Talk:Type 209 submarine

Background?

The "background" section gives very little actual background on the sub design history. Instead it reads like a list of countries operating the boat. Does someone have anything to add about the boat's development/history/construction? Antimatter--talk-- 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct subtype for the Argentinian sub?

Hi all, I've matched thhe info in this article with the one in the Spanish Wikipedia dedicated to the argentinian ARA Salta (S-31), and I've found that the subtype mentioned there is the 1200, while in the English Wikipedia article is mentioned as subtype 1100. Even worse, in the Official website the ARA Salta is classified as IKL-290!
Can anyone please clarify, mentioning verifiable sources (and providing citations please!), so both wikiarticles can be improved with consistent information?
Many thanlks & kindest regards, DPdH (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The HDW website and the Official Argentine Navy are both wrong, that subs are 1100 class, the only difference is the bow sonar array, and I know this very well because they are identical to the Peruvian 209/1100 class, ships than I know in person. Greetings.Cloudaoc (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable published sources would be appreciated. Esw01407 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem! The main sources (Jane's, Conway`s, the ARA website, even the HDW website) publish the same wrong information, which is hard to believe, but is true. In many web forums this issue has been clarified long time ago, but I don't know if they can be used as sources here in Wikipedia. Greetings.--Cloudaoc (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct subtype for the Argentinian sub Continued

The Argentinian ships are 209/1200 as listed by various sources including other Wikipedia pages List of submarine classes, Globalsecurity Type 209 Ship List, and World Navies Today Argentina. Two ships were originally built, but one was discarded in the 90's World Navies Today Argentina and Global submarines Esw01407 (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct subtype for the Type 209 operators

There are many discrepancies’ currently with the Type 209 subtypes within these pages and other sources.

The Argentinian ships are 209/1200 as listed by various sources including other Wikipedia pages List of submarine classes, Globalsecurity Type 209 Ship List, and World Navies Today Argentina. Two ships were originally built, but one was discarded in the 90's World Navies Today Argentina and Global submarines

The Peru ships are all 209/1200 Globalsecurity Type 209 Ship List, The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World

The Indonesia ships are all 209/1300 as listed by various sources including other Wikipedia pages List of submarine classes, Globalsecurity Type 209 Ship List, The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World, and World Navies Today: Indonesia.

The Venezuela ships are all 209/1300 as listed by various sources including other Wikipedia pages List of submarine classes, Globalsecurity Type 209 Ship List, and World Navies Today: Venezuela.

The Brazil ships should all be listed as 209/1400; though the final ship of the design is heavily modified it is not a 1500. The Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World

Esw01407 (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixing Posting so it looks normal

Look, the most simple way to know if the argentinian 209 are 1100 is seeing their pictures, and you notice than the sonar bow is different of the 1200, because the latter have an different sonar array, for example:

• 
  Argentine Navy ARA Salta is a Type 209/1100 (see the BOW
• And the BAP Pisagua, a Type 209/1200 class submarine (see the BOW again)
  And the BAP Pisagua, a Type 209/1200 class submarine (see the BOW again)

If you notice, the bow is different, that the ONLY visible difference between the 1100 and 1200. The sources are wrong, I was on board in many of the Peruvian Navy 209s a lot of times, and I know very well who is who. One thing is the "paper" and other thing is the reality. I can assure you than the people who write that texts never see in his life an 209 class submarine. Greetings. -Cloudaoc (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Third Party Source

I would like to request a neutral third opinion or sources on the Argentinian ships, because if this this true, many sources are wrong. Esw01407 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree, but I'm very sure about that, I know a few Peruvian submarine crewman who confirm my affirmation. Greetings.-Cloudaoc (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to nail down these Argentinian ships issues. I would like to present a source that I found during research of the Salta-class that could explain the sonar issue. The Naval Institute guide to world naval weapons systems on Page 622-623 they discuss that the Salta class has a different sonar system then other Type 209’s (Greece has had there submarines with this sonar upgraded). Otherwise, I can't find anything that says this ship is an 1100.Esw01407 (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Peruvian magazine PeruDefensa & Seguridad assures than the 209/1100 Islay class is effectively equipped with the CSU-3-2 sonar array (was recently modernized), as the Argentinian Salta, but the 209/1200 Angamos class is equipped with the CSU-3-4 sonar array. The book than you referred is an excellent source but is not free of errors, an this is one, because as Jane's includes the entire Peruvian 209 fleet in the same class. Greetings. --Cloudaoc (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Where I'm trying to go with this, I would care for a definite source that tells that the Saltas are 1100's. Every source says they are 1200's. Esw01407 (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

