I have noticed that if you do a top ten and say its in no particular order it does not offend so many people lol

I love these rankings and that they’re in ranked order!

These are still exceptionally well-researched and taught me a lot. Cheers!

Could you make another one for nuclear powered subs pls

not the best.. The best CONVENTIONAL

Good question. Probably should have included the Gotland class in there somewhere!

It sooo secret and invisible that nobody knows about it.

Or the super Gotland class… the Australian Collins class. Basically a much bigger Gotland with all the kit from a Virginia class stuffed inside.

@@chrisdoulou8149 Not really.

@@johnsmith1953x Explain? The Collins is based on the Gotland class, enlarged, with the combat management system of the Virginia stuffed into it.

Does it compare to others? Smh

Or the Russian Moskva class.

That makes no sense.

@@HTV-2_Hypersonic_Glide_Vehicle it's called a joke 🤣😭 WOW

@@Triggatra4258 that was a joke? Oh. I thought jokes were supposed to be funny and witty.

Probably in the west and allied countries, American weapons get so much exposure that it becomes firing to hear about. I like to learn more about other countries weapons, especially weapons of our ‘enemies’ since they are far more interesting and get less coverage in the west.

They didn't even include, about to be delivered to the Italian Navy, the U212 NHS, 100% Fincantieri and Leonardo TECHNOLOGY, the best that is currently in Europe, then the Chinese in my opinion will be rubbish😅

ありがと!

It's based on the german Type 214 (212). Probably somewhere along those lines.

Look up " Why U.S. Officials Claim 'No Evidence' of Weapons Smuggling in Ukraine " on yT. informative and insightful......

​@@thomas_jayThey do have 9 214 class already. Dosan AC class are twice bigger then 214s

It is not really based on the 214 at all. It is a top tier SSK and big.

Is all tecnology germanic and italian with FINCANTIERI and tyssen krupp, italy has 4,most 2 in the 2025 + 2 in the 2030...build all from FINCANTIERI..FIRST IN THE EUROPE FOR WARSHIP S ,CRUISE, SUBMARINE S...,CHINA HAS NOT CAPABILITY STIIL FOR AIRCRAF, AIRCRAF CARRIER, SHIP, THEY ARE ONLY 30 YEARS ,FROM COUNTRY 3RT WORLD TO NOW....COUNTRY IN EUROPE THEY ARE FROM WWI WHO BUILD S SUBMARINES, SHIP...ALSO TURKEY, FROM AFTER WWI TO 20YEAR S AGO....

Also FINCANTIERI, next ,only FINCANTIERI italy...DOMINIUM roman Empire

​@@valerianocuomo996 ???

It's a German Type 212/214 clone. But the Turks learn fast. I kinda like the STM500 mini (or small) submarine they're building. At just 540 tons, in littoral/ coastal depths these will probably prove to be ideal complement of any 1000+ ton DE submarine.

@@bagongkelabu If you mean by 'clone' the Turks bought the design from the Germans, added a few tweaks and built it-then yeah. But the differences are small and insignificant, this is a Thyssen design for all intents and purposes.

conventional only

Fue desarrollado y contruido por el consorcio DCN y BAZAN, es cierto que DCN tenia algo mas de % de participacion, pero eso no excluye a la actual Navantia de su diseño.

It did. It is a 212a.

Its a Type 214 from Germany.

I'm sure none of these conventional submarines would be any threat at all to the royal navy

First one, yes. Rest of class, no.

That is a nuke. Conventional version does not exist yet.

Barracuda is a SSK, conventional Submarine.@@ChaosphereIX

@@TimBrianTufuga Barracuda (Suffren) is a nuclear attack submarine to replace the Rubis class. The Shortfin Barracuda, or proposed Attack Class for the Australians (failed bid) is a conventional version that does not exist as nobody has bought it yet (although the Dutch might be the first customers). If it does not exist yet, like the Swedish A26 or the German 212CD, it should not be on the list.

The Barracuda is a conventional SSK. You need to specify Suffren Dipshit!!!@@ChaosphereIX

Walrus is very good and deserves to be on the list, instead of 2 Type 214s and 3 Yuans, for example. Some organization could have seen them, and the Gotland or the Ula perhaps.

