What's new

PN mini-submarine fleet

Turkey don't have indeginous DSRV solution and protocols yet and I agree. I'll explain below why that Turkey did not rush in this area.

Centered around the International Submarine Escape and Rescue Liaison Office (ISMERLO), an organization created in the wake of the Kursk tragedy as an international hub for information and coordination on submarine rescue, the exercises are designed to demonstrate multi-national submarine rescue co-operation and interoperability as well as share SMER related knowledge amongst worldwide partners. So this is not a restricted area, and also Pakistan is a part of these common programs. Contrary to the above, Turkey is one of the few countries in NATO, capable of deep water rescue missions. Having not yet to produce domestic DSRV solution is due to accessibility and common protocols. The development of deep-sea rescue equipment in this area is often dealt with by allied countries. Implemented by Turkey Submarine Escape and Rescue (SMER) procedures are fully NATO compatible.

TCG Alemdar( which is latest submarine rescue mother ship of TN ) is currently the one of the most modern submarine rescue mother ship in the world. These surface platform include HARDSUIT atmospheric diving suits (ADS), personnel transfer capsules (PTC), a McCann submarine rescue chamber (SRC), launch and recovery system (LARS), and a towed side-scan sonar system.

It also features transfer-under-pressure equipment, dive systems, a NATO submarine rescue system (NSRS), a US submarine rescue diving and recompression system (SRDRS) and post-modern decompression / recompression pressure chambers. A submarine ventilation system, pressurised breathing air system and HeO2 mixed gas system are also included. Two interconnected L-type SRV connectible pressure chambers are provided aboard the vessel to facilitate the housing of up to 32 survivors.

A flight deck is fitted behind the bridge structure amidships to support helicopter operations, while the aft deck features a hydraulic / telescopic crane used for deployment and recovery of rescue systems. Additionally, the MOSHIP carries one remotely-operated vehicle (ROV) and a rigid-hulled inflatable boat (RHIB), as well as two rescue boats to assist during rescue operations.

Turkey has highly specialized team ( within NATO standards ) in this field. For this reason, Turkey is continous member of major submarine rescue drills carried out under NATO. Let's examine the biggest submarine rescue exercise in recent years.

NATO Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation (CMRE) participated for the first time in the DYNAMIC MONARCH 2017-Aksaz/Turkey exercise, bringing to the operational players a new digital underwater acoustic communications capability that may increase significantly the effectiveness of distressed submarines escape and rescue operations. (In this area many new underwater communication protocol research is being carried out in Turkey. You may find some information in previous posts of the topic.)

In total, the 2017 exercise included approximately 1,000 personnel, command and control ship TCG Gemlik, three submarines (TCG Burakreis, TCG Preveze and ESPS Tramontana), four submarine rescue ships (TCG Alemdar with Turkish and US submarine rescue chambers onboard, TCG Inebolu, ITS Anteo and SD Northern River with embarked NATO Submarine Rescue System (NSRS) operated by the United Kingdom, France and Norway), four Turkish patrol boats, four Turkish aircraft (helicopters, Maritime Patrol Aircraft and a C-130), diving teams from Canada, Italy, Poland and Turkey, Medical teams from Canada, Turkey and NSRS (France, Norway and the UK), a Submarine Parachute Assistance Group from Turkey and significant support from host nation Turkey in administration, accommodation, contracting, logistics, transportation and personnel. Nine NATO Allies participated in the exercise with equipment or personnel including Canada, France, Italy, Norway, Poland, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. In addition, observers from Bangladesh, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Poland, Spain, South Korea, Sweden and the United Kingdom experienced various portions of the exercise as well.
 
Last edited:
Turks don't have a DSRV, only a ROV fitted to a ship, which means cant get the crew out.



Is there still an indigenous program? If there is, it should be with a company that already makes them, and hopefully not a designer with submarine already industrialized. That would be real disappointment and waste of funds where navy wont be able to get any tangible product for years to come.

As I understand the Turks are pushing a future indigenous program (I don't know the time scale) and want Pakistan to join as a partner, (western tech is their pitch) however there is a rival Chinese offer, and the recent Survey ship construction shows that they are also coming on strong.

The indigenous programme is using the mini subs already in service as a template for an upgraded vessel, with tech assistance from friendly countries, the problem with that is that they are currently no where near the sophistication and capability of the Drass DG 450, at the end of the day, if we can find the cash the PN will go with the Italians IMO.
 
Last edited:
As I understand the Turks are pushing a future indigenous program (I don't know the time scale) and want Pakistan to join as a partner, (western tech is their pitch) however there is a rival Chinese offer, and the recent Survey ship construction shows that they are also coming on strong.

The indigenous programme is using the mini subs already in service as a template for an upgraded vessel, with tech assistance from friendly countries, the problem with that is that they are currently no where near the sophistication and capability of the Drass DG 450, at the end of the day, if we can find the cash the PN will go with the Italians IMO.
It would be a mistake to upgrade mini subs which are well beyond their useful life.
 
