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

[_Anonymous_]

You can be pre qualified for olympic games and not finally qualified.

In the event it wasn't as if those sub components were mfd & then rejected by NG. Had that been the case your analogy would be valid.

The spec may be differents.
Scorpene may be qualified for 350m deep and your own subs only for 250m for exemple.

I thought SSBNs usually operate at greater depths than conventional submarines but evidently the Scorpenes are a special case .

 

[Adm_Kenobi]

250m is such a farce

 

[Amarante]

Trust that clarifies.

it does thx.
I understand your perception of commercial misconduct on the part of NG in the P-75 case.

The Malaysian case seems different: a case of corruption from what I understand from my research (the tweet you quote explains nothing, nor does the article it refers to).
I would say: for there to be corruption, there has to be a demand (corruption being nothing more than a vulgar avatar of the law of supply and demand).
As far as I know, an investigation is underway in France. For the time being, no one has yet been indicted or charged with any accusation although a complaint has been lodged.

The Australian case: you know very well that cancelling of Attack class is a matter of geopolitics, not of going over budget.
But I think that if you insist on the financial aspect, it's because it confirms your demonstration concerning the p-75 contract. I'm afraid it's simply a confirmation bias on your part. But there's a dedicated thread to discuss it.

IN has specified incorporation of VLS for the Brahmos & other Indian armaments like torpedos apart from other electrical instrumentations & electronic sensors. We're not privy to the extecompliance of those stipulations by TKMS. The details would be out once the agreement to this effect is signed .

On the Israeli Drakon, the vls seem to be located at the rear of the sail.

Israel Launches New Submarine, First In World With Modern Missiles In Sail - Naval News

The Israeli Navy is known for the secrecy surrounding its submarine force. 5 Dolphin-I/II class submarines are believed to carry nuclear-armed missiles. Now the latest boat, INS Drakon, has been quietly launched in Kiel, Germany. It appears to have new, larger, missiles.

www.navalnews.com

What makes you think we aren't receiving the same technologies ? After all our N submarine program is based on Russian designs & have been constructed in consultation with them.

But if we assume that these transfers of Russian hi-tech technology to the Chinese are the same, this will enable the Chinese to achieve parity with you in terms of equipment 'sophistication'. You lose the advantage of your long, long-standing and loyal collaboration with the Russians.

PS. Guess what, this is very recent: I'm told that as part of the India-France strategic bilateral relationship, France is offering India full support for its nuclear submarines:

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/france-offers-full-support-in-nuclear-submarines-jet-engines-and-underwater-drones-to-india-101726930526467.html

 

[mamiam23]

You can be pre qualified for olympic games and not finally qualified.

The spec may be differents.
Scorpene may be qualified for 350m deep and your own subs only for 250m for exemple.

How can Japanese Oyashio Class - Soryu Class and upcoming Taigei Class have Operating Depths of 800m. All the commentary online say that is not max depth but rather operating depths. I don't doubt Japanese Engineering but that seems to be too far fetched.
What do you think is maximum Operating depths of the most advanced Conventional Submarines like Taigei Class.
I know the difference between Test Depths and Operational Depths. Operational Depths are the one where the submarine can operate at any battle conditions. So how likely it is 800m for Taigei or even 500m.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

How can Japanese Oyashio Class - Soryu Class and upcoming Taigei Class have Operating Depths of 800m. All the commentary online say that is not max depth but rather operating depths. I don't doubt Japanese Engineering but that seems to be too far fetched.
What do you think is maximum Operating depths of the most advanced Conventional Submarines like Taigei Class.
I know the difference between Test Depths and Operational Depths. Operational Depths are the one where the submarine can operate at any battle conditions. So how likely it is 800m for Taigei or even 500m.

The depth at which submarines can operate is data that we generally try to hide. The figures given in open sources are lies. Depending on the country, the lies exaggerate the performance or play it down, which gives a great deal of scope for variation.

 

[_Anonymous_]

But if we assume that these transfers of Russian hi-tech technology to the Chinese are the same, this will enable the Chinese to achieve parity with you in terms of equipment 'sophistication'. You lose the advantage of your long, long-standing and loyal collaboration with the Russians.

