Viking submarine

The aim of the VIKING project is to develop and acquire coastal submarines for Denmark and Sweden and to co-operate also during the in-service phase.

By June 30th 2003 the VIKING project group had completed the detailed description and the projecting of the earlier chosen basic model under the Project Definition Phase part 1 (PDF 1). An agreement concerning execution of the PDF 2 was signed between Denmark and Sweden on May 21 2003.

Due to changes in the national programming of future submarine procurement, Norway has withdrawn from the active work in the VIKING project group by the end of the PDF 1. Norway continues as an observer in the next phase. Consequently Denmark and Sweden continue the work in PDF 2 in order to obtain political approval to enter into contract concerning construction and production of submarines in 2005.

The industrial organisation will be streamlined, as Kockums AB is planned to be chosen as lead supplier with Odense Staalskibsværft A/S as sub-supplier. All other suppliers will be chosen by open competition. The planned duration of PDF2 is until the 30th March 2005 and partial deliveries of results will ensure continous basis for decisions about the construction and building phase.

The participating nations are Denmark and Sweden with Finland, Norway and Singapore as observers.



http://www.nordac.org/default.asp?id=7&mnu=7

Main characteristics

Full air independent propultion (AIP) capability
Possibility for high speed and long endurance
Tailor-made for the littorals
Large diving depth and ocean-going capacity
Capability to operate in a wide range of water temperature and salinity
Minimized wide spectra signatures profiles
Wide spectrum multi-sensor suite
Stealthy high data rate communication capacity
Flexible payload with a large number of heavy- and lightweight torpedoes
Prepared for mines as well as high precition engagement missiles against sea- and land targets
Capability to support well equipped special forces
Self defence systems against torpedoes and ASW helicopters
Modular design to suit different requirements and to reduce Life Cycle Cost

The Concept

The above mentioned feasibility studies mainly based on the Requirement Document, dated 1997, resulted in a conceptual, but detailed description of a future Viking submarine. The concept called K9 is a two-compartment submarine with a reduced crew compared to the medium sized submarines of today.

MAIN DATA

Displacement 1650 ton

Length overall 60 m

Height 11 m

Beam 7 m

Crew 20-23

As previously mentioned, better sensor performances is of importance to improve the submarine’s range. It is difficult to renew or replace hull mounted sonar antennas during the life time of a submarine while inboard hardware and software should be replaced at certain intervals as a consequence of rapid development of this technology. The feasibility studies have therefore focused on the size and positioning of sonar antennas. The Viking submarine concept has a large integrated conformal array in the bow and a flank array of the same height, allowing vertical beam forming. The sonar system will also consist of an integrated passive ranging and intercept sonar and active sonars for target tracking and navigational aid, mine reconnaissance and obstacle avoidance. A towed array allowing longer rages and lower frequencies can also form an integrated part of the system.

The submarine will be prepared to carry Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) and Swimming Delivery Vehicles (SDV).

A matter of interesting discussions is the advantages and disadvantages of an optronic mast compared to that of a conventional periscope. The existing concept allows installation of both optronic mast and/or periscope. But if the final decision were in favour of the optronic mast there would be a wider freedom of design.

The sensor system is an integrated part of the new open architecture Combat system, together with the Combat management-, Weapon-, Navigation- and Communication system. All existing and future torpedoes from the three nations can be handled by the Weapon system.

The flexible storage facility allows the submarine to carry a rather large amount of weapons, compared to the size of the submarine. The design of the submarine will not obstruct later installation of surface-to-surface and landattack missiles.

A self-defence missile system against helicopters can easily be incorporated in existing torpedo tubes.

Operating in hallow water as the North Sea, the Baltic and in the fjords will require a very accurate Navigation system, therefore studies have been carried out concerning terrain navigation as a complement to traditional inertial systems.

The harmonisation of the diving depth has allowed the design of a concept tailor-made for littoral warfare with ocean going capacity.

The AIP system in the concept is at the moment based on a new Stirling engine allowing deeper diving depth and having better power density compared to the engines which are operational on the Swedish Gotland class. PG Viking is also looking into the possibility of developing a fuel-cell system with methanol reformers based on commercially available fuel cells.

