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

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
2,032
882
France
There's a reason the tender for a Type 210 replacement was cancelled and exclusive government-to-government negotiations with Germany were established - France is too inflexible. Unwilling to meet our requirements for joint development. Unwilling to meet our requirements for joint production. Unwilling to meet our requirement for alternative subsystems. France offered the Scorpene and basically said "take it or leave it". We left it due to their inflexibility.
What is that story of GtoG nego with Germany ?

France too inflexible? you were free not to ink the agreement. If you did it, it's because the deal was ok for you. There were others alternatives then.

First time I heard that about this deal. It sould like a fake news.
 

Kvasir

Well-Known member
Jul 16, 2018
137
311
Norway
First time I heard that about this deal.

I'm sure there's a lot you haven't heard of. That doesn't make them any less real.

Norway picks Germany over France in race to supply submarines | Reuters

It sould like a fake news.

Ok, Trump.

France too inflexible?

If you actually read what I wrote you'd already have an answer. France, DCNS to be specific, wasn't willing to meet our requirements on production, subsystems, development and modification. the design was presented as is. The German offer was flexible, offering growth in the design and the ability to be altered during the design phase to suit both our and German needs.

Norwegian submarines use Norwegian subsystems, a design optimized for shallow waters in the North Sea and cold waters in the Barents and Active Oceans, and favor local development and production, if not always local assembly. Integration of domestic weapons is a must, we've no interest in something like Exocet or Harpoon. This means that a modified or localized fire control system has to be included, or else we could modify it without permission. I've done it before.







Whether you like it or not, France, DCNS, wasn't willing, not able, but willing to meet these requirements. Their position wasn't flexible enough to meet the tender's requirements and thus we approached Germany who had a better offer.
 
Last edited:

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,679
8,925
India
Whether you like it or not, France, DCNS, wasn't willing, not able, but willing to meet these requirements. Their position wasn't flexible enough to meet the tender's requirements and thus we approached Germany who had a better offer.

Were they really that inflexible? I mean, the Indian Scorpene already operates non-French torpedoes, and the tube-fired Brahmos-M can be integrated once it becomes available, likely complementing or replacing the Exocet. It will eventually operate Indian torpedoes as well. And comes with 50% local production. Let's not forget the Indian AIP. I don't see why the French wouldn't have allowed most or all of this.

Or are we talking about extensive modifications with Norwegian sonars, CMS and FCS? Kinda like what we did with the Kilo class upgrade with our own sensors, comm, PMCS, CMS, FCS etc?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Bon Plan

Kvasir

Well-Known member
Jul 16, 2018
137
311
Norway
Were they really that inflexible?

Yes.

I mean, the Indian Scorpene already operates non-French torpedoes, and the tube-fired Brahmos-M can be integrated once it becomes available, likely complementing or replacing the Exocet. It will eventually operate Indian torpedoes as well. And comes with 50% local production. Let's not forget the Indian AIP. I don't see why the French wouldn't have allowed most or all of this.

Or are we talking about extensive modifications with Norwegian sonars, CMS and FCS? Kinda like what we did with the Kilo class upgrade with our own sensors, comm, PMCS, CMS, FCS etc?

It's the second paragraph, and then some. Remember the addendum I added to a previous post of mine in this thread? About a Type 212CD, while I used the type 212A for a baseline comparison? As it stands neither the Type 212A nor Scorpene can meet our requirements due to their inability to operate effectively in the environment we require of them. That means a wholesome redesign, elements of which I unfortunately can't give you, but if I could you'd see how extensive both internal and external modifications are.

Or for an older example of how extensive the redesign has to be, look at the Ula Class versus the Type 209 it's based on. The Ulas are smaller, house almost exclusively Norwegian designed subsystems (sonar, electronic warfare suite, communications, steering controls, navigation, periscope, combat management system, etc.) and have hull designs, internal and external, that required major modifications to the base design. Of these are an x-stern plane arrangement, meaning internal propulsion drive systems had to be modified, a redesigned sail, cold-climate optimized environmental controls - they had to be "Tropicalized" for operations in the Mediterranean - and a host of other alterations from the base Type 209 design. it's why they're known as the Type 210 and not a variation of the Type 209 like Type 209/1500 (indicating tonnage).

