What's new

Type-212 vs Type-214 explained

Hi,

212 and 214 are not hunter killer subs against the nuc subs---they are good against any kind of surface ship or any other non nuc sub---hunter killer mean that you have the ability to track, follow and match the move of the adversary---which in this case is the non nucs---the diesels are limited in their in their stealth speed over a long peiriod of time.

Seawolf is not the stealthiest any more---there is another one that has taken its place---the virginia class---.

hi
i am sorry to say but looks like you need to spend about another 2-3 weeks in this subject. Your knowledge is only limited to American nuc submarines and you have made your opinion based on american nuc subs superiority and gave general term to all nuclear powered subs as superior to diesel submarines.
No dough seawolf, Virginia class submarines are the stealthiest and perhaps the best nuc subs in the world but i think you are forgetting the context here. which is Pak-indo. again and again let me remind you neither india or pakistan is going to posses anything like american top stealth submarines in near future and neither is pakistan planning to take on USN.
Kindly do some research on SSK and Penguin has perfectly winded this up that SSK and SSN are almost same thing expect one is powered with nuc and the other diesel. not to forget that nuc subs are generally superior to average SSK but neither type-212 or type-214 is an average submarine.
 
not again mr growler u show some proof before you same some thing russian akula nuclear subs are one of best nuclear subs i am not being indo-pak but its still not only us nuclear subs but many other nuclear subs have advantage over the powerful ssks
 
not again mr growler u show some proof before you same some thing russian akula nuclear subs are one of best nuclear subs i am not being indo-pak but its still not only us nuclear subs but many other nuclear subs have advantage over the powerful ssks

nope. i do not have to show proof to you because you simply not worthy of providing any information and all you do is troll with low quality posts. btw no where in my post did i say akual is a bad nuc sub.
 
Hi,

American nuc subs set the standard in the industry----I didnot bring the indo pak tangent into my post---just going by the title of the thread---for someone to say that the ssk's and ssn's are almost the same doesnot bode too well---it sounds argumentative----.

I don't have a problem with spending more time reading up on the material for 2 to 3 weeks more ( it will take me a few days---I just started on Dan Brown's Lost Symbol last night----but are you ready do do some research on your own instead of asking a flt lt, a major uncle, another major someone or another army personale---.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean---when you say---" You are suggesting an SSK cannot deal with an SSN "----and what is this "HA"---did you have a cough or a hiccup---

Earlier you stated: "212 and 214 are not hunter killer subs against the nuc subs---they are good against any kind of surface ship or any other non nuc sub--- hunter killer mean that you have the ability to track, follow and match the move of the adversary---which in this case is the non nucs---the diesels are limited in their in their stealth speed over a long peiriod of time."

Maybe I've not understood correctly, but it appears to me that it means you believe SS/SSKs [non-nuclear powered hunter killer subs] like 212A and 214 cannot deal with (i.e. "find & kill", "search & destroy) an SSN.

Clearly, SS/SSKs are not meant for open ocean ASW. And in open ocean ASW SSN will always have the advantage. But the implication is that the most likely place where an SSN and an SS/SSK would meet is at the SS/SSKs 'home turf' - the (in some cases rather extended) coastal/littoral area, where waters are comparatively shallow. And in this environment, the SSKs rather than the SSNs have the advantage.

"SSK and SSN are both attack submarines, but with different propulsion systems"

It is not as simplistic as you are putting it to be---you need to invest in a little more input.

I'm not saying SSKs and SSNs are identical but for the type of propulsion systems they have. On the other hand, it is really a rather big mistake to assume modern SS/SSKs are any less capable in ASW than are SSNs.

Who do you think you are to be telling me what I need to invest in? After all, you have no way of knowing what input I have or have not had.

Four types of military submarines generally are in use, in addition to science and research subs.
Ballistic-missile submarines (SSBN):
Guided missile submarines (SSG/SSGN):
Attack submarines (SS/SSN):
Coastal submarines (SSC/SSK):
Pacific Fleet commander: Sub threats top priority | Stars and Stripes

SS/SSN > Multimission vessel, Can be nuclear or diesel/aip powered.

SS would include Argentinian Santa Cruz class, Russian Kilo class, Dutch Zwaardvis and Walrus classes, Australian Collins class. All are well over 2000 ton surfaced and well over 2500 ton submerged. All are diesel-electric powered, with only Collins prepared for insertion of AIP:

SS Argentine's TR-1700 Santa Cruz Displacement: 2116 tonnes (Surfaced) 2264 tonnes (Submerged)
SS Zwaardvis class (Netherlands) Displacement: 2408 tonnes (Surfaced), 2640 tonnes (Submerged)
SS Hai Lung class (Taiwan, mod-Zwaardvis) Displacement: 2376 tonnes (Surfaced), 2660 tonnes (Submerged)
SS Walrus class (Netherlands) Displacement: 2,350 t surfaced, 2,650 t submerged
SS Collins class (Australia) Displacement: 3,051 tonnes (surfaced), 3,353 tonnes (submerged)
SS Kilo class Displacement: Surfaced: 2,300-2,350 tons, Submerged:3,000-4,000 tons full load
In this bracket one also finds the projected AIP powered Project 677 Лада (Lada): Displacement: 2,700 long tons (2,700 t) submerged

