PN mini-submarine fleet

[Armchair]

FYI there are a few new options from China's CSIC:

CSIC MS200

• displacement: 200 tons | length: 30 m
• crew: 6 + 8 SOF
• range: 120 nm (submerged) | 1,500 nm (surfaced)
• 2 torpedo tubes
• endurance 15 days

CSIC 600-ton AIP submarine

• displacement: 600 tons | length: 50 m
• crew 15
• range: 400 nm (submerged w/AIP) | 2,000 nm (surfaced)
• 4 torpedo tubes
• endurance: 20 days

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...s-three-new-submarine-designs-for-export.html

Hi, interesting. Has China actually built any either for itself or an export customer?

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

FYI there are a few new options from China's CSIC:

CSIC MS200

• displacement: 200 tons | length: 30 m
• crew: 6 + 8 SOF
• range: 120 nm (submerged) | 1,500 nm (surfaced)
• 2 torpedo tubes
• endurance 15 days

CSIC 600-ton AIP submarine
the

• displacement: 600 tons | length: 50 m
• crew 15
• range: 400 nm (submerged w/AIP) | 2,000 nm (surfaced)
• 4 torpedo tubes
• endurance: 20 days

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...s-three-new-submarine-designs-for-export.html

Both theoretical platforms proposed by CSIC that have not been considered by PLN. China has no history or experience in building compact submarine. They are looking for someone to pay the development cost and take teh risk on the platform. Both submarines miss the sweet spot of 400-500 tons, which is the ideal sub between midgets and conventional sub.

FYI there are a few new options from China's CSIC:

CSIC MS200

• displacement: 200 tons | length: 30 m
• crew: 6 + 8 SOF
• range: 120 nm (submerged) | 1,500 nm (surfaced)
• 2 torpedo tubes
• endurance 15 days

CSIC 600-ton AIP submarine

• displacement: 600 tons | length: 50 m
• crew 15
• range: 400 nm (submerged w/AIP) | 2,000 nm (surfaced)
• 4 torpedo tubes
• endurance: 20 days

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...s-three-new-submarine-designs-for-export.html

I have looked into the Chinese subs further. Major design issues. Unable to bottom due to tail steering planes. no dedicated escape trunks, no bow thrusts, lead acid batteries. Miniaturized versions of Russian designs that were never built. While the chinese have progressed in the conventional sub arena, they are zero when it comes to midgets and compact submarines.

 

[Armchair]

The Russian Navy’s special operations forces (SOF) will receive the newest P-650 special-purpose midget submarines. These ships display just 720 tons and will be able to covertly deliver special-purpose and SOF groups to the shore and retrieve them. The submarine was designed by the Malakhit Special Marine Engineering Design Bureau. According to experts, it will be a response to the introduction of submarines converted by the U.S. Navy into SOF platforms, the newspaper Izvestia reported.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...orces-to-receive-p-650-midget-submarines.html

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Both theoretical platforms proposed by CSIC that have not been considered by PLN. China has no history or experience in building compact submarine. They are looking for someone to pay the development cost and take teh risk on the platform. Both submarines miss the sweet spot of 400-500 tons, which is the ideal sub between midgets and conventional sub.



I have looked into the Chinese subs further. Major design issues. Unable to bottom due to tail steering planes. no dedicated escape trunks, no bow thrusts, lead acid batteries. Miniaturized versions of Russian designs that were never built. While the chinese have progressed in the conventional sub arena, they are zero when it comes to midgets and compact submarines.

So I guess it is really just the Russians who are active in this space. If not the Chinese, Turks or Koreans, there's hardly anyone left besides them or the French, Germans and Swedes (who probably could do it, but at a high cost).

 

[Armchair]

I think with the submarine building infrastructure being built, Pakistan my only need a blueprint and certain subsystems, which (subsystems) can largely be sourced from China and Turkey.

