# Type-212 vs Type-214 explained



## Myth_buster_1

network54 WAFF member, he is a german btw.

*This is kind of a classic issue, and there is a lot of confusion about it.*

It is necessary to understand project legacy and concept origins to understand the differences between both ships, and the first thing we must clear about the question is:

None of the ships is overly superior to the other.

U-212 and U-214 are answers to different problems, and therefore they are different.
U-212 is the result of a german requirement for a submarine with a non magnetic hull. This requirement has to do with the average depth of the Baltic Sea (56m). In those circumstances, the most important defence method of a submarine is just to go to the bottom and try to disappear in the sonar. Hence, the need for a non-magnetic steel hull.
Unfortunatelly, non-magnetic steel is also known in the industry as «sweet.steel.» Meaning that it is «softer» than the steel used in the U-214. Thats why a U-214 can go deeper than a U-212, although in the shallow water of the Baltic the U-212 would go un-notices while the U-214 would probably be caught by sonar.

Actually the family legacy of U-212 is not U-209, but the Thyssen project from the 1970s that resulted in the TR-1700 submarine from Argentina. The fastest Diesel-electric submarine in the world. The same basic layout with two decks is also found in the Dolphin class from Israel, although without non-magnetic steel nor AIP.

U-214s legacy is the U-209, although much changed. It is narrower and longer that U-212. It was not thought for the Baltic, but for open deep sea operation. Therefore U-214 will have no bottom of the sea limit, other than the limit imposed by the resistance of its stronger hull.

Both U-214 and U-212 can operate in shallow waters or deep waters, but U-212 has the edge on shallow water, while U-214 has the edge on deep water.

The systems can be changed and installed on either vessels, depending on the requirement of the users.
U-212 has older systems than the U-214 (which is just natural as the projects are almost 10 years apart).

Note that U-212 was never offered as an option to a navy. When it was offered to the Italian navy, there was no U-214 yet.

U-212 uses an imported combat system partially made in Norway by Kongsberg, known as MSI-90, while U-214s combat system is made in germany.by Atlas-Elektronik, being the latest version of the ISUS-90 system.

There are many differences in combat systems, but one of the most important results in U-212 being only able to fire torpedoes, while U-214 can fire both torpedoes and submarine launched sub harpoon missiles. This will change in future versions of U-212 though.

The consolidation of german naval industry ended with the competition between both models in the 1990s.

One cant just say which of them is better. The U-212 was an absolute german need for the Baltic conditions. Italy wanted an AIP submarine, and there wasnt really any real choice at the time. When a navy makes an option for a model, the most logical option is to stick to it, and thus Italy is going to get an additional two U-212.

For a navy that is going to protect shallow waters, there is no doubt about the clear superiority of U-212. In deep sea operations away from the shores, U-214 will fare better.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Penguin

A document by Forecast International from the 1990s suggests that the TR-1700 too has its roots in the 209. As reported, the TR-1700 was also offered to Canada.

Missing in the lineage is the type 210 (norwegian Ula class). German-Norwegian cooperation in this field explains the emergence of a Kongsberg combat system on 212A (212 was never built).


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Informative posts must admit 

Subs are vital for any navy


----------



## Zarbe Momin

If pakistan can afford to buy two type Type-212 submarines obviously with type-214 internal systems, then pakistan will also get ability to operate with non-megnatic hull in shallow waters. Indians also have type-209 submarines.


----------



## PakShaheen79

U212A is real thing as far as stealth tech is concerned...but never the less U-214 is more potent in firepower and endurance.


----------



## unicorn148

type 212 are one of the most advance non nuclear subs.Type 212 is the first of the only two fuel cell propulsion system equipped submarines ready for series production by 2007.where as export version of 214 is inferior to the 212 thats why german navy uses 212 and not 214


----------



## ice_man

unicorn148 said:


> type 212 are one of the most advance non nuclear subs.Type 212 is the first of the only two fuel cell propulsion system equipped submarines ready for series production by 2007.where as export version of 214 is inferior to the 212 thats why german navy uses 212 and not 214



please elaborate on how the U-214 is inferior!


----------



## unicorn148

type 214 is the export version of type 212 which lacks the non-magnetic hull (to avoid detection) and other classified technologies
which are present in type 212 only used by germany and some by italy


----------



## Myth_buster_1

Ladies and gentlemen looks like we have another low life BR troller. lets dealt with him with facts which will make him run away from this forum.


unicorn148 said:


> type 212 are one of the most advance non nuclear subs.Type 212 is the first of the only two fuel cell propulsion system equipped submarines ready for series production by 2007.where as export version of 214 is inferior to the 212 thats why german navy uses 212 and not 214



Did you even read the starter post of the thread? or just for the sake of satisfying your ego you hit the keyboard with usual indian rants.


----------



## SSGPA1

For our requirements, I think we need U214 because eventually we will need a platform which can fire missiles while stay under water.

This capability will be the final deterrence and final crown jewel insha-Allah.


----------



## PakShaheen79

unicorn148 said:


> type 214 is the export version of type 212 which lacks the non-magnetic hull (to avoid detection) and other classified technologies
> which are present in type 212 only used by germany and some by italy



Wrong. U212 is not superior to U-214. It is U-212A which has better stealth capability than U-214 but that is for some reasons (as posted in first post of threat) rest U-214 has heavier punch in firepower and more stamina in Endurance.


----------



## unicorn148

the actual u212a or 212 used by the germany navy are superior to the u214 
because the classified techs in 212's are not present in 214 
if any one want to contradict this i hav a que why did the germany navy has not ordered even a single u214


----------



## mughaljee

Growler said:


> *This is kind of a classic issue, and there is a lot of confusion about it.*
> Both U-214 and U-212 can operate in shallow waters or deep waters, but U-212 has the edge on shallow water, while U-214 has the edge on deep water.
> 
> There are many differences in combat systems, but one of the most important results in U-212 being only able to fire torpedoes, while U-214 can fire both torpedoes and submarine launched sub harpoon missiles. This will change in future versions of U-212 though.



Many thanks for such information


----------



## unicorn148

On the 15th of November, the Greek Navy officially comunicated to HDW the decision to refuse acceptance of delivery of the Papanikolis type U214 submarine.
Among the reasons mentioned:

-Excessive roll on surface (up to 56 degrees).
-Excessive underwater noise generation.
-Periscope vibrations.
-Frequent falls of the ISUS combat system.
-Power losses in the AIP.
-Sea water leaks.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## unicorn148

i dont know the exact truth in it but read it online

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

unicorn148 said:


> On the 15th of November, the Greek Navy officially comunicated to HDW the decision to refuse acceptance of delivery of the Papanikolis type U214 submarine.
> Among the reasons mentioned:
> 
> -Excessive roll on surface (up to 56 degrees).
> -Excessive underwater noise generation.
> -Periscope vibrations.
> -Frequent falls of the ISUS combat system.
> -Power losses in the AIP.
> -Sea water leaks.


*Typical indian BR troller. *
genius. Papanikolis is the very first Type-214 and like any other new products it faces some minor problems which are gradually fixed! I know its in indian ego to downgrade anything related to pakistan so to give you the reality check all operational Type-214s like in service with Korean navy are performing 100&#37; great! 
Do you have a life? other then to troll around?

Greeks are making excuses to drop out of this project and so far they have come up with very lame excuses. At the end of the day, Greece can not afford these subs due to economic melt down and its most likely Papanikolis will go to either Taiwan or pakistan.


----------



## unicorn148

Growler said:


> *Typical indian BR troller. *
> genius. Papanikolis is the very first Type-214 and like any other new products it faces some minor problems which are gradually fixed! I know its in indian ego to downgrade anything related to pakistan so to give you the reality check all operational Type-214s like in service with Korean navy are performing 100% great!
> Do you have a life? other then to troll around?
> 
> Greeks are making excuses to drop out of this project and so far they have come up with very lame excuses. At the end of the day, Greece can not afford these subs due to economic melt down and its most likely Papanikolis will go to either Taiwan or pakistan.




mr growler if the type 214 are really so powerfull i had a que why hasnt the german navy ordered even a single type 214


----------



## Myth_buster_1

unicorn148 said:


> mr growler if the type 214 are really so powerfull i had a que why hasnt the german navy ordered even a single type 214



If the bahramos is so powerful (the most leathel AShM in da world claimed by indians) then why hasnt Russia ordered a single bahramos?
Being a troller that you are, you lack the comprehension that it is the requirement that suites the best. not the price tag and not the origin.
For instance. Isreal never operated FA-18 beside it being much superior to F-16s and surprisingly they went on to induct F-16I instead of their own version of Super Hornet. 
Its quite obvious that you did not even read the 1st post and started off with the usual rants. Try to comprehend this.


> Note that U-212 was never offered as an option to a navy. When it was offered to the Italian navy, there was no U-214 yet.
> U-212 uses an imported combat system partially made in Norway by Kongsberg, known as MSI-90, while U-214s combat system is made in germany.by Atlas-Elektronik, being the latest version of the ISUS-90 system.



As for your question. why doesnt Germany use Type-214? 
The reason why Germans opted for 212 was because it meets the demand to operate in shallow water of Baltic sea and has a different type of hull specifically made for that task! where as 214 is a deep sea diving sub and has different hull to sustain presser beyound 400+ meters.

Both Type-214 and 212 are equally as good.


----------



## Sravan

Growler said:


> If the bahramos is so powerful (the most leathel AShM in da world claimed by indians) then why hasnt Russia ordered a single bahramos?
> Being a troller that you are, you lack the comprehension that it is the requirement that suites the best. not the price tag and not the origin.
> For instance. Isreal never operated FA-18 beside it being much superior to F-16s and surprisingly they went on to induct F-16I instead of their own version of Super Hornet.
> Its quite obvious that you did not even read the 1st post and started off with the usual rants. Try to comprehend this.
> 
> 
> As for your question. why doesnt Germany use Type-214?
> The reason why Germans opted for 212 was because it meets the demand to operate in shallow water of Baltic sea and has a different type of hull specifically made for that task! where as 214 is a deep sea diving sub and has different hull to sustain presser beyound 400+ meters.
> 
> Both Type-214 and 212 are equally as good.



Here i have to agree with Growler Type 214 is one of the best Non nuclear sub and disagree on his Bramhos view Russia is reluctant to induct only because of its range i.e 290km not because its capability thats my view ofcourse

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## unicorn148

BrahMos could be fitted to the updated Gorshkov class of frigates which will be entering the Russian navy soon and the new ships will be acomadating this missile


----------



## garibnawaz

Growler said:


> Both Type-214 and 212 are equally as good.



Not at all.

