This whole conversation is just so hilarious.
@randomradio deserves the moniker of storyteller.
Randomradio has already made up his mind that P-76's design is based on the P-75I's (german) submarine technology. But the problem is that german sub doesn't exist in reality. P-75I's contract hasn't even been signed, so that tech is not in Indian hands yet.
Now, Randomradio has dug a hole for himself here and there is no way of getting out. He already has a conclusion in his mind and he will twist conversations & shift goalposts, basically do everything, to force fit the narrative to suit his conclusion. Even a layman can understand the crux of the argument here. Post after post just nonsensical "storyteller slop" to force fit this narrative that doesnt make sense.
Goodluck to anyone who engages in conversation with this guy.
Where on earth is the common sense here?
What was P-75I about then? Why do we need to sign a deal to get access to what's actually necessary for P-76's design?
P-75I comes with the hull design, propulsion, and core electronics all done. All contenders have to participate with the full design already completed.
That's why we got Amur, DSME-3000, and SMX 3.0, not just S-80 Plus. The only difference is the others advertised their designs while the Germans have not.
Then comes the paper evaluation, where they evaluate the entire submarine, ie, the hull, propulsion, and all electronics on offer. The contenders even simulate all the things the IN wants that's not from the OEM side. Whatever can be evaluated during the physical evaluations are then evaluated. That's everything they are allowed to show us on older subs, like CMS, AIP, weapons systems, sensors, propulsion etc. They obviously cannot demonstrate the India-specific hull and propulsion, so that's simulated, along with whatever else they cannot demonstrate at this stage. They show how everything fits into the hull, how much propulsion you need, what sort of capabilities you get out of it etc. They even show the entire building process at this stage along with the roadmap. And they provide all the costs associated with the program, including LCC. Which means, the design must already be ready-to-build at this stage.
This is basic common sense. How would you know if the AIP is good enough if you don't know anything about the hull? If they demonstrate their AIP on 13 kW cells, then they will have to show off their 17-20 kW cells or the roadmap of achieving it to move "this big" and "that heavy" of a vessel.
This is the basic flowchart of the tender.
SQRs - PDC - tender start (evaluations for PDR) - contract - detailed design - parallel construction start - sub laid - CDR - contract for subsystems - launch...
This is pretty much how it is for other ships too, anything that's got a development component attached to it. That's why Norway selected the Type 212CD in 2017, signed a contract in 2021, laid the submarine in 2023, and finished CDR only in 2024, upon completion of the detailed design.
Example of a subsystems contract being signed well after CDR, a few months ago.
Indra has signed a new contract with Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace (KDA) for the supply of electronic warfare and radar systems for the six additional submarines of the Type 212CD programme to be incorporated by Germany and Norway into their fleets.
www.navalnews.com
Pretty soon the Type 212CD will be launched and sea trials will begin in 2027, ie, 3 years after detailed design finished.
The problem is people are confusing it with already operational systems where the flowchart is completely different, where SQR is after the technology is already operational in the configuration required, like Rafale.
It's very frustrating when people think their ignorance is an opinion.
