Project 75 India Diesel-electric Submarine Programs (SSK) : Updates and Discussions

A Person

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
807
789
A Place

Number of weapon systems ready for action:
  • Typhoon jets: 39 of 128
  • Tornado jets: 26 of 93
  • CH-53 transport helicopters: 16 of 72
  • NH-90 transport helicopters: 13 of 58
  • Tigre attack helicopters: 12 of 62
  • A400M transport aircraft: 3 of 15
  • Leopard 2 tanks: 105 of 224
  • Frigates: 5 of 13
  • Submarines: 0 out of 6
Deutsche Crapität

Obviously everything has to go through maintenance regularly, but with six subs, Germany should be able to keep at least two at sea at any time! They can't. Because they don't care. Germany only sees military stuff as products to sell, not as products one should go to war with. Why would they? They've got thousands of Americans on their land, if there's a need to fight, it's the Americans who'll do it. Not the Germans.

France, meanwhile, prefers to keep its fate in its own hands as much as possible, and that's why the French navy maintains a permanent at-sea presence for its submarines. And so submarines designed in France are submarines designed to actually be used. While submarines designed in Germany are submarines designed only to be sold.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,639
8,882
India

Number of weapon systems ready for action:
  • Typhoon jets: 39 of 128
  • Tornado jets: 26 of 93
  • CH-53 transport helicopters: 16 of 72
  • NH-90 transport helicopters: 13 of 58
  • Tigre attack helicopters: 12 of 62
  • A400M transport aircraft: 3 of 15
  • Leopard 2 tanks: 105 of 224
  • Frigates: 5 of 13
  • Submarines: 0 out of 6
Deutsche Crapität

Obviously everything has to go through maintenance regularly, but with six subs, Germany should be able to keep at least two at sea at any time! They can't. Because they don't care. Germany only sees military stuff as products to sell, not as products one should go to war with. Why would they? They've got thousands of Americans on their land, if there's a need to fight, it's the Americans who'll do it. Not the Germans.

France, meanwhile, prefers to keep its fate in its own hands as much as possible, and that's why the French navy maintains a permanent at-sea presence for its submarines. And so submarines designed in France are submarines designed to actually be used. While submarines designed in Germany are submarines designed only to be sold.

There are two ways to look at it. If you're buying anything, buy from the P-5. Alternatively, buy anything that their own forces operate. Either of the two is enough. So Sweden, Germany, Japan and Korea are prime candidates. Russia is the perfect candidate going by that logic, but their main drawbacks are export-grade replacements and poor aftersales service.

Let's not forget that German tech was shortlisted in the Australian program while competing with the Shortfin. That's a pretty big achievement. But it required a cousin of the French SSN to beat the Germans. Whether it could have been repeated with a French Scorpene-equivalent, that's up in the air. The main advantage for Germany is their massive customer base, which allows them to introduce new advancements as per the experiences of their customers, so it's not dependent on their navy alone.

Although my personal preference is France and Korea, I wouldn't dismiss the Germans. The competition is based on specifications, not politics or experiences.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,639
8,882
India
Yeah, that's the rub. The German forces don't operate anything. They just play make-believe.

The point is if the captive forces buy the sub as well, it demonstrates confidence in the tech.

I feel it's unlikely that the IN will buy a submarine that the captive force is not operating or planning to operate. Which is why I am putting my hat in Korea's ring for the P-75I.
 

Picdelamirand-oil

Senior member
Nov 30, 2017
2,472
2,893
73
France
transition.wifeo.com
So operations against a nation without a navy using submarine that you don't operate. I believe you.

We are all familiar with the fighting spirit of the french.
Either you have comprehension problems or your logic is faulty.

In addition, you have just proved my assertion that you always want to diminish the French because my answer was completely general, i.e. it concerned all countries, and you have twisted its meaning in addition to applying it only to the French so that you can once again criticise the French.
 

Tatvamasi

Well-Known member
Jan 5, 2018
831
795
India
Either you have comprehension problems or your logic is faulty.

In addition, you have just proved my assertion that you always want to diminish the French because my answer was completely general, i.e. it concerned all countries, and you have twisted its meaning in addition to applying it only to the French so that you can once again criticise the French.
Yes, i was since you have already accused me of it.

If you don't know the context don't try to jump in any coverstions and defend "France". Does France use Scorpène or not? its a simple yes or no question.
 

