Come on, you know the Canuks would rather plough the price of a new shiny boat into refitting the 4 failed boats from the UK. I was on an O boat when the 1st new Upholder boat was commissioned, the RN knew starlight away it was a lemon, the crew make up was wrong, to many chief's & not enough Indians doesn't make a happy boat, it went on from there.
@@grahamkearnon6682they're buying Subs now, probably Type 212CD E or a modified type 216 like the Israeli Dakar class or type 218SG sub (type 216 derivative)
@@jacuzzibusguy ...Without the Proper Scientists and Engineers who know how to work Nuclear Material, they'll be doomed to failure. And with the US as it is now, any delivered Nuclear Scientist and Engineer from the US will come with a high risk of Prepackaged agendas... Meaning, they'll drag their heels if they aren't allowed to do what they want.
@@Victor-056 Nuclear makes more sense for Australia, because of the size of the island. From a port it is four thousand miles just to get to the other side of the country, let alone do any actual patrolling. Every time you come up to refuel you reveal your position, your enemies can just track your refuelling ships. Australia has a huge area to patrol, while Sweden has only two thousand miles of coast, all within a few miles of a port. Nuclear power will let Australia's boats to patrol for months thousands of miles away. Also, the deal is with the UK so it is likely the reactors will be British ones built by Rolls Royce. Australia called the UK for the deal, the UK bought the US on board because there is some US tech in British boats.
Not a long range sub, so good in the Baltic or Mediterranean sea. Could be used by countries in the south china sea. Question, do they sell to other countries? I know the USA leased a Gotland Class for 1-2 years.
@@denkeylee yes, however they aren't as advanced as the Swedish ones. Sweden is very strict on what tech they share with other countries so a gotland class would probably not feature the same advanced tech unless it is sold to a very, very close allied nation
@@saltymonke3682 The answer is that Gotland class submarines have not been built by Sweden because they have built a newer class of submarine, the Blekinge class. (As Simon has noted.)
What they don't tell you is it only gives 2 weeks underwater time , not like an modern submarine with months underwater time . And they are slow , ok for coastal defense but not deep water !
From the people that made such a big deal about dendrites in lithium-ion batteries. I would happily put Japanese lithium-ion batteries in my boat . The Kockums Stirling engines will only work to a certain depth and the latest refinements are still not implemented in the latest V4 versions. Good luck getting into NATO.....
it`s going to cost for 6 Sub`s $ 300 Billion+ for 50 Billion they could have 25 to 50 no need to travel as far they could be stationed around Australia
at an average cost of 500 million dollars buy 1 from Sweden 1 from Japan 1 one from Germany see who does it better in building and supplying the sub we need and for a far less cost we could have a real deterrent of 50 or more submarines serviced in Australia or if needed Overseas and much sooner and the test only costing 2 billion this BS of spending 300 Billion on something we might get one day sounds like a Scam
Canada needs this! We need Saab x Canada collab.
Come on, you know the Canuks would rather plough the price of a new shiny boat into refitting the 4 failed boats from the UK. I was on an O boat when the 1st new Upholder boat was commissioned, the RN knew starlight away it was a lemon, the crew make up was wrong, to many chief's & not enough Indians doesn't make a happy boat, it went on from there.
@@grahamkearnon6682they're buying Subs now, probably Type 212CD E or a modified type 216 like the Israeli Dakar class or type 218SG sub (type 216 derivative)
Proven technology. The Swedish subs are ghosts and excellent SSKs.
Might think of fitting this on my Borei-II Class Ballistic Missile submarine for bragging rights, don't wanna look stupid when my neighbor gets one
haha
doesn't work on nuclear products though :)
Australia needs to buy one.
They are going nuclear.
@@jacuzzibusguy ...Without the Proper Scientists and Engineers who know how to work Nuclear Material, they'll be doomed to failure.
And with the US as it is now, any delivered Nuclear Scientist and Engineer from the US will come with a high risk of Prepackaged agendas... Meaning, they'll drag their heels if they aren't allowed to do what they want.
