New TKMS (HDW) "budget" submarine presented at SUBCON 2007

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
HDW has presented a new submarine at SUBCON 2007, Type 210mod.

Design is (obviously) based on the Type 210, which is better known as the Norwegian Ula class.
Several subcomponents will be identical to or derived from Type 212A/214 hardware, others (as with Type 210) will come from the proven Type 209 line.

Some characteristics that have been laid out so far:

  • Dimensions: 56 m length, 1,000 tons submerged (slightly smaller than Type 210)
  • Crew: 15 men crew in two-shift, 21 men in three-shift operation; additional bunkspace reserved
  • Endurance: 30 days target
  • Automation: only in areas where crew numbers can be reduced by it
  • Construction: Single-hull, HY80 steel; small sail (as in 212A) for signature reduction
  • Propulsion: Dieselelectric; 2x improved MTU 12V 396 diesel (from 209?); Permasyn "silent" electric engine (from 212A)
  • Signature Reduction Features: X-Rudder configuration, Skew-Back propeller
  • Armament: 8x 533mm torpedo tubes (14 torpedoes); missile launch or mine capability installable on customer demand
  • Sail installations: optical periscope, telescoping communications mast, telescoping radar mast, two-man diver chamber (for SF insertion operations); additional space reserved
  • Sonar: see attached picture 5 (sensors)

HDW, with Type 210mod, says is trying to tackle "budget" markets in particular in South America and South-East Asia to be able to directly compete with the current Russian export offensive in those areas, pricewise.
Additionally, HDW sees the Type 210mod as a good potential "entry submarine", for navies without submarines yet. A secondary market is to sell certain navies a new budget submarine instead of costly modernization of existing subs. And the third market is as a "low-end" supplement to navies with Type 214 or Type 209/1400 (or similar) subs, as HDW will market it with interoperability and straight compatibility (including crew training) to those classes.

HDW plans this sub as a direct competitor to Amur and SMX-23.

Type 210mod apparently garnered a lot of interest at SUBCON 2007. TKMS/HDW is currently in the final design phases and expects to have the design ready for biddings in 2008.
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If you were going to photonics, then you'd think that they would have changed the sail location etc as well.....

I quite like the HDW gear, just a pity that they didn't bite the bullet and go for a pumpjet...

I'm wondering now that HDW has US partners whether they'll get access to the new generator technology - if so, that will change the sensor suite lethality considerably
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
If you were going to photonics, then you'd think that they would have changed the sail location etc as well.....
Standard optical periscope, not optronic (remote). Sorry if that was unclear.

I'm wondering now that HDW has US partners whether they'll get access to the new generator technology - if so, that will change the sensor suite lethality considerably
Ah, generators. Knew i missed one. Type 210mod will use a generator by Piller Power Systems, identical or similar to the one on the Type 212A. The generator can supposedly load the batteries (significantly) faster than a Type 209 can.


As for a pumpjet - for a Coastal SSK (which the Type 210mod is intended for) - it wouldn't be of much use in my opinion. Or rather, it would be detrimental, as apparently in shallow waters, pumpjets tend to clog up with whirled up sand/mud. Plus pumpjets aren't exactly low-maintenance for the customer.
Sure, it might have been useful in the Type 212A, maybe even the Type 214. Probably would have increased the prices some more still though.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Standard optical periscope, not optronic (remote). Sorry if that was unclear.
ah, thks.


As for a pumpjet - for a Coastal SSK (which the Type 210mod is intended for) - it wouldn't be of much use in my opinion. Or rather, it would be detrimental, as apparently in shallow waters, pumpjets tend to clog up with whirled up sand/mud. Plus pumpjets aren't exactly low-maintenance for the customer.

depends on the environment - eg, not so good in the sargasso, but up where you are?? for sure (IMO)

as for clogging, that can be designed out - getting clogged with sand and mud would raise a question in my mind as to what the hell that sub driver was doing to churn up crud at a speed and depth (above sea bed) to make it emulate a flounder....

re low maintenance issues - maybe too expensive for a small less financially heeled navy - but for the bulk of the likely EU and East Asian customers - not a problem (again IMV)


Sure, it might have been useful in the Type 212A, maybe even the Type 214. Probably would have increased the prices some more still though.
ah yes, but think of the benefits..... ;)
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
as for clogging, that can be designed out - getting clogged with sand and mud would raise a question in my mind as to what the hell that sub driver was doing to churn up crud at a speed and depth (above sea bed) to make it emulate a flounder....
Type 212A official trials included diving and submerged operation at full speed, ie. 22 knots, in 20m "deep" water (and that was a requirement - performed by each of the four Type 212A in their sea trials!).