There is also a possibility to increase speed and endurance by adding an extra module for energy storage containing an extra main battery, diesel generators and fuel. This solves the requirements for increased speed and endurance that only Norway has at the moment.

The prolonged thinking of building in modules also gives the opportunity to exclude options due to lack of requirements or funding. Likewise if some nation wish to fulfil a non-compulsory requirement, there is a possibility to a certain extent to introduce an extra option.
-----------------------------------------------------

Wonder how much money Singapore paid to acquire the `observer status'? This ties in with Singapore`s recent purchase of the second hand swedish `Sjoormen' class submarines. The latter submarines are meant largely for training though they have been upgraded and are fully combat ready. The Vikings should replace the Sjoormen class(now renamed Challenger class soon).

wat will be the role of these subs either ssk or ssn??

wat will be the role of these subs either ssk or ssn??

AIP is related to SSK.

Main role will be Hunter killer roles against ships and submarines, but it seem the post from Faz , it still could be use for many minor roles like mine laying , mine clearing & SF forces insertion.

Here`s the full article..if you bother to read it

---------------------------------------
The Viking Project - from Silent Service to Network Centric – a New Way of Thinking

The Viking Project

Introduction
Submarines, with their unique ability to stay concealed for long periods of time, have always provided and will continue to provide coastal states with the means to carry out national and international operations. With their built-in capabilities, submarines have always been able to undertake intelligence and surveillance operations.

Moreover, their anti-surface and anti-submarine torpedoes as well as their ability to conduct concealed mining operations project a direct threat to enemy forces. Operations have been carried out during all weather conditions the whole year round without being spotted by the opponent.

The submarines’ ability to see without being seen and to hear without being heard is actually both an advantage and a disadvantage. Traditionally, due to its capabilities to manage on its own and a wish to keep the submarine concealed, the Silent Service has been given tasks where there has been no need for fast broadband communications, either to or from the submarine. Due to lack of anti-aircraft weapons and reliable torpedo countermeasures, the submarine forces have also respected and tried to avoid anti-submarine forces particularly those equipped with helicopters. Besides making it hard for the opponents to find the submarine, all this has also made it difficult for the navy to get updated detailed information from the submarines. This has resulted in a widespread opinion that submarines have little information to give, when on the contrary they have a lot of information, but it is delivered too late.

The end of the cold war has resulted in considerable changes in Europe. European countries all have to adjust their defence organisations to meet the future. This is of course also the situation in Sweden and the other Nordic countries.

The Swedish Armed Forces have used the American consultants Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to get ideas for a new doctrine for the Swedish Armed Forces. The studies conducted by SAIC concerning the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) resulted in the three cornerstones: Dominant Battlespace Awareness (DBA), Decision Superiority (DS) and Dynamic Engagement (DE). In the future, Sweden’s security interests will be layered. The first priority will remain the defence of Sweden itself. The next priority will be the neighbours in northern Europe, the Nordic and Baltic regions. Finally Europe as a whole, including the security interests of the European Union, with special attention to areas of actual or potential armed conflict in Europe.

This creates demands for long-range network communication and a diversified weapons load.

One asset to help meeting the new demands will be the Viking submarine, which will have the capacity to fulfil the requirements of a changing world, which will have the capacity to fulfil the requirements of a new defence structure. The improved capacities will mainly be extended endurance when fully submerged, reduced signatures, extended range by improved sensor ranges, stealth broadband communication, diversified weapons load, special forces capability and self defence capability against torpedoes and helicopters.

However, besides the new submarine – the tool – there must be a change in thinking by submarine operators and others. The new way of thinking is characterised by how the submarines can be operated in all scales of conflict from peace to war and from calm areas to areas where other units cannot operate without heavy support. It is also characterised by how to utilize a submarine with improved capabilities in several areas compared to operating existing conventional submarines. Finally it is also how to use a tremendous information gathering-unit, with access to the "net", and a platform with weapons suitable for all naval warfare tasks.