Question is, do the Russians have a blueprint based on their tested design in the 400-500 ton class? How about the Italians? If nothing else, good shipbuilders would have mature design teams that could provide the least risky options... approach Damen?

On the other hand, investing in trial and error at home would help develop a submarine design team indigenously.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I think with the submarine building infrastructure being built, Pakistan my only need a blueprint and certain subsystems, which (subsystems) can largely be sourced from China and Turkey.

Question is, do the Russians have a blueprint based on their tested design in the 400-500 ton class? How about the Italians? If nothing else, good shipbuilders would have mature design teams that could provide the least risky options... approach Damen?

On the other hand, investing in trial and error at home would help develop a submarine design team indigenously.

Yep but R&D carries the risk of sunk costs, esp. w/errors and rectifying them. Inherently, this isn't a bad thing, but with our fiscal condition we can't do a lot of these efforts without serious risk of delays and maybe even outright cancellations.

A foreign partner would help spread the costs and maybe even scale, but the key is that they're actually experienced in mini subs.

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

Yep but R&D carries the risk of sunk costs, esp. w/errors and rectifying them. Inherently, this isn't a bad thing, but with our fiscal condition we can't do a lot of these efforts without serious risk of delays and maybe even outright cancellations.

A foreign partner would help spread the costs and maybe even scale, but the key is that they're actually experienced in mini subs.

Russian subs will be very hard to acquire, with a long Rosoborexport involvement and likely no Transfer of Technology.

My research shows that only Italians have the experience and pedigree to undertake the proper platform. There are two companies in Italy. GSE Trieste, and DRASS Galezzi. GSE Trieste is almost bankrupt having been sucked dry by Lockheed Martin on the US program, and does not have suitable craft that would be of interest to PN. They are also limited to Dry SDV concept, which a SWATS already is by design. DRASS designs seem to be lot more comprehensive and complete than its competitors. Industry experts claim that since DRASS have a mature design team, their craft are much along the development curve and will present a much lower risk to the purchaser.

DRASS Galezzi is shrouded with secrecy, and there is nothing on their website. Leaks on third party website show them as the only Italian manufacturer with practical designs of 350 Tons and 450 Tons that could suit PN requirement. They seem to have SDVs as well that integrate with the platform. However I believe this will be a secondary capability to PN's doctrine of full conventional submarine attack and defense.

If the Italian government gives permission for Transfer of Technology, this could be a suitable platform for the Pakistani replacement. However, I am not sure if DRASS would be interested in South Asian market. According to Janes, Romania is proceeding with compact submarine program so its likely DRASS. With the compact SWAT submarine as latest additional to brown water naval doctrines, it is likely that companies like DRASS will be very busy in the next 10 years.

In my opinion, with the heavy investment in Chinese Submarines, it would be prudent for Pakistan Navy to keep a European option in the mix, if the platform becomes available and the payload / range / personnel mix allow the Drass 450 for offense, and Drass 160 ton platform as a defensive platform.

I think with the submarine building infrastructure being built, Pakistan my only need a blueprint and certain subsystems, which (subsystems) can largely be sourced from China and Turkey.

Question is, do the Russians have a blueprint based on their tested design in the 400-500 ton class? How about the Italians? If nothing else, good shipbuilders would have mature design teams that could provide the least risky options... approach Damen?

On the other hand, investing in trial and error at home would help develop a submarine design team indigenously.

Building a submarine is not so simple. Indeed the shipbuilding infrastructure is back, and current with the Ghazi / Hangor class being built in Pakistan with Chinese assistance. But compact submarines are difficult. They have roughly the same systems as a large submarine stuffed in a smaller package. If someone hasn't done it before, they are likely to not be able to do it in a short or finite time.

What would be a safer approach is to select a company that already has a complete engineering design, and request mission modifications for it. Build the first one in their yard with your technical team OJT, be involved in the modifications, and assign your design engineers as interns and externs in the company for 2-3 years working as employees. Manufacture your craft with the OEM assistance. This is a practical way to go.