Also, there was at least one trial run submerged at high cruise speed, ie. 7-8 knots, in 14.5m (!) deep water. Meaning they were literally scraping the bottom with only a meter or so to spare below.

edit: The 20m requirement - which is pretty much periscope depth only, just above the ground - is for operations in the coastal areas of the Baltic Sea, and presumably also for e.g. the Channel (which has a 26m depth restriction in some places).
 
Last edited:

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Also, there was at least one trial run submerged at cruise speed, ie. 7-8 knots in 14.5m water.
that wouldn't clog up a pumpjet though - to make a sub look like it was doing the equivalent of a "sand fart" would be something thats more likely to be heard at a board of enquiry..... :D

seriously, to stuff up a pumpjet like that you'd have to do some creative driving....
 

Gripenator

Banned Member
Just a query, what is the SMX-23?

In terms of systems fit, noise quality and endurance which do you think is the superior boat and would the two EU boats be inferior to the Amur and the Kilo 636, both potential adversaries?

I suppose the South American market would consist of Type 209 replacements but Asian market intrigues me, is there any chance of Taiwanese orders, I remember there was a rumour that the ROCN was looking at German made SSKs for their requirement of 8.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
Just a query, what is the SMX-23?

In terms of systems fit, noise quality and endurance which do you think is the superior boat and would the two EU boats be inferior to the Amur and the Kilo 636, both potential adversaries?
The 636 is a rather large ocean sub, and not much good for the coastal market that HDW is aiming for - the 636 is optimized for long endurance patrol runs in open waters, the 210mod for coastal defense/offense operations in tight areas. The Amur (950, in particular) isn't even in the running yet; its armament is also optimized for "different" things, and might not be attractive to some customers (the Amur 950 is pretty much a VLS platform with "auxiliary" ASW functionality). The bigger Amur 1650, which is more of a classic sub, might be in for a tough run though if HDW manages to field competitive prices.

A couple recent things might make people actually look at HDW subs a bit more closely. The South-African 209/1400 "sinking" SNMG1 for example, or the fact that there's currently a German 212A in a 3-month surveillance/recon mission in the Mediterranean - at sea for those 3 months, with a one-week break inbetween for vacation and replenishment.

I suppose the South American market would consist of Type 209 replacements but Asian market intrigues me, is there any chance of Taiwanese orders, I remember there was a rumour that the ROCN was looking at German made SSKs for their requirement of 8.
The market analysis primarily points at China renewing their sub fleet in the next few years, which subsequently causes about everyone else in the area to upgrade too of course. HDW has identified a medium-term need for up to 80 submarines in the area.

Indonesia was pointed out (currently upgrading their two Type 209 at HDW), and, the way they're stressing the interoperability and compatibility with Type 214, they're hinting at South Korea and Pakistan at least. Indonesia would actually be a rather tough market, since they've been swinging for Kilos lately. Singapore might be a possible market too, especially since HDW has swallowed Kockums who sold Singapore those Sjoormen class subs in the 90s. Thailand might still be in for subs too.

Taiwan would be rather difficult to get an export permission for at the moment, actually.

In South America, they're primarily pointing out Columbia or Peru, who wouldn't have money for the pricier HDW subs. But also of course Ecuador, Chile, Argentina...
 

Gripenator

Banned Member
Thanks, I for a moment forgot that Kockums was bought by HDW recently:)

I’m not too much of an expert on submarine technology, but do you think that systems know-how including hull design and propulsion will be transferred between yards owned by the same company in different countries? I know that while my country is operating two highly capable SSK classes, any German expertise would be highly welcome in designing an extremely capable ocean going SSK. I suppose our two Sodermanland class submarines are “blue-water” capable enough but an ideal solution would be to enlarge or stretch a Gotland class to Upholder or U214 size and incorporate German and British systems. Your points on the Russian submarines are certainly in spirit with the reputation of Russian weapons; cheap; reliable, as the Americans say “very good bang for your buck” but certainly not world class.

Pakistan is definitely looking at U214s given the paper existence of the non existent Marlin class offered to them as Spain is looking at selling the alternate S-80E(xport) in place of the Scorpene joint venture. Do you have any other info on this deal? The ROKN might find a use of your T210 against numerous NK midget submarines and their 33 odd Romeo SSKs while I suppose German yards could partner with a US shipyard to build a German design if the monkeys in the Taiwanese legislature can stop their self serving behaviour-then again, in the strait you would have potential blue-on-blue issues for the USN SSNs distinguishing ROCN SSKs from the myraid PLAN ones.