External differences between the Type 210. Internally, and you've seen some pics of mine and I can ID subsystems if needed and compare them with Type 209 variants, the changes are even more pronounced.



And Hellenic Navy Type 209/1200.



And South Korean Type 209 derivative Chang Bogo, itself an extensive redesign.



Germany offered this kind of flexibility. Necessary flexibility. Germany has been more willing to work with partner nations on designing weapon systems for their needs based on German designs, rather then just selling them a design and letting them pick from a few subsystems or substitute a few design elements.

France offered Scorpene with a few modifications to internal systems. Good, I like the Scorpene, but not ideal for our operating conditions.

Germany offered development of a new submarine tailored specifically to our needs, with our input and our subsystems based on the type 212A. But like the Type 210 is based on the Type 209, expect a more in depth redesign.
 
Last edited:

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
11,679
8,925
India
Yes.



It's the second paragraph, and then some. Remember the addendum I added to a previous post of mine in this thread? About a Type 212CD, while I used the type 212A for a baseline comparison? As it stands neither the Type 212A nor Scorpene can meet our requirements due to their inability to operate effectively in the environment we require of them. That means a wholesome redesign, elements of which I unfortunately can't give you, but if I could you'd see how extensive both internal and external modifications are.

Or for an older example of how extensive the redesign has to be, look at the Ula Class versus the Type 209 it's based on. The Ulas are smaller, house almost exclusively Norwegian designed subsystems (sonar, electronic warfare suite, communications, steering controls, navigation, periscope, combat management system, etc.) and have hull designs, internal and external, that required major modifications to the base design. Of these are an x-stern plane arrangement, meaning internal propulsion drive systems had to be modified, a redesigned sail, cold-climate optimized environmental controls - they had to be "Tropicalized" for operations in the Mediterranean - and a host of other alterations from the base Type 209 design. it's why they're known as the Type 210 and not a variation of the Type 209 like Type 209/1500 (indicating tonnage).

External differences between the Type 210. Internally, and you've seen some pics of mine and I can ID subsystems if needed and compare them with Type 209 variants, the changes are even more pronounced.



And Hellenic Navy Type 209/1200.



And South Korean Type 209 derivative Chang Bogo, itself an extensive redesign.



Germany offered this kind of flexibility. Necessary flexibility. Germany has been more willing to work with partner nations on designing weapon systems for their needs based on German designs, rather then just selling them a design and letting them pick from a few subsystems or substitute a few design elements.

France offered Scorpene with a few modifications to internal systems. Good, I like the Scorpene, but not ideal for our operating conditions.

Germany offered development of a new submarine tailored specifically to our needs, with our input and our subsystems based on the type 212A. But like the Type 210 is based on the Type 209, expect a more in depth redesign.

Then what's stopping you guys from making your own submarine?
 

Ashwin

Agent_47
Staff member
Administrator
Nov 30, 2017
4,795
7,834
Bangalore
Bro, we are discussing of INDIA !!!

But on the same kind of subject, All seen Japan won the Australian mega deal..... and the winner is.... ok?
It is relevant to India.

France is difficult defense partner. Be it original scorpion deal (heavy price hike) or the MMRCA, it was the case.
 

Angel Eyes

Active member
Dec 1, 2017
199
116
Top of the world
Yes.



It's the second paragraph, and then some. Remember the addendum I added to a previous post of mine in this thread? About a Type 212CD, while I used the type 212A for a baseline comparison? As it stands neither the Type 212A nor Scorpene can meet our requirements due to their inability to operate effectively in the environment we require of them. That means a wholesome redesign, elements of which I unfortunately can't give you, but if I could you'd see how extensive both internal and external modifications are.

Or for an older example of how extensive the redesign has to be, look at the Ula Class versus the Type 209 it's based on. The Ulas are smaller, house almost exclusively Norwegian designed subsystems (sonar, electronic warfare suite, communications, steering controls, navigation, periscope, combat management system, etc.) and have hull designs, internal and external, that required major modifications to the base design. Of these are an x-stern plane arrangement, meaning internal propulsion drive systems had to be modified, a redesigned sail, cold-climate optimized environmental controls - they had to be "Tropicalized" for operations in the Mediterranean - and a host of other alterations from the base Type 209 design. it's why they're known as the Type 210 and not a variation of the Type 209 like Type 209/1500 (indicating tonnage).