Parity with us ? The Chinese're already way ahead of us . Check out the number of SSNs & SSBNs they're sailing & the ones under construction.

Our dilemmas are simple. We can't expect the kind of co operation we receive from the Russians from anyone else including I suspect , the French. I don't see the French sharing with us the N reactor designs that power an SSN or an SSBN.

With the Russians we know they'd share technology with the Chinese . We just hope it isn't state of the art. Besides we don't need to remind the Russians of this . The Russkies know they've a marriage of convenience with the Chinese. That once Taiwan & the current problems are solved the Chinese will turn their attention to the unfinished business in Manchuria & Port Arthur there apart from the port of Vladivostok.

PS. Guess what, this is very recent: I'm told that as part of the India-France strategic bilateral relationship, France is offering India full support for its nuclear submarines:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/indi...derwater-drones-to-india-101726930526467.html

I believe we're well on our way to build the SSN's & the next generation of SSBN's with the design of the ~ 195 MW PWR frozen. We'd probably build a land based version of the N reactor before construction of a sea based version or so reports I've read seem to indicate. Perhaps better informed members here can clarify the issue. @Gautam

No clue if we're going to follow in the footsteps of what we did in the INS Arihant program or whether it is warranted.

Besides we use HEU fuel in our Submarine based N reactors . France uses LEU fuel. As you see there's no compatibility. Even the news report you've linked is carefully worded. It says France is ready to " support the construction of N submarines. "

Compare that to what the same article has to say about the proposed collaboration in the development of the 110 KN TF for the AMCA & the words it employs to convey the news.

It's clear that France will not transfer the tech for N reactors . I don't think you've done it in case of Brazil as well merely serving as consultants for their SSN program apart from helping them build the SSN with you providing the design of the submarine or at least that's what reports in the public domain seem to suggest unless of course there's something more to it than meets the eye & you're actively collaborating with Brazil in sharing design & construction ToT of the N reactor as well.

I personally suspect French involvement in our case will be limited to the pump jet propulsion technology.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

now that IN is pre occupied with the Project 75 I where in all likelihood TKMS are the favourites to win. This tender was for NG to lose & they lost it.

Navantia's S80 submarine was never really in the running for India's P75I programme. Its AIP system is not really operational, which should have disqualified it from the start, but the company was kept in the process to avoid a sole-source scenario. This manoeuvre was intended to enable ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems to re-enter the competition and use the Indian navy as a tool to boost its value in the event of a sale to Carlyle.

A similar situation unfolded during the Pipavav Shipyard fiasco, where delays and uncertainties surrounding the acquisition resulted in wasted time and resources.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Navantia's S80 submarine was never really in the running for India's P75I programme. Its AIP system is not really operational, which should have disqualified it from the start, but the company was kept in the process to avoid a sole-source scenario.

But that's precisely what I've mentioned in that post you've quoted & the previous ones if you bothered to read them - that Navantia is there to make up the numbers to avoid a single vendor situation.

This manoeuvre was intended to enable ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems to re-enter the competition and use the Indian navy as a tool to boost its value in the event of a sale to Carlyle.

How does it matter to us what's between TKMS & Carlyle if we're getting what we want & ze German government is standing guarantee to it .

A similar situation unfolded during the Pipavav Shipyard fiasco, where delays and uncertainties surrounding the acquisition resulted in wasted time and resources.

Pipavav was different. The original owners went bankrupt & within a few years of the ownership changing hands the new owner went bankrupt too.

Do you know who's the owner ? It's Anil Ambani of Reliance , Dassault's partner in DRAL . Hence going by your logic Dassault knew Reliance would be bankrupt but proceeded with the partnership nonetheless for it could then take over DRAL with 100% ownership.

 

[Picdelamirand-oil]

Do you know who's the owner ? It's Anil Ambani of Reliance , Dassault's partner in DRAL . Hence going by your logic Dassault knew Reliance would be bankrupt but proceeded with the partnership nonetheless for it could then take over DRAL with 100% ownership.