Just another question, how would a potential Pakistani Navy U214 compare in terms of sensors, noise levels and weapons/systems fit capabilities against those 6 IN Scorpenes?
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
but an ideal solution would be to enlarge or stretch a Gotland class to Upholder or U214 size
The Gotlands are referred to a "mini collins". part of the anger within AustGov is that we believe that we paid for some of the development of Gotland through the maxi process.

btw, you just can't upgrade or enlarge a boat per se, thats another reason why we had so much grief with the kockums design team in the early days.

they guinea pigged their ideas and we paid for it.

also, the Upholders are scaled down nukes
 

Gripenator

Banned Member
The Gotlands are referred to a "mini collins". part of the anger within AustGov is that we believe that we paid for some of the development of Gotland through the maxi process.

btw, you just can't upgrade or enlarge a boat per se, thats another reason why we had so much grief with the kockums design team in the early days.

they guinea pigged their ideas and we paid for it.

also, the Upholders are scaled down nukes
Sorry about that, I think you misunderstood-my proposal would be to do a 'Sodermanland style' upgrade for our Gotlands as in cut out a section and replace it with a larger section with more capability. A pity about the Collins class mess left by Kockums, they usually do quite a good job for our subs. I hear Raytheon and a whole lot of other US systems contractors had to be flown in to rectify numerous problems with your Collins, fortunately they seem to have worked, bagging an LA class in deep water is no mean feat;)
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Sorry about that, I think you misunderstood-my proposal would be to do a 'Sodermanland style' upgrade for our Gotlands as in cut out a section and replace it with a larger section with more capability.
Not sure I'd try it, there are some serious balance issues to address. inserting a plug is a significant task. more to the point is that you'd want to do a serious cost benefit analysis on what extra capability your require and whether a plug brings that to the table.


I hear Raytheon and a whole lot of other US systems contractors had to be flown in to rectify numerous problems with your Collins,
Not Raytheon. The hull fixes were done at the other end thanks to the USN and a few beltway friends.

The acoustic management mods were australian

thanks to the USN and a few of their mates, we've been able to fix and build to the platforms proper potential a whole lot faster than if we'd tried to do it ourselves.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
I suppose German yards could partner with a US shipyard to build a German design if the monkeys in the Taiwanese legislature can stop their self serving behaviour
Don't really see that much chance for that. The fact that HDW was part-owned by a US investor, and that TKMS is now part-owned by them (One Equity Partners), is something that didn't go over well politically in Germany, in particular in regard to technology transfers to both the US and Taiwan.
OEP's share was pretty much mandated to be downsized by the government due to just such technology transfers (in 2002), and any technology transfers, in particular in submarine technology, to the US is something that's seen as an extremely touchy subject. The current government might support a direct sale to Taiwan, but i really, really doubt it, considering Merkel keeps up the previous government's One-China-Policy agreement.
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
while I suppose German yards could partner with a US shipyard to build a German design if the monkeys in the Taiwanese legislature can stop their self serving behaviour-then again
If you're talking about the new submarine design this thread is about, it isn't what Taiwan wants. At the moment the suggested submarine types offered by the US companies are either the Spanish S-80 (Scorpene variant) or the Type 209-1400. The latter is apparently favourite as it is widely used across the world and spare parts would be plentiful - the S-80 on the other-hand might create upkeep problems (as there would only be one place that made spares - Spain).

New designs like this Type 210 might also cause problems in relations to spares, as well as potentially being expensive. Taiwan wants a simple yet effective option - the Type 209-1400 is what it needs.

The current government might support a direct sale to Taiwan, but i really, really doubt it, considering Merkel keeps up the previous government's One-China-Policy agreement.
The only possible direct European sale would be French Scorpenes tagged on to a Rafale order. Rafale export orders aren't looking good, so Taiwan is the only realistic customer - apparently they're talking with the French behind closed doors about Rafale and upgrading the Mirages. If a sale was approved, there might be the opportunity to throw some submarines in as well (if you're going to annoy the Chinese, might as well make the most of it).

But to be quite fair Taiwan doesn't expect to get a direct sale anyway. At the moment it's planning on the US-build scenario, as per all accounts the companies there have found European firms to help them fill in the gaps. It's now a question of whether the Taiwanese legislative believes they can do it or not. There'll be a good indication of that when the 2008 defense budget goes to committee stage, as if the funding survives it will probably get passed on the 2nd reading too.
 

kato

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
I'm wondering now that HDW has US partners whether they'll get access to the new generator technology - if so, that will change the sensor suite lethality considerably
Interestingly over the past 4 years the Type 210mod design has matured. And part of that process was removing half the armament and adding an extra 3m hull section. Let's wonder what they put in those extra 150 tons displacement other than a diver chamber...