Type 212 is a highly advanced design of non-nuclear submarine (U-Boat) developed by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG (HDW) for the German Navy. It features diesel propulsion and an additional air-independent propulsion (AIP) system using Siemens proton exchange membrane (PEM) hydrogen fuel cells. The submarine can operate at high speed on diesel power or switch to the AIP system for silent slow cruising, staying submerged for up to three weeks without surfacing and with no exhaust heat. The system is also said to be vibration-free, extremely quiet and virtually undetectable.

Type 212 is the first of the only two fuel cell propulsion system equipped submarines ready for series production by 2007, the other being the Project 677 Lada class submarine designed by Russian Rubin Design Bureau.

The Type 214 is a diesel-electric submarine developed by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GmbH (HDW). It features diesel propulsion with an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system using Siemens polymer electrolyte module (PEM) hydrogen fuel cells. It is based on features of the Type 212, but as the export version of the more advanced Type 212 submarine it lacks the non-magnetic hull (to avoid detection) and other classified technologies. Also Type 214 is more similar to the very successful Type 209 submarine, while Type 212 was an independent project of the German Navy with significant changes to Type 209.

GB


----------



## Myth_buster_1

garibnawaz said:


> Not at all.
> 
> Type 212 is a highly advanced design of non-nuclear submarine (U-Boat) developed by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG (HDW) for the German Navy. It features diesel propulsion and an additional air-independent propulsion (AIP) system using Siemens proton exchange membrane (PEM) hydrogen fuel cells. The submarine can operate at high speed on diesel power or switch to the AIP system for silent slow cruising, staying submerged for up to three weeks without surfacing and with no exhaust heat. The system is also said to be vibration-free, extremely quiet and virtually undetectable.
> 
> Type 212 is the first of the only two fuel cell propulsion system equipped submarines ready for series production by 2007, the other being the Project 677 Lada class submarine designed by Russian Rubin Design Bureau.
> 
> The Type 214 is a diesel-electric submarine developed by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GmbH (HDW). It features diesel propulsion with an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system using Siemens polymer electrolyte module (PEM) hydrogen fuel cells. It is based on features of the Type 212, but as the export version of the more advanced Type 212 submarine it lacks the non-magnetic hull (to avoid detection) and other classified technologies. Also Type 214 is more similar to the very successful Type 209 submarine, while Type 212 was an independent project of the German Navy with significant changes to Type 209.
> 
> GB



YOu F*** A***! Stop trolling my threads with your useless one liners! At least read the 1st post before you hit the keyboard like a ****!


> U-212 and U-214 are answers to different problems, and therefore they are different.
> U-212 is the result of a german requirement for a submarine with a non magnetic hull. This requirement has to do with the average depth of the Baltic Sea (56m). In those circumstances, the most important defence method of a submarine is just to go to the bottom and try to disappear in the sonar. Hence, the need for a non-magnetic steel hull.
> Unfortunatelly, non-magnetic steel is also known in the industry as «sweet.steel.» Meaning that it is «softer» than the steel used in the U-214. Thats why a U-214 can go deeper than a U-212, although in the shallow water of the Baltic the U-212 would go un-notices while the U-214 would probably be caught by sonar.
> 
> Actually the family legacy of U-212 is not U-209, but the Thyssen project from the 1970s that resulted in the TR-1700 submarine from Argentina. The fastest Diesel-electric submarine in the world. The same basic layout with two decks is also found in the Dolphin class from Israel, although without non-magnetic steel nor AIP.
> 
> U-214s legacy is the U-209, although much changed. It is narrower and longer that U-212. It was not thought for the Baltic, but for open deep sea operation. Therefore U-214 will have no bottom of the sea limit, other than the limit imposed by the resistance of its stronger hull.
> 
> Both U-214 and U-212 can operate in shallow waters or deep waters, but U-212 has the edge on shallow water, while U-214 has the edge on deep water.
> 
> The systems can be changed and installed on either vessels, depending on the requirement of the users.
> U-212 has older systems than the U-214 (which is just natural as the projects are almost 10 years apart).
> 
> Note that U-212 was never offered as an option to a navy. When it was offered to the Italian navy, there was no U-214 yet.
> 
> U-212 uses an imported combat system partially made in Norway by Kongsberg, known as MSI-90, while U-214s combat system is made in germany.by Atlas-Elektronik, being the latest version of the ISUS-90 system.
> 
> There are many differences in combat systems, but one of the most important results in U-212 being only able to fire torpedoes, while U-214 can fire both torpedoes and submarine launched sub harpoon missiles. This will change in future versions of U-212 though.
> 
> The consolidation of german naval industry ended with the competition between both models in the 1990s.
> 
> One cant just say which of them is better. The U-212 was an absolute german need for the Baltic conditions. Italy wanted an AIP submarine, and there wasnt really any real choice at the time. When a navy makes an option for a model, the most logical option is to stick to it, and thus Italy is going to get an additional two U-212.
> 
> For a navy that is going to protect shallow waters, there is no doubt about the clear superiority of U-212. In deep sea operations away from the shores, U-214 will fare better.



Now crawl back to your BR gutter!


----------



## unicorn148

mr growler think before you use such words 
no one can say that type 214 is better than type 212
the type 212 which are used by german navy have some classified techs which are only in german type 212 no country will share their classified techs
so think before u throw ur words

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

unicorn148 said:


> mr growler think before you use such words
> no one can say that type 214 is better than type 212
> the type 212 which are used by german navy have some classified techs which are only in german type 212 no country will share their classified techs
> so think before u throw ur words



*:mod edit:*

Where When did i say 214 is superior to 212? You can not comprehend the fact that both platforms are made for different purposes.. 212 is best suited for shallow waters while 214 with 400+ meters depth is best suited for deep sea operations.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

garibnawaz said:


> Now looking at your foul language its clear that I proved my point effectively that Type-214 is not as good as Type-212.


You have not proven squat! other then posting articles without links that 212 has non magmatic hull and secretive technologies. 
i have already proven. 


> U-212 uses an* imported combat system *partially made in Norway by Kongsberg, known as MSI-90, while U-214s *combat system is made in germany.by Atlas-Elektronik, being the latest version of the ISUS-90 *system.





> We are at knowledge sharing which also sometimes involves debate. There is no need to use foul language if you don't agree with other posters.


You obviously have no knowledge to share other then. mine is bigger better then yours.


----------



## garibnawaz

Growler said:


> Indian troller!
> 
> Where When did i say 214 is superior to 212? You can not comprehend the fact that both platforms are made for different purposes.. 212 is best suited for shallow waters while 214 with 400+ meters depth is best suited for deep sea operations.



Now you are on backfoot.

You said Type-214 is as good as Type-212 against which my reply was

The Type 214 is a diesel-electric submarine developed by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GmbH (HDW). It features diesel propulsion with an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system using Siemens polymer electrolyte module (PEM) hydrogen fuel cells. It is based on features of the Type 212, but as the export version of the more advanced Type 212 submarine it lacks the non-magnetic hull (to avoid detection) and other classified technologies. Also Type 214 is more similar to the very successful Type 209 submarine, while Type 212 was an independent project of the German Navy with significant changes to Type 209.

Also Type 212 is the first of the only two fuel cell propulsion system equipped submarines ready for series production by 2007, the other being the Project 677 Lada class submarine designed by Russian Rubin Design Bureau.

It has more than deep sea and shallow waters.

GB


----------



## Myth_buster_1

unicorn148 said:


> mr troller
> i never objected ur facts but said that every country have some classified techs which they dont share simillary the type 212 hav classified techs which are not there in type 214



Oh so you have proven my point that you are not that smart enough so u are using my lines against me. 
Mr.indian troller
which classified techs are you talking about? which systems? 
so your point is that 212 is better then 214 because it uses classified tech and non magnetic hull.. what a point to win a debate.
i still stand to my point. both 212 and 214 are equally as good for their rolls.


----------



## garibnawaz

I am quite amused to see the action of mod on this topic.

Foul language and personal insult posts stay. Sane replies deleted.

GB


----------



## unicorn148

not only in the case of type 212 even the f16 paf using cant match the f16 used by us because us will not share their classified techs and if really type 214 are equally powerfull like type 212 then germany navy would have inducted them because every navy requires both shallow water subs and deep water subs but till now german navy hasnt inducted a single type 214 and has no future plans its only for export


----------



## Myth_buster_1

unicorn148 said:


> not only in the case of type 212 even the f16 paf using cant match the f16 used by us because us will not share their classified techs and if really type 214 are equally powerfull like type 212 then germany navy would have inducted them because every navy requires both shallow water subs and deep water subs but till now german navy hasnt inducted a single type 214 and has no future plans its only for export



mr.sane

did some one tell you that you are a genius?
Exactly which classified systems our new F-16s lack that are present in USAF F-16s? oh is it the death star?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## garibnawaz

unicorn148 said:


> i told u before show me the proof to back ur stuff if u got it then post it till then dont waste ur time



Have't you noticed yet? Why you are still giving a try?

He is trying to prove that Type-214 is as good as Type-212 since PN is going to procure it.

Without doubt Type-214 is a good submarine PN will be benifited by it.

However somehow he dont understand that Type-214 is not as good as Type-212 to fulfil his superiority complex that PN is better than IN.

If somehow IN gets Type-214 he will be the first one to come out and say Type-214 is crap.

GB


----------



## Myth_buster_1

unicorn148 said:


> i told u before show me the proof to back ur stuff if u got it then post it till then dont waste ur time



you are the one making wild claims that PAF will get downgraded f-16s which will not be as good as basic USAF block52. I think lockheed should change the new F-16 name from Block52 PLUS to Block52 Minus.


----------



## unicorn148

mr growler i hav never said that the american f16 will be having some classified techs i am saying that the export version will be slightly less than the actually used by usaf


----------



## Myth_buster_1

unicorn148 said:


> mr growler i hav never said that the american f16 will be having some classified techs i am saying that the export version will be slightly less than the actually used by usaf



so like i have said before.

Lockheed martin is lying about new block 52 F-16 and calling it block 52 plus?? according to your analogy USAF block 52 F-16 should be called block 52 plus while our cr@PY f-16s should be classified as block 52 Minus. 

what a.. well all i am going to say what a indian troller which suites you the best. it defines you perfectly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Penguin

unicorn148 said:


> BrahMos could be fitted to the updated Gorshkov class of frigates which will be entering the Russian navy soon and the new ships will be acomadating this missile



Why would the Russians buy Brahmos when they have P-800 Oniks, alternatively termed Yakhont, 3M55 and SS-N-26, which served as the basis for the joint Russian-Indian supersonic missile the PJ-10 BrahMos. While the Brahmos missile's airframe, propulsion system, and warhead are designed in Russia, its guidance system and software is designed in India. The PJ-10 has been designed to meet the Indian Navy's requirements. I would think Russia would prefer a fully homegrown missile, i.e. a domestic Yakhont variant. Of which they are technically well capable. The question is whether there wil be funding for it.


