgraded).

Apparently politics came into the equation!

Regardless the Collins are now the top of the food-chain in convensional submarine terms. I would be good to hear if they have been tested against modern ASW or UK/US attack submarines?

[gf0012-aust]

Once had a beer with a former Oz submariner who served on Oberon’s and an Oz Cop who was assigned to the Royal Commission into the Collins fiasco. Both were equally perplexed why the Aussies didn’t buy the Upholders, cheap as chips, very capable (once upgraded).

Apparently politics came into the equation!

good god. the upholders were absolute rubbish. we had a briefing that lasted 4-5 hours on why we never purchased them as a second interim squadron.

if your mate was assigned to the Hearing then he should have told you more. He's left out some critical bits.

Regardless the Collins are now the top of the food-chain in convensional submarine terms. I would be good to hear if they have been tested against modern ASW or UK/US attack submarines?

They're regularly "tested". Look up RIMPAC for the last 4 years. Even prior to the signature mods they were doing better than the Oberons, and the O's were considered to be the acoustic benchmark for conventionals for a loooonngg time.

[riksavage]

Who gave you the briefing on the Upholders. the Swedish?

Wonder why the Canadians bought them.

[gf0012-aust]

Who gave you the briefing on the Upholders. the Swedish?

Rear Adm Barrie RAN. Apr 2001. In fact the briefing was video taped. somewhere, one day that briefing will become declass. ;)


Wonder why the Canadians bought them.

Because the RN was very good at on-selling them.

The cost to refurb the Upholders was regarded as more expensive than persevering with Collins - plus the Upholders were regarded as having a tighter upgrade path.

[Todjaeger]

To go WAY off Topic, but within the realms of the thread

Earlier in the thread, you mentioned the Singaporean's buying "spare/2nd hand subs" from Sweden.

Can you think of any reason why no-one (Malaysia/Singapore or even Oz), thought of acquiring the 4 Upholders from the UK (pre-2001)?

I appreciate that they had "some issues" (which IMHO had nothing to do with the accident that the renamed HMS Upholder subsequently had on her voyage across the pond), but did these issues limit their sale to A N Other?

Finally, how would you rate them as operational assets in comparrison to the Kilo's & the Collins's ?

Systems Adict

As I understand it, the Canadian Victoria-class (ex-Upholder) SSKs haven't entered service with full kit yet, in some respects like the initial service issues the Collins had when entering service. There have also been some questions on the actual condition of the SSKs at the time of sale. One thing I question is the planned removal of the Sub-Harpoon in Improved Warfighting refit.

I'm not sure at present how, equipment-wise, a Victoria SSK compares to a properly maintained Kilo SSK, but I believe the Collins SSK (fitted with the Virginia SSN combat data system) is superior to either vessel.

-Cheers

[gf0012-aust]

Can you think of any reason why no-one (Malaysia/Singapore or even Oz), thought of acquiring the 4 Upholders from the UK (pre-2001)?

I can (from an Oz perpsective), but its not something that can be discussed in an open forum.

I appreciate that they had "some issues" (which IMHO had nothing to do with the accident that the renamed HMS Upholder subsequently had on her voyage across the pond), but did these issues limit their sale to A N Other?


No, the Upholders were disregarded 2 years before the canucks decided to buy them

Finally, how would you rate them as operational assets in comparrison to the Kilo's & the Collins's ?

Well, its always about crews before toys. The canadians played in the atlantic in the ugly days of the cold war and were a good outfit.

I'd take a canadian crew in an oberon over a kilo.

I don't think that it's possible to do a direct comparo with Collins post 2002. Its a different beast. Adding BYG-1 changes it to another level again.

[StingrayOZ]

How is Canada going with the Upholders?

I suppose after the Oberons, which ended up as superfantastic boats there would have been a fair bit of pressure to buy simular again. I think Oberons today would still be a fairly good sub (although I hear the design dates back to a captured german design, I think, WWI era). Atleast thats my old mans claim (served on onslow from commissioning till the 70's).

But the upholders were never really finished, well 2nd hand, built in the 80's, and in a poor state of affairs (atleast by the time Canada got them). Australia would have been looking when they were newer. UK killed them effectively in the development stage (think collins class before all the upgrades!).

Sounded like a bag o trouble. Atleast with collins, we could fix most of them before they ever hit the water, or because we knew everything thing about them.