ThyssenKrupp's webpage (Owner of Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft) ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems - Contracts 1960-1980 lists the submarines for the Argentine Navy as 209/1200. They also list all 6 Peruvian Navy submarines as 209/1200.Esw01407 (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thomson class

I just want to bring up questions about the Thomson class. I've noticed many sources list these as either 1300's or 1400's. Chile's own website does not seem to know which subtype.

Submarine Simpson (V) - 1300-L Submarine Thomson (V) - 1400-L Esw01407 (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

ThyssenKrupp's webpage (Owner of Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft) ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems - Contracts 1960-1980 lists the submarines for the Chilean Navy as 209/1400.Esw01407 (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Even the website of ThyssenKrupp is wrong (surprisingly) because also states than the Peruvian 209 are all Type 1200, the Chilean are 1300L as far I know, but I can confirm this data with a friend who works in ASMAR, the main Chilean shipyard. Greetings --Cloudaoc (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Chang Bogo class

My concerns as to the changes (moving the Chang Bogo class from 1200's to 1400's) are the lack of information about the upgrade program. While the sources from Jane's are somewhat reputable, they are speculative without specific information and older sources, along with being stubs. Jane's Warship Recognition Guide from 2004-2005 still list them 1200's, along with NTI Submarine Proliferation South Korea Import Behavior. South Korea's Wikipedia Type 209 article also lists them as 1200's. Another concern I have is even though other 209's have been heavily refitted or modified, it has not caused them to change to another Type (Tikuna (S-34) didn't become a 1500 after being built as a modified 1400, Okeanos (S118) didn't become a Type 214 or Type 212 after being rebuilt with AIP). Esw01407 (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Tikuna class is mentioned as 1400mod, and we can also provide Okeanos with a small indication that it has been upgraded with AIP. I'll try applying the change and see if you like it.

As for the Chang Bogo class, I admit that it does not say Chang Bogo class is exactly the Type 209/1400 type, but multiple sources do say it now displaces 1400 tons, just giving no indication that it's identical (or supposed to be) to the Type 209/1400. Here is a new source, a screenshot of a hard-copy published by Seapower International which is by far the most recent and reputable citation [1]. In light of the new information I want to suggest a use of separate designation such as 1400K. If Indonesia does purchase those new 1,400-ton submarines I also want to suggest the use of 1400K for it. Desagwan (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this is, we've just gone in a circle about the same problem, using weight as a designator. ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, one of the builders/designers, on there own webpage lists them as 209/1200, and additional other sources already used in this article still list them as 1,200 ton ships. Other 209s are lighter (Greek 209/1100 when built) or heavier (Indian 209/1500) ships then the numbers used (1100, 1200, etc). My counter suggestion would be if a separate designation is even needed, it would be 1200K, or 1200CB, as any future ships will still be based on these original designations by ThyssenKrupp.

