Norway selects German Type 212 as its next submarine

[Blue Marlin]

Because f*ck the British and Americans. Norway protects Norway. Our territorial waters are 7 times the size of our country, extending near Iceland and far into the Arctic, places the Americans and British don't frequent with the necessity needed to provide adequate defense for our nation. You'll also notice our country and waters extend over Sweden and Finland, and actually border Russia:

@James Jaevid @gambit @Providence look at this blasphemy

They aren't protecting our country. We are.

you dont need an army to protect your self from wolves and polar bears.

 

[Penguin]

The Type-212 is currently only operated by Germany where it is sometimes known as U-212 Class, and Italy where it is known as the Todaro Class. It is a relatively small submarine well suited to inshore missions along the Norwegian coast but not best suited to under-ice operations. It has Air Independent Power (AIP) using two HDW/Siemens PEM fuel cells each with 120 kW.

Although the Type 212A is not a very large boat, e.g. compared to Dutch Walrus class, tor the Norwegian navy it is a move to a significantly larger boat. Unlike the 210, the 212A is made of nonmagnetic materials, significantly reducing the chances of it being detected by magnetometers or setting off magnetic naval mines. This may partly explain why not the 214 was chosen (in addition to NATO interoperability, esp. if Netherlands and Poland also select the 212A. Netherlands is also considering Saab/Kockums A26). I'm quietly hoping the Netherlands gets 4 Shortfin Barracuda ...

Ula class (Type 210)
Displacement:

• Surface: 1,040 tons
• Submerged: 1,150 tons

Length: 59 m (193 ft 7 in)
Beam: 5.40 m (17 ft 9 in)
Draft: 4.60 m (15 ft 1 in)
Speed:

• Surface: 11 kn (20 km/h; 13 mph)
• Submerged: 23 kn (43 km/h; 26 mph)

Range: 5,000 nautical miles (9,300 km) at 8 knots (15 km/h; 9.2 mph)
Test depth: 200 m (656 ft)+
Complement: 21

Type 212A
Displacement:

• 1,524 tonnes (1,500 long tons) surfaced
• 1,830 tonnes (1,800 long tons) submerged

Length:

• 56 metres (183 ft 9 in)
• 57.20 metres (187 ft 8 in) (2nd batch)

Beam: 6.80 metres (22 ft 4 in)
Draught: 6.40 metres (21 ft 0 in)
Speed:

• 12 knots (22 km/h; 14 mph) surfaced
• 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) submerged

Range: 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km; 9,200 mi) at 8 knots (15 km/h; 9.2 mph)
Test depth:

• 250 metres (820 ft)
• crush depth over 700 m (2,296 ft)

Complement: 5 officers, 22 men

Saab/Kockums A-26
Displacement:

• 1,900 long tons (1,930 t)

Length: 63 m (206 ft 8 in)
Beam: 6.4 m (21 ft 0 in)
Draught: 6 m (19 ft 8 in)
Propulsion: Diesel-electric and Stirling AIP
Test depth: 200 m (656 ft 2 in)
Complement: 17–26

Walrus class
Displacement:

• 2,350 t surfaced,
• 2,650 t submerged,
• 1,900 t standard

Length: 67.73 m (222.2 ft)
Beam: 8.4 m (28 ft)
Draft: 6.6 m (22 ft)
Speed:

• 13 knots (24 km/h) surfaced,
• 20 knots (37 km/h) submerged

Range: 18,500 km (10,000 nmi) at 9 kn (17 km/h)
Test depth: >300 m (980 ft)
Complement: 50 to 55

 

[Hassan Guy]

Is it better than the Yuan-class?

 

[Blue Marlin]

Wolves?



True, the Type 212A is a fair bit larger then the Ula's (shorter, but wider and heavier), but then the Ula's were the same for the Kobben - 12 meters longer, 700 tons heavier and with a heck of a lot more endurance:

It's comparable to going from Walrus to Shortfin Barracuda, adding over 1000 tons in displacement and 20 meters in length.

yes wolves.........
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ernment-wwf-friends-earth-environment-protest
anyway.....

if the current norwegian subs under went such modification to suit norwegian needs (base class 209) then wont the new norge 212 have such modifications such as a strengthened sail and the bow ?

in essence its basically a variant of the 212

kinda like how Portugal has variant of the 214 called the tridente class

 

[Fenrir]

In essence its basically a variant of the 212

In all likelihood the new boats will be a more radical redesign. The Ula is derived from the Type 209:

But is not considered a variant of it. They're considered a standalone class because of how extensively they've been modified, such as adding an x-rudder (found on the Type 212, but not export Type 214 as well).

