Project 75I - It Begins

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

ritesh wrote:It seems we are bent on reinventing the wheel over and over again. Can't we just order additional scorpene or kilos and be done with it? Aur kitna time chahiye decision lene mein?
Scorpenes are compromised. And Kilos are not attractive to Navy.

It will be a Western boat or the dark horse i.e. the South Korean one.

Sirjee, if we don't keep reinventing the wheel...then what work will some of our Babus and Naval HQ do?

One thing is confirmed - no ToT will come with this deal either. We will call it ToT, but nothing will come. Then around a decade after contract signing, the next competition will be launched to acquire a new generation SSK. And that deal will be the mother of all deals - full ToT :mrgreen:
mody
BRFite
Posts: 1362
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Mumbai, India

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by mody »

If the Germans are chosen, it won't be the basic Type 214 that comes, but a design based on the same. We want a slightly larger sub. The basic type 214 is too small. It will be customized design. the SoKo sub is already a 3000 ton design.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

mody wrote:If the Germans are chosen, it won't be the basic Type 214 that comes, but a design based on the same. We want a slightly larger sub. The basic type 214 is too small. It will be customized design. the SoKo sub is already a 3000 ton design.
Correct. It will be based off the Type 216, which in turn is based on the Type 212/214.

The Type 216 is a big boat i.e. 4,000 tons displacement and might be what the Indian Navy is looking for in an ocean going SSK. The South Korean DSME (export variant of the KSS III) will also fit that bill at 3,300+ tons. A larger boat will result in greater endurance and that is what the Indian Navy is looking for in the Project 75I series. This is one of the reasons why additional Scorpenes or Kilo boats are not being looked at, apart from the former being compromised. The French were offering the SMX Ocean, until they pulled out of the competition.

There already exists a variant of the Type 216 and that is the Type 218SG of the Singapore Navy. That first vessel is undergoing trials at the moment. But she is much smaller than the Type 216.

The competition will be between the Type 216 and the DSME. More info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_216_submarine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSS-III_submarine
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7793
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Prasad »

Exactly why should we give the Germans any business worth billions? This isn't like going to buy corriander leaves in the current global scenario, esp with Europe struggling with high energy prices and consequent hit to their economy and an anti-china push by the US that they have to abide. Might as well buy from the Koreans instead and give them their asking price.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Vips »

Big tickets items should always be bought only from countries having Diplomatic/Strategic heft (Veto Power holding countries).
Countries like Korea and Germany are no use when yellow material hits the fan and in case it is not as if they are ready and willing to give any significant TOT.

Stick to France. It will help us have commonality in the 75I and 75N programs (Based on Barracuda/Shortfin).
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Pratyush »

This project is a prison of the our own making.

Have a clean break. Focus on nuclear attack submarines using arihant power plant.

Develop the required skills for building a submarine diesel engine and intake and exhaust system.

Design a clean sheet SSK. Because every imported weapon system is compromised one way or another.

Stop wasting time.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by kit »

Pratyush wrote:This project is a prison of the our own making.

Have a clean break. Focus on nuclear attack submarines using arihant power plant.

.

Arihant nuclear engine does not suit a SSN. It needs a reactor of higher performance. Even a nuclear AC needs a different engine. So India does need to invest into research for all these.

OT but this thread has some good discussion

https://twitter.com/parthu_potluri/stat ... 16?lang=en

The B1 is already used on the Arihant-class SSBNs, where it produces about 83mwT (megawatt thermal) using 40% enriched HEU fuel.

The B1 reactor was never intended for a hunter-killer platform. The Alpha could well find itself at a serious power disadvantage against future PLAN 095 SSNs.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Pratyush »

kit wrote:
Pratyush wrote:This project is a prison of the our own making.

Have a clean break. Focus on nuclear attack submarines using arihant power plant.

.

Arihant nuclear engine does not suit a SSN. It needs a reactor of higher performance. Even a nuclear AC needs a different engine. So India does need to invest into research for all these.
Why is it unsuitable for a 4000 to 5000 ton design with 8 Brahmos in inclined launchers?

We know that it's safe. We know how to make it.

Why must the submarine arm be gutted waiting for perfect?

Make do with what's available.

Because waiting for perfection has gutted our submarine arm for the 2030s. When we are going to need it the most.

The important thing for submarine arm is not just the boats. But also the capacity to train and maintain the crews and commanders.

The hardest thing to rebuild would be the cader of trained command staff for the submarine arm. Once we have finally decided to build whatever boat we are going to make.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

Pratyush, some facts to understand;

1) SSNs need to be fast.
2) SSBNs need to be silent.

