India Navy Indian Conventional Submarine Programs (SSK)

[Raptor]

@Vergennes @Nilgiri, how many chances you see it will be barracudas conventional version ....... may be shortfin barracuda

IN should use pumpjet-propulsion for their next gen submarines and france can surely help in it!

 

[crixus]

When it comes to submarines i feel like it is best to opt for conventional designs with top notch electronics. I would say new batch of Soryu, Scorpene or a Type 216/Dolphin.
If it was a surface vessel i would say it will be good to experiment on, but for India with a possible conflict in near future experimenting may not be ideal but focusing more on common, reliable and easy to maintain design.

Japan will never let India touch Soryu , If India get it it will be open for Pakistani and Chinese Intelligence and Japan will lose the edge which Soryu provides .

The kind of penetration Chinese and Pakistani have in India is mind boggling

The best option will be French boat with some decent upgrades in sensors and electronics

 

[Gary]

Next to zero. Its too expensive for India for what you get. Even Australia (far more developed and fiscally resourced than India) is struggling to justify its selection....and look at the delays/doubts there too (and more costs on that coming up inevitably).

Barracuda only really makes sense for SSN....it ends up being over-engineered (costly) in many ways for SSK variant.

So for French contender, I would imagine it would be an evolved, larger version of scorpene, it makes the most sense....and they would likely show the economy of scale and quicker ToT that is natural segue from existing scorpene production by MDL.

What do @Anmdt and @AlphaMike think?

I don't know how is the procurement method in the Indian Navy, but RAN estimated to spent $50B for all 12 subs (Barracuda SSK) , cost included maintenance cost for it's operational life, could India afford it?? also need to be put into consideration is how fast India could build those boats, like you've mentioned b4, will India get stuck trying to fix issues during the construction??? Submarines are very complex machines , and Barracuda SSK being a next gen submarine would be even more complex.

India is (imo) already left behind in the number game vis a vis China, and the margin is increasing fast. If this continue the PLAN could somewhat someday, be confident enough to send fleet to the Indian Ocean, knowing that the fleet disparity between IN and PLAN had grown so much bigger.

While number of hulls is not everything, but it's very unwise to trade capacity for capability altogether.

 

[Zapper]

When it comes to submarines i feel like it is best to opt for conventional designs with top notch electronics. I would say new batch of Soryu, Scorpene or a Type 216/Dolphin.
If it was a surface vessel i would say it will be good to experiment on, but for India with a possible conflict in near future experimenting may not be ideal but focusing more on common, reliable and easy to maintain design.

Japan is very unlikely to export Soryu while Germany is not the most reliable defence partner. Also, it is best to go for some French variant to maintain commonality and uniformity among our fleet. A whole new platform altogether will only create logistical & maintenance issues along with the complexity of spares procurement.

Reports of a Scorpene XL version and a hybrid of Shortfin-Barracuda came up which has a decent % of commonality with the current Scorpene fleet which should be the way forward for IN

I don't know how is the procurement method in the Indian Navy, but RAN estimated to spent $50B for all 12 subs (Barracuda SSK) , cost included maintenance cost for it's operational life, could India afford it?? also need to be put into consideration is how fast India could build those boats, like you've mentioned b4, will India get stuck trying to fix issues during the construction??? Submarines are very complex machines , and Barracuda SSK being a next gen submarine would be even more complex.

India is (imo) already left behind in the number game vis a vis China, and the margin is increasing fast. If this continue the PLAN could somewhat someday, be confident enough to send fleet to the Indian Ocean, knowing that the fleet disparity between IN and PLAN had grown so much bigger.

While number of hulls is not everything, but it's very unwise to trade capacity for capability altogether.

