TKMS Type 212CD (Victoria class replacement megathread)

[YZT580]

I think oldcpu brings up a good point on the logistical side of supplying an AIP equipped sub, handling these gases in a quantity far larger than ever before. Hopefully the RCN is going to take a long hard look at how other navies do it.

By the looks of the owners, most of the current AIP subs are not operating too far from home plate so local suppliers and permanent hookups would work just fine for them. Our transit times to, for example, Bering Strait would be at least a week submerged (guesstimate) Our needs will probably require a unique solution for others to copy

 

[lenaitch]

And, in order to show ownership one must prove possession and a manifest intent to exclude all others. Mere occupation is not enough. This is what Argentina found out after Britain schooled them in 1982. In our case, just because we can draw a better map based on what lands and waters the British Crown granted 160 years ago, doesn’t establish either. Right now anybody can sail up to X0E 0Z0 and claim a vacant, undefended island full of Muskox and evict some startled Inuit. The good news is they’ll die from cold, darkness and isolation while Inuit take a JTAC course .

Certainly not my area of even basic knowledge, but I thought the efforts to establish an agreed- upon 'pie' of Arctic Exclusive Economic Zones between the Arctic nations was more geographic/hydrographically based and depended on establishing the extent of continental shelves, among other things.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Certainly not my area of even basic knowledge, but I thought the efforts to establish an agreed- upon 'pie' of Arctic Exclusive Economic Zones between the Arctic nations was more geographic/hydrographically based and depended on establishing the extent of continental shelves, among other things.

Yes but one comes with the other. What is the shelf attached to. Who claims ownership and based upon what? A Crown grant? How is that working out in British Columbia with The Indians?

 

[oldcpu]

Further to what Stoker noted about conventional propulsion submarines, exploring the Arctic, I found more trivia on under ice operation. Obviously, I am currently a bit curious about this, and I do believe it relevant if the RCN is serious about Arctic sovereignty - especially IF the RCN should decide to ever send Type-212CD submarines briefly into Arctic waters.

The USN had many conventional submarine missions to the Arctic after the end of WW-II and prior to the 1st nuclear submarine.

For example, according to this reference pdf ( https://www.researchgate.net/profil...atidis-gp-eudor-WEB-KINA22416ENC-002pdfen.pdf )

From 1946-53 the U.S. Navy undertook several important projects which led to the development of true Arctic-capable submarines under the direction of Dr. Waldo Lyon, the founder of the Arctic Submarine Laboratory (ASL). These experiments are summarised in McLaren (1984) and described in the biography of Lyon (Leary, 1999) as well as Williams (1998). The first upward-looking sonar was operated on USS Atule in 1946 between Baffin Island and Greenland. During Operation Highjump in the Antarctic the following year USS Sennett developed techniques for acoustically tracking pieces of floating ice, resulting in the first specifications for what components were required for a basic under-ice sonar navigation and piloting system. In August 1947 USS Boarfish made the first excursions under Arctic pack ice, the longest of which was of some 12 miles, in the Chukchi Sea and obtained the first ULS profiles of the underside of the ice canopy as well as demonstrating the utility of a mechanically-scanning forward-looking sonar for obstacle avoidance. This was a huge psychological boost, and over the next decade the honing of skills needed for under-ice navigation and ice discrimination continued. However the intrinsic limitations of diesel electric submarine meant that these vessels could not safely manoeuvre very far from the ice edge, as they needed to surface at regular intervals to charge batteries.

When searching about USS Boarfish (which in 1947 travelled a small amount under ice) I learned this is part of what has been referred to as "Operation Blue Nose". There is a wiki describing this: Operation Blue Nose - Wikipedia and further the wiki gives excellent references where more detail can be found re:under ice operations, such as:

• https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2014/january/operation-blue-nose
• http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/uwdc/asl/Pages/Waldo-Lyon.aspx

The above USNI article in particular was interesting to me, in that it notes another conventional USN submarine, USS Carp also spent time under the Arctic ice in 1947. I did not find out much about this other than from the Wiki:

In 1948 and 1949 Carp made two exploratory cruises to extreme northern waters, adding to the knowledge of an increasingly important strategic area for submarine operations.

I also read in August 1952, Redfish attempted to reach the North Pole by travelling through and under the Arctic ice. Redfish was accompanied by the icebreaker USCGC Burton Island for parts of the mission. During this operation, the submarine navigated under sections of the polar pack ice and utilized sonar to locate polynyas (openings in the ice) where it could surface and recharge her batteries. The submarine did not reach the North Pole, although scientists on board were able to collect water samples, and purportedly she helped test early cold-water operational capabilities years prior to the historic polar transit of the USS Nautilus.

More recent USN nuclear submarine Arctic explorations are recorded here: https://www.sublant.usff.navy.mil/ASL/

I also learned that in March 1959, USS HARDER (SS-568), a conventionally-powered submarine, participated in SUBICEX off the coast of Newfoundland with Canada, along with USS TROUT (SS-566) and USS SKATE (SSN-578). During submerged exercises in Arctic waters in company with her sister ship USS Harder, USS Trout transited 268 nautical miles (496 km; 308 mi) beneath ice floes off Newfoundland, Canada, setting a submerged distance record for a conventionally powered submarine.

Although the nuclear-powered SKATE stole the show by breaking records for both time spent and distance traveled under the ice, as well as for scattering the ashes of polar explorer Sir Hubert Wilkins over the icepack in 34-degree-below-zero temperatures, HARDER proved that diesel boats were still very capable vessels by traveling a record 280 miles under the ice without any special gear—no diesel sub had ever penetrated so far into the Arctic. (TROUT traveled alongside for a large part of the journey.) HARDER came up for air in polynyas, small pools of water between chunks of ice, a total of 23 times during the seven days she spent in and around the icepack, remaining submerged for up to 14 hours between surfacings.

Although much of the trip was beneath fields of broken ice, she also traveled 75 miles beneath solid icepack that her commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Edward W. Cooke, judged to be about eight feet thick. “We ran slowly under it, with our periscope elevated to maximum, 60 degrees above horizontal,” he said. “When we found out that the underside of the ice was not smooth, we had to be careful to avoid striking the bumps projecting downward. If we bent one propeller we would have been seriously handicapped; if we bent both, we would have been dead.” Cooke also gave a vivid description of what it was like to peer through the scope: it “was like watching a curved dome revolving overhead. You got the curious feeling you were about to fall forward on your face. The ice looked like a whitish, cumulus cloud; the open water was a dull gray, with ripples.” Crewmembers found the views above the ice to be equally disconcerting. “It was an eerie feeling to look around that endless empty field of ice,” one man observed. “No land, no ships, no birds—just plenty of nothing, and a dead silence too.”

These are old submarines with no AIP, and old generation lead-acid batteries.

There are more USN missions I have not researched. I did discover a list of USN convention boat operations (which may not be comprehensive) where the list description (or perhaps it was the article linking to the list)noted that most of these were intended to gather information/knowledge/experience about under ice-operations:

According to "Arctic Submarine Operations" https://navsource.net/archives/08/pdf/08046001.pdf where it lists conventional boat Arctic operations:

• 1946 - USS Atule (SS403) and USS Sennet (S408) - operated in the Kane Basin in support of Operation Nanook Antarctic Ocean - conducted Operatioin Highjump
• 1947 - USS Boarfish (SS 327) - conducted first under-ice divs (Chukchi Sea)1948 - USS Carp (SS 338) - operated in the Chukchi Sea
• 1949 - USS Baya (SS 318) - conducted join US-Canadian scientific expedition in the Bering and ChukchiSeas
• 1950 - USS Perch (APSS 313) - and USS Barbero (SS 317) conducted a joint reconnaissance patrol and simulated amphibious raid in Bering Sea
• 1952 - USS Redfish (SS 395) and USS Greenfish (SS 351) operated in the Beaufort Sea
• 1953 - USS Redfish (SS 395) - operated in the Beaufort Sea
• 1957 - USS Triger (SS 564 ) - operated near and under the ice pack (61 nm under ice canopy) in Northern Greenland Sea and Arctic Ocean escorting the USS Nautilus (SSN-571)
• 1958 - USS Halfbreak (SS 352) - operated in the Denmark Strait and Greenland Sea
• 1959 - USS Trout (SS 566) operated in Cabot Strait, setting a record for distance traveled under ice for a diesel-electric submarine

I don't know enough to state where that is all inclusive.

Obviously, in this respect of submarine operations in the Arctic, the RCN is far far behind that of the USN.

What does that say about Canadian sovereignty in the far northern waters?

I have not researched this enough to say whether with Harry de Wolf class AOPS, that Canada have sailed into the Arctic, have yet reversed the trend.

My hope is someone in the RCN project office has previously, or is currently, reading up all they can that may be relevant, to ensure that some Arctic operation capability, which if it can be inexpensive if procured/implemented early (and if more expensive/difficult if procurred later) for the Type-212CD, is assessed by the RCN, if such is desirable to procure early, before it becomes less practical and potentially more expensive to implement.

 

[oldcpu]

By the looks of the owners, most of the current AIP subs are not operating too far from home plate so local suppliers and permanent hookups would work just fine for them. Our transit times to, for example, Bering Strait would be at least a week submerged (guesstimate) Our needs will probably require a unique solution for others to copy

After having spent many hours, with interesting reads on early day USN SSN Arctic operations, and prior to that even, early USN conventional submarine explorations of the Arctic, I am coming to the view that the RCN Type-212CD, if they don't receive 'Arctic modifications' ( for example: strengthened sail, upward looking sonar/fathometer, and likely other cold water modifications) plus a means to replenish AIP reactants in the Arctic, then sitting by/monitoring the Arctic approaches may be the most optimal tasking approach for RCN Type-212CD in regards to Arctic operations (which others already pointed out in this forum's RCN Type-212CD thread) ....

Still, It was educational to me to note that the USN proved very old conventional boats can do relative short excursions under the Arctic ice, and while modern AIP/Lithium battery boats can likely go much further, the Arctic is a big place, and the AIP in a submarine, while a 'game changer', does not change 'the game' enough for the Arctic, and AIP/Lithium battery submarine operation too is relatively limited in the Arctic.

But having a base, ... or a mobile base ship, in the Arctic, that has AIP reactant replenishment capability, would be a game changer in terms of enabling Type-212CD Arctic patrol capabilities that I suspect otherwise not possible with an AIP/Lithium battery propulsion conventional submarine.

My having typed that, as best I could determine by researching, a mobile base ship that can replenish AIP reactants, has never been built as of yet. So the RCN would be forging into new development territory, if they were to pursue such an approach.

Ok - I'm slow - It took me some time to come to that conclusion - but the upside is I learned somethings in the process.

 

[oldcpu]

I am puzzling over how the Type-212CD, if deployed to the Arctic, will communicate for long range communications.

Often warships, for long range communications, use HF and/or SATCOM. So I downloaded the spec sheet for a TKMS communications periscope/mast (Triton II TMS_2111 - https://www.tkmsgroup.com/fileadmin/website/products/Triton/20260317_Triton_II_TMS_2111.pdf ) which I speculate could be that for a Type-212CD (obvious - massive speculation here by me) ... and I note for long range communications, it states it supports:

• HF-RX : 1.5-30 MHz
• UHF-Satcom: Rx: 240-270 MHz; Tx: 290-320MHz
• UHF-SatcomMUOS: Rx 360-380 MHz; Tx 300-320 MHz

Not counting the commercial USA STARLINK, the majority (and more traditional) communications satellites are in a Geostationary Earth Orbit (GEO) which, given the satellites are (relative to the earth stationary) over the equator means communications to high latitudes (such as the Arctic) is typically very poor. But my having typed that, I note Canada has announced that the planned Telesat satellite ESCP-P (Enhanced Satellite Communications Project – Polar) will use Telesat Lightspeed, and assuming this project proceeds, there are likely to be Low Earth Orbit (LEO) polar communications satellites and if I may speculate, potentially HEO (Highly Elliptical Orbit - where again I note that HEO is my speculation) either of which if adequately implemented should provide superior to GEO SATCOM for Arctic communications. However at this stage, its not clear to me if the Triton-II TMS_2111 frequencies will be compatible with the plans for ESCP-P - nor for what ever system the RCN may plan/negotiate for the 'Canadian' Type-212CD.

My hope is the CPSP project office liaise with Telesat and obtain exact planned frequencies, and then liaise/negotiate with TKMS re the Type-212CD, to try and ensure the Canadian Type-212CD will, if appropriate, work with any national Canadian military comms satellite (or military payload on a Telesat commercial satellite).

 

[oldcpu]

I am also curious about what, if any Upward Looking Sonar (ULS) the Type-212CD submarine may have - and if not a nominal piece of kit, is the RCN planning to negotiate inclusion of this? If so, I assume the negotiation is taking place now (or very soon) as I type this.

I note most of the early expeditions of conventional submarines that were deployed for next to or under ice operations, had an upward looking fathometer (or upward looking sonar) installed, so that they could get an assessment of the ice above the submarine, if the submarine were to go under ice. From what I have read so far, all SSNs have such. So I asked myself, what ACTIVE sonar might the type-212CD have (note this is very dfferent from passive sonar).

I noted based on Internet searches - and I may have this wrong, for ACTIVE sonar the Type-212CD likely has:

1. The EA640 (Single-Beam Echo Sounder): Acts as the precise navigational fathometer, looking straight down to provide an exact, high-accuracy vertical distance measurement from the keel to the seabed directly beneath the ship for safe depthkeeping.

2. The EM2040 Mil (Multibeam Echo Sounder): Does not just look straight down. Because it sweeps a wide acoustic fan laterally across the seabed (port to starboard), it maps a wide swath of the seafloor corridor as the submarine passes. This provides structural, topographical terrain mapping of the seabed across a wide path, rather than just a single vertical depth line under the keel.

3. The Kongsberg SA9510S MkII is a high-frequency, large-array, wide-bandwidth (65 to 105 kHz) Mine Avoidance and Navigation Sonar (MANS) designed specifically for submarines which I read also has some ice detection capabilities. However I also read it is for Forward-Looking Obstacle Detection. It projects its acoustic energy ahead of the submarine in a wide horizontal and vertical swath but from what I read, it does not look upward.

Obviously - I am speculating there (above) as I have seen nothing official in press releases on the internet.

Still, I am puzzled at the moment. An Upward Looking Sonar, is essential, I believe, if a submarine is to operate close to ice, in case it should ever go under ice deliberately (or (hopefully never) end up going under ice by accident).

I think (based on RCN HLMRs) that a ULS or upward looking fathometer is a likely requirement, but I can't find more detailed confirmation that such is intended to be procured, nor what the model equipment may be.

Again, I suspect the RCN CPSP project office is possibly discussing or in negotiation now (or very soon) on this possiblity.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We were considering the Barbel Class subs over the O boats, I wonder if we had gotten them, we might have pushed into the ice a bit more with them than with the O-boats?

 

[oldcpu]

We were considering the Barbel Class subs over the O boats, I wonder if we had gotten them, we might have pushed into the ice a bit more with them than with the O-boats?

Its an interesting question.

I note a year-2022 issue of "Starshell" magazine, in regards to the Barbell, states in the year 1961:

At this time RCN planning was in place for a new fleet which would include six of the latest American Barbel-class conventional submarines, as aspirations to transition to nuclear submarines (SSNs) were too expensive. But even this modest ambition proved to be too costly

I could not find any record of Barbel-class submarines (Barbel, Blueback, or Bonefish) conducting under-ice or Arctic investigative exploratory missions.

I think that by the time the Barbel class (Barbel, Blueback, or Bonefish) entered the USN service between 1958 and 1959, the U.S. Navy's Arctic and under-ice submarine program had decisively shifted away entirely from conventional boats on under-the-ice exploration missions. The US Barbel class, I believe, had no Arctic modifications.

If that is the case, then as part of a hypothetical Barbel class procurement, the RCN likely would have had to spend the extra funds to have the US shipyard (?) modify them with upward looking fathometer (upward looking sonar) and possibly some other modifications for the Arctic (such as fin/sail strengthing) and maybe some other active sonar modifications.

I don't think global warming was on anyone's mind much then, so I suspect the RCN had far less interest in the Arctic then. Further such modifications would have meant more expense to buy the subs.

Given less interest in the Arctic then, and thinking of today where there is more interest in the Arctic, yet .. I note that even today, with AIP/Lithium battery combinations, there are are good technical counterpoints against tasking RCN submarines for Arctic under ice exploration/sovereignty aspects. Hence it may have been a tough sell to convince RCN to trying and procure Arctic capable Barbel class - after all, there was no AIP/Lithium batteries then for extended underwater travel.

Myself, as old retired person, looking back, and looking forward, clearly I think presence in the Arctic is worth considering, I think today's AIP/Lithium battery conventional boats, with appropriate essential Arctic logistical support, can be made to work, but I am pretty certain many do not share my view.

 

[oldcpu]

Some trivia, I found this article of interest [ Neither Fish nor Fowl: China’s Development of a Nuclear Battery AIP Submarine | Center for International Maritime Security ] where it has in the most part no relevance to this Type-212CD thread, except some sentences that I extracted from the article on the topic of AIP:

All types of advanced conventional AIP propulsion systems, whether fuel cell, Stirling engine, or steam turbine based, offer extended submerged endurance to small and medium size submarines when compared with traditional diesel-electric propulsion systems ...
...
the maximum submerged transit speed of a submarine utilizing a conventional AIP system is still only 4 – 6 knots.
...
Conventional AIP boats still need to ventilate daily to renew the atmosphere with fresh air, unless the crew relies on a limited supply of consumable chemical systems to purge carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide from the atmosphere. Oxygen isn’t a problem as the crew can vent off a little from the AIP cryogenic oxygen tank to support their needs. A < deleted > can feasibly be fitted with compact oxygen generators, carbon dioxide scrubbers, and carbon monoxide-hydrogen burners, thereby giving the submarine complete independence from outside air.
....
despite what the advertising brochures say, conventional AIP systems do not charge submarine storage batteries well. They can keep a fully charged battery topped off, but recharging a battery that has been significantly discharged is really not a viable option.
....
A conventional AIP system would be hard pressed to produce even a tenth of the power that diesel-driven DC generators can provide – this means multiple days to fully recharge a very low battery. .... This severe limitation is why most AIP submarine crews tend to operate their boat like a traditional diesel-electric submarine for as long as they can, holding the AIP system in reserve for those tactical situations that demand greater stealth.

I think that quoted text supports that which has also been noted (albeit in different words) in this RCN Type-212CD thread.

 

[oldcpu]

On the topic of submarines, to put the RCN planned procurement into perspective in regards to NATO countries, I thought to compare the RCN to some other NATO countries submarine fleets ... (where note, this list of mine may not be 100% accurate):

I think the ten NATO countries with the largest submarine fleets, ordered (approximately) from the most to least, including their active classes, quantities, and propulsion types.

1. United States​

• Total Submarines: ~64–66
• Propulsion: Nuclear (100%)
  • Ohio-class (SSBN/SSGN): 14 active
  • Virginia-class (SSN): 22 active
  • Los Angeles-class (SSN): 24 active
  • Seawolf-class (SSN): 3 active

2. United Kingdom​

• Total Submarines: 10
• Propulsion: Nuclear (100%)
  • Vanguard-class (SSBN): 4 active
  • Astute-class (SSN): 6 active (with newer hulls progressing through trials)

3. France​

• Total Submarines: 9–10
• Propulsion: Nuclear (100%)
  • Triomphant-class (SSBN): 4 active
  • Suffren-class / Barracuda-class (SSN): 3 active (plus additional hulls progressioning through sea trials and delivery), progressively replacing the Rubis-class
  • Rubis-class (SSN): 1 active (nearing retirement, being phased out)

4. Turkey​

• Total Submarines: 12
• Propulsion: Conventional (Diesel-Electric) — with ongoing AIP integration
  • Reis-class (Type 214TN): 2 active (equipped with AIP; TCG Piri Reis and TCG Hızır Reis operational, with subsequent hulls like Murat Reis proceeding through trials)
  • Gür-class (Type 209T2/1400): 4 active (non-AIP)
  • Preveze-class (Type 209/1400): 4 active (non-AIP)
  • Atılay-class (Type 209/1200): 2 active remaining (non-AIP; older hulls actively drawing down as new Reis units commission)

5. Italy​

• Total Submarines: 8
• Propulsion: Conventional (Diesel-Electric)
  • Todaro-class (Type 212A): 4 active (equipped with AIP)
  • Sauro-class: 4 active (non-AIP)

6. Greece​

• Total Submarines: 8
• Propulsion: Conventional (Diesel-Electric)
  • Papanikolis-class (Type 214): 4 active (equipped with AIP)
  • Type 209/1100 & 209/1200 (Poseidon/Glafkos-classes): 4 active (non-AIP)

7. Germany​

• Total Submarines: 6 [where Germany with the Type-212CD coming could end up with more than 6 total for a while].
• Propulsion: Conventional (Diesel-Electric)
  • Type 212A: 6 active (equipped with AIP)

8. Norway​

• Total Submarines: 6 [where I believe Norway will replace its Ula class on a one-for-one basis with Type-212CD]
• Propulsion: Conventional (Diesel-Electric)
  • Ula-class (TKMS Type-210): 6 active (non-AIP)

9. Spain​

• Total submarines: 2
• Propulsion: Conventional (Diesel-Electric) — with retroactive AIP integration planned for early hulls
  • S-80 Plus class (Isaac Peral-class): 1 active (non-AIP currently; lead boat Isaac Peral is in service operating on standard diesel-electric power, pending its scheduled future overhaul to receive the BEST-AIP system. Later boats will incorporate the system during construction.) A total of four boats are planned
  • Galerna-class (Agosta-class): 1 active (non-AIP; retained as a transitional asset while the S-80 program matures).

10. Canada​

• Total Submarines: 4
• Propulsion: Conventional (Diesel-Electric)
  • Victoria-class (ex-Upholder): 4 active (non-AIP)

From that, I think it makes a valid point that Canada, in going from quantity four aging old ex-Upholder (Victoria) class, to quantity twelve Type-212CD submarines is a very very big leap. A fleet of twelve Type 212CD submarines equipped with AIP and lithium-ion batteries would likely constitute one of NATO's most capable conventional submarine forces (although likely only 1/2 of these boats may be based out of Halifax - with other half based out of Esquimalt, and TBD number assigned to Arctic as opposed to the Atlantic or Pacific).

Obviously the above is just my own deliberations.

Edit: Not listed were Sweden (with 4 AIP equipped boats), Netherlands (with 3 boats) and Portugal (with 2 AIP equipped boats) and Poland (1 Kilo class submarine) are the remaining NATO countries with submarines as best I recall. Likely Sweden should have been listed in the above.

Given Canada has selected TKMS as the preferred supplier with its Type-212CD submarine, and given there is IMHO a lot to learn about AIP operations, .... I was curious as to which other countries have AIP equipped submarines, or plan to procure such. I deliberately did not include submarines with nuclear propulsion. I did not try to differentiate the type of AIP system (nor battery type). The list is actually very long (and I may have missed some countries and may have the number of submarines wrong).

NATO - this is my list of NATO countries with AIP equipped submarines present or planned - and I may have the numbers wrong:

Turkey
- 2 Reis-Class (type-214TN) with 4 more planned

Italy
-4 Todaro-Class (type-212A)

Greece
- 4 Papanikolis-Class (type-214)

Germany

• 6 Type-212A
• 6 Type-212CD << planned introduction in 2030s

Norway
- 6 Type-212CD << planned introduction in 2030s

Spain
- 2 S-80 (Isaac Peral class) [with 2 more planned]

Portugal
- 2 Type-214 (Tridente class)

Canada
- 12 Type-212CD << planned introduction in 2030s

Sweden

• 3 Gotland class
• 2 Södermanland (AIP was a later in life retrofit)
• 2 Blekinge-class submarine <<< planned introduction early 2030s

Poland
- 3 Blekinge-class(A26) <<< planned introduction 2030s

====
====

NON-NATO countries - This is my list of Non-NATO countries AIP equipped submarines present or planned:

China

• 22 (about)Type-039A/B/C (041) Yuan class >>> exact number an estimate
• 4 Hangor Class (possibly 3 of these 4 still completing trials)

Japan
- 10 Sōryū class (2 other boats in Sōryū class have no AIP but have lithium-ion batteries to replace the lead-acid batteries)

South Korea

• 7 KSS-II (Type-214) Son Won-ii class
• 3 KSS-III batch-I (Dosan Ahn Changho-class)
• 1 KSS-III batch-II (two more planned in late 2020s)
• 3 KSS-III batch-III (planned in 2030s)

Singapore

• 2 Archer class (Swedish Västergötland-class, retrofitted to Södermanland class standards with AIP)
• 2 Type-218SG (Invincible Class) (2 more planned in late 2020s and possibly another 2 TBD years later)

India
- 6 Kalvari-class / Scorpène derivative (only 1 thus far with retrofit to AIP )

Israel

• 3 Dolphin Class-II class
• 2 Dakar Class (planned in 2030s)

Pakistan

• 3 Agosta 90B submarines (retrofit AIP)
• 2 (?) Hangor Class <<< planned introduction 2030s. Possibly 2 more planned?

Thailand
- 1 - Type-S26 Yuan class - planned delivery around year 2030

Again I may have some of my numbers in exact. I note in addition to the NATO country Type-212CD plans, the Singapore Type-218SG and the South Korean KSS-III-Batch-II already all use Lithium Ion batteries with their AIP systems (while most of the others have lead-acid batteries). A number of the AIP systems are Stirling Engines and not Fuel cell. So there are many differences I did not attempt to dive into. There are a lot of differences / nuances in these different AIP implementations.