----------



## Penguin

unicorn148 said:


> mr growler if the type 214 are really so powerfull i had a que why hasnt the german navy ordered even a single type 214



Well, obviously because there is a limited budget and hence a limited number of purchases. The 212As in service - not exactly coastal subs like the 206As but nonetheless optimized for the Baltic - suffice for the job at hand and aren't worn out yet. There is no reason for the German navy to buy additional subs in the form of 214s.

Despite a run down in numbers of frigates, the russian navy hasn't ordered a single project 1135.6 frigate ... what does that say or prove, in your opinion?


----------



## MastanKhan

unicorn148 said:


> mr growler i hav never said that the american f16 will be having some classified techs i am saying that the export version will be slightly less than the actually used by usaf





Hi,

In 1984 or 1986, I am at a defence show in Ogden utah----I was talking to a millitary officer about the cobra gunships---he stated that some of the equipment that pak was getting was more advanced than what the u s millitary had at time---about the cobra gunships.

Now that maybe true for some of the equipment but not all of it. Weaopns systems that may not change the shape and outcome of the war maybe at par with the equipment that the americans have---but the weapons systems that may change the outcome of a conflict will be a step below----but then what do you say about the BLK 60 being sold to a middle eastern country---or sales to israel---.

Truthfully---there is a contradiction in itself somewhere---some nations may not get the top best---others may get what ever they want except for the F 22---and that may be available to japan as a down graded version.

U S congress asked this question to the pentagon---why are you selling the high end equipment to some nations---that may pose a threat to our air craft----the answer was---there is no other way around it---our allies want the best we have and they would not take no for an answer---other wise some of them would go elsewhere----this was regarding the sale of Amraam 120.

If they go somewhere else---then the pentagon would lose their influence over that millitary.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Penguin

garibnawaz said:


> Not at all.
> 
> Type 212 is a highly advanced design of non-nuclear submarine (U-Boat) developed by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft AG (HDW) for the German Navy. It features diesel propulsion and an additional air-independent propulsion (AIP) system using Siemens proton exchange membrane (PEM) hydrogen fuel cells. The submarine can operate at high speed on diesel power or switch to the AIP system for silent slow cruising, staying submerged for up to three weeks without surfacing and with no exhaust heat. The system is also said to be vibration-free, extremely quiet and virtually undetectable.
> 
> Type 212 is the first of the only two fuel cell propulsion system equipped submarines ready for series production by 2007, the other being the Project 677 Lada class submarine designed by Russian Rubin Design Bureau.
> 
> The Type 214 is a diesel-electric submarine developed by Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GmbH (HDW). It features diesel propulsion with an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system using Siemens polymer electrolyte module (PEM) hydrogen fuel cells. It is based on features of the Type 212, but as the export version of the more advanced Type 212 submarine it lacks the non-magnetic hull (to avoid detection) and other classified technologies. Also Type 214 is more similar to the very successful Type 209 submarine, while Type 212 was an independent project of the German Navy with significant changes to Type 209.
> 
> GB


First quote in red is from: Type 212 submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Second quote in red is from: Type 214 submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To which I'ld like to point out:



> The Type 214 Submarine is being built by Kockums and HDW and will use two AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) systems - Fuel Cell and Stirling.
> ...
> The latest additions to the German shipbuilder HDW's highly successful Type 209 family of submarines, the Type 212 (ordered by Germany and Italy), the Type 214 (ordered by Greece), and the Type 800, are all fuel cell powered.
> ...
> PEM (Polymer Electrolyte Membrane) fuel cells are known for their efficient conversion of hydrogen (as fuel) and oxygen into electrical energy. _Optimised for the specific requirements in submarines _they are the key component for the generation of electrical energy in future conventional submarines with increased operational range during silent run built by the shipyard HDW. Siemens has developed and is manufacturing _two different types of PEM fuel cell modules_, one type for the German and Italian U 212 submarines and the other one for the U214 submarine respectively, as they will be used by the Hellenic and the South Korean navy.


From: Type 214



> Siemens has two types of SINAVYas PEM Fuel modules for you to choose from. The BZM 34, with a rated power of 34 kW as well as the BZM 120, with a rated power of 120 kW.
> The new submarines of class U 212 A (six for the German navy, and four for the Italian Navy) are equipped with BZM 34 modules, which have been developed since 1985 on behalf of the German Ministry of Defense.
> The new 209PN-class and 214-class submarines - up to now for the Hellenic Navy, Republic of Korea Navy and Prtugese Navy - are fitted with BZM 120 modules which have been developed by SIemens in a next step


http://www.industry.siemens.com/broschueren/pdf/marine/sinavy/en/SINAVY_PEM_Fuel_Cell_en.pdf



> Type 214
> 
> HDW has developed the Type 214 submarine, which is a further improvement on the Type 212.
> ...
> The Type 214 has an increased diving depth of over 400m, due to improvements in the pressure hull materials.
> ...
> Performance of the AIP system has been increased with two Siemens PEM fuel cells which produce 120kW per module and will give the submarine an underwater endurance of two weeks.
> ...
> A hull shape which has been further optimised for hydrodynamic and stealth characteristics and a low-noise propeller combine to decrease the submarine's acoustic signature.


From: U212 / U214 Attack Submarines - Naval Technology

Incidentally, Kockums is a Swedish sub-builder that has been involved in design and building of the following sub-classes:
N&#228;cken class A14 type submarine 
V&#228;sterg&#246;tland A17 type class submarine 
S&#246;dermanland class submarine 
Gotland class submarine 
Collins class Type 471 submarines, an enlarged version of the V&#228;sterg&#246;tland
See: Kockums - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Between 1987 and 1988 the Nacken was converted to Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) using a closed cycle Stirling engine.
See: N&#228;cken class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second pair of the V&#228;sterg&#246;tland class submarine have undergone comprehensive refits, including the insertion of a new hull section with an AIP system equipped with Stirling engines, and have been recommissioned as the new S&#246;dermanland class. The first pair had been put in reserve until November 2005, when they were sold to the Republic of Singapore Navy. They too are to be refitted to S&#246;dermanland-class standards and receive additional climatisation for use in tropical waters.
See: V&#228;sterg&#246;tland class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: S&#246;dermanland class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gotland class attack submarines of the Swedish Navy are modern diesel-electric submarines. They are the first submarines in the world to feature a Stirling engine air-independent propulsion (AIP) system, which extends their underwater endurance from a few days to weeks.[1] This capability had previously only been available with nuclear powered submarines
See: Gotland class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gotland was the world's first submarine class in operation with an air independent propulsion (AIP) system. 
See: Gotland

Air-independent propulsion (AIP) was also considered for the Collins class, and the submarines were designed to be retrofitted with an AIP system. The AIP plan was cancelled in July 1996, after it was demonstrated during sea trials that during constant operations, the boat's snorkel was exposed for only a few minutes in a 24-hour period; officials from ASC claimed that any Collins class submarine spotted while snorting would be because the boat was "dead unlucky". Installation of AIP was not believed to provide enough of an improvement on this to justify the predicted AU$100 million cost.
See: Collins class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, AIP has been around for some time. What's new is the combination with PEM fuel cell technology and both 212A and 214 have that. Further, it is clear 214 is optimized for different conditions than 212 is. Also, the link to 209 may be over emphasised. Looking at the various Swedish Kockums subs, there appears a clear influence from this quarter as well. Feeding into 212A is also the 210 Ula class (German/Norwegian design). Both 212A and 214 appear to build on Dolphin class (for Israel).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

unicorn148 said:


> yes we are indians and we dont throw words like u people to just satisfy ur ego i told u before if u have the proof to claim ur words


Whats the point of proving something so basic which is beyond the comprehension level of yours. satisfy my ego?
So am i right that according to your analogy... USAF f-16s should be called BLOCK 52 Plus while PAF BLock 52 should be classified as block 52 minus?


----------



## MastanKhan

Hi,

Well---as for the 212 or the 214---their max speed where they are still silent is around 16---20 knots and that---now for the air propulsion---they can't run too long at that speed maybe few hours---or days---now compare it to the seawolf class nucler subs---which can run at 25-30 knots without being detected and plus 40 knots all day long for as long as the crew has food in the submarine---which means a minimum of 3 months---.

The non nuclear subs are good against non nuclear subs---not against the nuclear subs---I have recently done some more research on this matter and my observation and analysis after reading some stuff from professionals----the news about some swedish subs etc creating headache for the u s navy's nuclear subs maynot be true---I believe that it s a deception and a misleading statement from the americans---secondly----the american nuclear subthe current ones has so much technology----it is unbelievable---the newest generation of american sub could possibly see in front of them---they will have probes floating in front and behind thousands of yards to give them and audio and visual imagery of the ocean---.

The weapons systems----the diesel would not have enough offensive weapons to take out any older american nuclear or a russian nuclear sub of the later model. The nuc subs would have too many defencive weapons at hand to knock out any weapons launched by a diesel and would have too many offencive weapons to take out the diesel.

The diesel's may---I would say may get a shot if it is lying in wait---lying dormant for a while at a certain place that the nuc sub is going by---but it is not with certainity that the shot maybe effective for the nuc sub would have too many ways to counter the shot.

So---when the pak navy admiral stated that the indian nuc sub would take the conflict to the next level----he was not wrong---in the last two weeks what I have read---has made me change my opinion of the indian nuc sub.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SBD-3

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Well---as for the 212 or the 214---their max speed where they are still silent is around 16---20 knots and that---now for the air propulsion---they can't run too long at that speed maybe few hours---or days---now compare it to the seawolf class nucler subs---which can run at 25-30 knots without being detected and plus 40 knots all day long for as long as the crew has food in the submarine---which means a minimum of 3 months---.
> 
> The non nuclear subs are good against non nuclear subs---not against the nuclear subs---I have recently done some more research on this matter and my observation and analysis after reading some stuff from professionals----the news about some swedish subs etc creating headache for the u s navy's nuclear subs maynot be true---I believe that it s a deception and a misleading statement from the americans---secondly----the american nuclear subthe current ones has so much technology----it is unbelievable---the newest generation of american sub could possibly see in front of them---they will have probes floating in front and behind thousands of yards to give them and audio and visual picture of the ocean---.
> 
> The weapons systems----the diesel would not have enough offensive weapons to take out any older american nuclear or a russian nuclear sub of the later model. The nuc subs would have too many defencive weapons at hand to knock out any weapons launched by a diesel and would have too many offencive weapons to take out the diesel.
> 
> The diesel's may---I would say may get a shot if it is lying in wait---lying dormant for a while at a certain place that the nuc sub is going by---but it is not with certainity that the shot maybe effective for the nuc sub would have too many ways to counter the shot.
> 
> So---when the pak navy admiral stated that the indian nuc sub would take the conflict to the next level----he was not wrong---in the last two weeks what I have read---has made me change my opinion of the indian nuc sub.



but sir somewhere on the same forum i heard that PN was able to locate French Nuke sub 7 out of 8 times in exercises. Is it that we are going to hunt subs by using subs? here is something 