As Ula improves on the Type 209 and makes some significant alterations, I expect our new boats to do the same. Perhaps Type 213?

if the current Norwegian subs under went such modification to suit Norwegian needs (base class 209) then wont the new Norge 212 have such modifications such as a strengthened sail and the bow ?

The Type 210 was optimized even further to maximize its effectiveness in shallow, coastal waters and the Icy, cold Arctic Ocean and North Sea. A reinforced hull will be necessary for transiting during the winter months in the North. KNM Ula (S300) was later modified to operate in warmer waters as well, so called "tropicalization".

Norwegian waters don't freeze around the mainland, but do near Svalbard and Norwegian vessels are required to patrol in the North Sea (hence why the Outer Coastguard is outfitted with heavy icebreakers)

Having a submarine that can safely transit frozen waters, below and breech above, is vital. The propulsion system will be an as of yet unknown AIP design, but the drive core will need to be strengthened to withstand colder temperatures (not that submarines aren't already subjected to frigged waters, being hundreds of meters below the surface).

All in all they should be a more extensive modification and should resemble a new class based on the Type 212, rather then be a variant of it. Our requirements differ too radically from most of the buyers of German submarines (Argentina might be the only other buyer that requires high cold climate performance).

 

[Blue Marlin]

In all likelihood the new boats will be a more radical redesign. The Ula is derived from the Type 209:
But is not considered a variant of it. They're considered a standalone class because of how extensively they've been modified, such as adding an x-rudder (found on the Type 212, but not export Type 214 as well).
As Ula improves on the Type 209 and makes some significant alterations, I expect our new boats to do the same. Perhaps Type 213?

so its the same story here as well. the base class is the 209 and with Norwegian alterations/input the 209 has gone beyond the point the sub is in its own class but inherits values of the base class. aka the ula.
the same thing would apply here to i guess due to norways unique geography. heck maybe finland may be inclined to go for some subs too. Sweden has its own a26 which in my opion is a waste of time. 1 billion for 2 subs is outrageous. they should just follow suit with norway.

The Type 210 was optimized even further to maximize its effectiveness in shallow, coastal waters and the Icy, cold Arctic Ocean and North Sea. A reinforced hull will be necessary for transiting during the winter months in the North. KNM Ula (S300) was later modified to operate in warmer waters as well, so called "tropicalization".

Norwegian waters don't freeze around the mainland, but do near Svalbard and Norwegian vessels are required to patrol in the North Sea (hence why the Outer Coastguard is outfitted with heavy icebreakers)

how deep are the coastal waters around norway?
do any boomers pay visits?

Having a submarine that can safely transit frozen waters, below and breech above, is vital. The propulsion system will be an as of yet unknown AIP design, but the drive core will need to be strengthened to withstand colder temperatures (not that submarines aren't already subjected to frigged waters, being hundreds of meters below the surface).

All in all they should be a more extensive modification and should resemble a new class based on the Type 212, rather then be a variant of it. Our requirements differ too radically from most of the buyers of German submarines (Argentina might be the only other buyer that requires high cold climate performance).

well since germany is providing the subs the aip will be fuel cell aip, they are the quietest but dont produce as much power as other aip's such as the stirling aip's from sweden and china, and the mesma aip from france.
utc in america is providing the fuel cell aip for spains s80, but that irrelevant but good to know i guess.

 

[Providence]

I can't say for certain if the French did, but an AIP system was a requirement, so if they didn't they'd have really limited their chances in this competition.



The problem with the Type 216 is that it grosses roughly 4000 tons. That's almost as much as DCNS' Barracuda and way beyond what Norway requires. The Type 218 is basically a Type 214 with some modifications like an x-shaped rudder rather then the Type 214's cruciform one. Fundamentally the Type 218 is still a Type 214.