While I still debate if upgrades to these ships have happened, right now most of the text from the Operators table in notes for Chang Bogo class would be more suited in the Variants section above, as the notes are just used for brief summaries. I also must raise concerns about the torpedo section, as reliable sources for what ships can fire the newest Korean torpedoes are hard to find. Esw01407 (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a necessity to differentiate Chang Bogo class from other Type 209 variants because there are so many changes (a significant portion of them being domestic) made to the design that DSME can now independently market the submarine to a foreign nation as its own product without involving any known industrial participation of German companies. And this Chang Bogo class is repeatedly being quoted as 1,400 tons, because of the Korean media's (not your, or my) choice of literary expression of the designation 'Type 209/1400' as simply 'this submarine weighs 1,400 tons', which then gets directly translated into English that the submarine weighs 1,400 tons. Then there are other separate, isolated indications by foreign sources that the Chang Bogo class submarines do weigh 1,400 tons at least even if they don't state it is Type 209/1400 (Seapower International, Navy Recognition), and Military-Today does explicitly state that upgrades of some sort has indeed gone through for the original South Korean Chang Bogo class ships, with strong belief but not a guarantee that it was upgraded to Type 209/1400 standard. Jane's has given separate report that hull stretch to Type 209/1400 standard (which many reports keep presuming as meaning it should have a displacement of 1,400 tons) is what has been mandated to happen, with no suggestion that it's canceled or delayed. Even if the Type 209 is not exactly built to the original Type 209/1400 standard, given that it now weighs 1,400 tons and that it has many South Korean-specific augmentations conducted by South Korea itself, how can we ignore the fact that the Chang Bogo class is sufficiently different from other variants that it can even be sold as an independent subclass and that its specification is much different from the original Type 209/1200? And how can we describe Indonesia's new Chang Bogo class submarines if it does purchases it in the future; still quote it as simply the 1200 variant even with the great amount of technical changes applied by South Korea to the ships? That is a significant downplay of the design and capability uniqueness of the current Chang Bogo class compared to the ones originally constructed in the late 1980s. It is a very different variant that South Korea can market it alone as a unique 1,400-ton Chang Bogo class design, which no other license manufacturers of the submarine are known to be able to do without German involvement (Turkey tried, but unlike South Korea it had to do it together with ThyssenKrupp).

So we won't be using 1400K for the Chang Bogo class; then we must find another designation that can sufficiently express the information that the Korean and the future Indonesian Chang Bogo class is significantly different from the Type 209/1200 produced by Germany. If the submarine displaces 1,400 tons then the physical dimension itself is not the same as Type 209/1200, even if it's not necessarily Type 209/1400.

Again, the first piece of information that is reliable due to repeated statements from multiple sources is that: the Chang Bogo class, whether or not its upgrade was precisely to the Type 209/1400 standard, has still been upgraded and it now displaces 1,400 tons. It's not the Type 209/1400, okay, but it still displaces 1,400 tons. But the difference in the weight of a submarine is impossible without increasing the volume that the submarine occupies, which in turn is impossible without stretching the hull. The submarine cannot displace 1,400 tons without the hull stretch augmentation. So the hull stretch had taken place, and the known mandated standard to which the submarine's hull is stretched to Type 209/1400, but not perfectly guaranteed nor denied. If the Chang Bogo class hasn't been modified with the hull stretch augmentation, it won't be marketed as a 1,400-ton submarine. And now we have to find a new designation for this ship that's not identical to Type 209/1400 but still displaces 1,400 tons with hull stretch from Type 209/1200 and has other internal changes that can be marketed independently for export to foreign (not domestic) militaries. Desagwan (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Here are confirmed sources that the Chang Bogo class currently in service with the ROKN is not the Type 209/1200 anymore which has submerged displacement of 1,285 tons, but a different modified design with reported displacement of 1,400 tons (again, what I'm trying to prove here is not that the submarines are Type 209/1400, just that they are not the same as Type 209/1200).

The company joined bidding for the deal, estimated to be worth about $1.2 billion, to supply two 1,400-ton diesel-powered Type-209 submarines to the Indonesian Navy. The subs are made by Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering.

The modified version of the ``Chang Bogo`` class is currently in service in the Korean Navy, which operates nine domestically built submarines designed by Germany's Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft.

[2]

South Korea and Indonesia are in discussion over the exchange of two in-service South Korean Chang Bogo-class submarines for eight Indonesian CN-235 multimission tactical transport aircraft, a source from the South Korea's Defence Acquisition Programme Administration (DAPA) told Jane's on 2 July.

[3]

These in-service submarines initially offered by Korea to Indonesia as second-hand ships that Jane's is talking about are the 1,400-ton modified Chang Bogo class submarines mentioned in other articles. These upgraded, modernized, and refitted vessels were already in service with the Korean navy at the time of the article's publication. These vessles are of the same variant as the brand-new vessels that are being offered to Indonesia now. Based on all these sources, we can conclude that:

1. The Chang Bogo class in service with the Korean navy today are heavily upgraded and modified submarines, and they are not the same as Type 209/1200.