External differences between the Type 210. Internally, and you've seen some pics of mine and I can ID subsystems if needed and compare them with Type 209 variants, the changes are even more pronounced.



And Hellenic Navy Type 209/1200.



And South Korean Type 209 derivative Chang Bogo, itself an extensive redesign.



Germany offered this kind of flexibility. Necessary flexibility. Germany has been more willing to work with partner nations on designing weapon systems for their needs based on German designs, rather then just selling them a design and letting them pick from a few subsystems or substitute a few design elements.

France offered Scorpene with a few modifications to internal systems. Good, I like the Scorpene, but not ideal for our operating conditions.

Germany offered development of a new submarine tailored specifically to our needs, with our input and our subsystems based on the type 212A. But like the Type 210 is based on the Type 209, expect a more in depth redesign.
@Kvasir How effective are anti sub warfare vessels like Spruance, kamorta class and Type 56A when compared to maritime patrol aircraft like P 3 and P 8s ??
 

Bon Plan

Well-Known member
Dec 1, 2017
2,032
882
France
It is relevant to India.

France is difficult defense partner. Be it original scorpion deal (heavy price hike) or the MMRCA, it was the case.
What is the Scorpion deal ?

For MMRCA, no other fighter supplier would have accept to gave warranty for HAL made plane.
 

Valkyrja

Well-Known member
Nov 17, 2018
171
289
Best Way.
@Kvasir How effective are anti sub warfare vessels like Spruance, kamorta class and Type 56A.

Effective enough that we've been known to park our Ula-class submarines under Russian Udaloy-class ASW destroyers and follow them for days. Effective enough that during transit to Syria, the Russian flotilla was followed without contact or intercept from Russian navy attack submarines. Effective enough that we'd have put Piotr Velikij and Kuznetsov on the ocean floor had war broke out, and that's with naval escorts and ASW helos flying during transit.





Effective enough that during blue-on-blue naval engagements during NATO exercises our Ula-class submarines were told to sit out drills because ASW ships and defenders simply couldn't find them.



ASW ships work, but they work best in a unified battle-group, not on their own. Unfortunately naval tactics tend to put them on the outside of a battle-group as ASW pickets where they deploy their towed sonar and weave vigorously back and forth trying to locate a contact in a wide swath. By themselves they're as vulnerable as undefended merchant ships.

Our Nansen class frigates were build as ASW warships. It's why their air-defence and surface warfare suites are so limited, despite the high visibility of the Spy-1F mast. They have massive bow sonars, carry torpedoes and depth bombs and AUVs, towed sonars and ASW helicopters.







They work in conjunction with Norwegian Navy minehunters and sweepers who specialize in finding low signatures submerged contacts with AUVs and other advanced underwaters sensors, and alongside Norwegian Air Force P-3C/Ns and soon P-8Ns. Underwater contacts, mines or submarines are routinely found and we've a lot of experience, experience stretching back decades, in locating and tracking Russian submarines using ASW ships, aircraft and sensors.

Two WWII-era naval mines were found during sonar sweeps during this years Trident Juncture exercises by Norwegian Navy minesweepers and hunters.



During wartime our ASW ships would end up like this:



That's Ula-class submarine KNM Utsira taking a kill-shot against a Nansen class ASW frigate during exercise Joint Viking.

Comparitively, MPA are more effective once a contact has been found as their sensors work best for tracking, not locating a contact. Their MADs register an unholy amount of false positives from natural magnetic sources and they're of limited use against non-magnetic submarines like the German Type 212. Hydrocarbon sensors can find AIP submarines, even those with recycling systems that limit hydrocarbon production and dropped sonobuoys remain the most effective means of finding or tracking a contact. MPAs can also cover a much larger area of space due to their increase speed over ASW ships while their sensors are just as capable of tracking objects over vast distances. They're also much less noticeable for submarines versus ships which produce thermal, acoustic and magnetic signatures and noisy wakes. Due to noise being difficult to transfer from air to water, a loitering ASW helicopter or MPA isn't going to be noticeable for a submarine until they drop a buoy or torpedo, and by then it's simply too late.

Here's a SONAR sweep on a Norwegian P-3C during operations off the coast of Somalia.