Technology and less classified info is discussed, more submarine captains can add.

@@Deku69420 You need to start by splitting a Diesel from the Nuclear. They are very different in their missions.

It isnt even built yet...

212cd is in conctruction now@@ChaosphereIX

Agreed. As a Canadian, I hope SK will build and sell us some to replace our Victoria class.

Go back to licking the feet of your Jew overlords, goyim.

以色列非法拥核，最多自保

Lada is supposed to be good now that the tech has matured, and you are right Dolphin II should be on the list perhaps, very deadly subs.

It's a nuclear sub, so not on my list

​@@EurasiaNavalI understand that these conventionally powered ( non nuclear) subs are actually quieter than the west's big nuke boats.

Warfare is inherently risky, and the Japanese have judged that the increased risk from Li battery fires is offset by the reduced risk of being exposed less often/for shorter durations

@@jamesdu2044 I didn't mean if got hit.. But simply failing.. Like a tesla battery would.. Just on its own

@@zenki4666 Well there have not been a single battery failure since introduction in 2018 so seems like it’s doing its job. Plus unlike Tesla it most likely has tons of failsafe since it’s not about making profit by keeping cost low. Oh and Elon Musk sucks

The heat is easily cooled with seawater. actually really good that way.

China has mightest defence forces in the world if usa fights china it will lose war maximum within one month. Chaina has might and it's better equipped with weapons courtesy it's close friendship with Russia. China is 25-30years ahead of usa.

In Sweden there is nothing Swedish airplanes, tanks and submarines all are usa made and gifted. Sweden gives free noble prizes to usa and usa gives all defence equipments. Other countries can learn this. Similar is tie-up between Russia and China.

@@Deku69420 Not so sure, you are greatly underestimating Swedish ingenuity, remember John Ericsson, Berge, Bratt etc.

@@kakavdedatakavunuk8516 - No one in the world under estimates Swedish banking systems. But remember FTCA though it was mistake in third world but it was applicable globally to each and every bank after all it was settlement worth billions of dollars.

为什么中国不再购买俄罗斯潜艇？因为中国已经拥有更好的中国潜艇！

@@kevinzd13 maybe because Chinese refuse to pay license fees, and don’t honor patents. Long history of that. That’s why Chinese jets can’t reach Mach 2 without Russian engine.

@@redrust3 Can you tell me which military weapon design has been patented anywhere? Even one? In addition, the j20 with dual ws-15 engines even achieved a maximum speed of 2.8 Mach

Good one.

@@XkMeng This is the latest information on Chengdu J20. Speed is still claimed to be Mach 2, although sources claim that it’s actually Mach 1.8 because of inferior metallurgy. (Engine melts at higher speeds.) No one believes China’s claims. It would help China’s reputation if J 20,was exported to an ally like Pakistan. JF 17 is antiquated, and would be wiped out by India during war. Unfortunately, Pakistan is bankrupt, like China and most of its allies. (Most default on Belt and Road loans.) As far as I know, there are zero export customers for J20. Indian Air Force claim that J20 can be detected by conventional radar, so they are not concerned about it. Perhaps donate it to Pakistan to developing its reputation. Don’t wait until it’s too late. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20

Collins does not have an API, and it did have a lot of maintenance issues. But I really think to build a new Collins series, learning form the mistakes of Collins 1 would be a better purchase than the nuclear subs of the Aukas agreement.

@@TONSBERG100 Collins didn’t have API because the RAN did a study on it and the outcome was that for a submarine as large as the Collins, that it wasn’t worth the expense, and nor was the capability gained worth the capabilities sacrificed. Yes it did have a few issues initially due to the complexity of the design (its basically an enlarged Hokums with the combat systems of a Virginia stuffed into it), but these were all sorted by the early 2000’s and since then it has exceeded its reliability/performance expectations.

@@chrisdoulou8149 Not sure that I agree with the assessment of the API. But maybe building new improved versions of the Collins might be more practical than Nuclear powered submarines. I thought I heard a cost of 239 billion us dollars, for 5 nuclear powered submarines. I am a former member of the USN. So, I do believe in Navel power. But I don't know if it is realistic for the RAN.