Visualization

btw, you just can't upgrade or enlarge a boat per se, thats another reason why we had so much grief with the kockums design team in the early days.
Well, you might have it again. TKMS is currently toying around with a 4,000 ton "Type 216" with preliminary stats rather obviously intended for a bid in a Collins replacement. Presented at SubCon 2011.
 

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems said:
2 Dec 2013 -- ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems receives major submarine order from Singapore

ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, a company of ThyssenKrupp Industrial Solutions, has signed a contract for the delivery of two submarines of HDW Class 218SG to Singapore.

HDW Class 218SG is a customised design from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. The submarines, which will be fitted out with an air independent propulsion system, are going to be built at the Kiel premises of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems.

Compared to the present ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems submarines, the new design has been customised to house additional equipment for present and future operational requirements. Special attention has also been paid to the ultra-modern layout of the tailor-made Combat System of these submarines. ST Electronics, being part of the ST Engineering group, will co-develop such Combat System with Atlas Elektronik GmbH.

Dr. Hans Christoph Atzpodien, Chairman of the Management Board of Business Area Industrial Solutions of ThyssenKrupp AG, underlines the importance of the order: “We very much look forward to continue the co-operation with the Republic of Singapore Navy which has already been a customer of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. The new order is an affirmation of our high-end products and services and will further strengthen our position as a world market leader in the sector of non-nuclear submarines. The contract does not only safeguard jobs at ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, but also several hundred jobs at subcontractors.”
Type 218SG is a customised design from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems; and it is an entirely new class of submarine. An industry source said the contract was likely to be worth more than 1 billion euros (US$1.36 billion) - so not quite a budget submarine, as the one proposed in 2007.

ThyssenKrupp also said Singapore Technologies Electronics, a unit of defence conglomerate Singapore Technologies Engineering Ltd , would co-develop the submarines' tailor-made combat system with Atlas Elektronik GmbH, a joint venture of ThyssenKrupp and European aerospace group EADS.

Now, we know why the Singapore Defence Minister was in Germany for two official visits this year (in February @ the Munich Security Conference and again in April for an official visit, where they announced increased training slots for Singaporean tank crews). Currently, there are no indications from Mindef of their tonnage or dimensions, at this moment. Having said that, during the at the Committee of Supply Debate 2013, the Minister of Defence, noted the following:-

"Again planning ahead, MINDEF is also looking to replace our ageing Challenger-class submarines, which were built in the 1960s. The replacement submarines will have significantly improved capabilities and will enhance our ability to keep our sea lines of communication safe."

In other words, the Singapore Navy is not just thinking about defending Singapore island or the near abroad, rather it is developing a capability to protect our national interests. I am not sure if it will be a 4,000 ton submarine like the proposed Type 216 (dimensions: 89m x 8.1m x 6.6m). Holger Isbrecht has a nice presentation on the Type 216 and on page 3 he has a chart mapping out the tonnage of the different submarine classes (ranging from the Swedish boats, to the Batch 2 Dolphin submarine, to the 4,000 ton Type 216). In the presentation, he talks about boundaries and drivers for size, including the need for:-

(i) Crew Comfort: Enlarged & flexible mess-rooms, fitness area and additional crew spaces.

(ii) Platform: Low indiscretion ratio, high transit and AIP range, low signatures, high availability / submarine on station.

(iii) Both weapon and mission flexibility in the design.

Re-configurable internal spaces for very different mission sets - which means space for a 'core-crew' (eg. for ASuW & ASW) and space for a 'mission-specific crew' (eg. mine warfare, special operations, C4I & cyber-warfare node). This intent to insert modules and crews for different missions is evident with the planning behind the new Littoral Mission Vessel (LMV). To reduce training and sustainment costs, some of the mission-specific crews could be either deployed on a LMV or a Type 218SG (these mission crew will have to be cross trained for both platforms - to keep the total size of the navy small). I think Singapore is quite reluctant to be seen as a 'big' player; and have deliberately constrained the size of the navy's ships/boats to make them deceptively capable. In the theory of balance of power, Singapore fears that if it appears too powerful, balancing will occur (i.e. fears that it will end up with an arms race with Malaysia and Indonesia).
 
Top