Sensors like Synthetic Aperture Sonars further improve the effectiveness of ASW vessels and AUVs. Kongsberg, who I work for in the Sub-Surface Warfare division, makes such sensors that offer superb clarity in locating underwater objects. Enough clarity that I can tell a Yasen from and Akula just by looking at it, no acoustic or other metrics needed. We use them on our AUVs.



ASW warships must, must be supported as part of a larger battlegroup to be effective. And even then they're nowhere near the efficacy they need to be. Combining ASW ships with MPAs, AUV and underwater sensors like SOSUS and they've a much more complete and effective solution to a submarine problem. That's what lets NATO track Russian submarines or India track Chinese submarines.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
14,520
10,495
Mumbai
Effective enough that we've been known to park our Ula-class submarines under Russian Udaloy-class ASW destroyers and follow them for days. Effective enough that during transit to Syria, the Russian flotilla was followed without contact or intercept from Russian navy attack submarines. Effective enough that we'd have put Piotr Velikij and Kuznetsov on the ocean floor had war broke out, and that's with naval escorts and ASW helos flying during transit.





Effective enough that during blue-on-blue naval engagements during NATO exercises our Ula-class submarines were told to sit out drills because ASW ships and defenders simply couldn't find them.



ASW ships work, but they work best in a unified battle-group, not on their own. Unfortunately naval tactics tend to put them on the outside of a battle-group as ASW pickets where they deploy their towed sonar and weave vigorously back and forth trying to locate a contact in a wide swath. By themselves they're as vulnerable as undefended merchant ships.

Our Nansen class frigates were build as ASW warships. It's why their air-defence and surface warfare suites are so limited, despite the high visibility of the Spy-1F mast. They have massive bow sonars, carry torpedoes and depth bombs and AUVs, towed sonars and ASW helicopters.







They work in conjunction with Norwegian Navy minehunters and sweepers who specialize in finding low signatures submerged contacts with AUVs and other advanced underwaters sensors, and alongside Norwegian Air Force P-3C/Ns and soon P-8Ns. Underwater contacts, mines or submarines are routinely found and we've a lot of experience, experience stretching back decades, in locating and tracking Russian submarines using ASW ships, aircraft and sensors.

Two WWII-era naval mines were found during sonar sweeps during this years Trident Juncture exercises by Norwegian Navy minesweepers and hunters.



During wartime our ASW ships would end up like this:



That's Ula-class submarine KNM Utsira taking a kill-shot against a Nansen class ASW frigate during exercise Joint Viking.

Comparitively, MPA are more effective once a contact has been found as their sensors work best for tracking, not locating a contact. Their MADs register an unholy amount of false positives from natural magnetic sources and they're of limited use against non-magnetic submarines like the German Type 212. Hydrocarbon sensors can find AIP submarines, even those with recycling systems that limit hydrocarbon production and dropped sonobuoys remain the most effective means of finding or tracking a contact. MPAs can also cover a much larger area of space due to their increase speed over ASW ships while their sensors are just as capable of tracking objects over vast distances. They're also much less noticeable for submarines versus ships which produce thermal, acoustic and magnetic signatures and noisy wakes. Due to noise being difficult to transfer from air to water, a loitering ASW helicopter or MPA isn't going to be noticeable for a submarine until they drop a buoy or torpedo, and by then it's simply too late.

Here's a SONAR sweep on a Norwegian P-3C during operations off the coast of Somalia.



Sensors like Synthetic Aperture Sonars further improve the effectiveness of ASW vessels and AUVs. Kongsberg, who I work for in the Sub-Surface Warfare division, makes such sensors that offer superb clarity in locating underwater objects. Enough clarity that I can tell a Yasen from and Akula just by looking at it, no acoustic or other metrics needed. We use them on our AUVs.



ASW warships must, must be supported as part of a larger battlegroup to be effective. And even then they're nowhere near the efficacy they need to be. Combining ASW ships with MPAs, AUV and underwater sensors like SOSUS and they've a much more complete and effective solution to a submarine problem. That's what lets NATO track Russian submarines or India track Chinese submarines.
You ought to actually start a blog like this one here & have a Q&A in it -

TRISHUL: De-Mystifying Pakistan Army's OP Koh-e-Paima