I still think Canadians should have bought into collins. Another 4 or 6 collins would have made things a whole lot more interesting.

With the victorias they have to reinvent the whole wheel again, for only 4 old boats.

[gf0012-aust]

How is Canada going with the Upholders?

As I said before, the canadians are a solid outfit, stick their sailors in an upturned bathtub and they'll still manage to hurt someone. In rough terms, technology is fine, but training is better.

I suppose after the Oberons, which ended up as superfantastic boats there would have been a fair bit of pressure to buy simular again. I think Oberons today would still be a fairly good sub (although I hear the design dates back to a captured german design, I think, WWI era). Atleast thats my old mans claim (served on onslow from commissioning till the 70's).

But the upholders were never really finished, well 2nd hand, built in the 80's, and in a poor state of affairs (atleast by the time Canada got them). Australia would have been looking when they were newer. UK killed them effectively in the development stage (think collins class before all the upgrades!).

There's nothing wrong with the core design, but like early Collins they were found wanting in some areas. I've got no doubt that they'll get sorted.

Sounded like a bag o trouble. Atleast with collins, we could fix most of them before they ever hit the water, or because we knew everything thing about them.

Collins was basically a guinea pig for the gotland (hence why gotland is nicknamed "mini-me"). Collins after 2002 is a different beast.

I still think Canadians should have bought into collins. Another 4 or 6 collins would have made things a whole lot more interesting.

With the victorias they have to reinvent the whole wheel again, for only 4 old boats.

it would have made sense to have a combined build, but at the time what was proposed for collins was pretty left of field. not many wanted to touch it.

[StingrayOZ]

Seems like Canada is taking the hard road.

Do you think its in perhaps preparation for a "collins" type project with perhaps with HDW? Supersized 214? Using lessons learned from the Victorias?

Canadians were always a well trained bunch. But from what I hear they need a top notch sub service more than ever. Now they are trying to secure areas around the melting ice caps etc.

[Systems Adict]

Wonder why the Canadians bought them.

I believe that as part of a gov't to gov't "payment", in leiu for the services, facilities, training & personell that the Canukes supplied during WWII, they were sold the 4 uholders for an undisclosed sum.
(allegedly meaning that they were given away for a token "shilling" each, but this sum didn't take into account any costs of their refurb!)

All I can say is that about 6-8 months before HMS Upholder, (the final boat to be refurb'd) left for her sail across the pond, I was onboard during a visit to BAE, @ Barrow-in-Furness. During the brief tour, it was obvious that they had ripped out a serious amount of equipment & had ensured that the pressure Hull was 100% fit for purpose.

I've always been around the "targets" of these fine vessels, but had no major knowledge/experience of them, other than the dross that hollywood shows the world, until that time.

My hat was & is most definately taken off in honour of ANY man, living or dead, who has taken it upon himself to endure the cramped conditions of a sub, to travel undetected upholding the soverign rights of his country.


Systems Adict

[contedicavour]

I remember a time when Canada was considering buying a class of 12 SSNs... I'm talking about the end of the '80s, early '90s. Now they're left with 3 operational Upholders (the 4th is still under repair AFAIK) which means leaving the Pacific without subs.
With the 4 Tribal-TRUMP destroyers going obsolete (early '70s build) and no replacement in sight, the Tory government has a lot of work ahead... and building the huge new AORs is only the start of a long path towards the rebuilding of the Canadian navy.

cheers

[harryriedl]

the Canada navy is in a sorry site [it never was the most important member of the forces] but the navy has also had a little funding crisis when their ships were tied up for a short time in 2007. the Halifax class have also started to feel the arctic weather. the major problem with the CAN NAVY is that the politicians try to have 100% Canadian design and built which inevitably raise costs.
CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2007/01/17/navy-tieup.html

HMCS Halifax should be on a sovereignty patrol off the East Coast, but the ship is tied up because the Canadian navy doesn't have the money to send it on the 35-day mission.

"The reason HMCS Halifax's patrol is delayed is because we have started a financial review," Lieut. Marie-Claude Gagné, a navy spokeswoman, told CBC News.

All but two ships on the East and West Coasts are tied up. HMCS Ottawa is in the Persian Gulf, and Gagné said HMCS Charlottetown is out performing sea trials.

"If you're asking who else is out on the Atlantic coast, the answer is no one," she said.