> How Does U 212 Submarine, the Supreme Silent Hunter, Operate?
> The quietest submarine in the world
> 
> 
> By Lucian Dorneanu, Science Editor
> 
> 19th of June 2007, 14:59 GMT
> 
> Among the arsenal of the most advanced military superpowers, one weapon is the most feared. It's not the atomic bomb, it's even more powerful, while being almost undetectable and can launch a devastating surprise attack on almost any country in the world.
> 
> Operating underwater at pressures beyond the range of
> unaided human survivability, submarines, first widely used in World War I, are used by all major navies today. They are quiet and effective, being able to operate close to the shore without anyone knowing it's there.
> 
> The supreme silent hunter in the world is the German U 212 submarine. It's not a nuclear submarine, it's a hunter one, designed to attack and sink surface vessels and other submarines. U 32 "Edenkoben" is the second Type 212A submarine of the German Navy.
> 
> 
> Launched in 2003, the U 32 is powered by one diesel engine and an electric motor driven by two fuel cells and features a cavitation-free screw, making it harder to detect. U 32 was the first non-nuclear submarine to stay submerged for two weeks.
> 
> The fact that it uses fuel cells, with no moving parts, greatly reduces the noise output, making it virtually undetectable, compared to other diesel subs. The outer surface is covered in a special, non-reflective paint, that absorbs ultrasounds coming from the sonars of other submarines, making it as efficient as the F117-A stealth bomber, covered in roughly the same paint.
> 
> The U 212 U-boat has a displacement of 1360 tons, is 53.5 meters long and 11.5 meters high, with a diameter between 5.5 and 6.8 meters, and it's operated by a crew of 24. The fuel cells that power the electric motor are placed on the outside of the hull and are designed to explode on the outside in case of a disaster, thus minimizing the risks for the crew.
> 
> When it comes to weapons, this submarine is armed to the teeth, being equipped with 12 torpedo tubes, a towed-array sonar and a flank-array sonar, accompanied by an internal passive ranging sonar and two periscopes.
> 
> But the most feared weapon is not a torpedo. Being able to operate in shallow waters, near the shore, with a minimum depth of 18 meters, far beyond the capabilities of a nuclear submarine, the U 212 can launch the German equivalent of Navy SEAL, special forces units that can go undetected and sink docked ships, neutralize the crew or rescue secret agents when all other means failed, and all this before the enemies ever knowing what hit them.


http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-...nt-Hunter-Operate-U-212-Submarine-57692.shtml


----------



## MastanKhan

hasnain0099 said:


> but sir somewhere on the same forum i heard that PN was able to locate French Nuke sub 7 out of 8 times in exercises. Is it that we are going to hunt subs by using subs? here is something
> 
> How Does U 212 Submarine, the Supreme Silent Hunter, Operate? - The quietest submarine in the world - Softpedia



Hi,

Here is what I am learing in the last couple of weeks---doesn't make any difference---the french nuc would have a much superior defencive weapons systems against any attack on it---they will have more of them---than a non nuc sub---plus the speed of the nuc will be a major asset---. Doesnot make any difference---if it got caught 7 out of 8 times----.

The only thing that would favour the non nuc---if it is loaded with the russian shkval torpedo---.

The 212 and 214 are excellent against non-nucs---and older russian nuc subs and other surface ships.

Now if the indians have the russian shkval torpedo---then we better-----------------.


Now this is my research---people may agree or disagree---it is upto them---I am not in an argumentative mood---but I will share more about this issue in time. I believe that I may have found a mine of information just by accident.


----------



## Penguin

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Well---as for the 212 or the 214---their max speed where they are still silent is around 16---20 knots and that---now for the air propulsion---they can't run too long at that speed maybe few hours---or days---now compare it to the seawolf class nucler subs---which can run at 25-30 knots without being detected and plus 40 knots all day long for as long as the crew has food in the submarine---which means a minimum of 3 months---.
> 
> The non nuclear subs are good against non nuclear subs---not against the nuclear subs---I have recently done some more research on this matter and my observation and analysis after reading some stuff from professionals----the news about some swedish subs etc creating headache for the u s navy's nuclear subs maynot be true---I believe that it s a deception and a misleading statement from the americans---secondly----the american nuclear subthe current ones has so much technology----it is unbelievable---the newest generation of american sub could possibly see in front of them---they will have probes floating in front and behind thousands of yards to give them and audio and visual imagery of the ocean---.
> 
> The weapons systems----the diesel would not have enough offensive weapons to take out any older american nuclear or a russian nuclear sub of the later model. The nuc subs would have too many defencive weapons at hand to knock out any weapons launched by a diesel and would have too many offencive weapons to take out the diesel.
> 
> The diesel's may---I would say may get a shot if it is lying in wait---lying dormant for a while at a certain place that the nuc sub is going by---but it is not with certainity that the shot maybe effective for the nuc sub would have too many ways to counter the shot.
> 
> So---when the pak navy admiral stated that the indian nuc sub would take the conflict to the next level----he was not wrong---in the last two weeks what I have read---has made me change my opinion of the indian nuc sub.



Sure, SSNs have a greater underwater speed than SSKs. So they can transit over much greater distances much faster. But you have to consider that subs at high speed are essentially blind. And SSKs are much quieter than SSNs, which need to constantly pump coolingwater for their reactor, which gives the SSK a decided advantage in one-on-one ASW. After all, you can't kill what you can find.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

Penguin said:


> Sure, SSNs have a greater underwater speed than SSKs. So they can transit over much greater distances much faster. But you have to consider that subs at high speed are essentially blind. And SSKs are much quieter than SSNs, which need to constantly pump coolingwater for their reactor, which gives the SSK a decided advantage in one-on-one ASW. After all, you can't kill what you can find.




Hi,

That is what I assumed in one of my earlier posts---but when I dug a little bit deeper into it---I found out that the american nuc subs like the seawolf category are wide awake even at flank speed---they have an ashtonishing array of sensors and gadgets that can keep them well informed of what is happening in the surrounding----and at quiet speed of 20---28 knots the seawolf class is silent than the los angeles class sitting in its den in the barbour. These subs have too many sensors hooked into fiber optic cables outside that can give them a visual of the environment.

Same is the case with the most recent british and the french subs---coming close to the seawolf---.

Now if we compare them to the russians----then they are light years apart---any 212 or a 214 sitting in wait can nab them from close range---unless the russians are using the shkval or nuc tipped torps.

And if you compare it to an akula class----not the best sub for modern times. The weapons and electronics warfare systems on the current german subs would be very well advanced----not selling the russians short.----but they will have a hard time keeping up.


----------



## SBD-3

> Internal oxygen supply
> History
> 
> In 1867 Narcís Monturiol i Estarriol successfully developed an early form of anaerobic air independent propulsion. In 1908 the Imperial Russian Navy launched the Pochtovy submarine which used a gasoline engine fed with compressed air and exhausted under water.
> 
> During World War II the German firm Walter experimented with submarines that used concentrated hydrogen peroxide as their source of oxygen underwater. These used steam turbines, employing steam heated by burning diesel fuel in the steam/oxygen atmosphere created by the decomposition of hydrogen peroxide by a potassium permanganate catalyst.
> 
> Several experimental boats were produced, and one, U-1407, which had been scuttled at the end of the war, was salvaged and recommissioned into the Royal Navy as HMS Meteorite. The British built two improved models in the late 1950s, HMS Explorer, and HMS Excalibur.
> 
> The Soviet Union also experimented with the technology and one experimental boat was built. Hydrogen peroxide was eventually abandoned since it is highly reactive when in contact with various metals, is volatile, and submarines had a high rate of consumption. Both the British and the Soviets, the only countries known to be experimenting with it, abandoned it when the United States developed a nuclear reactor small enough for submarine propulsion.
> 
> It was retained for propelling torpedoes by the British and the Soviet Union, although hastily abandoned by the former following the HMS Sidon tragedy. Both this and the loss of the Russian Submarine Kursk were due to accidents involving hydrogen peroxide propelled torpedoes.
> [edit] Closed cycle diesel engines
> 
> This technology uses a submarine diesel engine which can be operated conventionally on the surface, but which can also be provided with oxidant, usually stored as liquid oxygen, when submerged. Since the metal of an engine will burn in pure oxygen, the oxygen is usually diluted with recycled exhaust gas. As there is no exhaust gas upon starting, argon is used.
> 
> During World War II the Kriegsmarine experimented with such a system as an alternative to the Walter peroxide system, including a variant of the Type XXVIIB Seehund midget submarine, the "Klein U-boot". It was powered by a 95 hp Diesel engine of a type commonly used by the Kriegmarine and which was available in large numbers, supplied with oxygen from a tank in the boat's keel holding 1,250 litres at 4 atm (410 kPa). It was thought likely that the boat would have a maximum submerged speed of 12 kn (22 km/h; 14 mph) and a range of 70 mi (110 km), or 150 mi (240 km) at 7 kn (13 km/h; 8.1 mph).
> 
> The German work was subsequently expanded upon by the Soviet Union who invested heavily in this technology, developing the small 650 ton Quebec-class submarine of which thirty were built between 1953 and 1956. These had three diesel enginestwo were conventional and one was closed cycle using liquid oxygen.
> 
> In the Soviet system, called a "single propulsion system", oxygen was added after the exhaust gases had been filtered through a lime-based chemical absorbent. The submarine could also run its diesel using a snorkel. The Quebec had three engines: a 32D 900 bhp diesel on the centre shaft and two M-50P 700 bhp diesels on the outer shafts. In addition a 100 hp "creep" motor was coupled to the centre shaft. The boat could be run at slow speed using the centreline diesel only.[2]
> 
> Because liquid oxygen cannot be stored for any great length of time these boats could not operate far from a base. It was also a dangerous system; at least seven submarines suffered explosions, and one of these, M-256, sank following an explosion and fire. They were sometimes nicknamed cigarette lighters. The last was scrapped in the early 1970s.
> 
> The German Navy's former Type 205 submarine U1 was fitted with an experimental 3000 horsepower (2.2 MW) unit.
> [edit] Closed cycle steam turbines
> 
> The French MESMA (Module d'Energie Sous-Marine Autonome) system is being offered by the French shipyard DCNS. MESMA is available for the Agosta 90B and Scorpène class submarines. It is essentially a modified version of their nuclear propulsion system with heat being generated by ethanol and oxygen. A conventional steam turbine power plant powered by steam generated from the combustion of ethanol (grain alcohol) and stored oxygen at a pressure of 60 atmospheres. This pressure-firing allows exhaust carbon dioxide to be expelled overboard at any depth without an exhaust compressor.
> 
> Each MESMA system costs around $5060 million. As installed on the Scorpène, it requires adding a new 8.3 meter (27 foot), 305 tonne hull section to the submarine, and results in a submarine able to operate for greater than 21 days underwater, depending on variables like speed, etc.[3][4]
> 
> An article in Undersea Warfare Magazine notes that: although MESMA can provide higher output power than the other alternatives, its inherent efficiency is the lowest of the four AIP candidates, and its rate of oxygen consumption is correspondingly higher.[5]
> [edit] Stirling cycle engines
> 
> The Swedish shipbuilder Kockums has constructed three Gotland class submarines for the Swedish Navy which are fitted with an auxiliary Stirling engine which uses liquid oxygen and diesel fuel to drive 75 kilowatt generators for either propulsion or charging batteries. The AIP endurance of the 1,500 tonne boats is around 14 days at five knots (9 km/h).
> 
> Kockums has also delivered Stirling engines to Japan. The new Japanese submarines will all be equipped with Stirling engines. The first submarine, S&#333;ry&#363;, in the class was launched on 5 December 2007 and were delivered to the navy in March 2009.
> [edit] Fuel cells
> Type 212 submarine with fuel cell propulsion of the German Navy in dock
> 
> Siemens has developed a 30-50 kilowatt fuel cell unit. Nine of these units are incorporated into Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft AG's 1,830t submarine U31, lead ship for the Type 212A class of the German Navy. The other boats of this class and HDW's AIP equipped export submarines (Type 209 mod and Type 214) use two 120 kW modules, also from Siemens.[6]
> 
> After the success of Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft AG's in its export activities, several builders have developed their own fuel-cell auxiliary units for submarines but until today[clarification needed] no other shipyard has a contract for a submarine so equipped.
> [edit] Nuclear power
> 
> Nuclear reactors have been used for 50 years to power submarines, the first being USS Nautilus. The United States, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, the People's Republic of China, and India are the only countries known to operate nuclear powered submarines. Five of these six countries also have permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council and are the only countries allowed to possess nuclear weapons according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. India has only in 2009 completed construction of its first domestically built nuclear submarine. India in the past has leased a Charlie class nuclear powered submarine from Russia and plans to acquire two used Akula class submarines which would be used for training purposes. Brazil is also known to research nuclear propulsion for submarine use. However, Air Independent Propulsion is a term normally used in the context of improving the performance of conventionally propelled submarines.
> 
> There have nevertheless been suggestions for a reactor as an auxiliary power supply, which does fall into the normal definition of AIP. For example, there has been a proposal to use a small 200 kilowatt reactor for auxiliary power (styled a "nuclear battery") to improve the under-ice capability of Canadian submarines.