Dassault signed an agreement with a company owned by Mukesh Ambani, who then sold the company to his brother Anil. What could Dassault do, break with his wrongdoing in the middle of a competition in a nationalist country?

 

[YoungWolf]

PS. Guess what, this is very recent: I'm told that as part of the India-France strategic bilateral relationship, France is offering India full support for its nuclear submarines:
https://www.hindustantimes.com/indi...derwater-drones-to-india-101726930526467.html

I'm of the opinion that any co-operation with the French regarding our nuclear submarines will focus on the non-nuclear aspect, such as the pump jet propulsion tech. Our upcoming SSN/SSBN have been designed around the 190MW PHWR so designing another reactor based on French tech running on LEU looks quite unlikely for now.

 

[randomradio]

[edit] i apologize, 2 links in my previous msg are non-compliant

1/ ze Germans vs « unlimited liability », thePrint. in 16.08.22:

Stung by poor foreign response to submarine project, Modi govt tries to allay industry concerns

France's Naval Group, Russia's Rubin Design Bureau & Sweden's SAAB refused to part in Project 75 India, under which 6 conventional submarines will be built with air-independent propulsion system.

theprint.in

2/China-Russia: toward an unspoken military alliance? (asialyst.fr 14.09.24):

Chine-Russie : vers une alliance militaire non dite ?

Pour la première fois, les États-Unis ont accusé la Chine de livrer un soutien militaire direct "très substantiel" à la Russie qui l'aide à poursuivre sa guerre en Ukraine en échange de technologies militaires de pointe. Ces accusations semblent illustrer une coopération étroite de nature à...

asialyst.com

The Germans wanted 1 year to design an India-specific sub, MoD didn't give them time so they withdrew. Then they were brought in after the French and Russians withdrew.

The liability issue was common for all vendors.

 

[randomradio]

Navantia's S80 submarine was never really in the running for India's P75I programme. Its AIP system is not really operational, which should have disqualified it from the start, but the company was kept in the process to avoid a sole-source scenario. This manoeuvre was intended to enable ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems to re-enter the competition and use the Indian navy as a tool to boost its value in the event of a sale to Carlyle.

A similar situation unfolded during the Pipavav Shipyard fiasco, where delays and uncertainties surrounding the acquisition resulted in wasted time and resources.

Don't think that's true. Typhoon's AESA radar was accepted via flight testing on a helicopter. While Navantia's AIP is currently land-based, production models are already available considering the third sub with AIP will undergo sea trials in a few months. Neither France nor Russia are at that stage.

The IN can quite easily delay their final verdict for a few more months.

The IN also seems quite a bit more interested in the bio-ethanol system over TKMS' more generic fuel cell system. Not sure how that's gonna play a part though.

 

[randomradio]

I'm of the opinion that any co-operation with the French regarding our nuclear submarines will focus on the non-nuclear aspect, such as the pump jet propulsion tech. Our upcoming SSN/SSBN have been designed around the 190MW PHWR so designing another reactor based on French tech running on LEU looks quite unlikely for now.

Indigenization is on the agenda for both. But while the SSNs are at a comforable 95-97% indigenization, there's a lot of work needed for SSBNs from their current 60-70%.

I trust the French to provide more tech than the Russians or Americans though. The same for AMCA's engine.

 

[YoungWolf]

Indigenization is on the agenda for both. But while the SSNs are at a comforable 95-97% indigenization, there's a lot of work needed for SSBNs from their current 60-70%.

I trust the French to provide more tech than the Russians or Americans though. The same for AMCA's engine.

I was under the impression that SSBNs too are over 90% indigenised, given we've working on them for quite a while. I'm surprised that's not the case.

 

[randomradio]

I was under the impression that SSBNs too are over 90% indigenised, given we've working on them for quite a while. I'm surprised that's not the case.

That's the case up to S4*. There may have been incremental increases that we are not aware of, but Arihant started off with 60%. So up to 70% makes sense.

I don't know about S5 and beyond.