Since Norway is buying a modified Type 212 - it has to be since the original Type 212 has poor Arctic performance - the design is expected to have some alterations too to better fit our requirements. In essence it'll be like the Type 207 or 210, a Norwegian modified and improved variant of an already highly capable submarine.

There are few good pictures of Ula's x-rudder arrangement.

The Ula's are currently undergoing last-life updates and are expected to be out of service by 2025 at the latest. Realistically it all depends on when the new submarines arrive.



There is no viable US alternative to the German designs. The Americans can, but don't produce conventional designs and since they don't this makes comparing their technologies difficult. Their nuke boats are the best around, but until they resume production of SSK or SSC type submarines, it's going to be difficult to assess.

The last operational conventional design (non-experimental) in US service was the Barbel Class:

Retired almost 30 years ago.

You know it won't hurt your pride to help us protect your waters once in a while

Brits love Norwegians with all their heart

 

[Fenrir]

how deep are the coastal waters around Norway? Do any boomers pay visits?

Norway's coastal waters, discounting the narrow waterways between the mainland and its outlying islands:

Are typically anywhere between 50 and 200 meters, but quickly open up to around 2000 meters for the Norwegian sea, but only an average of 250 meters for the very shallow Barents Sea.

SSBNs and SSGN, high displacement submarines, do frequent these waters with Russian submarines often transiting both seas on deterrence patrols. This Russian Delta IV was photographed in the Barents Sea, which is North of the Norwegian mainland:

By and large they transit the deeper ocean parts though and stay away from the heavily monitored Norwegian waters which NATO, the US and Norway have mined with sensors.

heck maybe Finland may be inclined to go for some subs too.

The Finns haven't operated submarines since Saukko was decommissioned in 1947, and it was only 100 tons:

The Gulf of Finland only averages about 100 meters and the Gulf of Bothnia only 60 meters in average depth, so the waters surrounding Finland aren't prime submarine real-estate. The larger Baltic Sea averages just 55 meters. Their regional waters are very shallow.

By comparison, the Persian Gulf, also not known as prime submarine territory, has an average depth of 50 meters. Iran, with the most submarines in the region, primarily uses small coastal defense mini subs like the Ghadir class. They have larger subs too including 3 kilos, but they rarely operate in the shallow Persian Gulf and are more oriented towards ocean activities.

Finland may opt for submarines again, but I have to imagine they'd be smaller classes given the regional topography.

Then again both Sweden and Poland are operating submarines and are procuring larger ones (A26 and possibly Type 212 respectively), so it's not as if Finland couldn't, but it makes less sense for them given the restricted nature of their surrounding waters versus Sweden or Poland who open up to more of the Baltic Sea versus being confined mainly to shallow, narrow gulfs like Finland.

You know it won't hurt your pride to help us protect your waters once in a while

Oh I'm not trying to hate on you guys, @waz knows I love our British friends very much and advocate for stronger ties with North Atlantic nations (Russia included). I just don't feel to partial to any suggestions of our nation relying on you solely. Help is fine, but we'll do our part too.

So you think German carry the legacy of U boat and still sustain.

I think that Germany still builds conventional submarines where as the Americans strictly design and procure nuclear boats, so comparing their respective technologies is difficult since neither has a lot of experience with the others niche.

Any country in the world ever used sub as rapid deployment tool in restive zone ?

Subs are usually first on station during hot conflicts in the USN, before carriers or destroyers arrive on scene, so the US Navy does. Other nations operate with submarines mostly acting as fleet support or as singular or grouped units conducting offensive maneuvers, the so-called Wolfpack hunter-killer teams.

Submarines are not usually used to rapidly deploy troops or other assets beyond AUVs or UAVs though. They tend to lack the space needed for mass deployments.

Special forces are the exception, such as these MJK operatives deploying from a Norwegian Ula class submarine.

The submarine shown in the video appears to be S303 HNoMS Utvær:

 

[Fenrir]

Is it better than the Yuan-class?

Comparing it to a Type 039A(Type 41) is rather disingenuous. The Yuan is 200% heavier then a Type 212, 21 meters longer and 2 meters wider.

The Yuan is best referred to as an SSK, ocean going conventional submarine and would be best compared against similar types like Soryu, which is similar in size and mission:

Type 212 is operationally more of a SSC, littoral optimized conventional submarine, though they are capable of deep ocean traverse as well:

Scorpene is a better comparison for Type 212, being roughly the same size and having a similar mission:

The submarines Norway is procuring will be new, modified versions based on the Type 212 fitted to our requirements, conditions and missions. They'll among the best in their class, but a type like Yuan is a different class all together.

