wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 26,588
- Reactions
- 14,322
We won't get them if the Albo trashes the alliance.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,818
- Reactions
- 13,860
Trump is the one trashing the alliance.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,818
- Reactions
- 13,860
what countries manufacture conventional submarines?
Let me know if you want a visual map or a list of countries that currently operate conventional submarines too.
Here’s a clear breakdown of how AIP submarines work, and how they differ from diesel-electric and nuclear subs:
Conventional diesel-electric submarines:
There are several AIP technologies, each using different methods to produce electricity without atmospheric oxygen:
1.
Cons: Lower power output; limits speed
2.
Cons: Expensive, requires safe hydrogen storage
3.
Cons: Noisy, complex gas management
4.
Cons: Noisy, complex, phased out
AIP subs are ideal for:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If our needs are to defend our own shores rather than being a "deputy sheriff" a larger number of conventional subs could be the way to go.
ChatGPT said:
As of 2025, the following countries design and manufacture conventional (non-nuclear) submarines, which are typically diesel-electric or air-independent propulsion (AIP) powered. These submarines are used for coastal defense, patrols, and in some cases, long-range missions.
Major Manufacturers of Conventional Submarines
Germany
- Type: Type 209, Type 212A, Type 214, Type 218SG
- Notes: A global leader in export-quality diesel-electric submarines; German submarines are used by navies in Europe, Asia, and South America.
France
- Type: Scorpène-class, Agosta-class (older)
- Notes: The Scorpène-class is widely exported (e.g., India, Brazil, Malaysia). France also helps local shipyards build under license.
Russia
- Type: Kilo-class (including Improved Kilo), Lada-class
- Notes: Exports conventional subs primarily to Asia (e.g., Vietnam, China in the past). Known for affordability and large armament capacity.
Sweden
- Type: Gotland-class, Blekinge-class (A26)
- Notes: Innovator in AIP technology (Stirling engines). Known for very quiet and stealthy designs.
Japan
- Type: Sōryū-class, Taigei-class
- Notes: Advanced AIP and lithium-ion battery technology. Japan does not export submarines yet, though it came close with Australia.
South Korea
- Type: KSS-II (Type 214 license), KSS-III (indigenous)
- Notes: Rapidly evolving submarine industry. The KSS-III includes submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
China
- Type: Type 039A/B (Yuan-class), Type 035 (older)
- Notes: China builds for domestic use and has exported to nations like Bangladesh and Thailand. Some use AIP.
India
- Type: Kalvari-class (Scorpène variant), older HDW and Kilo-class
- Notes: Current subs built in collaboration with France; plans for indigenous AIP-equipped subs under Project-75I.
Italy
- Type: Todaro-class (Type 212A variant)
- Notes: Co-developed with Germany; Italy builds subs for domestic and NATO use.
Turkey
- Type: Reis-class (Type 214 variant), indigenous development ongoing
- Notes: Building under license from Germany and developing local submarine industry.
Countries Building Submarines Under License
- Brazil: Building Scorpène-class with French help; developing nuclear submarine.
- Pakistan: Collaborating with China on Hangor-class (based on Type 039A).
- Indonesia: Built some submarines under license from South Korea (Type 209 variants).
Summary
| Country | Key Models | Notable Features |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | Type 209/212/214/218 | Top exporter, advanced AIP |
| France | Scorpène, Agosta | Widespread exports |
| Russia | Kilo, Lada | Strong military sales record |
| Sweden | Gotland, A26 | Quiet, small AIP subs |
| Japan | Sōryū, Taigei | Lithium-ion batteries |
| South Korea | KSS-II, KSS-III | New indigenous designs |
| China | Type 039A/B | Rapid growth, regional exports |
| India | Kalvari (Scorpène), Project-75I | Building domestic capabilities |
| Italy | Type 212A | NATO-focused production |
| Turkey | Reis (Type 214) | Expanding domestic submarine sector |
Let me know if you want a visual map or a list of countries that currently operate conventional submarines too.
You said:
how do AIP submarines work?ChatGPT said:
Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) submarines are non-nuclear submarines that can operate underwater for much longer than traditional diesel-electric subs—without needing to surface or snorkel to recharge batteries.Here’s a clear breakdown of how AIP submarines work, and how they differ from diesel-electric and nuclear subs:
Why AIP?
Conventional diesel-electric submarines:- Run quietly on batteries when submerged (stealthy).
- But need to surface or snorkel (run diesel engines) every few days to recharge batteries — making them vulnerable to detection.
How AIP Works – Main Types
There are several AIP technologies, each using different methods to produce electricity without atmospheric oxygen:1. 
Stirling Engines (Sweden)
- Uses external combustion: burns liquid oxygen and diesel fuel in a sealed system to heat a gas (usually helium), which drives a piston.
- Silent and reliable.
- Used by Sweden's Gotland-class and Japan's older submarines.
Cons: Lower power output; limits speed
2. 
Fuel Cells (Germany, France, others)
- Combine stored hydrogen and oxygen in an electrochemical reaction to generate electricity.
- No moving parts = very quiet and efficient.
- Used in German Type 212/214, French Scorpène-class, and South Korean KSS-III.
Cons: Expensive, requires safe hydrogen storage
3. 
Closed-Cycle Diesel Engines (Russia, others)
- Diesel engines burn stored liquid oxygen in a sealed system.
- Exhaust gases are scrubbed and/or stored onboard.
- Used by older Russian and Chinese designs.
Cons: Noisy, complex gas management
4. 
Steam Turbine AIP (France - older MESMA system)
- Burns ethanol with liquid oxygen to generate steam, which drives a turbine to make electricity.
- Used in early Scorpène exports (e.g., to India).
Cons: Noisy, complex, phased out
Comparison Table
| Type | Power Source | Countries Using | Stealth | Endurance (submerged) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stirling Engine | Diesel + Liquid O₂ | Sweden, Japan |  | ~2 weeks |
| Fuel Cell | Hydrogen + Oxygen | Germany, South Korea, Spain | | ~2–3 weeks |
| Closed-Cycle | Diesel + Liquid O₂ | Russia, China (some) | | ~1–2 weeks |
| Steam Turbine | Ethanol + Liquid O₂ | Older French exports |  | ~1–2 weeks |
AIP vs Nuclear vs Diesel-Electric
| Feature | Diesel-Electric | AIP Submarine | Nuclear Submarine |
|---|---|---|---|
| Underwater endurance | ~2–3 days | ~2–3 weeks | Months (indefinite) |
| Speed | Moderate | Slow (on AIP) | High (sustained) |
| Cost | Low | Medium | Very high |
| Size | Small | Small/Medium | Large |
| Crew | Small | Small | Large |
| Stealth (acoustic) | High | Very high | Moderate (reactors hum) |
Strategic Use
AIP subs are ideal for:- Coastal defense
- Stealthy patrols in shallow waters
- Ambushing enemy ships or submarines
- Operations in contested littorals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If our needs are to defend our own shores rather than being a "deputy sheriff" a larger number of conventional subs could be the way to go.
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 10,644
- Reactions
- 8,320
As a maritime nation, with the huge flleets China is building, we need subs badly. Our standard navy would be gone in a week.what countries manufacture conventional submarines?
ChatGPT said:
As of 2025, the following countries design and manufacture conventional (non-nuclear) submarines, which are typically diesel-electric or air-independent propulsion (AIP) powered. These submarines are used for coastal defense, patrols, and in some cases, long-range missions.
- Type: Type 209, Type 212A, Type 214, Type 218SG
- Notes: A global leader in export-quality diesel-electric submarines; German submarines are used by navies in Europe, Asia, and South America.
- Type: Scorpène-class, Agosta-class (older)
- Notes: The Scorpène-class is widely exported (e.g., India, Brazil, Malaysia). France also helps local shipyards build under license.
- Type: Kilo-class (including Improved Kilo), Lada-class
- Notes: Exports conventional subs primarily to Asia (e.g., Vietnam, China in the past). Known for affordability and large armament capacity.
- Type: Gotland-class, Blekinge-class (A26)
- Notes: Innovator in AIP technology (Stirling engines). Known for very quiet and stealthy designs.
- Type: Sōryū-class, Taigei-class
- Notes: Advanced AIP and lithium-ion battery technology. Japan does not export submarines yet, though it came close with Australia.
- Type: KSS-II (Type 214 license), KSS-III (indigenous)
- Notes: Rapidly evolving submarine industry. The KSS-III includes submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs).
- Type: Type 039A/B (Yuan-class), Type 035 (older)
- Notes: China builds for domestic use and has exported to nations like Bangladesh and Thailand. Some use AIP.
- Type: Kalvari-class (Scorpène variant), older HDW and Kilo-class
- Notes: Current subs built in collaboration with France; plans for indigenous AIP-equipped subs under Project-75I.
- Type: Todaro-class (Type 212A variant)
- Notes: Co-developed with Germany; Italy builds subs for domestic and NATO use.
- Type: Reis-class (Type 214 variant), indigenous development ongoing
- Notes: Building under license from Germany and developing local submarine industry.
- Brazil: Building Scorpène-class with French help; developing nuclear submarine.
- Pakistan: Collaborating with China on Hangor-class (based on Type 039A).
- Indonesia: Built some submarines under license from South Korea (Type 209 variants).
Country Key Models Notable Features Germany Type 209/212/214/218 Top exporter, advanced AIP France Scorpène, Agosta Widespread exports Russia Kilo, Lada Strong military sales record Sweden Gotland, A26 Quiet, small AIP subs Japan Sōryū, Taigei Lithium-ion batteries South Korea KSS-II, KSS-III New indigenous designs China Type 039A/B Rapid growth, regional exports India Kalvari (Scorpène), Project-75I Building domestic capabilities Italy Type 212A NATO-focused production Turkey Reis (Type 214) Expanding domestic submarine sector
Let me know if you want a visual map or a list of countries that currently operate conventional submarines too.
You said:
how do AIP submarines work?
ChatGPT said:
Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) submarines are non-nuclear submarines that can operate underwater for much longer than traditional diesel-electric subs—without needing to surface or snorkel to recharge batteries.
Here’s a clear breakdown of how AIP submarines work, and how they differ from diesel-electric and nuclear subs:
Conventional diesel-electric submarines:
AIP provides an alternative power source that lets subs stay submerged for weeks instead of days, without surfacing.
- Run quietly on batteries when submerged (stealthy).
- But need to surface or snorkel (run diesel engines) every few days to recharge batteries — making them vulnerable to detection.
There are several AIP technologies, each using different methods to produce electricity without atmospheric oxygen:
1.
Pros: Quiet, proven
- Uses external combustion: burns liquid oxygen and diesel fuel in a sealed system to heat a gas (usually helium), which drives a piston.
- Silent and reliable.
- Used by Sweden's Gotland-class and Japan's older submarines.
Cons: Lower power output; limits speed
2.
Pros: Very quiet, highly efficient
- Combine stored hydrogen and oxygen in an electrochemical reaction to generate electricity.
- No moving parts = very quiet and efficient.
- Used in German Type 212/214, French Scorpène-class, and South Korean KSS-III.
Cons: Expensive, requires safe hydrogen storage
3.
Pros: Uses existing diesel tech
- Diesel engines burn stored liquid oxygen in a sealed system.
- Exhaust gases are scrubbed and/or stored onboard.
- Used by older Russian and Chinese designs.
Cons: Noisy, complex gas management
4.
Pros: High power output
- Burns ethanol with liquid oxygen to generate steam, which drives a turbine to make electricity.
- Used in early Scorpène exports (e.g., to India).
Cons: Noisy, complex, phased out
Type Power Source Countries Using Stealth Endurance (submerged) Stirling Engine Diesel + Liquid O₂ Sweden, Japan ~2 weeks Fuel Cell Hydrogen + Oxygen Germany, South Korea, Spain ~2–3 weeks Closed-Cycle Diesel + Liquid O₂ Russia, China (some) ~1–2 weeks Steam Turbine Ethanol + Liquid O₂ Older French exports ~1–2 weeks
Feature Diesel-Electric AIP Submarine Nuclear Submarine Underwater endurance ~2–3 days ~2–3 weeks Months (indefinite) Speed Moderate Slow (on AIP) High (sustained) Cost Low Medium Very high Size Small Small/Medium Large Crew Small Small Large Stealth (acoustic) High Very high Moderate (reactors hum)
AIP subs are ideal for:
They are not suitable for blue-water (deep ocean) global missions like nuclear submarines but can be incredibly dangerous in regional conflicts due to their stealth.
- Coastal defense
- Stealthy patrols in shallow waters
- Ambushing enemy ships or submarines
- Operations in contested littorals
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If our needs are to defend our own shores rather than being a "deputy sheriff" a larger number of conventional subs could be the way to go.
I would prefer nuclear an though AUKUS is expensive it might be the bet way to go. But if the USA want to break the agreement, we shouldn't look back. Seriously, it would mean the end of our alliance. That is why I don't think they will.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,818
- Reactions
- 13,860
Problem is Aus needs Aukus more than the US does, Trump knows this and will try to squeeze us as much as he can, so there needs to be an escape clause for us if he demands more than we want to pay.
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 8,101
- Reactions
- 5,411
"Pentagon deputy secretary Elbridge Colby's review will reveal AUKUS "for what it always has been," Paul Keating said.
"A deal hurriedly scribbled on the back of an envelope by Scott Morrison, along with the vacuous British blowhard Boris Johnson and the confused president Joe Biden — put together on an English beach, a world away from where Australia's strategic interests primarily lie," the former Labor PM said"
"A deal hurriedly scribbled on the back of an envelope by Scott Morrison, along with the vacuous British blowhard Boris Johnson and the confused president Joe Biden — put together on an English beach, a world away from where Australia's strategic interests primarily lie," the former Labor PM said"
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 15,033
- Reactions
- 13,414
I agree with Paul Keating. AUKUS is a huge waste of money on assets that when delivered way in to the future will be obsolete. Ask yourself this question. What military commander five years ago would have thought that the Australian Infantry manual would be re-written to place drones and trenches at the centre of training for our land forces.
It was all clearing tiny fetid Arab streets and houses then. Now we are back to WW1 tactics + drones.
Bugger AUKUS. If the Yanks tear the agreement up we really have dodged a bullet.
gg
It was all clearing tiny fetid Arab streets and houses then. Now we are back to WW1 tactics + drones.
Bugger AUKUS. If the Yanks tear the agreement up we really have dodged a bullet.
gg
- Joined
- 15 October 2007
- Posts
- 699
- Reactions
- 1,126
Yes, I do agree it's utterly shameful some ex-politicians like Keating, as well as some of what goes for public "intellectuals" (bwahahaha) these days, think it's acceptable to talk down and undermine the strategic position of this country. No doubt China finds it hilarious.
There's a tacit understanding that part of the reason for the taxpayer generosity accorded them after office is that they are expected to toe the line, and keep their vainglorious and decrepit traps shut unless they have something useful to say.
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 8,101
- Reactions
- 5,411
I think its interesting to see what politicians have to say if anything once free of party shackles and the need of cabinet agreements and as a result dictating what's said publicly.
Of course Keating has never changed from government to private life pretty much says it as he sees it and of course many disagree with his view but they are always challenging.
The difference with Keating is he is still relevant in the conversation about Australia sparing no one or political party in any of his scathing assessments.
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 10,644
- Reactions
- 8,320
There is a good chance we won't get the earlier subs as the USA need them and we won't be able to crew them credibly.
If we had of gone ahead with the Abbott deal with Japanese subs we would be getting our first one next year. If we didn't cancel the French subs then they would be a few years away.
Good chance we will have very little available in 5 years time which is roughly when Taiwan gets conquered.
We may not want to get involved but if the USA is , one of the first things to get bombed will be Pine Gap.
If we had of gone ahead with the Abbott deal with Japanese subs we would be getting our first one next year. If we didn't cancel the French subs then they would be a few years away.
Good chance we will have very little available in 5 years time which is roughly when Taiwan gets conquered.
We may not want to get involved but if the USA is , one of the first things to get bombed will be Pine Gap.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,913
- Reactions
- 26,729
The Government are going to base the ship building at Perth apparently. IMO it will at least improve our home grown skill set and developing an Australian industry, rather than off the shelf buy ins.
www.abc.net.au
The funding will support plans to build naval ships and dock nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS agreement.
The funding will go towards construction of surface vessels for the Australian Defence Force, starting with the army's new landing craft.
It will also be used to build docking stations for nuclear-powered submarines, with Australia expecting to receive its first Virginia-class submarine in the 2030s under the AUKUS agreement.
The money will also be spent building maintenance facilities for surface combatant vessels and could help build Australia's future general purpose frigates.
Albanese to unveil $12 billion AUKUS defence facility expansion
The Albanese government will spend $12 billion on building a submarine and naval shipbuilding facility south of Perth under AUKUS, as doubts linger over the agreement's future.
www.abc.net.au
In short:
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will announce a new $12 billion investment in a defence hub near Perth.The funding will support plans to build naval ships and dock nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS agreement.
What's next?
Defence officials are waiting for the Pentagon to complete its review of AUKUS under the Trump administration.The funding will go towards construction of surface vessels for the Australian Defence Force, starting with the army's new landing craft.