A Person

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
807
789
A Place
And Germany operates the Type 212A instead of the Type 214. Type 214 is just an updated Type 209, itself also a pure export product. So what's your point, exactly?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bon Plan

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,639
8,882
India
And Germany operates the Type 212A instead of the Type 214. Type 214 is just an updated Type 209, itself also a pure export product. So what's your point, exactly?

Simply put, technology that goes into German SSKs is largely funded by the German navy before it trickles down to export customers. Which is not the case for the French sub. The French navy not operating an SSK of their own is a huge problem when it comes to export prospects.

Our technical qualification process gives greater importance to technologies that are in use by captive forces.

It's why I give the Koreans the advantage in tech evaluations. They are not only likely to offer what they already operate, but the technologies we need already exist on the same sub that match our specifications signifying the least amount of R&D risk.
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
4,789
7,826
Bangalore

South Korea's proposal for the Indian Navy's P-75I is based on the Republic of Korea Navy KSS III design

The DSME3000 has a length of 83.5 meters, a beam of 9.7 meters, a draft of 14.7 meters, and a maximum submerged speed of 20 knots per hour. It is based on the Dosan Ahn Changho-class of the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) which is being jointly produced by DSME and Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) as part of the KSS III program. The class are the largest submarines ever operated by the ROKN. It is armed with six 533 millimeter torpedo tubes and six vertical launch system (VLS) cells. It also has better living quarters and amenities for seamen compared to other ROKN submarines. DSME produced the first two ships of the KSS III Batch 1 which were launched in 2018 and 2020 respectively, while construction on the third ship, by HHI, is ongoing. A total of nine vessels are planned: Three in a “Batch 2” configuration and three more in a “Batch 3”. The local content and capabilities are improved in each batch. For example, KSS III Batch 2 submarines will feature Lithium Ion batteries.


The variant being offered to India will not have the VLS cells that are standard on the Dosan Ahn Changho-class.


We haven’t finalized the exact design for India, but the removal of the VLS cells behind the sail of the submarine will allow for greater flexibility. We will be able to add new features to meet the Indian Navy’s needs. Moreover, there is a possibility that we will offer submarine rescue vessels alongside our subs as part of a large ‘package’ deal.

According to the representative, of the five companies shortlisted for the P75I competition, TKMS and DSME are the only contenders that have already designed and produced working fuel cell-based AIP submarines.

The Dosan Ahn Changho-class uses fuel-cell AIP technology. We believe this will give us the edge,”

Fuel-cell based AIP technology allows non-nuclear submarines to stay submerged for a significant amount of time. The system does not need a battery. As long as it receives a continuous source of fuel, such as hydrogen and oxygen which can be obtained from the ocean, it can continue to operate for an extended period of time. The representative continued, “The exact time period during which the DSME3000 can remain submerged is classified. However I can tell you that it is one of the most capable submarines in this regard.



KSS-III Dosan Ahn Changho-class submarine
3,000 tons KSS III submarine ‘Dosan Ahn Chang-ho’ during its seat trials. ROK Navy picture.

Another potential rubric for the P75I competition is the quality of the battery that will equip the submarine. Even if a submarine uses AIP technology, solely relying on it would be inefficient and risky. Therefore, AIP submarines still need batteries to further augment their endurance. These batteries need to be charged while the submarine surfaced or at periscope depth. Traditionally, submarines have used lead acid batteries. However, Japan became the first country to operate submarines equipped with lithium-based batteries when it commissioned the JS Oryu and JS Toryu, the last two Soryu-class submarines, in 2020 and 2021. However Japan is not part of the P-75I competition.


The DSME representative told Naval News at MADEX 2021 that the DSME3000 will also utilize lithium-ion battery technology. “We are the most advanced in this regard amongst our competitors. We created a replica of the submarine’s battery system and completed quality control tests already. We plan on integrating the system into the second batch of Dosan Ahn Changho class submarines as well.” He continued:


Our lithium batteries are far more efficient than traditional lead-acid ones. This means they don’t have to be charged as often, allowing the submarine to stay submerged for longer. Moreover, they can be charged twice as often before they have to be replaced.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,639
8,882
India

South Korea's proposal for the Indian Navy's P-75I is based on the Republic of Korea Navy KSS III design