Allocating $50bn is never an option for IN. Infact, we had to put our third AC on the backburner and siphon those funds to the submarine program. The debacle RAN is going thru with Shortfin, it is very unlikely for IN to go for a conventional version of the same. As mentioned above, maybe a hybrid but we'd have to see what design DCNS pitches

In regards to China, majority of its fleet will be allocated for SCS and Pacific since there are way too many stakeholders in that game along with the US. IN's primary objective is to decimate PN in its entirety while putting up a good defence against the PLAN to protect all three seaboards and safeguarding our shipping lanes

 

[Gary]

In regards to China, majority of its fleet will be allocated for SCS and Pacific since there are way too many stakeholders in that game along with the US. IN's primary objective is to decimate PN in its entirety while putting up a good defence against the PLAN to protect all three seaboards and safeguarding our shipping lanes

maybe, for now

at this build rate, they'll be comfortable to send a carrier strike group in the next 10 years or so, just the SSF (South Sea Fleet) is big enough to be sent to the Indian Ocean, and it's not like SouthEast Asian Navy is big enough to cause trouble while they left for the Indian Ocean.

 

[Zapper]

maybe, for now

at this build rate, they'll be comfortable to send a carrier strike group in the next 10 years or so, just the SSF (South Sea Fleet) is big enough to be sent to the Indian Ocean, and it's not like SouthEast Asian Navy is big enough to cause trouble while they left for the Indian Ocean.

We should be able to ward off if its only one strike group since PLAN is expected to have 4 in total. We'd have two CBGs along with a bunch of additional subs by the end of this decade

 

[crixus]

There were also some rumors of DCNS pitching a hybrid design of Shortfin and Scorpene

Head wants the deal go to Mazgaon dock , heart wants it to go to L&T

 

[Raptor]

Head wants the deal go to Mazgaon dock , heart wants it to go to L&T

Let it goto L&T,mazagon has caused significant delays while L&T has delivered everything ahead of schedule

 

[Zapper]

Head wants the deal go to Mazgaon dock , heart wants it to go to L&T

L&T all the way...no matter what experience PSUs bring to the table, I'd opt for private firms anytime. For instance, L&T delivered K9 Vajras way in advance than what they stated in the contract.

GRSE is so far the most efficient public shipyard but they're mostly into surface vessels while Mumbai's MDL and Vizag's HSL are IN/MoD's preferred shipyards for subs

 

[Raptor]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1400706840971730951

Mod clears the p75i

 

[Zapper]

@crixus @Raptor what do y'all think are the chances for South Koreans given we've gone for the K9 Vajras. There could also be some potential scope in collaborating for our AMCA and their 5th gen version of KFX

 

[Raptor]

@crixus @Raptor what do y'all think are the chances for South Koreans given we've gone for the K9 Vajras. There could also be some potential scope in collaborating for our AMCA and their 5th gen version of KFX

No chance as for now
IAF is clear with MWF,TEDBF&AMCA and SK has different plans for KFX.
MWF tech is mostly developed already and rollout is 2022
For submarines I'd expect us to chose SMX 3.0 and for project 75 alpha for constructing 6 nuclear attack submarines would get CCS nod this year which would be indigenous.

 

[crixus]

@crixus @Raptor what do y'all think are the chances for South Koreans given we've gone for the K9 Vajras. There could also be some potential scope in collaborating for our AMCA and their 5th gen version of KFX

South Korea, cant hold any strategic weight .

France has better chances, TOT of scorpene, Veto power, tried and tested relation ship , almost no chances they will sell any new weapon to Pakistan. But the only issue with France is all eggs will be in the same basket

 

[crixus]

With 2 Indian Shipyards &, 5 Submarine Cos Approved, Crucial Step In Project 75-India​

January 21, 2020 / By Team Livefist

The Indian MoD has shortlisted two Indian shipyards and five foreign submarine manufacturers for Project 75-India (P75I) submarine build program that envisages the construction of 6 new generation attack submarines in India at a cost of over $6.3 billion. Long delayed and ambitiously set up, the project saw definite movement today with a meeting of the apex Defence Acquisition Council today downselecting Mazagon Docks Ltd (MDL) and L&T as the Indian Strategic Partners (SP). One of these firms will be chosen to construct six submarines in country.
The P75I line is a follow-on to an existing line in India. India currently has an active submarine production line at the state-owned Mazagon Docks Ltd (MDL) that has delivered the first two of six Naval Group Scorpene-class submarines to the Indian Navy. The P75I program will choose from five submarine types, with the MoD today approving that set too: the French Naval Group Scorpene, the Russian Rubin Design Bureau Amur 1650, German Thyssenkrupp Type 214, Spanish Navantia S80 and an offering from South Korea’s DSME.

The Scorpene-class submarine line at India’s MDL
Importantly, today’s downselect by the MoD formalises the rejection of India’s Adani Group from contention. The Adani Group had sought to be considered as a Strategic Partner in a tie-up with the state-owned Hindustan Shipyard Ltd (HSL).
The Swedish Saab Kockums A26 and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Soryu-class were prospective contenders early in the program but dropped out along the way. As things stand, the Indian government will now push ahead with choosing selecting a submarine and getting one (or both) of the selected Strategic Partners to build them in India.
The Indian Navy currently operates Russian Kilo-class and German Type 209 conventional submarines, with the first of six Scorpene-class submarines being the latest into service. While the P75I submarines will be newer generation boats overall, the biggest capability jump will be in endurance and survivability from the mandatory Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) that will differentiate these submarines from every other that the Indian Navy operates. The P75I is also expected to stipulate weaponry requirements like fitment of the submarine-launched BrahMos supersonic cruise missile. Watching from the sidelines, BrahMos Corp. has had discussions for years with the P75I’s possible vendors, confirming two years ago to Livefist that all likely contenders are on board for a vertical launch BrahMos fit and later, the BrahMos Mini from torpedo tubes.
Russia seeks a virtual walkover in the program, judging that the process has too many moving parts, and that the Indian government is being overly optimistic in how it has constructed the process. France’s Naval Group believes it has an edge with the existing Scorpene build program, proposing that the existing line can easily construct improved Scorpenes with MESMA AIP segments. While the program is widely perceived to be a toss-up between the Russian and French submarines, Indian defence tendering mandates an expanded competition, borne out by the MoD’s selection today of five prospective submarine vendors.


With clear numbers finally giving much-needed shape to the plodding P75I project, the most crucial phase of the effort now looms. Not only will this be a huge test of the much-bandied Strategic Partnership (SP) model, but will be experimenting thus at a time when the Indian Navy is desperate now to let submarine strength levels fall any further than they already have. Sea denial capabilities have come under tremendous pressure in recent years owing to expanded Chinese submarine activity in the Indian Ocean.
In its nascent stages, India is also developing a nuclear-powered attack submarine type. Details in this Livefist

With 2 Indian Shipyards &, 5 Submarine Cos Approved, Crucial Step In Project 75-India

The Indian MoD has shortlisted two Indian shipyards and five foreign submarine manufacturers for Project 75-India (P75I) submarine build program that envisages the construction of 6 new generation attack submarines in India at a cost of over $6.3 billion. Long delayed and ambitiously set up, the...

www.livefistdefence.com

 

[Nilgiri]

I don't know how is the procurement method in the Indian Navy, but RAN estimated to spent $50B for all 12 subs (Barracuda SSK) , cost included maintenance cost for it's operational life, could India afford it?? also need to be put into consideration is how fast India could build those boats, like you've mentioned b4, will India get stuck trying to fix issues during the construction??? Submarines are very complex machines , and Barracuda SSK being a next gen submarine would be even more complex.

India is (imo) already left behind in the number game vis a vis China, and the margin is increasing fast. If this continue the PLAN could somewhat someday, be confident enough to send fleet to the Indian Ocean, knowing that the fleet disparity between IN and PLAN had grown so much bigger.

While number of hulls is not everything, but it's very unwise to trade capacity for capability altogether.