2. The Chang Bogo class now diplaces 1,400 tons, which is realistically impossible without hull stretch. Hull stretch modification had place.

3. Many reports believe that, if any hull stretch modification is applied to the Chang Bogo class, which had indeed taken place because of its increase in displacement, it was to be to Type 209/1400 standard.

Okay, so even if like my counterpart in the debate said we are not going to decide Chang Bogo class' new type based on its displacement, the reported displacement of '1,400 tons' being a clear allusion by the non-expert media to the Type 209/1400 notwithstanding, we still have to look for another designation that leaves behind no illusion that its specification today still remains the Type 209/1200. I'm still suggesting 1400K for both the Korean and the probable future Indonesian Chang Bogo subs. My counterpart has proposed 1200K, but I'm also interested to know if he wants to propose the same for the 1,400-ton Indonesian Chang Bogo subs. Desagwan (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the weight concerns, again.

I will reference my points above again, even with extensive changes and overhauls in their individual counties, the Type 209's have never changed designations. The Sabalo class was slightly lengthened during a modernization but retained its 1300, even without information about additional weight gains. The Thomson class even with new weapons and combat systems retain their 1300/1400 designations.

Other proposals I would like to suggest: 1. Adjust the article slightly as I suggested above, move the supposed changes from the table to the main article. 2. Wait until the deal is officially signed between South Korea and Indonesia for specific details, and if necessary, create another table category with the designation 1200K or 1200CB when the information becomes available. 3. Contact other editors from WikiProject Ships or WikiProject Military history to see if any editors have experience with the South Korean navy and have access to other information and sources (Such as a full version of Jane's). 4. Contact editors from Korean military history working group and WikiProject Korea with the same goals in mind.

I have been reading your changes, while I do respect them, I continue to disagree with them for lack of hard evidence that the upgrades were every carried out by reputable sources.(Esw01407 (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC))

Please do not combine your assessment of my intent to prove Chang Bogo class's unique modification from the Type 209/1200 factual with my suggestion to choose its new designation as Type 209/1400K. Let us treat them as separate proposals for now; we have to establish first that Chang Bogo class has really been modified by South Korean hands to South Korean standard (regardless of whether it was really to Type 209/1400 standard), recently confirmed by multiple reputable sources such as KoreaTimes, Military-Today, and Seapower International (these are in fact hard evidences; they don't say the submarines are Type 209/1400, but they do explicitly mention the updated displacement and the fact that modifications had taken place). Again, what I'm trying to prove first is not that the Chang Bogo class's recent upgrade was to Type 209/1400 standard, and that it should be designated as such, but just that it was upgraded, which involved a confirmed increase in displacement to 1,400 tons, to whatever standard it truly was. Even if Jane's and others maintain their designation of Chang Bogo class as Type 209/1200, if does not negate the confirmed reports that even as Type 209/1200, the model is now an upgraded and enlarged one. They are mutually exclusive information. Chang Bogo class can continue to be designated as Type 209/1200 while simultaneously having 1,400 tons of displacement and other sorts of unique domestic augmentations applied to it, and have information in the articles pertaining to that.

I must reiterate: Chang Bogo class has been upgraded from the originally purchased Type 209/1200, which is what any reader can normally conclude from the sourced articles (the most recent ones from the three organizations mentoned above) if they are presented with the convenient opportunity to find and read them, and this information must be presented even without the designation change. We just don't know to what exact standard the upgrades have been conducted, aside from increase of displacement to 1,400 tons and installment of domestic combat subsystems, and we don't know what designation to give to it yet, but we do know something major have been done to the submarines. It may be an entirely new unique standard exclusive to ROKN and perhaps the Indonesian navy that has been isolated from German input, and can even render any presently known Type 209 designations incompatible with it. But what is most important at this point of discussion is that it had changed a lot from the original Type 209/1200, and we are only waiting for more expanded details to be revealed of by how much to what level. Desagwan (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

209's 1200 upgrade dispute first, as par your request

I must reiterate: I doubt these upgrades have happened. The Korea Times in numerous recent articles still them as 1,200/1,300 ton ships in numerous other articles with no mentions to any upgrades.