 

[MastanKhan]

I think with the submarine building infrastructure being built, Pakistan my only need a blueprint and certain subsystems, which (subsystems) can largely be sourced from China and Turkey.

Question is, do the Russians have a blueprint based on their tested design in the 400-500 ton class? How about the Italians? If nothing else, good shipbuilders would have mature design teams that could provide the least risky options... approach Damen?

On the other hand, investing in trial and error at home would help develop a submarine design team indigenously.

Hi,

First of all---when you want to build a submarine---you need to understand and accept the level of difficulty involved---.

Secondly---you need to have fear of the difficulty that you will face in building a quality end product---.

That fear will make you understand the importance of the project at hand---and when you have the understanding---you will find out that you do not have the ability to build a submarine from blue print---.

Acceptance is the first step to success---.

There are certain technologies where trial and error don't go hand in hand---and such is the case with building submarines---.

Russian subs is not the way forward for pakistan---.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Russian subs will be very hard to acquire, with a long Rosoborexport involvement and likely no Transfer of Technology.

My research shows that only Italians have the experience and pedigree to undertake the proper platform. There are two companies in Italy. GSE Trieste, and DRASS Galezzi. GSE Trieste is almost bankrupt having been sucked dry by Lockheed Martin on the US program, and does not have suitable craft that would be of interest to PN. They are also limited to Dry SDV concept, which a SWATS already is by design. DRASS designs seem to be lot more comprehensive and complete than its competitors. Industry experts claim that since DRASS have a mature design team, their craft are much along the development curve and will present a much lower risk to the purchaser.

DRASS Galezzi is shrouded with secrecy, and there is nothing on their website. Leaks on third party website show them as the only Italian manufacturer with practical designs of 350 Tons and 450 Tons that could suit PN requirement. They seem to have SDVs as well that integrate with the platform. However I believe this will be a secondary capability to PN's doctrine of full conventional submarine attack and defense.

If the Italian government gives permission for Transfer of Technology, this could be a suitable platform for the Pakistani replacement. However, I am not sure if DRASS would be interested in South Asian market. According to Janes, Romania is proceeding with compact submarine program so its likely DRASS. With the compact SWAT submarine as latest additional to brown water naval doctrines, it is likely that companies like DRASS will be very busy in the next 10 years.

In my opinion, with the heavy investment in Chinese Submarines, it would be prudent for Pakistan Navy to keep a European option in the mix, if the platform becomes available and the payload / range / personnel mix allow the Drass 450 for offense, and Drass 160 ton platform as a defensive platform.



Building a submarine is not so simple. Indeed the shipbuilding infrastructure is back, and current with the Ghazi / Hangor class being built in Pakistan with Chinese assistance. But compact submarines are difficult. They have roughly the same systems as a large submarine stuffed in a smaller package. If someone hasn't done it before, they are likely to not be able to do it in a short or finite time.

What would be a safer approach is to select a company that already has a complete engineering design, and request mission modifications for it. Build the first one in their yard with your technical team OJT, be involved in the modifications, and assign your design engineers as interns and externs in the company for 2-3 years working as employees. Manufacture your craft with the OEM assistance. This is a practical way to go.

I just saw the 3rd-party leaks of the DG-450. Indeed, it's a formidable design relative to the size.

 

[Armchair]

Hi,

First of all---when you want to build a submarine---you need to understand and accept the level of difficulty involved---.

Secondly---you need to have fear of the difficulty that you will face in building a quality end product---.

That fear will make you understand the importance of the project at hand---and when you have the understanding---you will find out that you do not have the ability to build a submarine from blue print---.

Acceptance is the first step to success---.

There are certain technologies where trial and error don't go hand in hand---and such is the case with building submarines---.

Russian subs is not the way forward for pakistan---.

Thanks MK for sharing your thoughts. Didn't PN actually build mini-submarines in the 1980s? If they could do it then, there is no reason they cannot incrementally improve and do it now - meaning build a basic small submarine from blueprints. If there are specific parts and subsystems you cannot build, outsource it.