The DSME3000 has a length of 83.5 meters, a beam of 9.7 meters, a draft of 14.7 meters, and a maximum submerged speed of 20 knots per hour. It is based on the Dosan Ahn Changho-class of the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) which is being jointly produced by DSME and Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) as part of the KSS III program. The class are the largest submarines ever operated by the ROKN. It is armed with six 533 millimeter torpedo tubes and six vertical launch system (VLS) cells. It also has better living quarters and amenities for seamen compared to other ROKN submarines. DSME produced the first two ships of the KSS III Batch 1 which were launched in 2018 and 2020 respectively, while construction on the third ship, by HHI, is ongoing. A total of nine vessels are planned: Three in a “Batch 2” configuration and three more in a “Batch 3”. The local content and capabilities are improved in each batch. For example, KSS III Batch 2 submarines will feature Lithium Ion batteries.


The variant being offered to India will not have the VLS cells that are standard on the Dosan Ahn Changho-class.




According to the representative, of the five companies shortlisted for the P75I competition, TKMS and DSME are the only contenders that have already designed and produced working fuel cell-based AIP submarines.



Fuel-cell based AIP technology allows non-nuclear submarines to stay submerged for a significant amount of time. The system does not need a battery. As long as it receives a continuous source of fuel, such as hydrogen and oxygen which can be obtained from the ocean, it can continue to operate for an extended period of time. The representative continued, “The exact time period during which the DSME3000 can remain submerged is classified. However I can tell you that it is one of the most capable submarines in this regard.



KSS-III Dosan Ahn Changho-class submarine
3,000 tons KSS III submarine ‘Dosan Ahn Chang-ho’ during its seat trials. ROK Navy picture.

Another potential rubric for the P75I competition is the quality of the battery that will equip the submarine. Even if a submarine uses AIP technology, solely relying on it would be inefficient and risky. Therefore, AIP submarines still need batteries to further augment their endurance. These batteries need to be charged while the submarine surfaced or at periscope depth. Traditionally, submarines have used lead acid batteries. However, Japan became the first country to operate submarines equipped with lithium-based batteries when it commissioned the JS Oryu and JS Toryu, the last two Soryu-class submarines, in 2020 and 2021. However Japan is not part of the P-75I competition.


The DSME representative told Naval News at MADEX 2021 that the DSME3000 will also utilize lithium-ion battery technology. “We are the most advanced in this regard amongst our competitors. We created a replica of the submarine’s battery system and completed quality control tests already. We plan on integrating the system into the second batch of Dosan Ahn Changho class submarines as well.” He continued:

Another company trying to dictate what the IN needs rather than the IN itself. The Americans are very well known for doing this, and it appears the Koreans are joining the list.

Interestingly, the article talks of a conventional Barracuda design from the French side. But it links to a quote where Defer talks about mixing the Barracuda with features of the Scorpene while standing in front of an SMX 3.0. So it's not the Barracuda, but a much smaller submarine than it, or a much bigger submarine than the Scorpene.

The Spanish are offering their own sub, the S-80 Plus, which is a plus for them. Operating the sub they are offering is a good advantage to have.

The Russians are wasting their time with the Amur. As are the Germans with the Type 214. Whatever happened to Project Kalina?

@A Person, what do you think? If the Koreans don't offer a VLS, then I think your main competitor will be the Spanish. Now MDL and L&T get to choose one foreign company each on their own before replying to the RFP.

Throw in your speculations, folks.
 

A Person

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
807
789
A Place
Well, last I heard, the S-80 was not out of its teething problems yet, so I'm not sure the Spanish have such a big advantage here. I mean first they had to redesign it because they discovered when it was half-built that it wasn't buoyant... After they solved that problem by lengthening it, they ran into other issues. They hoped it would enter service in 2020, but that has been postponed to 2023. It has not even yet entered sea trials. And the AIP is not ready, either, so it'll do without. When is the decision for Project 75I due? If it's before 2023, the S-80 will remain an unproven design.

I'm not sure why the Koreans removed the VLS. That "flexibility" explanation is bull, how is a submarine with less weapons more flexible? I suppose from an engineering point of view, it's true, in that it offers more volume in which to put stuff to accommodate Indian requirements, except of course if Indian requirements include vertical missile launching capability. I'm sure they have their reasons to think they can still win without this. Missiles can be launched from the torpedo tubes too after all, even if that's less practical.