Korea to make $1.1 bil. sub sale to Indonesia 10-11-2011 17:41 "Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME) has begun final-phase negotiations with the Indonesian government over the construction and sale of three 1,300-ton, Type-209 submarines valued at $1.1 billion, the company said Tuesday." "The ship measures 56 meters in length and 5.5 meters in width. It can submerge to a depth of up to 250 meters and has an underwater endurance of about two weeks." Those are the same length specs as a 209/120, but narrower.

International Fleet Review in Busan Opened to Citizens 10-07-2008 18:44, South Koreas Navy Cruises Toward Oceangoing Force 05-28-2007 18:09, US Nuclear Umbrella: Double-Edged Sword for S. Korea 06-24-2009 21:53 List similar but unmodified stats.

The English version of the South Korea Navy's webpage Changbogo class does mention about an upgrade, but with "side dispositioned sonars and Air Independent Propulsion systems (AIP)." and nothing about if they were ever completed. It still lists the original specs, those of the 209/1200 (56 x 6.2 x 5.5 m, 1,100 tons (1,285 tons submerged)).

Sagem to modernize navigation system on South Korea’s KSS-1 submarines "The KSS-1 is a conventional type U-209 submarine displacing 1,200 metric tons. It is built by Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering." - Same stats, from a company that is heavy documented on numerous websites as a group modernizing the navigation system, still lists them as 1,200 tons.

From the military today "The older boats are being upgraded from a time early in the 21st century, and although details are currently unclear, it is believed that the modernization will include a hull stretch to the Type 1400 length of some 62 m with surfaced and submerged displacements of about 1 455 and 1 585 tons respectively, provision for tube-launched UGM-84 Harpoon missiles to enhance the boats capabilities against surface ships, and possibly the addition of a towed-array sonar for a superior capability for the detection of submerged submarines." Where my concerns exist is they didn't know any details. Other articles also show the website is out of date Tupi class 209/1400 - Missing Mk48 upgrades announced in January 2008, Daphné class missing Portugal and South Afica decommissioning, dates article as last updated in 2003, U-206 class - Still listed in commission, U-214 class - Completely out of date with Greek ships still to be commissioned in 2005, didn't happen until 2010, Soryu class - Missing latest ship commissioning, appears to be last updated in 2009, and so on and so forth. This causes me to believe information from this site is likely to be suspect. Also, Military Today still lists them as 209/1200's.

The Seapower Intentional article only mentions construction, not re-construction or modernization. I can only refer to other sources above that list there original construction weights such as Jane's Warship Recognition Guide.

I also share concerns about the tradekorea.com and ASM/SSM-700K Sea Star links used as sources, as none of them actually mention Type 209 or Chang Bogo submarines, bringing them into question if they are in use and deployed. Esw01407 (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Then, what do you believe this 1,400-ton Chang Bogo class submarine is that Indonesia will purchase exclusively from Korea?[4]

