NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Submarines Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

South Korea Thinks Big, Really Big

September 14, 2009: South Korea has ordered another six German designed Type 214 submarines. Nine years ago, South Korea ordered three 214s, and the first of those entered service last year. The boats are built in South Korea, using licensed technology from the German developer (HDW).

Three years ago, the South Koreans dropped plans to built several large, 3,000 ton, diesel-electric subs. But now, this plan has been revived. But first, the six additional 1,600 ton Type 214 subs will be built over the next 14 years, in addition to the three already planned. South Korea already has nine 1,100 ton Type 209 subs, designed and built in Germany.

The Type 214 boats use fuel cells, enabling them to stay underwater for up to two weeks. The South Koreans like their 209s, but looked at a competing offer for the French Scorpene. are now getting nervous because the first 214 recently received by Greece, had a long list of problems. The Type 214 is a 1,700 ton, 202 foot long boat, with a crew of 27. It has four torpedo tubes and a top submerged speed of 35 kilometers an hour. Maximum diving depth is over 1,200 feet.

The two designs are similar, with the Scorpene being more recent (and the result of cooperation between a French and a Spanish firm.) The Scorpene is a little heavier (1700 tons), has a larger crew (32) and is a little faster (37 kilometers an hour). It has six 21 inch torpedo tubes, and carries 18 torpedoes and/or missiles. Both models are usually equipped with an AIP (air independent propulsion) system. This enables the sub to stay under longer, thus making the sub harder to find.

With well trained crews, 214s and Scorpenes can get close to just about any surface ship, no matter how good the defenders anti-submarine defenses are. But it's the AIP boats that are the real killers. Without AIP, subs spend most of their time just below surface, using their diesel engines (via a snorkel device that breaks the surface to take in air, and get rid of the engine exhaust.) Snorkels can be spotted by modern maritime patrol aircraft, and many nations are getting more of these.

European built AIP boats go for about half a billion dollars each. The second batch of South Korean 214s will have an improved AIP system, which is apparently more reliable, and provides a small increase in time underwater.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article INFANTRY: Her Majesties Red Dot Thermals


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

gf0012-aust       9/14/2009 6:04:15 AM
there really needs to be a bit more caution in overstaing what AIP brings to the table.  Subs have had successful prosecutions without AIP - and the tests done by RAN on fleet work showed that AIP showed no demonstrable advantage over conventional power based on LRRP type missions.  In fact the AIP module is still sitting in the shed and was never installed.  The space ended up being used for more ISR capability.  

By 2020, AIP will be a bit passe, the US has propulsion capability suitable for smaller subs (sub scorpene or 21n sized) that is looking  far more useful.

the issue is not lurking, as its been demonstrated time and time again that a good crew in a conventional sub can take it up to the  skimmers - the issue is onboard power.  large fleet conventionals prefer the advantages of more power than the false sense of security that an average crew might rely on with AIP.

the AIP mantra is seriously dumbing down the craft 
 
Quote    Reply

mabie       9/14/2009 7:28:51 AM




By 2020, AIP will be a bit passe, the US has propulsion capability suitable for smaller subs (sub scorpene or 21n sized) that is looking  far more useful.



I'm currious.. care to elaborate a bit more?


 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/14/2009 8:01:58 AM

I'm currious.. care to elaborate a bit more?
there is technology already in trial on surface vessels that has 1/3rd less weight and 1/2 the volumetric mass for equivalent output.  more power per pound/kilo means efficiency gains.  it means more powerful sensor systems, more powerful combat systems, more room for weapons fitouts, more room means greater flexibility in designing the acoustic shape of the platform.
large fleet conventionals like Collins, Oyashio 1/11 and the Scorpene are "bigger" for a reason.  Collins original design brief was to run with blue/gold crews the same as their US/UK  nuke sisters.  Oyashios were designed to run down and chase to depth and kill russian nukes etc.... Scorpenes are designed for engine changes.  All are deep blue SSK/SSG's in the "can do" aggressive sense at the active warfighting level.  Smaller more efficient engines with similar output means that new design and warfighting opportunities open up.  Both Collins and the Oyashios are the only large conventionals able to carry the Virginia/Seawolf/SSGN BYG combat system.  "Larger" combat systems provide reach etc... so a more efficient drivetrain means that more attention can be paid to onboard electronics, weapons fits etc etc....
but, not everyone needs large blues in their fleet.  "user pays, doctrine stays" etc .....
 