To me it'd seem logical that Mazagon would choose Naval Group, since they've been working with them on Project 75 and can expect that the know-how they've acquired with the Kalvari class would transfer nicely to the new NG sub. For Larsen & Toubro's choice, I don't know.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,639
8,882
India
Well, last I heard, the S-80 was not out of its teething problems yet, so I'm not sure the Spanish have such a big advantage here. I mean first they had to redesign it because they discovered when it was half-built that it wasn't buoyant... After they solved that problem by lengthening it, they ran into other issues. They hoped it would enter service in 2020, but that has been postponed to 2023. It has not even yet entered sea trials. And the AIP is not ready, either, so it'll do without. When is the decision for Project 75I due? If it's before 2023, the S-80 will remain an unproven design.

I'm not sure why the Koreans removed the VLS. That "flexibility" explanation is bull, how is a submarine with less weapons more flexible? I suppose from an engineering point of view, it's true, in that it offers more volume in which to put stuff to accommodate Indian requirements, except of course if Indian requirements include vertical missile launching capability. I'm sure they have their reasons to think they can still win without this. Missiles can be launched from the torpedo tubes too after all, even if that's less practical.

To me it'd seem logical that Mazagon would choose Naval Group, since they've been working with them on Project 75 and can expect that the know-how they've acquired with the Kalvari class would transfer nicely to the new NG sub. For Larsen & Toubro's choice, I don't know.

The MoD first shortlists OEMs based on what they are offering based on a preliminary set of requirements. After the shortlist, the actual SRs are released. Then the OEMs group up with their Indian partners, where the Indian partners choose amongst the OEMs, with the Indian partners having gone through a separate process before shortlisting. So now we have 2 partners choosing amongst 5 OEMs. Then comes the tender stage, with paper evaluations, field evaluations for T1 discovery and then the opening of the bids for L1 discovery. So we are now in the tender stage. And since the decision is largely going to be based on paper specs, they expect the decision to be taken by next year. The tender process is a whole lot faster now compared to MMRCA.

The Korean move is really surprising. They probably think they can't afford to export their VLS tech.

What's interesting is assuming the Koreans are likely gone and the Russian option meets specs, then France is in trouble. Let's not forget that while MDL and France have been close, L&T and the Russians have been close as well, through the SSBN project. If Amur makes the navy's cut, then that's going to be our L1. I think I'm being too hasty in assuming the Russians are wasting their time. L&T is in it to win it after all.
 

Ginvincible

Well-Known member
Dec 5, 2017
446
472
Ohio
The MoD first shortlists OEMs based on what they are offering based on a preliminary set of requirements. After the shortlist, the actual SRs are released. Then the OEMs group up with their Indian partners, where the Indian partners choose amongst the OEMs, with the Indian partners having gone through a separate process before shortlisting. So now we have 2 partners choosing amongst 5 OEMs. Then comes the tender stage, with paper evaluations, field evaluations for T1 discovery and then the opening of the bids for L1 discovery. So we are now in the tender stage. And since the decision is largely going to be based on paper specs, they expect the decision to be taken by next year. The tender process is a whole lot faster now compared to MMRCA.

The Korean move is really surprising. They probably think they can't afford to export their VLS tech.

What's interesting is assuming the Koreans are likely gone and the Russian option meets specs, then France is in trouble. Let's not forget that while MDL and France have been close, L&T and the Russians have been close as well, through the SSBN project. If Amur makes the navy's cut, then that's going to be our L1. I think I'm being too hasty in assuming the Russians are wasting their time. L&T is in it to win it after all.
if VLS is a make or break requirement then this is really just a contest between Amur and SMX 3.0? In that case wouldn't the French just have it? Their tech (especially AIP) should be leagues ahead of the Russian offering.
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
4,789
7,826
Bangalore
if VLS is a make or break requirement then this is really just a contest between Amur and SMX 3.0? In that case wouldn't the French just have it? Their tech (especially AIP) should be leagues ahead of the Russian offering.
We dont even know if VLS was ever asked. The tender was never public. If one of the contestants is saying VLS will be removed, when it is one of the biggest features which sets them apart in the competition then we have to assume its not a requirement.

Don't mind the fanboys and their own 'requirements'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ginvincible