:ejoy:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Myth_buster_1

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> now compare it to the seawolf class nucler subs---which can run at 25-30 knots without being detected and plus 40 knots all day long for as long as the crew has food in the submarine---which means a minimum of 3 months---.


With all due respect i beg to differ.
You are speaking out of context. Submarines no matter of what type can not afford to run on top speed like 40 knots in dense ASW environment. Seawolf maybe designed to be the most stealthiest submarine but as soon as it hits the speed the noise when it cuts the water its acoustic signature will no longer be 0 or close to none. I know their are "noise reduction" systems but they are less effective during high top speed compared to stealthy profile in low speed (10-15 knots). The top speed is only beneficial if it only wants to get to point A to B quickly beyond ASW threat. 


> The non nuclear subs are good against non nuclear subs---not against the nuclear subs---*I have recently done some more research on this matter and my observation and analysis after reading some stuff from professionals*----


Please kindly try to be more specific in your generalized assumption. So you are saying that a non nuclear sub Type-212 can not detect and hunt 50 year old Nuclear powered sub or the first kill strike will still be in 50 year old nuclear powered sub's favor? 
SSBN
SSGN 
are merely Land attack platform and ASW are secondary role.
compared to 
SSK
which is primarily ASW AShW strike platform.


> the news about some swedish subs etc creating headache for the u s navy's nuclear subs maynot be true---I believe that it s a deception and a misleading statement from the americans---


very strange. 


> secondly----the american nuclear subthe current ones has so much technology----it is unbelievable---the newest generation of american sub could possibly see in front of them---they will have probes floating in front and behind thousands of yards to give them and audio and visual imagery of the ocean---.


Neither India or Pakistan is going to posses top of the line american nuclear powered submarines. Nevertheless top of the line diesel submarines are better choice in limited territorial waters of Indo-PAK vs average modern nuclear powered subs like arihant in "ASW" context. 


> The weapons systems----the diesel would not have enough offensive weapons to take out any older american nuclear or a russian nuclear sub of the later model. The nuc subs would have too many defencive weapons at hand to knock out any weapons launched by a diesel and would have too many offencive weapons to take out the diesel.


Again. you could have been little bit more specific. 
SSN of seawolf class can carry whopping 50 AShM or Torpedos but again PN is not planning to attack US with its type-214 fleet and neither india is going to posses anything close to seawolf. 
Akula II is a prime concern for PN which probably posses superior systems however in terms of ASW, Type-214 may posses superior torpedos like Black Shark, and DM2A4 latest german sensors which will be capable enough to hunt down any nuclear subs in our territorial waters and no i am not referring to USN. 


> The diesel's may---I would say may get a shot if it is lying in wait---lying dormant for a while at a certain place that the nuc sub is going by---but it is not with certainity that the shot maybe effective for the nuc sub would have too many ways to counter the shot.


Again you have a very absurd opinion and speaking out of context. German navy primarily relies on stealthy diesel submarines because it perfectly full fills its requirement and fully utilizes its potential in shallow waters of Baltic sea and of course a perfect coastal defence platform against russian nuclear submarines. 


> he was not wrong---in the last two weeks what I have read---


really?


----------



## SBD-3

The AIP Alternative
Air-Independent Propulsion: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?


Back to Seapower
The AIP Alternative
Air-Independent Propulsion: An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

By DON WALSH

Don Walsh served 24 years in the Navy, during which time he was involved in many aspects of Navy oceanographic activity. In 1975, he founded and chaired the Institute for Marine and Coastal Studies at the University of Southern California. He left that post in 1983 to devote full time to International Maritime Inc., which he founded in 1975 and still heads. 
For nearly 100 years a primary goal for ship designers has been to increase the range and submerged-time capabilities of submarines. It was an elusive target until the introduction of nuclear propulsion in the mid-1950s. But nuclear propulsion was, and is, too costly for all but five of the world's major navies.

For the other 30 or so navies in the world diesel-electric boats would remain their only viable option. But even the most modern of today's diesel boats are only marginally better (in submerged-time and range) than the submarines of World Wars I and II. Development of the first practical air-independent propulsion (AIP) systems for diesel submarines, however, promises much greater improvements over the next 15&#173;20 years.

The operational demands of World Wars I and II led to a major expansion of most of the submarine fleets of the warring powers. This led in turn to greatly increased investments in technological development. Even after World War II, designers developed a variety of enhancements for diesel-electric submarines--in streamlining and noise quieting, for example, in reducing manpower requirements in the design and production of more powerful batteries, and in snorkel improvements (for extended submerged range). Almost all of those, and other, capability improvements were incremental, though, and rather modest in scale.

Technical and Safety Problems

The development of air-independent propulsion systems actually began during World War II, when the Soviet Union and Germany developed AIP systems for their submarines. The Soviet-designed AIP system used liquid oxygen and diesel fuel to operate a closed-cycle diesel (CCD) engine that was installed in the submarine M-401 for an experiment that lasted from 1940 to 1945.

In Germany, Professor Hellmuth Walter, an engineer, developed an AIP system that used highly concentrated hydrogen peroxide to produce steam for a turbine-driven submarine. Towards the end of World War II the system was installed in the newly developed Type XXVI U-boat. As with the Soviet system, the Walter system was plagued by numerous technical and safety problems. Safe handling of the highly unstable peroxide in the closed space of a submarine proved to be simply too difficult and the Type XXVI U-boats never saw combat. Moreover, because it was so late in the war there was neither enough time nor enough resources to convert the Type XXVIs into effective combat units.

After World War II the Americans, British, and Soviets all obtained access to Walter's work and attempted to extend it to a safe conclusion. In the United States, the Navy's Engineering Experimental Station in Annapolis, Md., did extensive testing of a Walter Cycle AIP system. Eventually a reduced-size system was installed in the small experimental submarine X-1. However, by the mid-1950s the U.S. Navy had terminated this work. Nuclear-propulsion systems were being developed and the potential value of AIP-powered diesel submarines seemed to be no longer important.

In Britain the Royal Navy (RN) installed a Walter Cycle plant in HMS Excalibur to test the system under actual seagoing conditions. The results were not encouraging. In fact, the submarine was often referred to as "HMS Exploder." The experiments were stopped when the Royal Navy also shifted to nuclear submarines.

More Problems Than Progress

The Soviets continued AIP development for 15 years after World War II. Using data generated from their work on WWII closed-cycle diesel AIP systems, they built 30 Quebec-class submarines (from 1953 to 1957). They gained considerable operational experience with AIP, but the submarines--which ran on liquid oxygen and diesel fuel--were not satisfactory in fleet service. There were explosions, fires, and even the loss of some submarines. Russian submariners grimly called the Quebecs "cigarette lighters." AIP development was terminated in the mid-1970s, and the remaining Quebecs were scrapped. They had achieved much greater submerged endurance and range, but those gains were cancelled out by the unsafe nature of their AIP systems.

Meanwhile, the Soviets had also (in 1952) built an experimental Walter Cycle submarine designated Design Project 617, which entered service in 1958. An onboard explosion put an end to the program in 1959. From then on the Soviets also focused on nuclear propulsion--but they did carry out some further AIP research and development (R&D) for the diesel submarines they continued to build.

The CCD engines and the Walter steam turbines represented sound theoretical approaches to AIP. Increases up to 400 percent in submerged time and/or range were possible in the better systems; however, they still could not be made sufficiently safe for routine fleet operations. Nuclear power seemed not only the best but also the final answer to the submariners' dream of virtually unlimited submerged duration. Because it was such an expensive dream, though, nuclear propulsion was limited to only a handful of navies. Diesel boats were the only other choice available to less affluent navies with sizable submarine fleets. But many of those navies hoped for an affordable AIP system to be developed some day.

The problem was that only the major navies could afford the R&D needed in this area--and most of those navies had dropped AIP work in favor of nuclear propulsion. Eventually, though, submarine design groups in Germany, Sweden, and France resumed their work on AIP systems, following four different technical approaches: fuel cell, closed-cycle diesel, Stirling cycle engine, and steam turbo-electric.

European Advances in AIP

The Swedish Navy became the first to put AIP systems into its fleet operating units. The Kockums-built AIP system was first tested on the refurbished submarine N&#228;cken in 1989. Today, three Gotland-class subs (Gotland, Uppland, and Halland) are fitted with Swedish Stirling cycle engines, which use liquid oxygen and diesel oil. The Gotlands are powered by hybrid diesel-electric propulsion units, with the Stirling engine supplementing the conventional diesel-electric system. The Stirling engine turns a generator that produces electricity for propulsion and/or to charge the vessel's batteries.

