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

Who will win the P75I program?

  • L&T and Navantia

    Votes: 12 44.4%
  • MDL and TKMS

    Votes: 5 18.5%
  • It will get canceled eventually

    Votes: 10 37.0%

  • Total voters
    27
Who's the seller? MDL or L&T?

MDL and L&T are the main vendors. So the MoD, IN etc will not deal with Navantia or TKMS, they will only deal with the Indian companies. The Indian company will be called the Strategic Partner. And the FOEM only has to deal with the SP that they have tied up with.

The first round of elimination is already complete, Navantia and TKMS are the winners. It was done via an internal tech evaluation by the Indian companies. Now, MDL and L&T will submit bids for tech evaluations that will be conducted by the navy for T1 discovery, and then MoD will start the process for L1 discovery.

There are more steps compared to MMRCA, but the interval between the steps are shorter because all the difficult tasks are transferred over to the two companies involved. The Indian SP is responsible for quality and timely deliveries, whereas all production-related discussions are conducted beforehand by the FOEM and SP, without client interference. MoD is only there to check for compliance and declaring the winner.

MRFA is going to be the same as MMRCA, except FOEMs can choose their own lead integrators this time instead of getting stuck with HAL.
 
We have like 16 or 17 divisions arrayed against the Chinese. 4 of those are purely offensive corps. That's the opposite of Nehru.

And in 1962, Nehru was fooled, when he had the ability to fight. Today, it's extremely stupid for us to fight the Chinese. They will hit everything of importance in India. It will take them 2 days to reduce our power generation capacity by 50%. And they have BMD, while we are still developing ours.

We can fight a border war, but we can't control escalation at this time, never mind the fact that we can't afford the $5B per day bill.

If we lose, well and good, the Chinese will also stop. But if we keep winning, the Chinese will never stop the war. We can't afford that.

And what about you personally? You do realize war with China will mean we will close our stock market right, and capital controls will be initiated? We may even end up in a situation where food, water and fuel will be rationed in cities.

Let me answer, the last part first. No investments will come into a country which cannot defend its territory or shows weakness to the Chinese. Having got this out of the way...

The Chinese today, cannot afford to get into a conflict with India. There is no winning for them, even if they win. The resources required to hit India and the repercussions of India hitting their citiies will damage them beyond the capacity to recover. American domination of China will be more pronounced than American interference in India.

When their objective is to look towards Taiwan, you shore up your defences and create capacity to strike. Not, reduce your potential capability to tell China don't worry about us. One needs to force solutions with aggressive states. The Chinese do not understand being nice. It is taken as a sign of weakness.

On the contrary we should increase offensive capability as a reaction to China helping Pakistan via Pakistan occupied J&K. And make it abundantly clear.

Let me give you a small example. We withdrew from peaks we had taken. Why? We should have held on and said, this is our territory. But, we backed off. This is very much Congress play book. Just a step ahead. We take and we return.

Lesson 1. If we take territory. We hold it. Like the Chinese. And that is the only lesson China understands.
 
Let me answer, the last part first. No investments will come into a country which cannot defend its territory or shows weakness to the Chinese. Having got this out of the way...

The Chinese today, cannot afford to get into a conflict with India. There is no winning for them, even if they win. The resources required to hit India and the repercussions of India hitting their citiies will damage them beyond the capacity to recover. American domination of China will be more pronounced than American interference in India.

When their objective is to look towards Taiwan, you shore up your defences and create capacity to strike. Not, reduce your potential capability to tell China don't worry about us. One needs to force solutions with aggressive states. The Chinese do not understand being nice. It is taken as a sign of weakness.

On the contrary we should increase offensive capability as a reaction to China helping Pakistan via Pakistan occupied J&K. And make it abundantly clear.

Let me give you a small example. We withdrew from peaks we had taken. Why? We should have held on and said, this is our territory. But, we backed off. This is very much Congress play book. Just a step ahead. We take and we return.

Lesson 1. If we take territory. We hold it. Like the Chinese. And that is the only lesson China understands.

The issue here is you are assuming we are equal powers, but we are not. We don't have the capacity to do any sort of crippling damage to them conventionally nor can we handle the kinda damage they can do to us. For example power generation, they have a significant overcapacity right now 'cause of the drop in industrial output. So how much of their capacity we need to destroy for them to feel the hurt versus what they can do to us within the same time period?