Yeah so using your argument, NOT selecting Barracuda-SSK (like RAN can afford to, but we simply cannot).... would be step in right direction in getting more capacity for every rupee on the final bill.

Its highly non-ideal situation for sure as much as we can project/analyse in first half of this century.....but we got to make the best of it going forward by deploying resources as rationally as possible.

There have been too many criminal delays and bad decisions made already (in past 30 year window) in the economics and military program domain w.r.t India....that carry enough inertia itself by those already. Only by learning and applying lessons rationally can they be addressed over time. Certainly cannot afford to compound it anymore.

 

[Nilgiri]

Guys, I would also not write off South Koreans here, let us see how RFP downselection goes (and if they say combine an effort with Germans in some regard given how they have collaborated in proven sizeable way).

Remember South Korea has the only proven SSK design commited to, manufactured and in sea trials etc that can readily address the firepower requirement IN seems to want in this class (as far as ready-fire cruise missile capability goes being addressed by a VLS section).

South Koreans essentially took the ToT from U-214 (which they also selected earlier, and 209 before it), augmented with own RnD and added large VLS section to KS-III.

A very telling lesson in how things should have gone in Indian context (given we went for 209 as well) if you ask me....instead of the usual lilypad hopping.

 

[crixus]

Guys, I would also not write off South Koreans here, let us see how RFP downselection goes (and if they say combine an effort with Germans in some regard given how they have collaborated in proven sizeable way).

Remember South Korea has the only proven SSK design commited to, manufactured and in sea trials etc that can readily address the firepower requirement IN seems to want in this class (as far as ready-fire cruise missile capability goes being addressed by a VLS section).

South Koreans essentially took the ToT from U-214 (which they also selected earlier, and 209 before it), augmented with own RnD and added large VLS section to KS-III.

A very telling lesson in how things should have gone in Indian context (given we went for 209 as well) if you ask me....instead of the usual lilypad hopping.

The only point with Koreans is not strategic value like veto power and we already have TOT for Scorpene so the best will be to either go for SMX3.0 or short fin Barracuda ( which is too costly).

Naval Group exhibits at DEFEXPO 2020 | Naval Group

www.naval-group.com

Koreans will be the most feasible partner for light tanks and may be for new tank

 

[Nilgiri]

The only point with Koreans is not strategic value like veto power and we already have TOT for Scorpene so the best will be to either go for SMX3.0 or short fin Barracuda ( which is too costly).

Naval Group exhibits at DEFEXPO 2020 | Naval Group

www.naval-group.com

Koreans will be the most feasible partner for light tanks and may be for new tank

Lack of veto or strategic partnership etc, is not necessarily any deal breaker....as we have enough going on with France more broadly.

We should do this by the book as far as possible given the size of this and also we need the best deal possible.

So I just dont think the Germans, Koreans or German+Korean (depending on what the proposed designs/collabs end up looking like) should be put in the "unlikely" category....though France is probably the favourite from context of ToT already gotten in Scorpene......a logical policy that should have been allowed to flourish by India from U-209 days.

 

[Nilgiri]

Both the Commodore and the other guest give some very good insights and context:

Some good visuals from pitch for the P75-accomplished DCNS/MDL Scorpene transition to P75I:

 

[crixus]

1)India has wasted millions in paying ToT (transfer of technology) fees to foreign OEMs but has not acquired the capability to design and build submarines.

India is the world’s only major submarine-operating country that has not designed and built its own submarines. This is a glaring lapse for a country which inducted submarines over 50 years ago. Yet it was not for want of money. Over four decades, millions of dollars have been spent in obtaining submarine-building expertise from Germany, France and Russia. Yet for various reasons, the Submarine Design Group (SDG), the Indian Navy’s inhouse design organisation, has failed to absorb the capability to design and develop an Indian submarine. In 1981, India signed a contract with West Germany’s HDW to buy four Type 1500 conventional submarines but, more crucially, to acquire submarine-building knowhow. Project officials say the transfer of ToT from West Germany was comprehensive and the plan was to build the fifth and sixth submarines using completely indigenous submarine technology. The company was blacklisted in 1987 on suspicion of bribery, after four submarines had been delivered. In the late 1990s, it paid Russia for design knowhow to build the Arihant-class nuclear submarines. With the blacklist on HDW still on, India signed a contract with the Franco-Spanish consortium Armaris in October 2005 to buy six Scorpene conventional submarines. This contract included transfer of design knowhow. Three submarines are currently in service and three more are due to be delivered by 2023.