I'm not sure what I think of this just yet, need some time to look at the details (including what this means for me personally), so don't ask for my views.

Seems like this procurement is going to make my life more fun, and more busy.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

@James Jaevid @gambit @Providence look at this blasphemy

Haha. We can't be everywhere on the planet 365 days a year. We try though!

 

[Blue Marlin]

Haha. We can't be everywhere on the planet 365 days a year. We try though!

still blasphemy.

Comparing it to a Type 039A(Type 41) is rather disingenuous. The Yuan is 200% heavier then a Type 212, 21 meters longer and 2 meters wider.

The Yuan is best referred to as an SSK, ocean going conventional submarine and would be best compared against similar types like Soryu, which is similar in size and mission:

Type 212 is operationally more of a SSC, littoral optimized conventional submarine, though they are capable of deep ocean traverse as well:

Scorpene is a better comparison for Type 212, being roughly the same size and having a similar mission:

The submarines Norway is procuring will be new, modified versions based on the Type 212 fitted to our requirements, conditions and missions. They'll among the best in their class, but a type like Yuan is a different class all together.



Seems like this procurement is going to make my life more fun, and more busy.

i think he meant in technical terms.
do note i recall the chinese managing to get hold of german fuel cell units quiet a while ago. then again no one knows how good they are. lets see what the pakistanis think as they have seen the latest western aip subs and i doubt they'd go for a down grade.

 

[Vergennes]

Not fair from the Germans.... but,

Their offer is currently unbeatable on the paper. Berlin proposes to share the costs of aquisitions,developments and logistics between the two countries,which would result in important savings for the Norwegians. A weakness for France because only using non-conventional submarines. By the way it was only recently that the Germans sought to buy two additional submarines.

We can assume that another key (or helping) factor for France's loss was not considering Kongsberg as an important and decisive partner. We prefered to made an offer with MBDA rather than teaming with Kongsberg to integrate their NSM into the submarines we were offering.

We also cannot forget the strong links and cooperation between Germany,Norway and their respective navies.

In my opinion,the Type 212 was more suited for Norway's needs,but too bad their choice wasn't based on the performances of the proposed submarines. (or partly)

@Fenrir @Blue Marlin They never liked us,even more when we beat them during the men's handball final.

 

[Blue Marlin]

Not fair from the Germans.... but,

Their offer is currently unbeatable on the paper. Berlin proposes to share the costs of aquisitions,developments and logistics between the two countries,which would result in important savings for the Norwegians. A weakness for France because only using non-conventional submarines. By the way it was only recently that the Germans sought to buy two additional submarines.

We can assume that another key (or helping) factor for France's loss was not considering Kongsberg as an important and decisive partner. We prefered to made an offer with MBDA rather than teaming with Kongsberg to integrate their NSM into the submarines we were offering.

We also cannot forget the strong links and cooperation between Germany,Norway and their respective navies.

In my opinion,the Type 212 was more suited for Norway's needs,but too bad their choice wasn't based on the performances of the proposed submarines. (or partly)

@Fenrir @Blue Marlin They never liked us,even more when we beat them during the men's handball final.

was including the nsm really that big of a factor? i thought dcns would partner with a norwegian shipyard instead which is more sensible unless they intend to use a state owned shipyard.

and i thought both italy and the germans opted for 2 more 212's each.

how come there's not aip equipped scorpene sub?

 

[James David]

blasphemy indeed!!! Well I'm quite sure at any given time at least one nuke boat is there in those waters. So relax Grandpa @Blue Marlin we will take care it for you since your Navy is a fraction of the size of what it used to be.

@James Jaevid @gambit @Providence look at this blasphemy




you dont need an army to protect your self from wolves and polar bears.

 

[Blue Marlin]

blasphemy indeed!!! Well I'm quite sure at any given time at least one nuke boat is there in those waters. So relax Grandpa @Blue Marlin we will take care it for you since your Navy is a fraction of the size of what it used to be.

were retired, your just getting started. no son of ours is gonna be a slouch. the borks dont stand a chance.