They have more well-defended targets and weapons. We have less targets with inadequate defenses and a low number of weapons. So we have already lost in the numbers game.

In any case, we didn't fight the Chinese in order to keep attracting investments. What you are talking about is defending ourselves from lower intensity attacks by weaker neighbors. Not being able to protect ourselves from such things is a downer for investments, like what happened right after the Mumbai attacks, even if temporary. But great power wars are bad for business due to the capacity for destruction. The effect is the opposite of what you intend.

As for the Taiwan comment, yes, that's exactly what we have done. What we have done cannot be helped by a few dozen Rafales though. We have moved from a defensive posture to a defensive-offense posture, and we have inducted 36 Rafales for deterrence. So we have done the oppposite of what you think we have done. And the addition of the 2 strike corps is far more important than just 200 Rafales. The Rafales are practically inconsequential in comparison. The LCA is more important to the army than the Rafales. The LUH, LCH and Apaches are also more important.

As long as the IAF can prevent the PLAAF from regularly bombing IA positions, they have done their jobs. As CDS Rawat said, the IAF is a supporting arm like the artillery. So, everything else the IAF can do is a bonus.

And remember, the Chinese have an extremely limited ability to fight India from the air over Tibet. They still do not have what's necessary to fight India, that's the J-20 with its main engine, the H-20 bomber and a new next gen strike aircraft. The rest of their air force is quite limited.
 
The issue here is you are assuming we are equal powers, but we are not. We don't have the capacity to do any sort of crippling damage to them conventionally nor can we handle the kinda damage they can do to us. For example power generation, they have a significant overcapacity right now 'cause of the drop in industrial output. So how much of their capacity we need to destroy for them to feel the hurt versus what they can do to us within the same time period?

They have more well-defended targets and weapons. We have less targets with inadequate defenses and a low number of weapons. So we have already lost in the numbers game.

In any case, we didn't fight the Chinese in order to keep attracting investments. What you are talking about is defending ourselves from lower intensity attacks by weaker neighbors. Not being able to protect ourselves from such things is a downer for investments, like what happened right after the Mumbai attacks, even if temporary. But great power wars are bad for business due to the capacity for destruction. The effect is the opposite of what you intend.

As for the Taiwan comment, yes, that's exactly what we have done. What we have done cannot be helped by a few dozen Rafales though. We have moved from a defensive posture to a defensive-offense posture, and we have inducted 36 Rafales for deterrence. So we have done the oppposite of what you think we have done. And the addition of the 2 strike corps is far more important than just 200 Rafales. The Rafales are practically inconsequential in comparison. The LCA is more important to the army than the Rafales. The LUH, LCH and Apaches are also more important.

As long as the IAF can prevent the PLAAF from regularly bombing IA positions, they have done their jobs. As CDS Rawat said, the IAF is a supporting arm like the artillery. So, everything else the IAF can do is a bonus.

And remember, the Chinese have an extremely limited ability to fight India from the air over Tibet. They still do not have what's necessary to fight India, that's the J-20 with its main engine, the H-20 bomber and a new next gen strike aircraft. The rest of their air force is quite limited.

The gulf between China and India is similar to India and Pakistan. US to China gulf is also of the same scale.
Just like we don't want a full war with Pakistan, China doesn't want a full war with India.
India is focused on China amd China is focused on US.

All wars would stay limited to border skermishes and proxy wars trying to gain an edge or advantage.
 
The gulf between China and India is similar to India and Pakistan. US to China gulf is also of the same scale.
Just like we don't want a full war with Pakistan, China doesn't want a full war with India.
India is focused on China amd China is focused on US.

All wars would stay limited to border skermishes and proxy wars trying to gain an edge or advantage.

Nobody wants war, it just comes when you least expect it. For example, if India was militarily prepared to the same extent in 2020 and the economy was much bigger than it is today, India would have gone to war with China.

Any war over Taiwan will be a big one.
 
Nobody wants war, it just comes when you least expect it. For example, if India was militarily prepared to the same extent in 2020 and the economy was much bigger than it is today, India would have gone to war with China.