Senator Colin Kenny wonders why Canada has a navy if there's no money for the ships to patrol the coast.

"It's not a good thing to run out of money," said Kenny, chair of the Senate's security and defence committee. "I think it's because of the extra costs with oil and the demands of Afghanistan."

The Defence Department will spend almost $1.5 billion on the mission in Afghanistan this fiscal year. But at the same time, the money the navy has to send ships to sea has been cut by about 10 per cent.

"It's obvious they don't have money for fuel or personnel," said Nova Scotia MP Peter Stoffer.

Stoffer called it "very disappointing" that the navy ships are tied up, and said Canadians should be alarmed.

"Not having these ships patrol leaves a big hole in our security," he said. "You can have illegal immigrants, drug traffickers, people who want to do us harm or harm our neighbours.

"The Americans have consistently accused Canada of having leaky security measures, and this will just prove to them that we are not even patrolling our own coasts for security measures."

Sources tell CBC News that the navy's financial woes will continue until the end of March, and that all patrols will be cancelled until then.

[Maskirovka]

Re: gf0012-aust

Well, the first Collins may have been a lemon. But one must not forget that Kockums and Sweden has designed and produced over 30 different kind of submarines over 100 years, so there is a LOT of experience. I have never heard or read that any other of those 30 subs would have had any faults or fiascos during those +100 years (besides the Collins...)
Why is that?


Do you really mean the Visby-stealth corvette? I have never heard that australian companies have had had any work on her and I´m absolutely shure that none of the Visby-corvettes have ever been in USA. Are you not confusing her her with a norwegian vessel (that has been in USA for tests)?


If not, show me any evidence (link) of a Visby-corvette in USA...

[gf0012-aust]

Re: gf0012-aust

Well, the first Collins may have been a lemon. But one must not forget that Kockums and Sweden has designed and produced over 30 different kind of submarines over 100 years, so there is a LOT of experience. I have never heard or read that any other of those 30 subs would have had any faults or fiascos during those +100 years (besides the Collins...)
Why is that?

Read my responses. They tried to develop an upsized gotland - you can't just upsize any design without seriously looking at it carefully. They didn't. If it wasn't for 3rd party australian companies, and eventually the assistance of the USN - we would have been buggered.

btw, we have also been involved in fixing up some of the existing swedish boat owners - funnily enough they didn't go to the swedes, and we don't let them near our technology.


Do you really mean the Visby-stealth corvette? I have never heard that australian companies have had had any work on her and I´m absolutely shure that none of the Visby-corvettes have ever been in USA. Are you not confusing her her with a norwegian vessel (that has been in USA for tests)?


If not, show me any evidence (link) of a Visby-corvette in USA...

I have a contract between my former company, Kockums and NAVSEA asking for assistance to apply our tech to Visby for US trials. If you have the requisite clearances and a Govt email address, then we'll take the next step.


You do realise that I worked on that project?

[Maskirovka]

Re: gf0012-aust


You wrote : The same australian company also was responsible for going in and fixing up the acoustic anomalies of the Visby when she did her US tour.


I ask you. When was HMS Visby in USA for trials? When have HMS Visby ever left swedish waters?

When it comes to the Collins sub I kinda of believe you (in sweden, the story is that the main difficulties was caused by the fact that uneduacated aussie docksmen would assemble the ships due to the fact that the aussie dock-union was so strong, despite swedish subbuilders saying no-no) But let´s not get into that, your story seems somehowe true.


Still:

I ask you. When was HMS Visby in USA for trials? When have HMS Visby ever left swedish waters?

[gf0012-aust]

Re: gf0012-aust


You wrote : The same australian company also was responsible for going in and fixing up the acoustic anomalies of the Visby when she did her US tour.


I ask you. When was HMS Visby in USA for trials? When have HMS Visby ever left swedish waters?

read my comments before carefully. the bottom line is that I have a credentials document that we supply to clients detailing who and where we have worked before with this tech.

it doesn't matter what anyone else in the internet world says - ;)


When it comes to the Collins sub I kinda of believe you (in sweden, the story is that the main difficulties was caused by the fact that uneduacated aussie docksmen would assemble the ships due to the fact that the aussie dock-union was so strong, despite swedish subbuilders saying no-no) But let´s not get into that, your story seems somehowe true.

yes, part of that is undoubtedly true - but its why ASCE was set up - and why they did most of the construction work. There are two companies involved with Collins. Most people (99%) only know of ASC

as I have said before, the elements of blame can be attributed a number of ways, Kockums is not divorced from that circle of blame as their core design was initially flawed. If people build to a bad design, then it doesn't result in a better boat - its still a stuffed boat. The reality also is that the swedes built the nose section of Number 1 - and the welds were so bad that there was serious consideration given to scrapping it. The boat was regarded as a potential death ship as any explosion to the front could have compromised the hull.