Now, consider what in German service the Type 212A is replacing: the Type 206(A), which clearly is an SSC/SSK, just like the Type 205/207 and Type 201 before it and the Israely Gal class.
Gal class (Type 540, modified 206) Displacement: 420 tonnes (Surfaced) 600 tonnes (Submerged)
Type 206A submarine Displacement: 450 t, surfaced; 498 t, submerged
Type 207 Kobben class, Norway (mod 205, sold to Denmark - Tumleren class - and Poland - Bielik class) 430 surfaced, 459 submerged
Type 205 / Denmark Narhvalen class Displacement: 453 t surfaced 509 t submerged
Type 201 U-boat Displacement: 450 t, surfaced; 500 t, submerged

The Type 205 is a direct evolution of the Type 201 class with lengthened hull, new machinery and sensors. The biggest difference though is that ST-52 steel is used for the pressure hull since the Type 201's non-magnetic steel proved to be problematic. Type 206, the follow-on class, finally succeeded with non-magnetic steel hulls.

These were all dinky little boats, optimized for the Baltic. A larger set of SSC/SSK are Swedish and Norwegian in origin:
Nacken class, Sweden Displacement: 980 tonnes (Surfaced), 1150 tonnes (Submerged)
Västergötland, Sweden Displacement: 1070 tonnes (Surfaced), 1150 tonnes (Submerged)
Ula class, Norway (German Type 210) Displacement: Surface: 1,040 tons. Submerged: 1,150 tons
Gotland class, Sweden Displacement: 1494 tonnes (Surfaced), 1599 tonnes (Submerged)

Similar in size to these is: Daphne class (France, Pakistan) Displacement: 860 tonnes surfaced, 1,038 tonnes submerged. The successor Agosta 90B class is substantially bigger. Surface displacement: 1,500 long tons, Submerged displacement: 1,760 long tons (France, Spain) / 2,050 long tons (Pakistan). Scorpene has Surface Displacement 1,450t, Submerged Displacement 1,590t

Clearly in the SSK/SSC bracket is the new AIP powered Russian Project 950 Амур Amur with a displacement of 950 long tons (970 t) surfaced (1150 m3 Normal displacement). However, the Project 1650 Амур Amur is more similar to Agosta 90B and Scorpene in size: 1765 m3 Normal displacement.

Next, consider the ubiquitous Type 209, the export hit. Five variants of this submarine have been produced, which show its evolution from a coastal to a more open water orientation:
Type 209/1100 Displacement (submerged) 1,207 t (Greece: 4)
Type 209/1200 Displacement (submerged) 1,285 t (Columbia: 2, Greece: 4, Peru: 6, S.Korea: 9, Turkey: 6)
Type 209/1300 Displacement (submerged) 1,390 t (Equador: 2, Indonesia: 2, Venezuela: 2)
Type 209/1400 Displacement (submerged) 1,586 t (Brazil: 3, Chili: 2, Turkey: 4)
Type 209/1500 Displacement (submerged) 1,810 t (India: 4)

Now, lets consider Type 212A and Type 214 itself

Type 212A Displacement: 1'450 tonnes surfaced, 1'830 tonnes submerged
Type 214 Displacement: 1,700 t surfaced / 1,980 t submerged (GR) / 1,860 t submerged (SK)

This is similar in size to e.g. the Chinese Song and Ming classes of SS, with Ming as the lower and Song as the upper end of the Bracket. And to the Israeli Dolphin class.

Type 035 Ming class (mod-USSR Romeo class) Displacement: 1,475 tons surfaced, 1,830 tons submerged
Dolphin class Displacement: 1,640 tons surfaced, 1,900 tons submerged
Type 039 Song class Displacement: 2,250 tons submerged

IMHO just looking at the relative sizes and growth in displacement over time, it would be a mistake to write off the Type 212A as 'coastal'. This sub was developed not just for the Baltic (i.e. German service) but also for the Mediterranean (i.e. Italian service). The Mediterranean Sea has an average depth of 1,500 metres (4,920 ft) and the deepest recorded point is 5,267 metres (about 3.27 miles) in the Calypso Deep in the Ionian Sea. It covers an approximate area of 2.5 million km². By comparison, the maximum depth of the Baltic Sea is 459 m (1506 ft). The surface area is about 377,000 km² (145,522 sq mi). Two very different environments. The addition of Italian requirements led to the original 212 design being abandoned in favor of a modified 212A. Particularly Type 214 is more SS than SSK, considering improvements in endurance over 212A. Looking at all post-war German subs, only the TR-1700 is larger than Type 214. These are clearly closer to what an SS is than to what an SSC/K used to be.