It will also be used to build docking stations for nuclear-powered submarines, with Australia expecting to receive its first Virginia-class submarine in the 2030s under the AUKUS agreement.
The money will also be spent building maintenance facilities for surface combatant vessels and could help build Australia's future general purpose frigates.
Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 10,644
- Reactions
- 8,320
The new Ghost subs we are buying for 1.7bil. have been developed in Australia by Anduril Asia Pacific partly funded by entrepreneur Palmer Lucky. They are being built in Sydney's inner west.
This drone sub is said to be by far the best drone sub in the world, way better than the China one or anything our allies have. Took 3.5 years to develop.
Go Australia!
This drone sub is said to be by far the best drone sub in the world, way better than the China one or anything our allies have. Took 3.5 years to develop.
Go Australia!
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,913
- Reactions
- 26,729
Yeh, lets move on with what we can do, rather than just sending it offshore, then we can build a skill set and grow it.
It might not work, but it is a hell of a lot better than what we have been doing for the last 40 years.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,818
- Reactions
- 13,860
Looks like Defence will be the basis of our manufacturing technology.
Maybe the Ghost Shark will lead to other capabilities, batteries, AI, electronics, communications etc.
Long live the Arms Race.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,913
- Reactions
- 26,729
We are never going to beat the Chinese, EU or the U.S at making cars, fridges, T.V's etc, but we can at least develop essential industry manufacturing here, that we have to have.Looks like Defence will be the basis of our manufacturing technology.
Maybe the Ghost Shark will lead to other capabilities, batteries, AI, electronics, communications etc.
Long live the Arms Race.
It was dumb outsourcing it, but it has given us a great lifestyle for the last 40 years, enjoying the cheap imports.
Now the piper has to be paid.
We have to scale up our self dependence, on essential manufacturing, even if it costs a bit extra.
If we don't we will become a quarry country, that has a quarry lifestyle, it will only be a matter of time.
We really should model ourselves, as the Switzerland of SE Asia IMO.
Secure, reliable and neutral, getting U.S nuclear subs isn't an issue, as long as they are used only as a deterrent for invasion.
The Swiss have a military, they just use it for domestic protection.
We are a Western country surrounded by non Western countries, we have to learn to live with them and have them wanting us to be here.
Just my thoughts, it's a changing world and we have to work out how we fit in it.
Last edited:
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 8,101
- Reactions
- 5,411
The Subs are still a massive bet but as SP mentions perhaps we get some skills out of it
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 20,818
- Reactions
- 13,860
Too much money for too few assets.
We would be better off imo spending the money on conventional subs we can build ourselves that can patrol our waters without getting involved in wars elsewhere.
We could have a lot more of them for the price of a few nuclear subs.
Dona Ferentes
Did the Thessalonians write back?
- Joined
- 11 January 2016
- Posts
- 20,124
- Reactions
- 27,758
the rate of 'advancement' in drone warfare, autonomous systems means we're all running just to catch up.
the contested lands of eastern Ukraine and adjacent Russian territory is the laboratory, as is the Black Sea/ Azov Sea. Chinese tech is embedded with the Putin mobile, and Western countries are acknowledging that Ukraine can teach us many things.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,913
- Reactions
- 26,729
Agree wholeheartedly, the issue Australia has id a huge amount of unpopulated coastline, closer to our neighbours than our own population.
Having roving military capability, that is pretty well indetectable and extremely well armed, is a worry for enemies. Surface ships and even surface mounted missile installations/aircraft etc are fairly easy to pinpoint and hit.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 28,913
- Reactions
- 26,729
The disadvantage with diesel subs, other than being fossil fueled is, they are noisy, they have to run on battery when submerged, so have limited time submerged and become easy target when travelling near the surface to recharge the batteries, refuel etc and have a snorkel to run the diesel which is easily spotted.
They have to be refueled at regular intervals, which would be problematic as the fuel supply ships, or fuel supply installations up North could be easily targeted and neutralise the subs, plus they and the supply ships are sitting ducks for aerial attack.
Nuclear are only limited by how much food they can carry, they make their own drinking water and oxygen, so they can travel for months underwater, only limited by food and the crews ability to cope with the mental issues.
With Australia having such a massive coastline, with minimal population for most of it, nuclear subs are really the only mobile stealth platform that is plausible. IMO
Downside as you say they cost a stupid amount, but hey there is no point in spending half the amount for something that wont work.
Just my opinion, it's a bit like batteries/hydro discussion at the moment, it depends what sort of outcome you want.