As I understand the Turks are pushing a future indigenous program (I don't know the time scale) and want Pakistan to join as a partner, (western tech is their pitch) however there is a rival Chinese offer, and the recent Survey ship construction shows that they are also coming on strong.
As I understand the Turks are pushing a future indigenous program (I don't know the time scale) and want Pakistan to join as a partner, (western tech is their pitch) however there is a rival Chinese offer, and the recent Survey ship construction shows that they are also coming on strong.
It would be a mistake to upgrade mini subs which are well beyond their useful life.

I agree, the Italians are the best option, finances are the only hindrance. We shall see if the Navy can convince the govt.
 
I agree, the Italians are the best option, finances are the only hindrance. We shall see if the Navy can convince the govt.
The ideal scenario would be to open a manufacturing line of the mini-SSK and add 1 every 2-3 years following the initial order. If AShW/ASW capable, a large mini-SSK fleet would make accessing Pakistan's littoral waters a high-risk venture (a mini-SSK = small acoustics already + further masked by littoral activity). This frees the 11 AIP subs to venture into deeper parts of the EEZ, further adding to their strategic credence.
 
The ideal scenario would be to open a manufacturing line of the mini-SSK and add 1 every 2-3 years following the initial order. If AShW/ASW capable, a large mini-SSK fleet would make accessing Pakistan's littoral waters a high-risk venture (a mini-SSK = small acoustics already + further masked by littoral activity). This frees the 11 AIP subs to venture into deeper parts of the EEZ, further adding to their strategic credence.

A fleet of 3-4 SWATS in PN with multiple AShW/ASW/SOF capability is more dangerous than a fleet of 3-4 SSKs.
 
A fleet of 3-4 SWATS in PN with multiple AShW/ASW/SOF capability is more dangerous than a fleet of 3-4 SSKs.
The adjacent coastline is a major factor for SWATS. The notion that 1 or 2 of those can just enter and loiter near the enemy coast will see the IN thin out its ASW coverage. Difficult to see how imposing a presence against larger SSKs out in the open seas is sustainable if a SWATS threat lingers right at home.

But I'd keep an eye on AIP options. The ideal would be fuel cell thanks to its lower acoustic issues (no moving parts, no vibration). I'm not sure about sizing, but I imagine fuel cells may also be easier to use in a small submarine than say Stirling or MESMA?
 
China's MS2000 mini submarine (about 200 tons)
img-16971b2994893de3216d9973db28be8b.jpg
 
The adjacent coastline is a major factor for SWATS. The notion that 1 or 2 of those can just enter and loiter near the enemy coast will see the IN thin out its ASW coverage. Difficult to see how imposing a presence against larger SSKs out in the open seas is sustainable if a SWATS threat lingers right at home.

But I'd keep an eye on AIP options. The ideal would be fuel cell thanks to its lower acoustic issues (no moving parts, no vibration). I'm not sure about sizing, but I imagine fuel cells may also be easier to use in a small submarine than say Stirling or MESMA?

what is really a fuel cell?
 
Is it different than what is in A90B
Subs have diesel engines and batteries
Modern AIP subs have the above 2 plus a third system that runs without air(air indep propulsion) hence more submerge endurance

Currently three such systems are famous
1. Sterling 2. MSMA 3. Fuel cell..agosta has MSMA
Fuel cell is like a battery so the quietest of all
 
The adjacent coastline is a major factor for SWATS. The notion that 1 or 2 of those can just enter and loiter near the enemy coast will see the IN thin out its ASW coverage. Difficult to see how imposing a presence against larger SSKs out in the open seas is sustainable if a SWATS threat lingers right at home.

But I'd keep an eye on AIP options. The ideal would be fuel cell thanks to its lower acoustic issues (no moving parts, no vibration). I'm not sure about sizing, but I imagine fuel cells may also be easier to use in a small submarine than say Stirling or MESMA?

Acoustic noise is not the problem in our seas. Even if there was piston pumps installed in this SWATS nobody will hear them till they are well in the kill zone.

Subs have diesel engines and batteries
Modern AIP subs have the above 2 plus a third system that runs without air(air indep propulsion) hence more submerge endurance

Currently three such systems are famous
1. Sterling 2. MSMA 3. Fuel cell..agosta has MSMA
Fuel cell is like a battery so the quietest of all

There is CCD, or close circuit diesel, through which you run a high frequency generator to charge your batteries underwater with argon and LOX. Due to high frequency, your noise propagation is in yoru favor and not to anyone listening to you.

MESMA is a failed technology.

Sterling engine is limited to who uses and releases.

Fuel Cell is promising, but bulky and expensive still, and highly controlled technology.
 
Acoustic noise is not the problem in our seas. Even if there was piston pumps installed in this SWATS nobody will hear them till they are well in the kill zone.



There is CCD, or close circuit diesel, through which you run a high frequency generator to charge your batteries underwater with argon and LOX. Due to high frequency, your noise propagation is in yoru favor and not to anyone listening to you.

MESMA is a failed technology.

Sterling engine is limited to who uses and releases.

Fuel Cell is promising, but bulky and expensive still, and highly controlled technology.
lot of proliferation of fuel cell tech has happened in civilian market ..and cars ...whether that tech can be applied to military use..? Dont know..

Efficiency of sterling is questionable in warm waters
 
Back
Top Bottom