2. A need to audit Project 75

The defence ministry needs to carefully audit Project 75, the ‘buy and make’ order for six Scorpene submarines signed in October 2005. This is also critical not just because France’s Naval Group, which supplied the Scorpenes, is also in the reckoning for Project 75‘I’ but also for one other important reason. Project officials say nearly 30 per cent of the Rs 19,000 crore contract cost went towards ToT. This meant that by the sixth Scorpene submarine, India should have been self-sufficient in designing and building submarines, the way it is now for warships. The P-75’I’ would have then segued into a line of Indian designed submarines. This has clearly not happened. What did MDL do with the Transfer of Design Documents (TDD) it received from Armaris, the Franco-Spanish consortium (including DCNS--now Naval Group) that sold the Scorpenes. This TDD went from France to MDL and from the MDL to the DG SDG. It was never utilised. In the 1980s, HDW transferred to MDL all the design blueprints on thousands of microfilms, and microfilm readers were supplied to interpret those designs. These were not utilised because the firm was blacklisted.


3.Why was no indigeneous ecosystem created?

The original 2005 contract was between MDL and Armaris. If the MDL-Armaris contract was an ideal one and all the terms of the contract abided with, then MDL should have established an indigenous supply chain to source components from Indian suppliers. This did not happen. The cost of the contract escalated substantially when MDL-Procured Materials or MPM were added on to the contract. MPM was material that was procured for MDL by the French firm. Project officials say this is what subverted India’s ability to indigenously source the items and manufacture. More than 60 per cent of the Scorpene, including the combat management system and sensors, are imported. Would the same be repeated with the P-75‘I’ contract?

4.Can Project 75 segue into the P75 ‘I’?

India currently operates three different types of conventional submarines from Russia, France and Germany. All three have separate training and spares and procurement. Each submarine has its own distinct build, maintenance and operational philosophy. Russian and French boats, for instance, are completely different in their power supplies, types of motors, control systems, operations and standard operating procedures. A bulk of India’s conventional submarine fleet is over 25 years old and life extensions will see most of them in service for 15 more years. The P-75‘I’, therefore, offers a chance to stabilise the entire submarine line on an in-service platform, whether French, Russian or German. By 2023, the navy will operate six Scorpene submarines which will be in service until 2050 and beyond. Feedback from the current fleet of Scorpene submarines should inform the decision on the choice of the P-75‘I’. Would a lengthened ‘Super Scorpene’ with additional sections for AIP (

5) Can both industrial partners form a consortium to speed up submarine production?

MDL and L&T, the only two Indian shipyards with submarine-building experience, are national strategic assets. MDL has delivered two HDW Type 1500 submarines to the navy and three Scorpene submarines. L&T has fabricated hulls of four 6,000-tonne Arihant class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines at its facility in Hazira and integrated them at the Shipbuilding Centre in Visakhapatnam. The P-75 ‘I’ contract will be placed on one shortlisted firm. The MoD could perhaps consider a consortium of both firms to produce the submarines to drastically cut down on delivery schedules. A linear build programme will see the six submarines delivered by 2036 at the earliest. Parallel production by MDL-L&T could halve this delivery schedule.

Lessons from Project 75

The Defence Ministry clears six P-75I submarines for the Indian Navy. What lessons it must learn from the P-75 Scorpene submarine project

www.indiatoday.in

@Zapper @Nilgiri @FalconSlayersDFI @Jackdaws @Isa Khan