@@Victor-056 Nuclear makes more sense for Australia, because of the size of the island. From a port it is four thousand miles just to get to the other side of the country, let alone do any actual patrolling. Every time you come up to refuel you reveal your position, your enemies can just track your refuelling ships. Australia has a huge area to patrol, while Sweden has only two thousand miles of coast, all within a few miles of a port. Nuclear power will let Australia's boats to patrol for months thousands of miles away.
Also, the deal is with the UK so it is likely the reactors will be British ones built by Rolls Royce. Australia called the UK for the deal, the UK bought the US on board because there is some US tech in British boats.
Not a long range sub, so good in the Baltic or Mediterranean sea. Could be used by countries in the south china sea. Question, do they sell to other countries? I know the USA leased a Gotland Class for 1-2 years.
@@denkeylee yes, however they aren't as advanced as the Swedish ones. Sweden is very strict on what tech they share with other countries so a gotland class would probably not feature the same advanced tech unless it is sold to a very, very close allied nation
Damn i wish u make a new car
I want a couple Saab Stirling engines for my M-7 migaloo when I wake up from my dream.
The last Swedish Gotland AIP submarine entered service in 1996. Has anyone country built one in the last 21 years? Why or why not?
The A26 is the new class submarine (Blekinge class), which is currently being built at Kockums in Sweden.
Because submarine life expectancy is 30 years at least
@@saltymonke3682 The answer is that Gotland class submarines have not been built by Sweden because they have built a newer class of submarine, the Blekinge class. (As Simon has noted.)
@brooklynguy-b4m well ofc they won't build the same submarine twice in 30 years
@@saltymonke3682 Yes
no pumpjet?!
I served on a smelly diesel boat & anything to improve the livability of crew is a win.
What they don't tell you is it only gives 2 weeks underwater time , not like an modern submarine with months underwater time . And they are slow , ok for coastal defense but not deep water !
It is not a nuclear sub dude!
So quite perfect for many nations as most nations don’t feel the need to sneak around the world but only want to defend their country
There are no diesel-electric submarines who can stay underwater for months.
0:23 Yes they do, and it's far from a secret. This model doesn't compete with nuclear submarines, and the price difference is huge.
From the people that made such a big deal about dendrites in lithium-ion batteries.
I would happily put Japanese lithium-ion batteries in my boat .
The Kockums Stirling engines will only work to a certain depth and the latest refinements are still not implemented in the latest V4 versions.
Good luck getting into NATO.....
Yes! But can it make it's own toilet paper?
Bidé only.
@@swedmiroswedmiro1352 tak, Laurits!
Super Sub👍🏻
it`s going to cost for 6 Sub`s $ 300 Billion+ for 50 Billion they could have 25 to 50 no need to travel as far they could be stationed around Australia
You don't understand how a sub works
That was revolutionary in the 90's, not 2023... Saab needs to move on.
Exept its of course been in continuous development for better versions, which were upgraded in to the Submarines
LOL WUT - Admiral Rickover.............
Åå
🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
at an average cost of 500 million dollars buy 1 from Sweden 1 from Japan 1 one from Germany see who does it better in building and supplying the sub we need
and for a far less cost we could have a real deterrent of 50 or more submarines serviced in Australia or if needed Overseas and much sooner and the test only costing
2 billion this BS of spending 300 Billion on something we might get one day sounds like a Scam
This kind of SSK can't even operate in SCS independently for more than a week of stationed in West Fleet Base. LOL
Also, crew problem, how many crews do you need for 50 subs? Collins class alone is still have crew retention problems.
This is a toy.
And? It’s meant to be used for coastal defense. It’s not supposed to be nuclear.
And you are a toyboy...
Junk!
this "junk" tech "sunk" USS ronald reagan in naval simulation
@SIMP MASTER⁶⁹ source?
@@mobiuszero2424 BRAVO KOKUMS
@@mobiuszero2424 Comment deleted, no source
@@mobiuszero2424 USS Ronald Reagan is unsinkable and some weak junk like Gotland can't sino it.