Still:

I ask you. When was HMS Visby in USA for trials? When have HMS Visby ever left swedish waters?

see above. the request was to fix acoustic anomalies in the hull prior to being assessed for US trials. we had signature technicians in sweden.

Don't get me wrong, the Collins turned out a superb boat in the end - but it was due to 3rd party australian companies and finally USN assistance that delivered that capability.

It craps me off no end to see people praise Kockums for the Collins design when all the fixes have been either Australian or American.

You do realise that Kockums never ever ran a tank test on the hull?

[Maskirovka]

How can I reply to that? You say "it is all classified" and I say no swedish Visby-corvette has ever been in USA- is anyone have been, please shove me some evidence. You had´nt, so you are talking [Admin Text deleted].


Speaking of HMS Gotland submarine, this is from NBC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khaa3y0i87s

[gf0012-aust]

1) Learn some manners.

2) It's pretty apparent that I know about the project - because I worked on it - you either accept that or you don't. Frankly I don't care as its apparent that you are clueless about the project and the problems encountered.

3) NBC is the source of chest thumping justification? LOL. Whatever makes you feel good.

4) If you can't understand anything I've said then so be it.

5) make the effort to read what I've said properly.


Its apparent that you are one of the googling "proof is life" advocates. I guess that sums up your own competency and capability. If you actually don't understand anything I have said, and believe that all technical wonders are on the internet - then you are without doubt a bit of a dill.

eg. There are two Prescott Reports - the public paper and a classified Nat Security version - because the Classified Doc is on a 30 year rule is it a fake document because you can't see it on the internet? Gee, welcome to the real world sport. Ditto for credentialed documents. Do you understand what credentialed documents are? I think not.

Grow up a little or learn to accept that there are people who actually do have a better idea of what happened in these projects - esp when they worked on them.

Patriotism is fine - but when it colours your judgement and capacity to engage in meaningful debate it just makes you look like a fan clubber rather than a serious participant.

How can I reply to that? You say "it is all classified" and I say no swedish Visby-corvette has ever been in USA- is anyone have been, please shove me some evidence. You had´nt, so you are talking [Admin Text deleted].


Speaking of HMS Gotland submarine, this is from NBC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khaa3y0i87s

[Militaryman]

Swedish systems good in all world, becouse they creating good sItems.

[SATAN]

Is Sweden developing a new generation of Submarines or are these (GOTLANDS )the last of their kind? It would be a pity to think that the maker of such fine subs suddenly stops producing these fine machines.

[gf0012-aust]

Is Sweden developing a new generation of Submarines or are these (GOTLANDS )the last of their kind? It would be a pity to think that the maker of such fine subs suddenly stops producing these fine machines.

They're no longer in business. They've been bought out.

[Maskirovka]

1) Learn some manners.

2) It's pretty apparent that I know about the project - because I worked on it - you either accept that or you don't. Frankly I don't care as its apparent that you are clueless about the project and the problems encountered.

3) NBC is the source of chest thumping justification? LOL. Whatever makes you feel good.

4) If you can't understand anything I've said then so be it.

5) make the effort to read what I've said properly.


Its apparent that you are one of the googling "proof is life" advocates. I guess that sums up your own competency and capability. If you actually don't understand anything I have said, and believe that all technical wonders are on the internet - then you are without doubt a bit of a dill.

eg. There are two Prescott Reports - the public paper and a classified Nat Security version - because the Classified Doc is on a 30 year rule is it a fake document because you can't see it on the internet? Gee, welcome to the real world sport. Ditto for credentialed documents. Do you understand what credentialed documents are? I think not.

Grow up a little or learn to accept that there are people who actually do have a better idea of what happened in these projects - esp when they worked on them.

Patriotism is fine - but when it colours your judgement and capacity to engage in meaningful debate it just makes you look like a fan clubber rather than a serious participant.