 

[Bon Plan]

How can Japanese Oyashio Class - Soryu Class and upcoming Taigei Class have Operating Depths of 800m. All the commentary online say that is not max depth but rather operating depths. I don't doubt Japanese Engineering but that seems to be too far fetched.
What do you think is maximum Operating depths of the most advanced Conventional Submarines like Taigei Class.
I know the difference between Test Depths and Operational Depths. Operational Depths are the one where the submarine can operate at any battle conditions. So how likely it is 800m for Taigei or even 500m.

I wrote "may be". 350m and 250m were only exemples.
The real operationnal and max depth of subs are classified.

 

[Amarante]

latribune.fr_01.10.24 (paywall)
Sous-marins : Pourquoi Naval Group a remporté la Ligue des champions aux Pays-Bas

Submarines: Why Naval Group won the Champions League in the Netherlands​

[deepl] On Monday, the Netherlands made official the sale of four latest-generation submarines developed by Naval Group as part of the renewal of the Dutch fleet. Innovation has been a decisive factor in the success of the French naval group.

It was a Champions League final not to be lost; Naval Group won it despite the headwinds. Thanks to its decisive new commercial weapon, the Barracuda expeditionary submarine, the French naval group prevailed in the Netherlands against its two most formidable rivals at the time - the Swedish-Dutch duo Kockums/Damen and above all the German ThyssenKrupps Marine Systems (TKMS) - while awaiting the emergence of more financially aggressive South Korean rivals. In this respect, the campaign in Poland, which wants to buy three submarines, is likely to be very instructive with this new South Korean competition (Hanwha and Hyundaï).

For the time being, Naval Group is once again popping the champagne in the Netherlands, having already recently brought down its European rivals in India and Indonesia. Despite a change of government and an appeal by TKMS, the Netherlands has not changed course. The new government has realised that they are getting "state-of-the-art submarines" from Naval Group. "This will enable us to serve Dutch, NATO and European security interests to the full," said State Secretary for Defence Gijs Tuinman on Monday. Naval Group is currently maintaining a strong commercial momentum in the submarine sector. And why is that? The Barracuda submarine is a vessel where the level of innovation has made Naval Group more attractive than its competitors.

The innovation card​

In the Netherlands, the innovation card played by Naval Group has been decisive. Particularly when it comes to batteries. The naval group has worked with Saft, a subsidiary of TotalEnergie, to develop a new generation of ultra-secure lithium-ion batteries for submarines. These batteries can be used for missions lasting more than 70 days. The Barracuda submarine emerges approximately every ten days to recharge its diesels very quickly. All in all, it spends more than 90% of its mission underwater. Ideal for navies that want to focus on ocean missions like the Dutch. To carry out such missions, you need submarines that can go very far and stay submerged for a long time. This is not the case for navies with so-called coastal submarines equipped with AIP (Air Independent Propulsion), and therefore limited to coastal protection missions.

Compared to the world leader TKMS, Naval Group seems to have taken "several years ahead" in lithium-ion batteries, according to La Tribune. "Because the Germans had the technology of the moment (the AIP, editor's note) and were the market leader, they missed out on a step of innovation", we analyse. On the other hand, Naval Group is lagging behind the Japanese, who have already equipped their submarines with lithium-ion batteries. The South Koreans are also working on this technology. Naval Group therefore has a head start with the development of the Barracuda. It will have to meet the challenge of delivering the submarines.

More weapons to carry​

Naval Group's Barracuda is much larger than the Scorpene (nearly 3,000 tonnes when submerged, compared with 2,000 tonnes). This means it can carry more weapons (missiles and torpedoes), including cruise and anti-ship missiles. This submarine can carry around thirty munitions fired from six tubes. Naval Group has also played the innovation card in this area, particularly with regard to tube systems. The Netherlands has asked us to fire American weapons, in particular the famous Tomahawks. The Group has worked on new technologies to adapt to this requirement. /end

 

[Ankit Kumar]

The IN can quite easily delay their final verdict for a few more months.

Spain has yet to launch the 2nd submarine, and it's new projected commisioning date is somewhere in 2026.

The 3rd submarine with AIP isn't anywhere near in being launched it seems.

 

[Ashwin]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1840741283587064035

 

[Amarante]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1840741283587064035

Ach, ze deutsche qualität!