The Gotland was delivered in 1996. Submerged endurance (without snorkeling) for the 1,500-ton submarine is 14 days at five knots. A crew of five officers and 28 enlisted personnel is required to operate the submarine. Kockums now offers the similar T-96 submarine for export. The "unit cost" of the T-96 is about $100 million.

Some of today's most advanced AIP developmental work is being carried out by the German Submarine Consortium (GSC). This group consists of two shipyards--the Howaltswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW, in Kiel) and the Thyssen Nordsee Werke (TNSW, in Emden)--plus the IKL design bureau and the Ferrostaal trading company. Over the past 30 years the two shipyards have delivered 122 submarines to 16 navies either as new construction or as "kits" for local production.

For the past 15 years both shipyards have been working on parallel development of two different AIP systems. HDW offers a fuel cell (developed with Siemens Electric), while TNSW is marketing a closed-cycle diesel engine. After extensive prototype testing ashore, both systems were sea-tested in 1988&#173;1990 on the U-1, a former German Navy Type 205 diesel-electric submarine.

The HDW fuel cell is scheduled to enter fleet service in 2003 on GSC's new 1,800-ton 212-class submarines. This AIP system also will be a "hybrid," with the submarine retaining a basic diesel-electric propulsion system. A fuel cell cannot deliver sufficient electrical output for high-speed operations, but the conventional storage battery can (for a short period of time, after which the fuel cell can recharge the battery as well as provide energy for low-speed operations).

Artificial Air But Tangible Improvements

HDW estimates that the 212, with its crew of 27, will be able to remain submerged for more than a month and to cruise (at four knots) for over 3,000 miles. Four of the $250-million submarines will be delivered to the German Navy--two built by HDW and two built by TNSW. Two also are being built for the Italian Navy under license at Italy's Fincantieri Shipyard.

GSC recently announced the availability of the 214 class, an improved version of the 212 with greater diving depth (more than 1,400 feet), a newer dual-fuel-cell design, and a slightly larger crew of 30 officers and men. It has been reported that Greece intends to order three of the 214s.

Thyssen Nordseewerke's closed-cycle diesel system uses liquid oxygen, diesel fuel, and argon gas to fuel its AIP system. The oxygen and argon gases are combined to make "artificial air" for the diesel. Argon, an inert gas, is recovered and continuously reused. The same diesel is used as a conventional air-breathing engine for main propulsion on the surface or when snorkeling. TNSW's CCD AIP system is considered to be particularly cost-effective for the retrofit of existing diesel-electric submarines, but it also can be installed in a new-construction boat.

Both HDW and TNSW estimate that the AIP option will add only about 15 percent to the overall cost of a newbuild submarine. To get that much added performance for such a small addition in cost is considered quite a bargain. It also appears that most AIP systems will require, on average, the addition of a hull section approximately 30 feet long.

In France the DCN International naval shipbuilding company has developed the "MESMA" (Module d'Energie Sous-Marine Autonome) AIP steam-turbine system, which basically burns ethanol and liquid oxygen to make the steam needed to drive a turbo-electric generator. DCNI offers the MESMA option for its Agosta 90B and Scorpene classes of submarines. The company claims that its AIP option increases submarine underwater en-durance "by a factor of 3 to 5." The design of the MESMA system permits it to be retrofitted into many existing submarines simply by adding an extra hull section.

Pakistan has bought three Agosta-class submarines, the first of which was commissioned earlier this year. The third one, expected to be built in Pakistan, will be fitted with the MESMA AIP system and thus in all likelihood become the world's first MESMA-powered submarine.

Outlook for the Future

In addition to the builders of the four Swedish submarines and the GSC and DCNI boats, there are other "players" who have done considerable R&D work on AIP systems. Russia is offering a fuel-cell option for its "improved" Kilo- and Amur-class attack submarines. None have yet been built with an AIP system, but reports suggest that China may add an AIP unit to one of its Project 636 Kilos.

The Netherlands' RDM submarine shipyard offers its "Spectre" CCD option for the yard's 1,800-ton Moray 1800 H submarine; none have been built yet, but RDM estimates that a hybrid-powered Moray could remain submerged for 20 days while cruising at two knots. Negotiations started earlier this year to build an AIP Moray for Egypt, but as of early November there had been no firm commitment. The average cost of a Moray is estimated to be about $250 million.

The Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Agency has undertaken studies to add AIP systems to its latest models of diesel-electric submarines. The leading candidate systems are the Swedish Stirling engine and the German HDW fuel cell.

It is estimated that 100&#173;150 diesel submarines will be purchased in the next 10 years. Naval experts--and shipbuilders--throughout the world are closely monitoring the operations of the Swedish Navy's four AIP submarines and eagerly await the first GSC-Type 212 submarine. By 2005 there should be sufficient fleet operating experience to determine what are the most likely operational and cost benefits that can be derived from shifting to AIP systems. By then the unit cost for a modern diesel-electric submarine should be between $200 million and $300 million. Paying only 15 percent more to add or retrofit an AIP unit--a relatively small cost for greatly improved submerged performance--should be a very attractive option, therefore.

AIP submarines could be a particularly formidable threat when operating in coastal waters, marginal ice zones, or maritime straits and other global "choke points." Add to that the virtual certainty that new underwater weapons will help equalize the performance disparity between AIP boats and nuclear-powered submarines and it may well happen that the U.S. Navy will want to reassess the desirability of developing an AIP submarine of its own, if only to learn how to counter this new and potentially revolutionary undersea challenge.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ice_man

@unicorn

*Type 214

HDW has developed the Type 214 submarine, which is a further improvement on the Type 212.
...
The Type 214 has an increased diving depth of over 400m, due to improvements in the pressure hull materials.
...
Performance of the AIP system has been increased with two Siemens PEM fuel cells which produce 120kW per module and will give the submarine an underwater endurance of two weeks.
...
A hull shape which has been further optimised for hydrodynamic and stealth characteristics and a low-noise propeller combine to decrease the submarine's acoustic signature.*


THANKS to penguin who got the information! 

U212 / U214 Attack Submarines - Naval Technology

that clearly proves that type U-214 is better & made specifically for a different sort of enviroment than the U-212.


----------



## Super Falcon

U 214 is better version of U 214 and it is said by germans too in article i dont remember it where i seen it but i read it in news papers


----------



## ironman

> SSBN
> SSGN
> are merely Land attack platform and ASW are secondary role.
> compared to
> SSK
> which is primarily ASW AShW strike platform.



There is no exclusive thing. All nuclear powered submarine, whether it is SSGN or SSBN can act as a ASW/AShW platform depending upon its mission.


----------



## Chanakyaa

Here is a good Comparison : *Scorpene vs T-212 vs T-214*


----------



## Myth_buster_1

ironman said:


> There is no exclusive thing. All nuclear powered submarine, whether it is SSGN or SSBN can act as a ASW/AShW platform depending upon its mission.



perhaps you did not understand what i stated.

SSGN SSBN prime role is still land attack then its ASW compared to SSK and SSN which are merely ASW attack platform but that does not mean that such type are not capable of Land attack or ASW.


----------



## Penguin

XiNiX said:


> Here is a good Comparison : *Scorpene vs T-212 vs T-214*



Mwoa .. no it is not so good.

For starters, it is incorrect that 212A has 2x HDW/Siemens PEM fuel cells (120 kW) - see earlier post of mine, pdf from Siemens states 212A and 214 use different PEM cells.

Moreover, according to that comparison, 212A and 214 are identical except for dimensions, displacement, kW/ton, speed, range/autonomy, and ESM system. 

This is incorrect. For example, it is know that 212A uses a different combat system from 214 ( Konsberg Defence & Aerospace of Norway MSI-90U rather than ISUS 90, from ATLAS Elektronik)


----------



## MastanKhan

Growler said:


> With all due respect i beg to differ.
> You are speaking out of context. Submarines no matter of what type can not afford to run on top speed like 40 knots in dense ASW environment. Seawolf maybe designed to be the most stealthiest submarine but as soon as it hits the speed the noise when it cuts the water its acoustic signature will no longer be 0 or close to none. I know their are "noise reduction" systems but they are less effective during high top speed compared to stealthy profile in low speed (10-15 knots). The top speed is only beneficial if it only wants to get to point A to B quickly beyond ASW threat.
> 
> Please kindly try to be more specific in your generalized assumption. So you are saying that a non nuclear sub Type-212 can not detect and hunt 50 year old Nuclear powered sub or the first kill strike will still be in 50 year old nuclear powered sub's favor?
> SSBN
> SSGN
> are merely Land attack platform and ASW are secondary role.
> compared to
> SSK
> which is primarily ASW AShW strike platform.
> 
> very strange.
> 
> Neither India or Pakistan is going to posses top of the line american nuclear powered submarines. Nevertheless top of the line diesel submarines are better choice in limited territorial waters of Indo-PAK vs average modern nuclear powered subs like arihant in "ASW" context.
> 
> Again. you could have been little bit more specific.
> SSN of seawolf class can carry whopping 50 AShM or Torpedos but again PN is not planning to attack US with its type-214 fleet and neither india is going to posses anything close to seawolf.
> Akula II is a prime concern for PN which probably posses superior systems however in terms of ASW, Type-214 may posses superior torpedos like Black Shark, and DM2A4 latest german sensors which will be capable enough to hunt down any nuclear subs in our territorial waters and no i am not referring to USN.
> Again you have a very absurd opinion and speaking out of context. German navy primarily relies on stealthy diesel submarines because it perfectly full fills its requirement and fully utilizes its potential in shallow waters of Baltic sea and of course a perfect coastal defence platform against russian nuclear submarines.
> 
> really?




Hi,

Please, read again ---you will have the answer. My comparison is not with the indian subs----it is in general terms---the stealth speed of sea wolf class is between 25---30 knots----again at that speed the seawolf is more silent than its predessesor the los angeles class parked under it den at the port or any other russian, french or british nuc or non nuke sub. The days of 10---15 knots silent speed are part of the history books now for the americans.

You are talking about ASW rich environment---I am not----I am just saying that even at its flank speed of 40 plus knots---the seawolf class are not blind---its sensors and probes are very very active and resourceful----

A typical 212 --- 214 is not a hunter sub against the nucs---I have stated that akula class willbe vulnerable against the 212 214----but not in a hunt---only in an ambush---but then I also stated that the electronic warfare package on the german subs would be much superior than the russians---you missed that part as well.


----------



## Penguin

MastanKhan said:


> american nuc subs like the seawolf category are wide awake even at flank speed


Source please (booktitle with page no. allowed)



MastanKhan said:


> they have an ashtonishing array of sensors and gadgets that can keep them well informed of what is happening in the surrounding


True, but not equally so at any speed. For example, at high speeds, it would be unwise/impossible to stream a towed array sonar.