I´m sorry I dont speak as good english as you do. That does´nt change the facts. You have to provide some more evidence then the "I know the english language better than you, therefor I am right"




I´m just saying that I have never heard of any Visby-corvette ever been to USA. And before I do, I consider your statement bull....

I have read your posts, and you claim that: "The same australian company also was responsible for going in and fixing up the acoustic anomalies of the Visby when she did her US tour.
The thing is, AFAIK HMS Visby has NEVER done a "US tour". Can you explaine that?

[gf0012-aust]

I´m just saying that I have never heard of any Visby-corvette ever been to USA. And before I do, I consider your statement bull....

I have read your posts, and you claim that: "The same australian company also was responsible for going in and fixing up the acoustic anomalies of the Visby when she did her US tour.
The thing is, AFAIK HMS Visby has NEVER done a "US tour". Can you explaine that?

I don't care about the quality of your english, I care about your attitude and the fact that you're accusing me of lying.

1) But, as of now, quite frankly its irrelevant to me whether you believe me or not.

2) I worked on the Collins Projects - I do happen to know about the build issues - and apparently far better than you.

3) As I have repeatedly said I have a credentialed document asking us to assess noise and vibration anomalies on the Visbys as they were slated for a US tour. That was a precursor to the decision for the US to abandon european low signature designs, DERA's trimaran and develop the LCS.

If you don't like it tough. Accuse me of lying and I'll not take it kindly. I'm probably old enough to be your father - and I won't take ill mannered crap from anyone - I don't care how hurt your national pride is. I'm also not in the habit of making statements that aren't truthful.

Its really easy, we make Governments as well as private companies sign NDA's before we release credntialed documents - the fact that I have to explain this to you does little to impress me that you actually do understand the process.

To be blunt, either accept it or bugger off. I've got no time for kids or hurt patriots. get over it.

The Visbys sang like a harp at certain speeds - everyone involved in the program knows this. and everyone involved knows that it was a specific speed and sea state that caused it. There werer only two technologies available to resolve it, one was French, and the other Australian. We use the same solution on other swedish subs bought by allies.

[Maskirovka]

I don't care about the quality of your english, I care about your attitude and the fact that you're accusing me of lying.

1) But, as of now, quite frankly its irrelevant to me whether you believe me or not.

2) I worked on the Collins Projects - I do happen to know about the build issues - and apparently far better than you.

3) As I have repeatedly said I have a credentialed document asking us to assess noise and vibration anomalies on the Visbys as they were slated for a US tour. That was a precursor to the decision for the US to abandon european low signature designs, DERA's trimaran and develop the LCS.

If you don't like it tough. Accuse me of lying and I'll not take it kindly. I'm probably old enough to be your father - and I won't take ill mannered crap from anyone - I don't care how hurt your national pride is. I'm also not in the habit of making statements that aren't truthful.

Its really easy, we make Governments as well as private companies sign NDA's before we release credntialed documents - the fact that I have to explain this to you does little to impress me that you actually do understand the process.

To be blunt, either accept it or bugger off. I've got no time for kids or hurt patriots. get over it.

The Visbys sang like a harp at certain speeds - everyone involved in the program knows this. and everyone involved knows that it was a specific speed and sea state that caused it. There werer only two technologies available to resolve it, one was French, and the other Australian. We use the same solution on other swedish subs bought by allies.

My "attitude" beacause I´m certian that none of the Visby-corvettes have ever been outside Sweden. I´ve asked all of the engaged crew and I´m just lacking the answers from a few. None of them have said she has ever been in USA.

When it comes to the Collins, I said before and I say it again, I kind of believe you (Idont know whom to believe)

But when it comes to Visby....
you say "either accept it or bugger off" , I wont bugger off. Cause until you present some profe I will bugger YOU off.


(and I´m pretty shure you have confused the HMS Visby with the norwegian project,)

[Maskirovka]

And now I now the fact (I have talked to the guys manning the Visby)

HMS Visby and none of her sisters have never ever left swedish waters and have offcourse never been too USA. This story is totally manufactured by gf0012-aust, I don´t know why.

If you have a doubt, just send an e-mail to any swedish newspaper, Kockums, or the Defence department and ask for the truth....