 






 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/14/2009 8:12:42 AM
ps.  there are some deliberately and "necessary" sweeping statements in my prev as I'm trying to get a message across.

more power in a smaller footprint means better systems, more room for weapons fitouts, consideration for dismounts (think Tango Bravo), larger flank arrays, chin arrays, bow arrays, flexibility on new weaps solutions and new ewarfare/ISR solutions....

AIP takes up space and trades off real estate for the notion that you can lurk for longer.  Both Collins and the Oyashios have shown in various RIMPACs that when skimmers make assumptions about a conventionals endurance, they can make a tactical mistake.

The sub is a sum of its parts.  capability is not about technology but about training and competency, efficiency and capability and then its the toy itself.  various navies have proven that.  eg the dutch, the canadians,  even he protuguese have shown whats possible.

AIP is getting thrown around like "stealth" - and that sometimes is borderline technobabble promoted as tipping point technology. 
 
Quote    Reply

SlowMan       9/14/2009 10:39:57 AM
@ gf0012-aust

> and the tests done by RAN on fleet work showed that AIP showed no demonstrable advantage over conventional power based on LRRP type missions.

Yea, but what about infiltrating enemy water that operates 100 patrol aircrafts, along with 40 anti-sub helicopters, and satellite sensors? Would an Aussie Collins sub survive in that kind of operating environment?

Basically, Korean navy's sub mission profile calls for staying underwater for a minimum duration of three weeks to avoid detection. This is why Korean 214 has a different AIP propulsion compared to that of "normal" 214s, in that Korean 214 uses AIP system lifted from 212 to attain increased underwater endurance; they are not even planning to surface during the entire 3 week mission duration off the coast of Tokyo.

> the US has propulsion capability suitable for smaller subs (sub scorpene or 21n sized) that is looking  far more useful.

Why would the US abandon nuclear power and go with a non-nuclear solution?

> AIP is getting thrown around like "stealth" - and that sometimes is borderline technobabble promoted as tipping point technology.

Except that Korean Navy appears to be convinced of its usefulness and ordered whopping 9 AIP subs, When SSX-IIIs replace U-209, Korean Navy's entire sub inventory will run primarily on AIP for a minimum of three weeks(exact endurance classified).
 
Quote    Reply

The Drill SGT       9/14/2009 11:24:46 AM
Snorkels can be spotted by modern maritime patrol aircraft, and both nations are getting more of these.
 
 
which "both" nations are they referring to?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Paul_In_Houston       9/14/2009 12:08:39 PM
> the US has propulsion capability suitable for smaller subs (sub scorpene or 21n sized) that is looking  far more useful.

Why would the US abandon nuclear power and go with a non-nuclear solution?
 
IF we are looking at smaller subs for some missions, cost may be a factor. Alternate power sources may be more appropriate in that situation (or not).  I don't recall anything said above about abandoning nuclear power.  Supplementing it might be under consideration. (Whole lot of "ifs" and "maybes" here; I wouldn't hold my breath.)
 
-
 
Quote    Reply

dba       9/14/2009 3:35:13 PM

Snorkels can be spotted by modern maritime patrol aircraft, and both nations are getting more of these.

 

 

which "both" nations are they referring to?

 

They would be China and Japan.
 


 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/14/2009 4:15:07 PM

> the US has propulsion capability suitable for smaller subs (sub scorpene or 21n sized) that is looking  far more useful.

Why would the US abandon nuclear power and go with a non-nuclear solution?

not what I was saying.  the US has technology which has been successfully developed and trialled in skimmers and has serious implications fir conventional subs.

they don't need to go to conventionals when their nukes are now able to go into and fight in the littorals. 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/14/2009 4:16:30 PM
slowman

/ignore on 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/15/2009 3:43:16 AM
DN has reflected and released the above data from their Korean correspondent. Jung Sung-Ki
 
Quote    Reply

mabie       9/15/2009 11:39:20 PM

ps.  there are some deliberately and "necessary" sweeping statements in my prev as I'm trying to get a message across.

OK, i gues you could tell me but then you'd have to kill me.. intriguing tech whatever it is, I'm sure.


 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy