Hangor Class Submarine Project | Updates & Discussions

[LKJ86]

Like German Submarines cheaper or equal. So if you think Chinese sub tech can compare with Germans, then you are flattering yourself. Unless these Chinese subs which PN has ordered have got some sort of Star-Trek technology in them, these are way too expensive, and way too late.

So, why doesn't PN choose German option?

 

[MastanKhan]

So, why doesn't PN choose German option?

Hi,

We did---took too much time---and Zardari looted the funds by the time subs became available---.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Like German Submarines cheaper or equal. So if you think Chinese sub tech can compare with Germans, then you are flattering yourself. Unless these Chinese subs which PN has ordered have got some sort of Star-Trek technology in them, these are way too expensive, and way too late.

IIRC the Hangor SSP program is coming at $300 to $350 m per submarine, the lowest cost you could get for a contemporary submarine with AIP. When the PN was negotiating the Type 214, each submarine was coming in at $350-400 m per ship, but that was a decade ago. So, if we factor in inflation nearly 6-7 years later, it would have been more expensive for the PN, definitely not doable for 8 ships. We've also got to consider that the Hangor SSP came with a Chinese financing package (manageable installments and payment term for the PN).

Looking at the Jinnah-class, if the PN could've gotten Type 214s for $350 m a ship, and with a loan from Germany, it would've gotten those instead of the Hangor. However, that option wasn't available.

In any case, we should also think about the late 2030s and early 2040s when the Agosta 90Bs reach 40 years of age. I hope we work on a clean sheet submarine design with fuel cells and VLS to replace the Agosta 90Bs and to expand our fleet even further

 

[lcloo]

Like German Submarines cheaper or equal. So if you think Chinese sub tech can compare with Germans, then you are flattering yourself. Unless these Chinese subs which PN has ordered have got some sort of Star-Trek technology in them, these are way too expensive, and way too late.

Scorpene submarine (French) 2,000 tons US$450 million each (2010 price)
S-80 (Spanish) 3,200 tons Euro 553 Million each (2010 price)
Type 212 (Germany) 1,830 tons Euro 560 million
Kilo (Russia) without AIP 2,350 tons US$333 million (2009 price)
Barracuda (French) 4,760 tons Euro 1,300 million each (2013 price)
Amur class (Russia) 950 tons (AIP is optional) $450 million (none built todate)

 

[ARMalik]

So, why doesn't PN choose German option?

You need to ask PN. Is there a possibility that these Chinese subs are a new class of Subs.

 

[FuturePAF]

The Turks operate German Submarines and have upgraded the Agosta 90B submarines recently. I'm sure Pakistan has asked all the questions it needed to ask during the upgrade to find out how German Technology really preforms. Also Pakistan got a chance to evaluate the Type 214 and has picked the Hangor option. The Pakistani military doesn't seem to compromise on quality if the price is close enough.

Furthermore, The Hangor may have Pakistani Specific modifications that keeps its full range of capabilities secret. That is a valuable feature that an off the shelf European submarine doesn't allow.

Also, this time the PN may actually be able to build a follow on design in the 2030s when the Agosta 90B subs will need to be retired.

 

[khanasifm]

China's export submarine designation give you some idea on it's displacement. S-20 is a 2,000 tons submarine. S-26 ordered by Thailand is a 2,600 ton ship. So if your customised submarine has displacement of 2,800 tons, it will likely be called S-28.

Picture at post #641 above is a test-bed submarine called type 032. (Many netizens have on their own initiative give it a designation type 41, which is incorrect). All conventional powered submarines (SSK) built in China are designation type 03X, as in type 039, 032 etc.

Type 032 (mistaken as type 041) is a test bed for missiles, torpedo etc. It is not a frontline combat ship.

The point was if required a conventional sub can be fitted with Vls or can launch from 533 mm it in some case lather torpedo tubes

Israeli subs has 650 mm torpedo tubes to launching land attack cruise / ballast ice missiles Along with standard 533 mm

 

[lcloo]

The point was if required a conventional sub can be fitted with Vls or can launch from 533 mm it in some case lather torpedo tubes

Israeli subs has 650 mm torpedo tubes to launching land attack cruise / ballast ice missiles Along with standard 533 mm

If Pakistan asked for a VLS installation on a SSK, it would be a completely new design that is neither a type 39B nor type 32. It will be more expensive and will take much longer time from design stage to completion.

A submarine equipment with VLS would need a very big hull diameter in order to enable fitting of the VLS to fit in. Thus it would required a design based on type 32. Type 32 is said to be 6,628 tons which is a very big conventional submarine. It is close to a small nuclear powered submarine.

Currently, type 39B/S20/S26 is using its torpedo tubes to launch anti-ship missiles.

 

[HRK]

If Pakistan asked for a VLS installation on a SSK, it would be a completely new design that is neither a type 39B nor type 32. It will be more expensive and will take much longer time from design stage to completion.

A submarine equipment with VLS would need a very big hull diameter in order to enable fitting of the VLS to fit in. Thus it would required a design based on type 32. Type 32 is said to be 6,628 tons which is a very big conventional submarine. It is close to a small nuclear powered submarine.

Currently, type 39B/S20/S26 is using its torpedo tubes to launch anti-ship missiles.

Hangoor CLass Model showcased during IDEAS-2018 exhibition

 

[Falcon26]

Hangoor CLass Model showcased during IDEAS-2018 exhibition
View attachment 601128

highly doubtful that those are VLS

 

[HRK]

highly doubtful that those are VLS

You may be right BUT my reasons to accept those as VLS are

- No other Explanation is available: Everyone that I know who could comment on this are not accepting it as VLS but also not giving any other explanation, plus the dimension of this version of submarine is different then the S-26T AIP version sold to Thai Navy, so in simple logic if it look, act, and quack like a duck then it must be a duck.

- Operation Requirement: Here keep in mind that PN is in need of submarine which can launch cruise missiles for land attack purpose which mean as a weapon of last resort, but in case if PN use torpedo tube for the said purpose then the submarine would have to sacrifice few torpedoes, Naval mines or other anti-ship missiles from her arsenal which in case of India-Pakistan Naval disbalance equivalent of feilding main naval strike weapon of PN with less fire power for main operational requirements

 

[khanasifm]

highly doubtful that those are VLS

May be smaller Vls like on 032 at the front, yj-18 or similar 1000-2000 km range missiles pn does not need more

 

[khanasifm]

Couple of points

1 s-26 sold has 2600 tonnage vs hangoor being 2800 surface I think or submerged ??

Plus these three doors does not exist on 039/041 in chines types

Specifications of S-26T “A” AIP submarine that China received an order for Thai Navy were released

With 38 crew members, a total length of 78m, and a surface drainage volume of 2600t, it is larger than Russia's kilo-type, and is said to be one of the largest power submarines in the international market. The cruising range is 4 knots and 8000 nautical miles, the continuous operation period is 65 days, the submersible depth is 300 m, the weapons are torpedoes, anti-ship missiles, anti-ground missiles, etc.

 

[Thorough Pro]

hatche covers for supplies, not VLS

Hangoor CLass Model showcased during IDEAS-2018 exhibition
View attachment 601128

 

[khanasifm]

Surface drainage or surface displacement is 2600 ton submerged will be more

Chinese specs for Chinese 039 is 3600 tonnage submerged for Chinese boats