3 and also licence producing in house.
So this seems as a new CONOPS in PN for coastal subs, expansion of special forces domain, and additional tasks.
This seems like a smart move on part of PN. Coastal sub costs less than a conventional platform, but is able to do a lot of the same tasks.
There were some actual experiments the US did with nuclear weapons and retired ships. I am trying to rack my brain for it. It was found that exploding them underwater was far more effective than exploding them air burst.
Bilal Khan 777 does it again - he has found the exact thing that PN needs. I just hope they can build them in numbers, and if possible, in the future design one themselves and export it.
Just good research i think.
1-Sang-O II / K-300 [North Korea]
2-Fateh Class [Iran]
3- HDS-500 Midget Submarine
The HDS-500 design features a distinct streamlines sail and 'X' form tail mounted
behind an integrated pumpjet. Less obvious innovations include a mini wet-dry hangar in the tail.
a) Flexible Payoad Module (FPM)
b) Integrated sail
c) Intercept sonar
d) Hatches for Payload Modules
e) 533mm (21") torpedo tube (x2)
f) Conformal sonar array
g) 324mm (12.75") torpedo tubes (x4)
Specification
Length: 37 meters
Beam: 4.5 meter
Displacement: 510 tons surfaced
Speed: Maximum 20 kt submerged, 7 kt cruising
Operating depth: 250 meters
Endurance : 21 days, 2,000 nautical miles
Armament: 2 x 533mm (21") heavyweight torpedoes and 4 x 324mm (12.75") lightweight torpedoes.
Crew: 10 plus 4 combat swimmers
http://www.hisutton.com/News - Korea building new HDS-400 midget submarine.html
Why not pump-jet propulsors,they would allow them to operate in shallow waters.
This is the feedback of your Korean submarine from my submariner friends:
CRITICAL DESIGN ISSUES / OBSERVATIONS WITH HHI KS500A S/M
1. Concept:An initial concept and not proceeded to engineering design or industrialization
2. Past Experience: Shipbuilder has no past or current experience of building compact submarines.
3. Main Propulsion Batteries: Li Ion batteries are without a mechanism to charge them at sea in this S/M. S/M cannot dive after first discharge.
4. Main Propulsion Batteries: Battery bank cannot be discharged more than 60%, so effectively can only use 40% capacity of the declared endurance.
5. Main Propulsion Batteries: Li Ion batteries, if completely discharged, have to be replaced. Batteries are not in a separate compartment or outside the pressure hull so replacement is time consuming.
6. Main Propulsion Batteries: Batteries inside the pressure hull. Any chemical event or fire will directly affect the crew with gas exchange in pressurized chamber / hull.
7. Autonomy loss: Declared autonomy is 2000NM but gets adjusted to 1200NM due to above observation.
8. Flank / conformal Array Sonar: S/M does not have appropriate length to use the flank /conformal array capabilities specifically in lower frequencies due to limited length, hence very limited range.
9. Non-Compliant rescue solution: The vessel is not compatible and compliant with NATO standard S/M rescue requirements and methods.
10. Sail design obstruction: The “built in” sail design does not allow crew movement from bow to stern.
11. Emergency Power Generator: S/M has no emergency generator in the design, putting life safety at risk.
12. Questionable Propulsion System: The propulsion system has design issues, and still not perfected in many S/Ms such as Kilo class.
13. No Torpedo Defence: The Bow mounted sonar can detect incoming torpedo but submarine has no countermeasure launchers.
14. No AIP System: The submarine data does not show any AIP system for further U/W endurance during critical operations.