Background
In December 1994 the Ministers of Defence in of Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden signed an agreement on co-corporation concerning defence material acquisition. The aim of the agreement is to reduce both procurement costs and life support costs for the participating nations. The object is also to contribute support to the Nordic industry, particularly the defence industry.

Several pre-feasibility studies for different types of defence materiel were initiated shortly thereafter, one of which concerned a submarine programme. The study, which was conducted during 1995 and 1996 indicated that there would be advantages in developing and procuring submarines in a joint project. This is mainly because harmonised requirements and a common submarine concept, produced in a large series, provide a considerable reduction in procurement costs. Furthermore the deployment of similar submarines provides a basis for co-operation in areas such as training and maintenance of the submarines.

A project of this magnitude will contribute to sustaining important national industrial competence and long-term co-operation between industrial companies in the Nordic countries.

A report from The Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm concludes that a defence programme of this magnitude will give more back to the society in form of labour and the development of human capital than the nations actually are investing. Spillover effects to other areas of industry will also be notable.

The Viking project group
A permanent project group (PG Viking) consisting of officers and engineers from the Defence Material Commands in Denmark, Norway and Sweden was established in Malmö in August 1997. The group was tasked to carry out a feasibility phase aiming at harmonising the national requirements for the new submarines. Finland is an observer in the PG Viking Steering Committee.

The group has a Project Manager from Norway, and is divided into three departments, viz. Ship, Combat and Integrated logistics. Each department has one member from each of the participating countries. Including administration personnel the group numbers 14 people. The Project group is supervised by a Steering Committee and has for advising purposes an Organisation Reference Group (ORG), consisting of the three Commanding officers of the three Submarine Flotillas.

Furthermore there is a Research and Development Group for advising in R&D matters, the group members being leading persons from Defence Research Establishments in Denmark, Norway and Sweden (FOFT, FFI and FOI).

Finally there has been a Technical Co-ordinating Group responsible for the contacts between PG Viking and the Defence Material Administrations in each country.

Viking Submarine Corporation
To cope with out the industrial challenge the three Nordic companies Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace AS of Norway, Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd of Denmark and Kockums AB of Sweden have jointly established the Viking Submarine Corporation (VSC) to represent their interests in the Viking Project. It has been agreed that VSC will be the only bidder for the development and production of the Viking submarines.

Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace AS is a major Norwegian high-tech company, owned by Kongsberg Gruppen ASA. The company develops and produces an extensive range of products extending from sub-sea installations to communication satellites.

Odense Steel Shipyard, a member of the A.P. Møller group, is an important player in international shipbuilding, with nearly a century of knowledge and experience in advanced shipbuilding and offshore business.

Kockums AB designs, develops, maintains and manufactures submarines and naval surface vessels incorporating the most advanced stealth technologies currently available.

As a main contractor VSC will be responsible for proposing a production that considers the requirements for cost share/work share and off-set.

Time frames
As mentioned earlier a pre-feasibility study was carried out during 1995 and 1996. The feasibility study was performed during 1997-2000 during a Study and Concept Phase (SCP).

Last year a decision was made to continue with a Project Definition Phase (PDP). The PDP is divided into two steps - PDP 1 lasting from 2001 to 2002 and PDP 2 from 2003 to 2004. After the three nations have decided to continue the corporation there will be a Building and Construction Phase (BCP) from 2005 and onwards. The delivery of the first submarine will then take place in 2009 with sea acceptance tests. The last of the ten submarines is scheduled for delivery in 2015. Depending on how the commitments for training and maintenance are constructed there is a possibility for co-orporation until the scrapping of the submarines 2040 to 2045.

Study and Concept Phase
The main task during the Study and Concept Phase has been to harmonise the national requirements to one set of requirements and realize them into a united submarine concept. Furthermore, the task was to find cost reducing possibilities during the lifetime of the submarines and finally to locate competent Nordic industry for the realisation of the project.

To harmonise requirements from the three Nordic nations with their different backgrounds - i.e. being used to different designs (German and Swedish), having different training and maintenance policies, being a NATO or non NATO member, being a EU member or not, and blue or shallow water operation - can at a first glance look impossible or at least like a great challenge. Initially, the requirement documentsfrom the three nations were thought to contain have considerable differences, but after closer scrutiny they were found to be mostly in agreement.