MastanKhan said:


> and at quiet speed of 20---28 knots the seawolf class is silent than the los angeles class sitting in its den in the barbour.


True. Self noise is very low, which allows for better target detection. Still, the issue of relative blindness at high speed remains, even if the SSN is very quiet.



MastanKhan said:


> These subs have too many sensors hooked into fiber optic cables outside that can give them a visual of the environment.


Details and sources, please. If would imagine these sensors - if any - to be associated with covert and special operations, not with ASW




MastanKhan said:


> Now if we compare them to the russians----then they are light years apart---any 212 or a 214 sitting in wait can nab them from close range---unless the russians are using the shkval or nuc tipped torps.


This bit is incomprehensible.


----------



## MastanKhan

Penguin said:


> Source please (booktitle with page no. allowed)
> 
> 
> True, but not equally so at any speed. For example, at high speeds, it would be unwise/impossible to stream a towed array sonar.
> 
> 
> True. Self noise is very low, which allows for better target detection. Still, the issue of relative blindness at high speed remains, even if the SSN is very quiet.
> 
> 
> Details and sources, please. If would imagine these sensors - if any - to be associated with covert and special operations, not with ASW
> 
> 
> 
> This bit is incomprehensible.




Hi,

For my details and resource---I went to the local library and spent some time---hours and days reading the material---I would recommend the same---as I stated in my firt post---'you may agree or you may disagree' it is upto you.

There is a lot of stuff available on sub warfare----


----------



## Myth_buster_1

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> Please, read again ---you will have the answer. My comparison is not with the indian subs----it is in general terms---the stealth speed of sea wolf class is between 25---30 knots----again at that speed the seawolf is more silent than its predessesor the los angeles class parked under it den at the port or any other russian, french or british nuc or non nuke sub. The days of 10---15 knots silent speed are part of the history books now for the americans.


You were clearly associating all nuclear subs as stealth platform and gave example of seawolf. no dough sea wolf is the stealthest submarine in the world but like i have said before bringing in seawolf in pak-indo sub context is very irrelevant. 


> You are talking about ASW rich environment---I am not----I am just saying that even at its flank speed of 40 plus knots---the seawolf class are not blind---its sensors and probes are very very active and resourceful----


i thought you were trying to win your argument that all nuc subs are superior to top of the line SSKs. you gave example of seawolf which is totally out of context. 


> Here is what I am learing in the last couple of weeks---*doesn't make any difference*---the french nuc would have a much superior defencive weapons systems against any attack on it---they will have more of them---than a non nuc sub---*plus the speed of the nuc will be a major asset*---. _*Doesnot make any difference*_---if it got caught 7 out of 8 times----.





> A typical 212 --- 214 is not a hunter sub against the nucs---I have stated that akula class willbe vulnerable against the 212 214----but not in a hunt---only in an ambush---but then I also stated that the electronic warfare package on the german subs would be much superior than the russians---you missed that part as well.


 with all due respect i do not know what you have read in the past 2 weeks. and also you have to back your wild claims with credible sources. just so that u did not know.. Type-212/14 are SSK... meaning they are hunter subs.... they do not have any limitations about what they can detect hunt and kill.... unless you can prove with your library sources that type-214 can not hunt detect kill average nuclear subs.


----------



## MastanKhan

Hi,

212 and 214 are not hunter killer subs against the nuc subs---they are good against any kind of surface ship or any other non nuc sub---hunter killer mean that you have the ability to track, follow and match the move of the adversary---which in this case is the non nucs---the diesels are limited in their in their stealth speed over a long peiriod of time.

Seawolf is not the stealthiest any more---there is another one that has taken its place---the virginia class---.


----------



## Penguin

MastanKhan said:


> Seawolf is not the stealthiest any
> [/LIST]more---there is another one that has taken its place---the virginia class---.





> The noise level of the Virginia is equal to that of the US Navy Seawolf, SSN 21, with a lower acoustic signature than the Russian Improved Akula Class and fourth-generation attack submarines.


NSSN Virginia Class Attack Submarine - Naval Technology



MastanKhan said:


> 212 and 214 are not hunter killer subs against the nuc subs---they are good against any kind of surface ship or any other non nuc sub--- hunter killer mean that you have the ability to track, follow and match the move of the adversary---which in this case is the non nucs---the diesels are limited in their in their stealth speed over a long peiriod of time.


You are suggesting an SSK cannot deal with an SSN? Ha! SSK and SSN are both attack submarines, but with different propulsion systems.



> These submarines would be classified SSK; submarine hunter/killer.
> 
> SSK submarines were to lie in wait on enemy transit routes, listening for snorkeling Russian submarines and surface transits. The target's diesels would allow the SSK to detect their presence. In the event of hostilities, the American SSKs would ambush Soviet submarines leaving their ports, when they would be at their noisiest, snorkeling at high speed to make good the long distance.


SSK Conversion



> Progress in ASW, however, was paralleled in the development of nuclear-powered and conventional submarines. _*Both*_ were capable of long periods submerged and *both *became more difficult to detect as they incorporated stealth characteristics and reduced their noise signature. The requirement of diesel electric-powered submarines (SSK) to snorkel and recharge their batteries at frequent intervals was greatly reduced in the late 1980s after the introduction of air independent propulsion (AIP) systems.


Anti-submarine warfare



> In the 1950s, the U.S. Navy developed two distinct types of submarine to take advantage of the new capabilities of nuclear power: fast attacks and boomers. The Navy officially designated fast attacks as SSN, for submarine (nuclear propulsion). The official designation for boomer is SSBN, for ballistic missile submarine (nuclear propulsion). Boomers are also known as fleet ballistic missile submarines.


http://americanhistory.si.edu/SUBS/const/anatomy/index.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MastanKhan

Penguin said:


> NSSN Virginia Class Attack Submarine - Naval Technology
> 
> 
> You are suggesting an SSK cannot deal with an SSN? Ha! SSK and SSN are both attack submarines, but with different propulsion systems.
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> What do you mean---when you say---" You are suggesting an SSK cannot deal with an SSN "----and what is this "HA"---did you have a cough or a hiccup---
> 
> "SSK and SSN are both attack submarines, but with different propulsion systems"
> 
> It is not as simplistic as you are putting it to be---you need to invest in a little more input.


----------



## Myth_buster_1

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> 212 and 214 are not hunter killer subs against the nuc subs---they are good against any kind of surface ship or any other non nuc sub---hunter killer mean that you have the ability to track, follow and match the move of the adversary---which in this case is the non nucs---the diesels are limited in their in their stealth speed over a long peiriod of time.
> 
> Seawolf is not the stealthiest any more---there is another one that has taken its place---the virginia class---.



hi 
i am sorry to say but looks like you need to spend about another 2-3 weeks in this subject. Your knowledge is only limited to American nuc submarines and you have made your opinion based on american nuc subs superiority and gave general term to all nuclear powered subs as superior to diesel submarines. 
No dough seawolf, Virginia class submarines are the stealthiest and perhaps the best nuc subs in the world but i think you are forgetting the context here. which is *Pak-indo*. again and again let me remind you neither india or pakistan is going to posses anything like american top stealth submarines in near future and neither is pakistan planning to take on USN. 
Kindly do some research on SSK and Penguin has perfectly winded this up that SSK and SSN are almost same thing expect one is powered with nuc and the other diesel. not to forget that nuc subs are generally superior to average SSK but neither type-212 or type-214 is an average submarine.


----------



## unicorn148

not again mr growler u show some proof before you same some thing russian akula nuclear subs are one of best nuclear subs i am not being indo-pak but its still not only us nuclear subs but many other nuclear subs have advantage over the powerful ssks


----------



## Myth_buster_1

unicorn148 said:


> not again mr growler u show some proof before you same some thing russian akula nuclear subs are one of best nuclear subs i am not being indo-pak but its still not only us nuclear subs but many other nuclear subs have advantage over the powerful ssks



nope. i do not have to show proof to you because you simply not worthy of providing any information and all you do is troll with low quality posts. btw no where in my post did i say akual is a bad nuc sub.


----------



## MastanKhan

Hi,

American nuc subs set the standard in the industry----I didnot bring the indo pak tangent into my post---just going by the title of the thread---for someone to say that the ssk's and ssn's are almost the same doesnot bode too well---it sounds argumentative----.

I don't have a problem with spending more time reading up on the material for 2 to 3 weeks more ( it will take me a few days---I just started on Dan Brown's Lost Symbol last night----but are you ready do do some research on your own instead of asking a flt lt, a major uncle, another major someone or another army personale---.


----------



## Penguin

MastanKhan said:


> What do you mean---when you say---" You are suggesting an SSK cannot deal with an SSN "----and what is this "HA"---did you have a cough or a hiccup---



Earlier you stated: "212 and 214 are not hunter killer subs against the nuc subs---they are good against any kind of surface ship or any other non nuc sub--- hunter killer mean that you have the ability to track, follow and match the move of the adversary---which in this case is the non nucs---the diesels are limited in their in their stealth speed over a long peiriod of time."

Maybe I've not understood correctly, but it appears to me that it means you believe SS/SSKs [non-nuclear powered hunter killer subs] like 212A and 214 cannot deal with (i.e. "find & kill", "search & destroy) an SSN.

Clearly, SS/SSKs are not meant for open ocean ASW. And in open ocean ASW SSN will always have the advantage. But the implication is that the most likely place where an SSN and an SS/SSK would meet is at the SS/SSKs 'home turf' - the (in some cases rather extended) coastal/littoral area, where waters are comparatively shallow. And in this environment, the SSKs rather than the SSNs have the advantage.



MastanKhan said:


> "SSK and SSN are both attack submarines, but with different propulsion systems"
> 
> It is not as simplistic as you are putting it to be---you need to invest in a little more input.



I'm not saying SSKs and SSNs are identical but for the type of propulsion systems they have. On the other hand, it is really a rather big mistake to assume modern SS/SSKs are any less capable in ASW than are SSNs.

Who do you think you are to be telling me what I need to invest in? After all, you have no way of knowing what input I have or have not had. 



> Four types of military submarines generally are in use, in addition to science and research subs.
> Ballistic-missile submarines (SSBN):
> Guided missile submarines (SSG/SSGN):
> Attack submarines (SS/SSN):
> Coastal submarines (SSC/SSK):


Pacific Fleet commander: Sub threats top priority | Stars and Stripes

SS/SSN > Multimission vessel, Can be nuclear or diesel/aip powered. 