Finally, a bit on the capability of russian subs:
As it currently stands, and for the foreseeable future, the Russian submarine fleet poses no significant challenge to the U.S. Navy. First, only the "Improved Akula / Akula II and the new Severodvinsk SSNs have capabilities comparable with the U.S. Los Angeles and Seawolf attack submarines. All other Russian subs possess significantly weaker capabilities. (Source: Jane's Fighting Ships, 1996-1997.)
NEW ATTACK SUBMARINE

More than 10 years ago, Janes concluded that "Improved Akula / Akula II" and Severodvinsk SSNs have capabilities comparable with the U.S. Los Angeles and Seawolf attack submarines.
 
Last edited:
now UAE also interested in buying german U 214 my nephew told me who is also UAE national he also surffing on defence forum of UAE there are official news was that UAE in talks with german for U 214
 
Pakistan
The Pakistan Navy is reportedly negotiating for the purchase of 3 Type 214 submarines, all of which to be built in Pakistan. During the IDEAS 2008 exhibition, the HDW chief Walter Freitag told “The commercial contract has been finalised up to 95 per cent,” he said. The first submarine would be delivered to the Pakistan Navy in 64 months after signing of the contract while the rest would be completed successively in 12 months.[3][4]

[3] Pakistan on verge of selecting HDW submarine - Jane's Naval Forces News Pakistan on verge of selecting HDW submarine
[4] Pakistan News Service - PakTribune
Type 214 submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pakistan has formally agreed to buy three Type 214 German submarines under deal worth more than $1 billion (773.7 million euros) that the two countries are expected to sign within the next few months, according to a media report on Wednesday
Pakistan to Buy German Submarines | Business | Deutsche Welle | 26.11.2008

See also:
Report: Pakistan to buy German submarines : Asia World
Type 214

It would take 5 and 4 months years from contract signing to first boat delivered. If a contract was signed in December 2008, then the first boat would be due early to mid 2013.

However ...


Report: German Submarine Deal With Pakistan Goes Quiet
19-May-2009 18:07 EDT
The catch? No contract. Contract negotiations were dragging out, and any contract is ultimately dependent on approval from Germany’s national security council, an inner cabinet of ministers with security portfolios. Pakistan’s insurgency has become a civil war, and recent Taliban advances are causing international observers to worry about the Pakistani government’s potential for collapse, or for a Taliban-backed coup led by the likes of Hamid Gul. In Germany, those developments reportedly led Germany’s national security council to take time away from serious matters like government efforts to ban paintball, and adjourn further deliberation on the Pakistani submarine sale until after September 2009.
Report: German Submarine Deal With Pakistan Goes Quiet

So that means first delivery early 2015 at the earliest

See further: Usman Ansari.
 
my 5 cents.

212 uses three deck layout: crew compartment on higher deck, torpedoes in the middle deck (two rows) and batteries below.
214 uses two deck layout: crew together with torpedoes (three rows) on higher deck and batteries bellow.

As result 212's hull has much lower L/D ratio than 214's hull (212 is more "fat"). Its better both for hydrodynamics and depth. Guy who says that 212 is only good for shallow Baltics waters does not know what he is saying. Because Italy is also bying 212 not 214.

Another important difference that no one mentioned here is that oxygen tanks for AIP system in 212 are located outside of the pressure hull, while on 214 they are inside of pressure hull. Much more safe to keep the oxygen outside.

The third difference is X-tail configuration of 212. In this scheme all four planes are used simultaneously both for horisontal and vertical control. This can be achieved only by computer and gives better control of the ship. 214 uses classical tail configuration.

So overall 212 is a submarine which implements all best achievements of German engineering: new layout and new equipment. While 214 is basically is a modernization of 209 to 212's level: it uses the layout o 209's submarine and equipment of 212's. Still very capable submarine though.
 
I heard the Israeli Dolphin subs at least one is on patrol with nukes just in case, this is what i heard from one security chap.
 
I heard the Israeli Dolphin subs at least one is on patrol with nukes just in case, this is what i heard from one security chap.
Israeli Dolphins use the same 3 deck layout as 212 but they lack AIP.

Also in Dolphin 4 additional 650 mm torpedo tubes were added for launching cruise missiles (two from each side).

Dolphin (4x650 mm + 6x533 mm torpedo tubes):

dol19b.1323115374.jpg


(you can also see 3 deck layout here).

212 (6x533 mm torpedo tubes):

torp.1323115329.jpg


Israel ordered 3 additional subs with AIP.
 
You don't need necessrily need 650mm tubes to fire a nuke missile (Tomahawk cruisemissile fits 533mm tubes e.g. ). Big tubes are usefull (also) for swimmer delivery...
 
500 but are they nuke armed? or they just carry conventional payload?
No official information released. But there is no reason to doubt that Israel can make nuclear cruise missiles.

209-1400:
u209_1400_esquema.1323198247.jpg


214:
u209pn_214copy.1323198249.jpg


212:
u209pn_212copy.1323198251.jpg


Note that 212 that three decks and wider body in contrast to 209 and 214. Alo oxigen tanks are outside of pressure body, while in 214 are inside.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom