Look very simple Germany that knows a thing or two about non nuclear subs (having built over 80 post WW2 and has 40+ on order, says the future is Fuel Cells, I am inclined to agree with them.
yes, for <2000 tonne displacement subs they certainly do know about subs
BTW, I've been to any number of Fuel Cell Conferences in Hannover, Hamburg and Frankfurt over the last few years - its been pretty damn apparent to all the navy staff and military geeks attending that fuel cells can be complimentary, but they can't fulfill the requirements of large boats with complex deep blue designed combat and sensor systems. the only country that has the generator technology to make fuel cells useful as an adjunct is the US - and they're already trialling those systems on other assets. Fuel cells will be excellent for dismounts - but for full blown subs with complex systems and designed to do 60 day missions? I doubt it when there are better opportunities already available for some US allies.
Now Australia that has build 6 boats with Swedish assistance, and they have had issues? Sweden has also gone down another AIP system (closed cycle??). Just buy the best or customise the best or you will end up like the the poor old RN with c3 subs
ah yes, you don't seem to be aware that some of the initial design problems were because the number crunchers hadn't factored in pacific water conditions and that threw a lot of the data and design out. in fact its the australian research that identified the early problems. its the australians who first developed proper fitting anechoic tiles - much to the surprise of some of our cousins using larger displaced assets - and that tile fitment and management is critical to acoustic mapping?
and you seem to be oblivious to the fact that the sig management and acoustic mapping was australian developed.
if you like I can give you the horror stories about the upholders and what we knew in 1999 even before the canadians bought them.
you do realise that AIP was trialled an abandoned by the RAN because it provided minimal benefit for the type of taskings we employ - and the fact that in a number of RIMPACs that USN ASW HK teams have been surprised a number of times as they assumed that diesel subs would need to come up for air and used as part of their prosecution sets, needless to say it hasn't worked.
you seem to be oblivious as why we need large subs, what large subs bring to the picture and some of the interoperability issues that we consider along wth what widgets we want. Common combat rooms, common combat systems, common training, an ability to "borrow" systems from our nuke fitted cousins etc all factor into the picture. quite frankly a 214 would not be able to support the combat system and sensor suite that we use in pacific waters.
I suggest that you actually read and learn about what some posters backgrounds are before you trot into a forum carrying on about subject material that you're pulling off the internet.
before people get excited about technology, subs are first and foremost about training and crew competency.
if you doubt that then let me remind you about the North Korean Romeos off the west coast of africa and the embuggerance that they caused.
Even crap boats well crewed will sink ships if the opportunity presents itself.