Extensive studies were conducted by Kockums AB in co-orperation with Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace AS, Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd and other leading defence material suppliers such as SAGEM SA Defence and Security Division (navigational and optronic systems), Thomson Marconi Sonar S.A.S. (sonar and combat information systems), Jeumont Industrie and Merlin Gerin (propulsion machinery), Reson Inc (sonar systems), Pilkington Optronics (optronic systems), Strachan and Henshaw Limited (missile- and torpedo discharge systems), Ballard Power Systems Inc. (fuel cells)

Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subocquei SpA: Torpedo counter measures

The fact that Denmark and Norway are members of NATO has been an advantage more than a disadvantage. Especially considering interoperability, where many requirements and solutions have been adopted to the Viking .The most important agreement is probably the common diving depth which allows the design of one pressure hull and a base for the submarine concept. During the harmonisation process, emphasis has changed from submarine missions in the national defence to a wider set of missions.

There is now a greater focus on participation in international operations, co-orperation with other units i.e. marine special forces, communication and weapons load. This process is an ongoing process which will continue throughout the next phases of the project.

Reports after the two-year feasibility study phase were handed over to national authorities in 1999. The documents describe a submarine concept that has been harmonised to 90-95 %. Remaining requirements have their solutions with options or non-options. The documents also point out that the modular design and modern information technology will allow a distributed design and production of the submarines in Nordic countries. The joint programme where the nations share the development and gain serial benefits through production has a potential for 20-25 % reduction in the procurement cost compared with a national programme. Collaboration throughout the lifetime can also be of great benefit to the nations and reduce the training and maintenance cost even more than the above mentioned figure.

The Concept

The above mentioned feasibility studies mainly based on the Requirement Document, dated 1997, resulted in a conceptual, but detailed description of a future Viking submarine. The concept called K9 is a two-compartment submarine with a reduced crew compared to the medium sized submarines of today.

MAIN DATA

Displacement 1650 ton

Length overall 60 m

Height 11 m

Beam 7 m

Crew 20-23

As previously mentioned, better sensor performances is of importance to improve the submarine’s range. It is difficult to renew or replace hull mounted sonar antennas during the life time of a submarine while inboard hardware and software should be replaced at certain intervals as a consequence of rapid development of this technology. The feasibility studies have therefore focused on the size and positioning of sonar antennas. The Viking submarine concept has a large integrated conformal array in the bow and a flank array of the same height, allowing vertical beam forming. The sonar system will also consist of an integrated passive ranging and intercept sonar and active sonars for target tracking and navigational aid, mine reconnaissance and obstacle avoidance. A towed array allowing longer rages and lower frequencies can also form an integrated part of the system.

The submarine will be prepared to carry Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) and Swimming Delivery Vehicles (SDV).

A matter of interesting discussions is the advantages and disadvantages of an optronic mast compared to that of a conventional periscope. The existing concept allows installation of both optronic mast and/or periscope. But if the final decision were in favour of the optronic mast there would be a wider freedom of design.

The sensor system is an integrated part of the new open architecture Combat system, together with the Combat management-, Weapon-, Navigation- and Communication system. All existing and future torpedoes from the three nations can be handled by the Weapon system.

The flexible storage facility allows the submarine to carry a rather large amount of weapons, compared to the size of the submarine. The design of the submarine will not obstruct later installation of surface-to-surface and landattack missiles.

A self-defence missile system against helicopters can easily be incorporated in existing torpedo tubes.

Operating in hallow water as the North Sea, the Baltic and in the fjords will require a very accurate Navigation system, therefore studies have been carried out concerning terrain navigation as a complement to traditional inertial systems.

The harmonisation of the diving depth has allowed the design of a concept tailor-made for littoral warfare with ocean going capacity.

The AIP system in the concept is at the moment based on a new Stirling engine allowing deeper diving depth and having better power density compared to the engines which are operational on the Swedish Gotland class. PG Viking is also looking into the possibility of developing a fuel-cell system with methanol reformers based on commercially available fuel cells.