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] If the upgrades in question had never happened to the Korean Type 209/1200 to serve as the basis for the 'new' 1,400-ton design, then the new Chang Bogo subs may have more ground-up indigenous design modifications than originally anticipated (this will become a source of great dispute as to the national origin of the submarines later on). A dilemma is, these new subs are nearly identical to the in-service Korean Chang Bogo class previously offered to Indonesia as submarines with 1,400 tons in displacement, and I don't know how it can be made mutually valid that the Indonesian submarines will not have the same designation as Type 209/1200, but the Korean submarines are still presented as identical to Type 209/1200. Desagwan (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You bring up a valid point about the designation problems. One of the sources that could answer the question, the Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering English website has not updated with the same reports as its Korean Counterpart. Original link, Google Translate Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering, Republic of Korea's first international submarine open, BabelFish Translate The treatment Korea ocean, South Korean first submarine overseas export route is opened. "From Google: The submarine that DSME early 1990s technology transfer from Germany, received 209 class (1,200 tons) since dry submarine for export through advances in technology have developed their own 1,400-ton submarines, various types of torpedoes, mines, missiles and fire can be." - I hesitate to use this as a source as It could violate both original research and proper sources guidelines, but it leaves additional questions that will probably not be answered until the contracts are signed between South Korea/DSME and Indonesia. Depending on which translator is used, from how the Korean article is worded, a case could be made that this 1,400 ton class is changed enough from the original 209 that it could be considered it's own class, as in the case of the Dolphin class submarines. Esw01407 (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be back at step one again, so I've requested assistance from the WikiProject Ships group. While your last edit ((****) Originally Type 209/1200, these boats had reportedly been heavily upgraded from a time early in the 21st century,[30] which if properly undertaken was supposed to include domestic hull stretch augmentation to Type 209/1400 standard (though not necessarily identical) and installment of domestically developed Torpedo Acoustic Counter Measures (TACM).[31][32][1][33] By 2009 it was reported that nine South Korean-modified 1,400-ton Type 209 submarines were in service with the ROKN.[34][35] They can utilize a separate array of South Korean weapons such as White Shark heavy torpedo[33][36] and possibly a variant of Hae Sung anti-ship missile.[37][38]) will possibly serve as a start, most of the sources were incorrectly cited and all the sources essentially say the same thing, the new ships will be 1,400 tons, but does not mean the current 209/1200's are. Onto the weapons, none of the sources say the weapons are deployed, only "compatible", and they "exist". Esw01407 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Provided the source for White Shark, and please reexamine the passage "This class is being marketed independently by Korea to Indonesia as 1,400-ton Chang Bogo class submarines for export.[40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] Initially the offered submarines were going to be in-service ROKN submarines.[48]

A science documentary by EBS has revealed that Chang Bogo class submarines undergo major generational overhaul and refit every eight to twelve years.[49] The overhaul and refit involves periodic cutting, complete disassembly, and rewelding of the hull for the upgrade or total replacement of the submarine's old engines, navigational equipment, batteries, and other essential equipment with their modern counterparts.[49]".

The 1,400-ton submarines offered to Indonesia since 2009, even though they may still be designated as 'Type 209/1200' based on their origin, were reported to be in-service submarines then in service with the ROKN. These 1,400 ton submarines were initially going to be second-hand subs. And they came directly from ROKN's existing stock of the nine Chang Bogo class subs. Desagwan (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry the sources do not back the point your making. None of the sources directly say that those submarines they were transferring are 1400's. They say transferring, NOT mentioning their weight or designation. While the EBS part is interesting and would probably be better in the body of the article, it does not mean they have been upgraded to 1,400's. Many other Type 209's have had upgrades, as mentioned above, and it has not changed there designations. Esw01407 (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So the designation for the Korean Chang Bogo class remains the same, for now. But the reports and information about the modernization must stay put. We won't say it had been confirmed but that it had 'reportedly' taken place and what upgrades were supposed to be applied if it indeed was. Like in many other countries, the Chang Bogo class are no longer the same vessels that had been originally built one and two decades ago in their level of technology and range of capability, even without necessarily involving hull stretch.

And are we in denial that the submarines intended for Indonesia are 1,400 ton submarines? Desagwan (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Still questioning these upgrades yes, I would ask for a full transcript of the special from EBS as I can't even access it to view it, but I guess that's to much to ask for.

For the 1,400 Korea to make $1.1 bil. sub sale to Indonesia Daewoo making big strides overseas claim these ships at 1,300 tons that are being exported. Most Navy Submarine Advanced (http://www.jurnas.com/news/41002/Kapal_Selam_TNI_AL_Paling_Mutakhir/1/Nasional) "The submarine is a South Korean-made made ​​in the form of Indonesia-South Korea joint production. "Submarines are today's most advanced type 214. Navy will combine it with taking body 209 1,500 ton ship type, but with 214 weapons systems," said Chief of Naval Staff (KSAL) Admiral Soeparno told reporters after attending a memorial ceremony rehearsal TNI Anniversary at Headquarters (HQ) TNI in Cilangkap Jakarta, Monday (3 / 10). KSAL added, Indonesia has had 209 type submarine weighs 1,300 tons." A source from Indonesia claims they will be 1500 tons and include Type 214 weapons systems.

