First fuel cell German-made submarine for Greece launched

BERLIN, Apr 22, 2004 (Xinhua via COMTEX) -- The first German fuel cell submarine to be exported to Greece was launched in Kiel Thursday, the manufacturer HDW said.

The submarine is one of the four that the Kiel-based HDW has been building for Greece. The other three will be constructed at the HDW subsidiary Hellenic Shipyards in Greece.

The vessel, estimated to cost 250 million euros (295 million US dollars), is 65 meter long with a displacement of 1,700 tones. Equipped with an air-independent fuel cell propulsion system, it is considered one of the quietest types of submarines in the world.

Meanwhile, the German Submarine Consortium GSC, of which the HDW is a member, signed a contract Wednesday in Lisbon to provide two fuel cell submarines for the Portuguese navy with an option for a third vessel.

"In obtaining this contract, the German shipbuilding industry is once again demonstrating its position as market leader in non- nuclear submarine construction," a HDW statement said.

I am neither a dolphin, a black shoe or an expert but I hear that the Virginia is no match in stealth with these new German boats, and this comes from a source that has been in Nato exercises with them. When they go into their fuel cell only mode they are quite difficult to detect. The Virginia still has a mechanical drive (later ones will have electric drives) and at very low speeds can they use convection in their reactors instead of pumps. There is also a radiological signature with reactors if one can get close enough. Given the right circumstance the German boat has the advantage. The Euros are also quickly closing in on our sensor technology.

As to the LCS. they are only building 56 if they get funding - and this may come down to a choice between the DDX and the LCS. In they do go ahead with the original buy the plan is to put two on the each carrier group and two on each of the planned Expeditionary Strike Groups (these are essentially jazzed up MEUs) and they have twelve of those planned - they are basically replacing the Fast Frigates. Subtract out training boats and various TDYs and there are not a lot of them to go around. The ASW capability of the LCS is specifically designed for the littoral; there is some blue water capability but that is not the primary mission of the ship. Two to a carrier group is hardly enough to stop a large and determined pack.

I am less optimistic than you about this.

It is interesting that you mention then LCS for in this case the surface combatant folks saw that the Euros had the tech lead here and sought out some help. We would be well advised to do the same with these new boats. It is not a case of either one or the other. We do not have the capabilities to design or build them now and we clearly should for many reasons. We really should be in this platform niche and in this commercial marketspace as well. In the future we may find that there is a way to merge this technology with smaller reactors. Not to do work it this area just because of a prejudice in the sub mafia against it is foolish. It also may be a economical way to have more boats. There is no need to have just one class of attack boat.

The day will come when we actually have to protect our sea lanes in war time and we will find that we shall not be able to do it.

I am neither a dolphin, a black shoe or an expert but I hear that the Virginia is no match in stealth with these new German boats, and this comes from a source that has been in Nato exercises with them
i don't doubt it. (I'm a civilian like you, although I did know a number of people who worked on subs when I went to connecticut college.)

When they go into their fuel cell only mode they are quite difficult to detect. The Virginia still has a mechanical drive (later ones will have electric drives) and at very low speeds can they use convection in their reactors instead of pumps.
You are thinking of the Los Angeles Class 668 and the San Juan class. These are older subs. The Virginia is being built.

Given the right circumstance the German boat has the advantage. The Euros are also quickly closing in on our sensor technology.
Damn precision german engineering.

As to the LCS. they are only building 56 if they get funding - and this may come down to a choice between the DDX and the LCS. . In they do go ahead with the original buy the plan is to put two on the each carrier group and two on each of the planned Expeditionary Strike Groups (these are essentially jazzed up MEUs) and they have twelve of those planned - they are basically replacing the Fast Frigates.
Yep. Budget battles always are an issue.
Frankly, we need more since they are not multi-use.

The ASW capability of the LCS is specifically designed for the littoral; there is some blue water capability but that is not the primary mission of the ship. Two to a carrier group is hardly enough to stop a large and determined pack.
The Arleigh Burkes are designed for blue-water ASW as are the Ticonderogas. The Zumwalts have some asw capabilty. Also, don't forget that CVBG's include 1 to 2 subs.

These German boats can go on diesel for about 30 days and could probably stretch it to 45 days by clever use of the fuel cells. In an initial battle that is more than enough in the beginning of battle to carry the fight out of the littoral into the deep watter and take out a carrier group.
Sitting in shallow waters, these subs are silent. If they swim into the deep waters, they move into our forte.

Unless the ChiComs build this things and run them well in the South China Sea, I am not concerned.

It is interesting that you mention then LCS for in this case the surface combatant folks saw that the Euros had the tech lead here and sought out some help. We would be well advised to do the same with these new boats. It is not a case of either one or the other. We do not have the capabilities to design or build them now and we clearly should for many reasons.
These subs are not all that good at excort. They mainly work for ambush and denial of area. We don't need them.
The only reason we would build them would be to sell them to Taiwan.

So I stand by my statement. I would also assert that the submarine force is way two small and needs to go back to 100 or so attack boats. In fact our whole fleet is way too small and the planned 375 ship navy will not cut it.
No disagreement.
I'd like to see 3 more CVBG's, more sealift and escort, and 20 more SSN's. We could also use some SSGN's carrying cruise missles. The 4 converted Ohio's are a good start.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.