[Todjaeger]

And now I now the fact (I have talked to the guys manning the Visby)

HMS Visby and none of her sisters have never ever left swedish waters and have offcourse never been too USA. This story is totally manufactured by gf0012-aust, I don´t know why.

If you have a doubt, just send an e-mail to any swedish newspaper, Kockums, or the Defence department and ask for the truth....

I'd strongly recommend re-reading GF's posts regarding acoustic sig management work for the Visby corvette.

GF said in Post #17
The same australian company also was responsible for going in and fixing up the acoustic anomalies of the Visby when she did her US tour.

It was then asked by Maskirovka in Post #41
Do you really mean the Visby-stealth corvette? I have never heard that australian companies have had had any work on her and I´m absolutely shure that none of the Visby-corvettes have ever been in USA. Are you not confusing her her with a norwegian vessel (that has been in USA for tests)?

If not, show me any evidence (link) of a Visby-corvette in USA...

Post #43
I ask you. When was HMS Visby in USA for trials? When have HMS Visby ever left swedish waters?

And Post #45
How can I reply to that? You say "it is all classified" and I say no swedish Visby-corvette has ever been in USA- is anyone have been, please shove me some evidence. You had´nt, so you are talking [Admin Text deleted].

GF has responded in Post #42
I have a contract between my former company, Kockums and NAVSEA asking for assistance to apply our tech to Visby for US trials. If you have the requisite clearances and a Govt email address, then we'll take the next step.

Post #44
the request was to fix acoustic anomalies in the hull prior to being assessed for US trials. we had signature technicians in sweden.

And Post #51
3) As I have repeatedly said I have a credentialed document asking us to assess noise and vibration anomalies on the Visbys as they were slated for a US tour. That was a precursor to the decision for the US to abandon european low signature designs, DERA's trimaran and develop the LCS.

AND...

The Visbys sang like a harp at certain speeds - everyone involved in the program knows this. and everyone involved knows that it was a specific speed and sea state that caused it. There werer only two technologies available to resolve it, one was French, and the other Australian. We use the same solution on other swedish subs bought by allies.

Reading through carefully, one will see that the Visby was a possible contender for a USN project, but was discarded in favor of what became the LCS. There was no mention of a Visby actually being sent to the US. Instead (see Post #44) signature techs were sent to Sweden.

I would strongly urge people read through posts thoroughly, otherwise they will miss things.

On a side note, GF, you said in Post #36 about a possible combined build with Canada
it would have made sense to have a combined build, but at the time what was proposed for collins was pretty left of field. not many wanted to touch it.

Can you elaborate about what was proposed that was "left of field" for the Collins?

-Cheers

[contedicavour]

What chances are there that the successor to the Viking programme, still theoretically existing for the Swedish and Singapore navies, will indeed be rolled out ?
I would also believe that the Gotlands will be the last entirely Swedish developed SSKs, also because the Norwegians and Danish are not interested anymore, but I'd like to read more opinions about this.

cheers

[swerve]

I'd strongly recommend re-reading GF's posts regarding acoustic sig management work for the Visby corvette.
...

There was no mention of a Visby actually being sent to the US. Instead (see Post #44) signature techs were sent to Sweden.

I would strongly urge people read through posts thoroughly, otherwise they will miss things....

-Cheers

Err - I think you missed this ;)


The same australian company also was responsible for going in and fixing up the acoustic anomalies of the Visby when she did her US tour.

So Maskirovka has a point. GF did say it, & has neither retracted it nor backed it up (not even said "the tour did happen"). He's written about acoustic signature management work by Australians who went to Sweden, which Maskirovka seems to have accepted was done, but he hasn't, at any point, despite repeated requests, answered the question of whether Visby actually visited the USA, rather than some work being done before a tour which may have been (& it seems likely it was) cancelled before it began.

[WebMaster]

Just an FYI,

gf0012-aust is away overseas and cannot access DefenceTalk from his location. He will reply to the comments as soon as he is able to.

Thanks and enjoy!

[weasel1962]

I wonder how important is it to be right about the Visby being in the US? Doesn't impact the rest of what gf had said in any case.

For me, the issue is a non-starter. No weapon is 100% perfect. Every piece of equipment has its flaws. Its excellent (and much appreciated by myself) for gf to share some of the stuff he mentioned.

