Not much difference in anything if you compare Scorpene, U-209 and Agosta 90B.
Remember that Agosta 90B with MESMA AIP is better than U-209 with IN and Scorpene without Mesma AIP.
Care to provide evidence in support of your claims?
Due to Pakistan's lack of strategic depth and ports (Karachi+Gwadar) AIP for the IN is simply not necessary for their Scorpenes which will be based on their Western coast. The sole purpose of an AIP system is to prolong the submersion length of an ssk before snorkeling and in regards to your second point the Scorpenes may be easily fitted with an MESMA system within a month should the IN wish due owing to the modular design.
The 209s and baseline Agostas are of the same design generation (70's) while the 90Bs incorporate lessons gained from the baseline design and is a baseline design modified with leading technology in sensor fit of the time (late 80's). The design heritage of the Scorpene stems from the Rubis SSN and is externally similar as well as sharing the same sensor fit (upgraded baseline DMUX 20 combat system, modified DRUA sonar with feedback capability....etc) as well as being vastly hydrodynamically superior to the 70's designs. In effect the Scorpene is two and a half decades ahead on the technology spiral so the belief that there is no difference cannot be further from the truth.
In addition when a customer orders an ssk it usually requests specific fit to fit the mission profile. From personal experience the IN is a very fussy end user due to the elite nature of their UWC squadrons so their Scorpenes will be fitted with certain customised quipment such as a unnamed Israeli EW suite from either Elbit or IAI giving it a considerable edge over the standard French hardware found in the 90Bs. I caution you against claiming one sub arm is 'better" than another without informed knowledge. The Indian undersea arm is rated by most to have capabilities second only to the JMSDF in Asia.
If DCN was willing to built a new sub for PN by incorporating some features from its known SSN (Baracudda) PN should not have given second thought for U-214.
Nobody builds subs for others. A design is drawn up and standardised then the marketing begins. The reason the PN decided to go for the U214 is still unclear at this stage we in the Australian UDT community (and the Americans, Israelis and Indians) believe it has something to do with modifications to suit Babur integration-which is why the Indians and Israelis are putting pressure on the German gov to veto any sale. Also because the U214 is such an excellent design in key parameters.
U-214 Comparisons with DCN Designs have been made several times in other threads.
Those comparisons are so childish at times that they are completely irrelevant. Just because Platform X has a greater numerical value in this aspect, say diving depth, than Platform Y then it is superior or "better"?
Undersea warfare between subs is a like a knife fight in the dark with the one possessing greater sensory awareness and "stealth" prevailing. Without going into specifics the U214 is comparable with the the Scorpene and possibly Scorp evolutions in terms of acoustic signature management. Far superior to the acoustic sig man fitted to the Agostas which are roughly comparable to IN 877 pre-reft Kilos. The Marlin is largely unknown in terms of all the above but as a platform incorporting advances from the Barracuda program as the Scorpene did with the Rubis then I would expect it to match the U214.
U-214 has its advantages but in our case with our Infrustructure built around Agosta they are not favorable. One with the knowledge of Infrustructure should understand that. MESMA is a better choice in alot of aspects then Fuel Cells thou Fuel Cells are Better but have handing issues.
No, in trials conducted with all Western AIP systems for the RAN the MESMA came in dead last. But for countries traditionally French in their purchases what other choice do you have?
DCN and PN should be the order of the coming year.
You got that one right.