SS would include Argentinian Santa Cruz class, Russian Kilo class, Dutch Zwaardvis and Walrus classes, Australian Collins class. All are well over 2000 ton surfaced and well over 2500 ton submerged. All are diesel-electric powered, with only Collins prepared for insertion of AIP: 

SS Argentine's TR-1700 Santa Cruz Displacement: 2116 tonnes (Surfaced) 2264 tonnes (Submerged) 
SS Zwaardvis class (Netherlands) Displacement: 2408 tonnes (Surfaced), 2640 tonnes (Submerged) 
SS Hai Lung class (Taiwan, mod-Zwaardvis) Displacement: 2376 tonnes (Surfaced), 2660 tonnes (Submerged)
SS Walrus class (Netherlands) Displacement: 2,350 t surfaced, 2,650 t submerged 
SS Collins class (Australia) Displacement: 3,051 tonnes (surfaced), 3,353 tonnes (submerged) 
SS Kilo class Displacement: Surfaced: 2,300-2,350 tons, Submerged:3,000-4,000 tons full load 
In this bracket one also finds the projected AIP powered Project 677 &#1051;&#1072;&#1076;&#1072; (Lada): Displacement: 2,700 long tons (2,700 t) submerged 

Now, consider what in German service the Type 212A is replacing: the Type 206(A), which clearly is an SSC/SSK, just like the Type 205/207 and Type 201 before it and the Israely Gal class.
Gal class (Type 540, modified 206) Displacement: 420 tonnes (Surfaced) 600 tonnes (Submerged) 
Type 206A submarine Displacement: 450 t, surfaced; 498 t, submerged 
Type 207 Kobben class, Norway (mod 205, sold to Denmark - Tumleren class - and Poland - Bielik class) 430 surfaced, 459 submerged
Type 205 / Denmark Narhvalen class Displacement: 453 t surfaced 509 t submerged 
Type 201 U-boat Displacement: 450 t, surfaced; 500 t, submerged 

The Type 205 is a direct evolution of the Type 201 class with lengthened hull, new machinery and sensors. The biggest difference though is that ST-52 steel is used for the pressure hull since the Type 201's non-magnetic steel proved to be problematic. Type 206, the follow-on class, finally succeeded with non-magnetic steel hulls.

These were all dinky little boats, optimized for the Baltic. A larger set of SSC/SSK are Swedish and Norwegian in origin:
Nacken class, Sweden Displacement: 980 tonnes (Surfaced), 1150 tonnes (Submerged) 
V&#228;sterg&#246;tland, Sweden Displacement: 1070 tonnes (Surfaced), 1150 tonnes (Submerged) 
Ula class, Norway (German Type 210) Displacement: Surface: 1,040 tons. Submerged: 1,150 tons 
Gotland class, Sweden Displacement: 1494 tonnes (Surfaced), 1599 tonnes (Submerged) 

Similar in size to these is: Daphne class (France, Pakistan) Displacement: 860 tonnes surfaced, 1,038 tonnes submerged. The successor Agosta 90B class is substantially bigger. Surface displacement: 1,500 long tons, Submerged displacement: 1,760 long tons (France, Spain) / 2,050 long tons (Pakistan). Scorpene has Surface Displacement 1,450t, Submerged Displacement 1,590t

Clearly in the SSK/SSC bracket is the new AIP powered Russian Project 950 &#1040;&#1084;&#1091;&#1088; Amur with a displacement of 950 long tons (970 t) surfaced (1150 m3 Normal displacement). However, the Project 1650 &#1040;&#1084;&#1091;&#1088; Amur is more similar to Agosta 90B and Scorpene in size: 1765 m3 Normal displacement.

Next, consider the ubiquitous Type 209, the export hit. Five variants of this submarine have been produced, which show its evolution from a coastal to a more open water orientation: 
Type 209/1100 Displacement (submerged) 1,207 t (Greece: 4)
Type 209/1200 Displacement (submerged) 1,285 t (Columbia: 2, Greece: 4, Peru: 6, S.Korea: 9, Turkey: 6)
Type 209/1300 Displacement (submerged) 1,390 t (Equador: 2, Indonesia: 2, Venezuela: 2)
Type 209/1400 Displacement (submerged) 1,586 t (Brazil: 3, Chili: 2, Turkey: 4)
Type 209/1500 Displacement (submerged) 1,810 t (India: 4)

Now, lets consider Type 212A and Type 214 itself

Type 212A Displacement: 1'450 tonnes surfaced, 1'830 tonnes submerged 
Type 214 Displacement: 1,700 t surfaced / 1,980 t submerged (GR) / 1,860 t submerged (SK) 

This is similar in size to e.g. the Chinese Song and Ming classes of SS, with Ming as the lower and Song as the upper end of the Bracket. And to the Israeli Dolphin class.

Type 035 Ming class (mod-USSR Romeo class) Displacement: 1,475 tons surfaced, 1,830 tons submerged 
Dolphin class Displacement: 1,640 tons surfaced, 1,900 tons submerged 
Type 039 Song class Displacement: 2,250 tons submerged

IMHO just looking at the relative sizes and growth in displacement over time, it would be a mistake to write off the Type 212A as 'coastal'. This sub was developed not just for the Baltic (i.e. German service) but also for the Mediterranean (i.e. Italian service). The Mediterranean Sea has an average depth of 1,500 metres (4,920 ft) and the deepest recorded point is 5,267 metres (about 3.27 miles) in the Calypso Deep in the Ionian Sea. It covers an approximate area of 2.5 million km&#178;. By comparison, the maximum depth of the Baltic Sea is 459 m (1506 ft). The surface area is about 377,000 km&#178; (145,522 sq mi). Two very different environments. The addition of Italian requirements led to the original 212 design being abandoned in favor of a modified 212*A*. Particularly Type 214 is more SS than SSK, considering improvements in endurance over 212A. Looking at all post-war German subs, only the TR-1700 is larger than Type 214. These are clearly closer to what an SS is than to what an SSC/K used to be.

Finally, a bit on the capability of russian subs:


> As it currently stands, and for the foreseeable future, the Russian submarine fleet poses no significant challenge to the U.S. Navy. First, only the "Improved Akula / Akula II and the new Severodvinsk SSNs have capabilities comparable with the U.S. Los Angeles and Seawolf attack submarines. All other Russian subs possess significantly weaker capabilities. (Source: Jane's Fighting Ships, 1996-1997.)


NEW ATTACK SUBMARINE

More than 10 years ago, Janes concluded that "Improved Akula / Akula II" and Severodvinsk SSNs have capabilities comparable with the U.S. Los Angeles and Seawolf attack submarines.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

now UAE also interested in buying german U 214 my nephew told me who is also UAE national he also surffing on defence forum of UAE there are official news was that UAE in talks with german for U 214


----------



## mughaljee

what about our deal ? 
final ?


----------



## Super Falcon

still not sure about our deal


----------



## Penguin

> Pakistan
> The Pakistan Navy is reportedly negotiating for the purchase of 3 Type 214 submarines, all of which to be built in Pakistan. During the IDEAS 2008 exhibition, the HDW chief Walter Freitag told The commercial contract has been finalised up to 95 per cent, he said. The first submarine would be delivered to the Pakistan Navy in 64 months after signing of the contract while the rest would be completed successively in 12 months.[3][4]
> 
> [3] Pakistan on verge of selecting HDW submarine - Jane's Naval Forces News Pakistan on verge of selecting HDW submarine
> [4] Pakistan News Service - PakTribune


Type 214 submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Pakistan _has formally agreed _to buy three Type 214 German submarines under deal worth more than $1 billion (773.7 million euros) that the two countries are expected to sign _within the next few months_, according to a media report on Wednesday


Pakistan to Buy German Submarines | Business | Deutsche Welle | 26.11.2008

See also: 
Report: Pakistan to buy German submarines : Asia World
Type 214

It would take 5 and 4 months years from contract signing to first boat delivered. If a contract was signed in December 2008, then the first boat would be due early to mid 2013. 

However ... 




> Report: German Submarine Deal With Pakistan Goes Quiet
> 19-May-2009 18:07 EDT
> The catch? No contract. Contract negotiations were dragging out, and any contract is ultimately dependent on approval from Germanys national security council, an inner cabinet of ministers with security portfolios. Pakistans insurgency has become a civil war, and recent Taliban advances are causing international observers to worry about the Pakistani governments potential for collapse, or for a Taliban-backed coup led by the likes of Hamid Gul. In Germany, those developments reportedly led Germanys national security council to take time away from serious matters like government efforts to ban paintball, and adjourn further deliberation on the Pakistani submarine sale until after September 2009.


Report: German Submarine Deal With Pakistan Goes Quiet

So that means first delivery early 2015 at the earliest

See further: Usman Ansari.


----------



## 500

my 5 cents.

212 uses three deck layout: crew compartment on higher deck, torpedoes in the middle deck (two rows) and batteries below.
214 uses two deck layout: crew together with torpedoes (three rows) on higher deck and batteries bellow. 

As result 212's hull has much lower L/D ratio than 214's hull (212 is more "fat"). Its better both for hydrodynamics and depth. Guy who says that 212 is only good for shallow Baltics waters does not know what he is saying. Because Italy is also bying 212 not 214.

Another important difference that no one mentioned here is that oxygen tanks for AIP system in 212 are located outside of the pressure hull, while on 214 they are inside of pressure hull. Much more safe to keep the oxygen outside. 

The third difference is X-tail configuration of 212. In this scheme all four planes are used simultaneously both for horisontal and vertical control. This can be achieved only by computer and gives better control of the ship. 214 uses classical tail configuration.

So overall 212 is a submarine which implements all best achievements of German engineering: new layout and new equipment. While 214 is basically is a modernization of 209 to 212's level: it uses the layout o 209's submarine and equipment of 212's. Still very capable submarine though.


----------



## tony singh

I heard the Israeli Dolphin subs at least one is on patrol with nukes just in case, this is what i heard from one security chap.


----------



## 500

tony singh said:


> I heard the Israeli Dolphin subs at least one is on patrol with nukes just in case, this is what i heard from one security chap.


Israeli Dolphins use the same 3 deck layout as 212 but they lack AIP.

Also in Dolphin 4 additional 650 mm torpedo tubes were added for launching cruise missiles (two from each side). 

Dolphin (4x650 mm + 6x533 mm torpedo tubes):







(you can also see 3 deck layout here).

212 (6x533 mm torpedo tubes):






Israel ordered 3 additional subs with AIP.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tony singh

500 but are they nuke armed? or they just carry conventional payload?


----------



## Penguin

You don't need necessrily need 650mm tubes to fire a nuke missile (Tomahawk cruisemissile fits 533mm tubes e.g. ). Big tubes are usefull (also) for swimmer delivery...


----------



## 500

tony singh said:


> 500 but are they nuke armed? or they just carry conventional payload?


No official information released. But there is no reason to doubt that Israel can make nuclear cruise missiles.

209-1400:





214:





212:





Note that 212 that three decks and wider body in contrast to 209 and 214. Alo oxigen tanks are outside of pressure body, while in 214 are inside.


----------