If NK and Iran can build these, there is no reason PN cannot with a little bit of effort.

Logical analysis:

1. Mini submarines are only a secondary consideration for PN, as such less important.
2. Sourcing a modern design is difficult with basically only one possible supplier (Italy) or unproven designs, in either case expensive ships.
3. A tried and tested design is available from North Korea / Iran.
4. Submarines can be modernized and improved upon. lead-acid batteries can be replaced with Lithium-ion batteries. etc.
5. PN needs a simple, cheap submarine that can threaten Mumbai, Dwarka, Goa, etc.

Logic dictates that one keeps it simple, gets a tried and tested design, modernizes it, and builds it themselves. In the process, gains a market where there is little competition and a grand potential demand.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Thanks MK for sharing your thoughts. Didn't PN actually build mini-submarines in the 1980s? If they could do it then, there is no reason they cannot incrementally improve and do it now - meaning build a basic small submarine from blueprints. If there are specific parts and subsystems you cannot build, outsource it.

If NK and Iran can build these, there is no reason PN cannot with a little bit of effort.

Logical analysis:

1. Mini submarines are only a secondary consideration for PN, as such less important.
2. Sourcing a modern design is difficult with basically only one possible supplier (Italy) or unproven designs, in either case expensive ships.
3. A tried and tested design is available from North Korea / Iran.
4. Submarines can be modernized and improved upon. lead-acid batteries can be replaced with Lithium-ion batteries. etc.
5. PN needs a simple, cheap submarine that can threaten Mumbai, Dwarka, Goa, etc.

Logic dictates that one keeps it simple, gets a tried and tested design, modernizes it, and builds it themselves. In the process, gains a market where there is little competition and a grand potential demand.

Generally, KSEW manufactures based on the OEM's documentation, support and material kits. It isn't assembly, but it isn't turnkey manufacturing with end-to-end local sourcing either. I'd bet the Cosmos Midget SSKs were done this way as well (along with basically every other warship built at KSEW).

The second issue is the potential shift in the mini-SSK requirement. As discussed by @Bilal Khan 777 , these new mini-SSKs aren't just frogmen carriers, but smaller AShW and ASW assets in earnest. For the PN, the goal is to make these mini-SSKs as much of a threat to the IN as the Hangor (II) and Agosta 90B SSPs.

So if it takes X to hunt one large SSP (e.g. Hangor/Khalid), then it should take X to hunt one mini-SSK (and when you multiply it by the number of assets, distribution in littoral seas and EEZ and AAW/AShW threats from the PN (054A) and the PAF, then you basically make a naval engagement pointless for the IN.

However, to truly excel in building such mini-SSKs, you need prior design and development experience. Pakistan doesn't even leverage its own development experience for larger SSKs, much less mini-SSKs. There's the option of working with Turkey, but they're inexperienced and we risk cost-overruns and delays which, while useful from a developmental standpoint, we just can't afford.

 

[Armchair]

Generally, KSEW manufactures based on the OEM's documentation, support and material kits. It isn't assembly, but it isn't turnkey manufacturing with end-to-end local sourcing either. I'd bet the Cosmos Midget SSKs were done this way as well (along with basically every other warship built at KSEW).

The second issue is the potential shift in the mini-SSK requirement. As discussed by @Bilal Khan 777 , these new mini-SSKs aren't just frogmen carriers, but smaller AShW and ASW assets in earnest. For the PN, the goal is to make these mini-SSKs as much of a threat to the IN as the Hangor (II) and Agosta 90B SSPs.

So if it takes X to hunt one large SSP (e.g. Hangor/Khalid), then it should take X to hunt one mini-SSK (and when you multiply it by the number of assets, distribution in littoral seas and EEZ and AAW/AShW threats from the PN (054A) and the PAF, then you basically make a naval engagement pointless for the IN.