Any war over Taiwan will be a big one.

Then China wouldn't have pushed India in 2020.
Current wars that are happening are because the inferior side overstepped a huge red line.
Ukraine joining Nato and Hamas with their attack.

Otherwise its all leverage game.
Also while you say India would have gone to war. India has never gone to war with Pakistan even after they have provoked us many times. And this holds true for both Congress and BJP in power.
 
Then China wouldn't have pushed India in 2020.
Current wars that are happening are because the inferior side overstepped a huge red line.
Ukraine joining Nato and Hamas with their attack.

Not necessarily. China is currently focusing on Bhutan, so the next flashpoints are the regions around Bhutan.

And they are currently pushing the limits of Taiwan, Japan and the US, an alliance significantly stronger than India.

So it's about their own strength and preparation, rather than that of the adversary.

Otherwise its all leverage game.
Also while you say India would have gone to war. India has never gone to war with Pakistan even after they have provoked us many times. And this holds true for both Congress and BJP in power.

We are in the same phase of development as China was back when they kept their noses clean, so we are biding our time. When China started messing around, they were already a $10T economy. But throughout the 90s and 2000s, they hid away from the world like rats, which gave the West this idea that China is docile enough to become a democracy in time.

Plus, with American help, we have taken a different route to deal with Pakistan, ie, economic measures. Our currrent objective is economic growth, crush Pak's economy at the same time and then take back PoK.

We need to wait for BJP's new manifesto to know for sure what they are planning to do until 2029. But I'm not expecting much until the next decade, when we become a $10T economy. And that's really when we need a fully reogranized and modernized military.
 
Nobody wants war, it just comes when you least expect it. For example, if India was militarily prepared to the same extent in 2020 and the economy was much bigger than it is today, India would have gone to war with China.

Any war over Taiwan will be a big one.
We may not want war, but we sure are preparing for one against the Dragon;)
 
We may not want war, but we sure are preparing for one against the Dragon;)

Yeah, the exact opposite of Nehru. Which is why I don't buy this Nehru 2.0 argument. This govt gave us Balakot, and the reaction to China was quite adequate, enough to ensure they are punished with the least amount of economic blowback. And with the military given enough flexibility and leeway to respond to future threats on their own.

And there's most definitely a long term plan to deal with both our enemies. The govt has announced on multiple occasions that PoK will be retaken, forcefully if necessary, so that's enough pressure on the Pakistanis already.
 
The issue here is you are assuming we are equal powers, but we are not. We don't have the capacity to do any sort of crippling damage to them conventionally nor can we handle the kinda damage they can do to us. F

No. I am not. But there is a weakness they do have. Which is announcing loss of territory or lives. And they are equally good at hiding the same.

If you hold on to what you win and keep quiet, they are not going to accept their losses. Galwan.
 
No. I am not. But there is a weakness they do have. Which is announcing loss of territory or lives. And they are equally good at hiding the same.

If you hold on to what you win and keep quiet, they are not going to accept their losses. Galwan.

If the losses can be easily hidden, they will repeat Galwan. But if the losses are severe enough to be visible, Twitter will ensure Chinese citizens get the message. For example, what if India releases video information of prisoners and all the Chinese bodies we fished out? This is something we are definitely holding against them.

But open warfare is a different story altogether. Most people do not follow Chinese news like I do, so a lot of stuff that happens there is never shown on non-Chinese MSM. So, there are these incidents where people are mass-murdering people on the streets. They are driving cars into pedestrians, cyclists, two-wheelers, even kindergarten children. This stuff's available on the Internet. One gruesome video I saw was a car entering a two-wheeler lane and simply driving through an entire double row of people on their bikes. Probably 10+ bikes with passengers all mowed down. If China's unable to clamp down on domestic news, then how are they gonna clamp down on foreign news where they have no control?

Here's one: No video.

Of course, the numbers are fake. There were a lot of people involved in this particular incident.

Another "fun fact."

So, in China, if you end up causing an accident, make sure the victim is dead.

These people are really fvcked up. Their entire society is like that.

There's one more thing that's peverse about their society. If someone collapses around you for whatever reason, light-headed or a heart attack, then the first person who touches that person is obligated to take care of the collapsed person for the rest of their life. There's no limit to how much the financial obligation is. And it also comes at the cost to yourself and your entire family, like you will even be forced to sell your house to make that happen.