There is also a possibility to increase speed and endurance by adding an extra module for energy storage containing an extra main battery, diesel generators and fuel. This solves the requirements for increased speed and endurance that only Norway has at the moment.

The prolonged thinking of building in modules also gives the opportunity to exclude options due to lack of requirements or funding. Likewise if some nation wish to fulfil a non-compulsory requirement, there is a possibility to a certain extent to introduce an extra option.

The Project Definition Phase

The agreement on the Project Definition Phase (PDP) was signed in Copenhagen 20th December 2000 by the admirals from Naval Materiel Command Denmark, Naval Materiel Command Norway and Swedish Defence Materiel Administration. The objective of the PDP is to produce the necessary documentation for the national authorities to decide on a joint submarine procurement programme in 2005. The PDP will be carried out in two steps with a decision for continuance in the fall of 2002.

The purpose of the Project Definition Phase (PDP) is to create a basis for decision that provides satisfactory technical and financial accuracy which enables the authorities responsible in the three nations to decide whether to proceed with the co-operation in a Design and Construction Phase (DCP). The development of the concept is the main objective. Other important objectives are the reduction of the costs and uncertainties of the total project.

Apart from the commercial documents there is two important documents giving Viking Submarine Corporation (VSC) the requirements and guidelines for the performance of the PDP. These are the Submarine System

Specification (SSS) and Statement of Work (StoW).

In the SSS all basic requirements are stated and it is closely related to the Requirement Document. The StoW defines commitments which PGV will place on VSC for the accomplishment of the Viking Submarine Project with regard to Management, Dependability Management, Design and Engineering.

As a result of the PDP there will be four documents describing the concept, the production, a plan for building the submarines and a price. These are: The Submarine System Design Document (SSDD), The Concept for Production Document (PRODD), The Project Management Plan for the Design and Construction Phase (PMP-DCP) and The Documented Price for the Design and Construction Phase (PRICED). The four Deliverables shall form a complete and balanced solution, which after a formal Request for Tender could constitute the Main Contractor’s Tender for undertakings in a DCP.

Main concept objectives for the Project Definition Phase

The Study and Concept Phase (SCP) resulted in a description of a concept, which showed that nearly all the requirements were possible to harmonise. It is based on the Requirement Dokument dated 1997, even if changes has been made during the SCP, there are still requirements that must be developed in accordance with the new winds blowing. Referring to the studies mentioned in the first chapter conducted by SAIC concerning the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) PG Viking will during the PDP have the three cornerstones Dominant Battlespace Awarness (DBA), Decision Superiority (DS) and Dynamic Engagement (DE) in mind.

Much of the work during the PDP will be carried out in working groups with participation from PG Viking, VSC and the Defence Material Commands. This way of working will give opportunity to implement the latest requirement directly into the design work. Areas, at the moment, that will be studied thoroughly are: Man Machine Interface, Combat System Architecture, Integrated Communication, Integrated Navigation, Shock resistance and Signatures.

Here`s a report from the navy-league website;
http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/dec_03_42.php
We could expect the Vikings to come online around 2010 in Singapore at the earliest.

December 2003


SEA POWER INTERNATIONAL

Viking Submarine Program Moves Forward

By AMI International

On Oct. 6, 2003, Kockums Naval Systems (owned by Germany's HDW) signed a contract with the Swedish Defense Material Administration for the next phase of the Viking Submarine Project. The $16.8 million contract covers part two of the project definition phase, which will run through the end of 2004. Part two involves the development of a balanced technical and economical basis for a decision on all follow-on phases of the program.

Kockums' share of the part-two contract is worth $13.8 million, and the company has also signed a subcontract with Odense Steel of Denmark for the remaining $3 million. Both companies share the majority of the work in which six submarines are to be procured for the Danish and Swedish navies. Sweden will procure two submarines beginning in 2006 (scheduled for commissioning in 2010 and 2011) and Denmark will procure the remaining four beginning in 2007 (scheduled for commissioning 2011 through 2014).

The Viking project is an interesting case study in the environment of competition in today's naval defense exports in that a government policy of protecting one's defense industrial base continues to override the issue of competition and EU consolidation. Denmark and Sweden are prime examples given that, even though both nations are two of the smallest in Europe and are cooperating in the Viking project, there is still a competition with the larger industrial bases such as Germany.