If anyone can't accept posts as fact, they are always welcomed to accept it, whether right or wrong, as merely a differing opinion :-)

I suspect the ship that gf referred to was the HMS Smyge, the test platform for the Visby rather than the actual Visby class corvettes (although gf may maintain it was the HMS Visby which he is more than capable of identifying). The top Swedish navy officials themselves acknowledged "they made mistakes and found problems" at least on the testbed. The issues were rectified for the actual corvettes.

http://www.koms.se/ul_pdf/102_Navy_2000_page_1.pdf

The above link has very good descriptions of the Visby class corvettes.

Noted also that the USN did lease the Norwegian sjkold prototype as well during the '01 period. If they did it for the sjkold, its not outside the realm of possibility that they did it for the visby/smyge as well.

http://www.knmskjold.org/english/index.html

It appears to be consistent with what was said by gf. I would suggest to everyone to give the issue a rest.

If one really wants to know, can always email for confirmation:
http://www.navy.mil/contacts.asp ; or
information@kockums.se ; or
kjell.gothe@kockums.se

[weasel1962]

And now I now the fact (I have talked to the guys manning the Visby)

HMS Visby and none of her sisters have never ever left swedish waters and have offcourse never been too USA. This story is totally manufactured by gf0012-aust, I don´t know why.

If you have a doubt, just send an e-mail to any swedish newspaper, Kockums, or the Defence department and ask for the truth....

That's inaccurate.

http://www.kockums.se/News/photostock/photo.html

You'd see some picts of the visbys in Mediterranean waters...

[contedicavour]

From a purely technical point of view, Visby would stand a lot of chances in procurement programmes in the Mediterranean with its stealth features and hull characteristics designed for a closed sea such as the Baltic. If the former Yugoslavia still existed, it would probably have ordered some.
From a political and commercial point of view though, I'm sceptical Sweden is ready to weigh heavily in favour of its ship class to ensure export success.

cheers

[Maskirovka]

That's inaccurate.

http://www.kockums.se/News/photostock/photo.html

You'd see some picts of the visbys in Mediterranean waters...

Yes, last year HMS Visby was in the medeterrian. It still does´nt change the facts. One Aussie still claims that HMS Visby has been in USA and that he has made some incredieble improvements on the vessel despite the FACT that HMS Visby has never been in in USA!!!!

I would love if gf0012-aust could explain that!

[Maskirovka]

gf0012-aust

Please explain what you mean when you claim that HMS Visby has been in US hands... Please do...

[Aussie Digger]

gf0012-aust

Please explain what you mean when you claim that HMS Visby has been in US hands... Please do...

He's away on a business trip at present and has limited time and ability to access the site.

I understand he intends to address your questions when he returns. You may be waiting some weeks though...

Regards

AD.

[Schumacher]

He's away on a business trip at present and has limited time and ability to access the site.

I understand he intends to address your questions when he returns. You may be waiting some weeks though...

Regards

AD.

He's at IMDEX ? http://imdexasia.com/
One of the Collins is here as well.

[Aussie Digger]

He's at IMDEX ? http://imdexasia.com/
One of the Collins is here as well.

I can neither confirm nor deny... :smokie

[Todjaeger]

He's at IMDEX ? http://imdexasia.com/
One of the Collins is here as well.

With what GF does, it's a fair bet that if he's overseas, he might well be under as well... ;)

We'll just have to be patient.

-Cheers

[contedicavour]

There's UDT in Naples as well isn't it ? ;)

cheers

[Maskirovka]

This is so stupid. Everyone here knows his wrong, the mods knows his wrong (they have told me so) and every spectator knows your wrong. But you keep instisting your right..... why is that? Are you a nutcase or what?! We Want to know!!!!

[Red aRRow]

Relax Maskirovka. If GF has anything to add he will post in this thread. If he does not then it means he has nothing to add or say with regards to your question (which will vindicate your stand). No need to push the guy to the corner.

[WebMaster]

This is so stupid. Everyone here knows his wrong, the mods knows his wrong (they have told me so) and every spectator knows your wrong. But you keep instisting your right..... why is that? Are you a nutcase or what?! We Want to know!!!!

Who told you what? Send me a PM.

GF is away on a business trip and he is unable to post with limited access to the internet. As far as mods are concerned, he has answered your queries to the fullest but you for some reason refuse to believe or understand the point. :rolleyes:

To avoid any off topic / on topic bickering in this thread, I am closing it until GF replies.