So, if we are gonna go to war with them, you better believe it's gonna be an us or them situation. There is only middle ground if our side wishes for it to happen. Post the Ukraine shenanigans, we can tell for sure that any Sino-India war will be a big one. And it's not gonna be hidden.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
If the losses can be easily hidden, they will repeat Galwan. But if the losses are severe enough to be visible, Twitter will ensure Chinese citizens get the message. For example, what if India releases video information of prisoners and all the Chinese bodies we fished out? This is something we are definitely holding against them.

But open warfare is a different story altogether. Most people do not follow Chinese news like I do, so a lot of stuff that happens there is never shown on non-Chinese MSM. So, there are these incidents where people are mass-murdering people on the streets. They are driving cars into pedestrians, cyclists, two-wheelers, even kindergarten children. This stuff's available on the Internet. One gruesome video I saw was a car entering a two-wheeler lane and simply driving through an entire double row of people on their bikes. Probably 10+ bikes with passengers all mowed down. If China's unable to clamp down on domestic news, then how are they gonna clamp down on foreign news where they have no control?

Here's one: No video.

Of course, the numbers are fake. There were a lot of people involved in this particular incident.

Another "fun fact."

So, in China, if you end up causing an accident, make sure the victim is dead.

These people are really fvcked up. Their entire society is like that.

There's one more thing that's peverse about their society. If someone collapses around you for whatever reason, light-headed or a heart attack, then the first person who touches that person is obligated to take care of the collapsed person for the rest of their life. There's no limit to how much the financial obligation is. And it also comes at the cost to yourself and your entire family, like you will even be forced to sell your house to make that happen.

So, if we are gonna go to war with them, you better believe it's gonna be an us or them situation. There is only middle ground if our side wishes for it to happen. Post the Ukraine shenanigans, we can tell for sure that any Sino-India war will be a big one. And it's not gonna be hidden.
Battle against India and the subsequent loss of life of their soldiers would be detrimental to their imperialistic goals. They know it, that's why they're looking to increase their tech lead over us to minimize their losses. But unfortunately for them, the well trained Indian army knows it all and in the Himalayas PLA would be routed by IA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoungWolf
Battle against India and the subsequent loss of life of their soldiers would be detrimental to their imperialistic goals. They know it, that's why they're looking to increase their tech lead over us to minimize their losses. But unfortunately for them, the well trained Indian army knows it all and in the Himalayas PLA would be routed by IA.

All that's fine. We need financial muscle to afford a long war and the ability to take the war deep inside China.

If all we can do is increase casualties, then it's not enough, they have an excess of 33 million men. But if they fear the loss of Tibet, then we have equivalence. If the Chinese absolutely have no fear of the IA taking back Tibet, then they will fight for the next 10 years until they win. They simply won't stop.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rajput Lion
This govt gave us Balakot, and the reaction to China was quite adequate, enough to ensure they are punished with the least amount of economic blowback. And with the military given enough flexibility and leeway to respond to future threats on their own.

India also doesn't need to fight a battle with China just because some one 14000km wishes that so that both the economies get ruined.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Rajput Lion
All that's fine. We need financial muscle to afford a long war and the ability to take the war deep inside China.

If all we can do is increase casualties, then it's not enough, they have an excess of 33 million men. But if they fear the loss of Tibet, then we have equivalence. If the Chinese absolutely have no fear of the IA taking back Tibet, then they will fight for the next 10 years until they win. They simply won't stop.
Agreed. We would need to push back and that's what the plan is.
 
As per the ex Cmde , navy preference is on surface ships when it comes to do asw patrol. Sub based deterrence patrols need more trained personnel suited to the job than the subs , hence the choice is so maybe. In a way it makes sense judging by navy buying surface & airborne asw assets more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajput Lion
As per the ex Cmde , navy preference is on surface ships when it comes to do asw patrol. Sub based deterrence patrols need more trained personnel suited to the job than the subs , hence the choice is so maybe. In a way it makes sense judging by navy buying surface & airborne asw assets more.
We need to find a perfect balance between surface and sub-surface fleet. Both are required to deter and dominate our foes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marich01