@@TONSBERG100 Look, I’m sure the guys at the RAN have access to better data than either of us so I’m not going to argue their findings. As for the cost of the SSN project, the price you’re giving is for the entire project. Stage 1 is we upgrade fleet base west in Perth for the basing of 4 USN Virginias & 1 RN Astute. Stage 2 is the purchase of 3-5 interim SSN’s, likely block 1 Virginia’s till stage 3 is concluded, that being the design and manufacture of the SSN AUKUS, which we will be buying 8 of. That will be the British replacement for the Astute, basically an enlarged, advanced derivative of the Astute with a VLS and the combat management/armament of the Virginia replacement. So really it’s for 11-13 SSN, investment in both US & RN submarine production, the setup of a factory to manufacture 8 boats in Australia, all the training, maintenance, base upgrades and other costs. Also Australia doesn’t purchase by the item but rather by the cost of the life of the project, much like our F-35 buy, we didn’t just buy 100 jets, we bought 100 jets, spares, weapons, maintenance contracts, and training for all involved in one lump sum. We do this because we want to a) negotiate a single whole of life price, allowing us to get the project heavily discounted, with no gremlins appearing 10 years down the track, and b) we know a project is funded and paid for so it doesn’t suck the funds out of our defence budget 20 years from now.

@@chrisdoulou8149 OK then it does not sound too expensive over long term. 11 to 13 SSN. Wow, no wonder the Chinese are upset. This will make Australia a naval power.

R2pe capital of Europe; migrant filled hellscapr masquerading as a country; won't be in existence for long, and probably not worth listing...

Because Sweden submarine is old shit as Sweden..this list is for advance not old fckng shit..😂😂😂

Yes its a joke.

The Gotland class non-nuclear submarine are among the most advanced in the world.

Maybe cuz like Volvo & many of Sweden's asset eventually will end up in Chinese control.

Yes, it does. Kinks have been worked out bunch more being built

@@ChaosphereIX Only 6 Maybe will be built and one is already being scrapped. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ntejqdiF0r3ecZ8.html

US dont have conventional attack subs in service

@@EurasiaNaval what about Ohio and Colombia Submarines?

@@republicspaceagency9141 These are nuclear powered subs Not SSKs / conventional

@@republicspaceagency9141 you are an idiot

If there's a job description that entails: attention to details, I think you should avoid applying.

I forgot the Gotland, that is the only reason. Performance info on submarines are pretty sketchy in general, so it's quite subjective based on stories, articles, opinions, etc By the way, while the Gotland could have theoretically sunk the US carrier. If it did so in real life, it would be highly dangerous, perhaps somewhat suicidal, for the Gotland's crew itself, meaning in reality they may not take the shot. So, there's a bit of caveat. Not taking away anything from the boat, of course, it's no doubt a great sub

The Aussies did one better many years ago with one of their old Oberon class subs. They surfaced next to a US carrier at night during war games and painted a slogan on the hull of the carrier then submerged totally undetected. It was not until daylight that the yanks found out when one of the other ships in the war games asked the yanks to have a look over the side.

yeah ... the real number 1

US only has nuclear attack subs, no conventional ones

Oh they are good.

'Conventional submarines'... I wish people actually read

They don't have conventionally-powered submarines.

KZfaq is American it blabbers only about usa this and that while real time information about worldwide great defence products and weapons are classified and if known it's undermined by usa and KZfaq.

Japan will always have just a slight edge in diesel sub but china also have nuclear. Also when china invades taiwan, china can create such a traffic jam of the entire shallow strait entrance with anti-sub assets that will render any foreign submarines useless to try to intervene.

@@TelpPov it’s not invade it’s liberate and unification.

@@tzenzhongguo But your still invading…

@@HappyGM-R True……Banzai Chugoku! Wansui ZhongGuo! Lol China can into “DaiNipponTeiKoku”. Hold my baijiu, and Xi told me there will be a Space Battleship Liaoling.

@@tzenzhongguo The fuck did I just read. You Ok? Need some treatment? Eh? I know a good mental doctor down the street… comment here again when your in London

US only has nuclear powered subs

Read the title again

America has no conventionally powered subs, they're an all nuclear fleet.

Unfortunately, they hit a mysterius reef yet again and couldn't make it on the list.

this video is about conventional subs which America no longer produces, all subs Americans have in service today are nuclear powered.