However, to truly excel in building such mini-SSKs, you need prior design and development experience. Pakistan doesn't even leverage its own development experience for larger SSKs, much less mini-SSKs. There's the option of working with Turkey, but they're inexperienced and we risk cost-overruns and delays which, while useful from a developmental standpoint, we just can't afford.

Hi Bilal,

Can't argue with what Bilal Khan 777 is saying but does PN really need a high end mini submarine when, in its own words, the mini submarine project is a footnote to the main projects in the PN.

The easiest way to get rid of a project is to make the requirements overly complex and then claim its too expensive / can't be done.

Now, if Iran and North Korea can build submarines in this class, by whatever means that may be, Pakistan is perfectly capable of building the very same submarine, in fact a considerably better one given the suppliers and technologies available to the PN. You could get the deal through a middle-man that is not North Korea or Iran, to stay above controversy, upgrade some of the basic systems (get the Turkish weapons and command consoles, Chinese lithium ion batteries). And you have a cheap and effective submarine that threatens India's major ports on the Western shore.

From where I see it, KIS principle works here just fine. It also builds a submarine that has solid export potential. The expertise are coming - PN is getting ToT and hands-on training to train a new generation of Pakistani naval architects and engineers, after the 8 boats are build, PN will build nuclear SSNs and SSBNs. A mini submarine would be an easy side project.

In summary:
Blueprints, documentation, specifications from the NK / Iran via third party
Subsystems and technical support from Turkey / China (sub-assembly kits can be built by Chinese suppliers with documentation from NK / Iran)

You could, in theory, do the same with an Italian designer. As far as Italian industry is concerned, they want to sell - they are out to make a profit. The price just has to be right.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi Bilal,

Can't argue with what Bilal Khan 777 is saying but does PN really need a high end mini submarine when, in its own words, the mini submarine project is a footnote to the main projects in the PN.

The easiest way to get rid of a project is to make the requirements overly complex and then claim its too expensive / can't be done.

Now, if Iran and North Korea can build submarines in this class, by whatever means that may be, Pakistan is perfectly capable of building the very same submarine, in fact a considerably better one given the suppliers and technologies available to the PN. You could get the deal through a middle-man that is not North Korea or Iran, to stay above controversy, upgrade some of the basic systems (get the Turkish weapons and command consoles, Chinese lithium ion batteries). And you have a cheap and effective submarine that threatens India's major ports on the Western shore.

From where I see it, KIS principle works here just fine. It also builds a submarine that has solid export potential. The expertise are coming - PN is getting ToT and hands-on training to train a new generation of Pakistani naval architects and engineers, after the 8 boats are build, PN will build nuclear SSNs and SSBNs. A mini submarine would be an easy side project.

In summary:
Blueprints, documentation, specifications from the NK / Iran via third party
Subsystems and technical support from Turkey / China (sub-assembly kits can be built by Chinese suppliers with documentation from NK / Iran)

You could, in theory, do the same with an Italian designer. As far as Italian industry is concerned, they want to sell - they are out to make a profit. The price just has to be right.

Hi,

The capability of subs that iran and N korea have---pakistan can build mini subs better than them---but better does not mean that it meets the minimal standards as both the Bilal's mentioned in their post---.

One has to remember---Pak navy sub fleet is one of the oldest in asia---our sub fleet in experience was only second to Japan in the region---( plz correct me on that )---.

 

[Armchair]

Fair enough. Surely the decision makers know what they are doing, and those in the industry and with technical know-how know better.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Hi,

The capability of subs that iran and N korea have---pakistan can build mini subs better than them---but better does not mean that it meets the minimal standards as both the Bilal's mentioned in their post---.

One has to remember---Pak navy sub fleet is one of the oldest in asia---or sub fleet in experience was only second to Japan in the region---( plz correct me on that )---.

For what it's worth ... Pakistan did grease its palms with the Italians (e.g. numerous Leonardo purchases), so at least getting DRASS to listen might not be impossible.