Although Sweden's Kockums is owned by Germany's HDW, Sweden is determined to maintain its own industrial base at Kockums as well as the long-term employment benefits that accompany it. The same can be said with Odense Steel in Denmark, a country with a small defense industrial base, where it is considered critical for the nation to maintain a naval shipbuilding capability. It must also be reasoned that other Swedish and Danish companies such as SaabTech and Terma will play major roles in outfitting the future submarines as well.

A sign that perhaps we will stick with Swedish tech instead of buying a U-212 or Scorpene after the end of the viable use lifespan of our Challengers?

Does the path choose the walker or the walker the path?

A definite sign I`d say. Firstly, the current sjoormen class are swedish boats so we have the benefit of being trained in them. Most importantly, our engineers will exploit the sjoormens to the max by trying out the modifications deemed necessary for our needs as well as to accomodate the SEA water condition. They will then apply these changes on the Vikings later minus the possibilty of problems;compatibility issues,etc. The Vikings would thus be tailored to suit our needs at the on-set of construction itself and not later. At any rate, Singapore must have paid quite a lot to join the program. Like the F-35 program, it is to show proof our intention to buy in the near future. The Malaysian Scorpenes are coming online in 2007/2008 anyway. So, if we could have the Vikings by 2009/2010(which is the expected time-frame they will come online), it would be nice.

Is the pic in my last post blurry? Can`t seem to make it any better.. sorry. Anyway, the thing at the front of the hull is an UWCV(Underwater combat vehicle);an `UAV' underwater.... Seems to have been built onto the hull so that it forms part of it and launched from the hull itself. Cool.

DSTA has been experimenting with Underwater autonomous vehicles for some times.... i saw their piece at the recent naval open house at changi naval base.

its shape like a torp... but smaller then a torp. the piece is so old... it almost rusted... it shows just how long the DSTA has been toying with this concept.

the probably got something bigger going on, maybe a Underwater unmmaned vehicle the size of a light torp?... otherwise.. why bother to put a defunct program on exhibition?

and i think the concept is good too... a UUV that can be deployed like firing a torp... and a single sub can carry afew UUV...

the UUV could be use to draw enemy out, forward scouting, decoy or simple armed with a warhead to be used like real torp when opportunity arises...

they could also designed a UUV with stealth features (the cliche in SAF).. and use that to terrorise the enemy.

>>DSTA has been experimenting with Underwater autonomous vehicles for some times.... i saw their piece at the recent naval open house at changi naval base.<<

DSO, not DSTA.


-----------------------------------------------


''The SAF is an armed force , not a civilian corporation. Its mission is to defeat its enemies, ruthlessly and completely. Its an instrument of controlled fury, designed to visit death and destruction of its foes...soldiers must have steel in their souls .....must learn in war to kill and not to flinch, to destroy and not to feel pity, to be a flaming sword in the righteous cause of national survival.''

> BG Lee , 1984.

Actually it was reported in Strait Times last year I think, the UUV Unmanned Underwater Vessal was named as SEA-I( dun remember what it stands for), and yes it does shaped like a torpedo and I think it has it's own sonar to hunt for underwater mines I think etc.

I suppose they could operate some from the Formidable class frigates together with the Spartan USV(unmanned sea vehicle). Im assuming that they would operate the Spartans from the Formidables since they are the only combat ships in RSN`s inventory large enough to carry them. That and the Fire-scout VTAUVs(vertical take off aerial un-manned vehicle) or thier equivalents which are being assessed by the SAF. It would turn the Formidable frigates into a carrier of unmanned vehicles of some sort; which would increase the latter`s efficiency manifolds.

any idea how many torpedos or missiles can it carry?

"Honour the gods, Love your wife, Defend your country" Hector

Also what will be its endurance underwater..as in its capacity for air independent propulsion without snorting? The gotland class has the capacity for two weeks of air independent propulsion at a speed of 5 knots without snorting, will the viking feature longer endurance?

"Honour the gods, Love your wife, Defend your country" Hector