And the sources that are still listed at the bottom of the page are cited incorrectly. I would appreciate you fixing them I.E. put the page title in, page titles in English, not using the URL as the page title. Esw01407 (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

These are some screenshots of the EBS documentary. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

translation of the displayed subtitle: 잠수함 창정비

잠수함을 절단하여 완전히 분해한 뒤 배터리를 비롯한 모든 노후장비를 새 것으로 교체하기 위해 이루어지는 정비로 대형 조선소에서 행해진다

Changjeongbi submarine

Completely disassembled by cutting the submarine and then all the old equipment, including batteries with new ones made ​​to replace the maintenance is done in a large shipyard

And yeah, a limited number of reports refer to the Indonesian Chang Bogo subs as 1,300 ton subs just as they refer to the Korean-overhauled Indonesian Type 209/1300 submarines as 1,300 ton subs.[18] But a vast majority still refer to them as 1,400 tons. The Korean media naturally associate the 1200/1300/1400/1500 designations with the submarine's displacement. Not the Wikipedian editors, but the Korean media do. When they call a submarine 1,400 tons, they do actually mean 'submarine as big as Type 209/1400'. Desagwan (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Chang Bogo class page creation / Type 209 submarine

At this point, I think the huge text created due to the debate of the Chang Bogo class defeats the purpose of the operators table. Again, I'd like to suggest either moving most of the text to the Variants section and referencing it in the operators table, or due to the extensive debate and information coming forward, I think the Chang Bogo class could have its own page like the Shishumar class and Heroine class. I've created a test page as an example in my Sandbox [19], and again, refer the debate of these upgrades to this new page from the operators table. Esw01407 (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I swapped the description in the operator section with the description in the variant section. Desagwan (talk) 06:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Israel

Shouldn't Israel be part of the list of nations that operate Type 209 subs since the Dolphin class submarines are modified Type 209's ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.170.231 (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Title

I think the tittle should be uniform. The title of this article should be U-209 class submarine such as Kilo class submarine, Collins class submarine or Scorpene class submarine. Thank you for your consideration.Gsarwa (talk) 06:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Most western sources list the ships at the Type 209 submarine. Also, if you could, please provide more details about the U-640 variant? Military-today.com is not always the best source to reference as in debates above, it tends to be out of date. Esw01407 (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Type 209-1400 Bosporus.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Type 209-1400 Bosporus.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Type 209-1200 Istanbul.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Type 209-1200 Istanbul.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Type 209-1400 Galata.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Type 209-1400 Galata.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ssk-tupi/

  Triggered by \bnaval-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Type 209 submarine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424094905/http://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/index_en.php?level=3&CatID=3.431.472&inhalt_id=424&detail=9 to http://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/index_en.php?level=3&CatID=3.431.472&inhalt_id=424&detail=9
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151012000838/http://www.lignex1.com:8001/eng/business/business02_04_10.jsp to http://www.lignex1.com:8001/eng/business/business02_04_10.jsp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141219205210/http://www.indracompany.com/en/noticia/indra-to-implement-its-technology-in-indonesias-type-209-submarines-for-more-than-10m to http://www.indracompany.com/en/noticia/indra-to-implement-its-technology-in-indonesias-type-209-submarines-for-more-than-10m
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141004055233/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Submarines/Active/93-Shishumar-Class.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Submarines/Active/93-Shishumar-Class.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111006071357/http://www.stm.com.tr/en/News.aspx?news=260 to http://www.stm.com.tr/en/News.aspx?news=260
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110424094905/http://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/index_en.php?level=3&CatID=3.431.472&inhalt_id=424&detail=9 to http://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/index_en.php?level=3&CatID=3.431.472&inhalt_id=424&detail=9
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141004055233/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Submarines/Active/93-Shishumar-Class.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Submarines/Active/93-Shishumar-Class.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Egyptian Navy (S41) Type 209-1400-class submarine.jpg
• Egyptian Navy's Type 209-1400mod submarine.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)