The only goal of the Arihant Class SSBN is to be able to deliver their nuclear salvo, upon approval from India's Nuclear Command Authority. They do not conduct or operate in any other role. For that role to exist and be viable, these vessels must never EVER be detected. Where they exactly are is known only to the Captain (and a few senior officers) aboard the vessel. At shore, only a handful of senior officers will be aware. The 83MW CLWR-B1 pressurized water reactor - aboard the Arihant Class SSBN - achieves that purpose. Silence is the golden rule here.

A SSN is a whole other vessel. She is a multipurpose, offensive platform. Barring delivery of SLBMs, she can do everything else - anti-ship, anti-sub, recon, insertion of special forces, etc. For that, she carries a variety of weapons and more importantly, has a reactor that can give her extremely fast speeds (for being underwater that is). While staying silent is important for a SSN, it is not that paramount as it is for a SSBN. The Russians for well known for creating extremely fast SSNs, while being unfortunately quite noisy. The Alfa Class comes to mind. She was a Ferrari of the seas. She gave American Admirals sleepless nights. That vessel could MOVE.

If you look at reactor of the recently returned Akula Class SSN, it had a 190MW OK-650B reactor. And you want to take a wild guess what reactor size Project 75 Alpha (the Indian Navy's six build SSN program) is going to have? It is a 190MW CLWR-B2 reactor. See where 83MW is and see where 190MW is. That 107MW difference is vital for a SSN that requires speed to counter incoming torpedoes and conduct offensive missions. I am personally unaware of any SSK on earth that can catch up to a SSN, when the latter is at high speeds.

Where the SSK shines is in her silence. Our Indian Kilo boats have always got the upper hand vis-à-vis American SSNs during controlled exercises. That is expected, as nuclear powered boats are inherently noisier than diesel-electric powered boats. But in a real world scenario, those US Navy SSNs will rout our submarine fleet. But that is another topic.

What you are suggesting Pratyush is not going to work. We have to operate within the confines of physics and dimensions. You cannot expect a 83MW reactor to give the level of performance that a 190MW reactor will give. That fantasy will not even work in China. Project 75A is reportedly a 6,000+ ton design. That is a BIG boat for the Indian Navy. The recently returned Akula SSN was at minimum 8,000+ tons and if reports are to be believed, she may have been as high as 12,000+ tons. That is massive. No 83MW reactor will work here.

And that is just the reactor design. The design of the boat itself is a whole other topic. The hull of a SSN - by design - has to be streamlined to ensure high speeds. You cannot take a SSBN hull - shaped like a school bus - and expect to give it high speeds. A new design - for a SSN - involves a lot of engineering work and know how, that has to be validated and tested. The design for Project 75 Alpha is on the drawing board and is expected to be completed by the end of next year. What India knows TODAY is how to successfully make a SSBN. What needs to be validated by India, is how to make a SSN. Two entirely different vessels.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Pratyush »

Rakesh,

I understand something very basic. Some thing that your long worded post is not taking into account.

A nuclear reactor is a nuclear reactor. It has only one job. To generate steam to either generate steam for the shaft. Or to generate steam for the electricity generation to power an electric motor to drive the propeller.

1) 83 MW reactor of Arihant is nearly the same power output as the Charly 2 class.
About 30 of the boats were built for that class and they served the USSR well for nearly 3 decades.

2) A modern 83 MW reactor is perfectly capable doing everything that you have outlined when powering a modern 4000 to 5000 ton boat. Especially when it's already available within India.

3) hydrodynamics are hydrodynamics, once you develop the skills to optimise a design for one set of requirement. It's relatively easy to transfer the skills for other set or requirements. Arihant design would have been completed by 2003-4 at the latest for her launching in 2009. A start at SSN even as late as 2010, would have resulted in a completed design by 2016-17. Along with a boat in the water by 2024-25.

4) My post was more in connection with this stupid program that has not even reached design stage after all these years. Asking for the things from international market that India should be able to do on it's own. How will the navy even know that it will not be compromised in the same way the Scorpean was?

5) If the navy was so concerned about SSK numbers. What stopped them from designing an SSK on the basis of the skills developed in designing the Arihant.

People are open to a so called short fin barracuda from France. But the same people cannot imagine a so called short fin version of the Arihant.

The only thing that India lacked was the ability to fit a diesel engine and the management of intake and exhaust system for snorkeling of the boat (Something that rest of the world submarine builder have been doing for over 100 years). Beyond that, every thing that the Indian Navy wanted has been done with the Arihant.

What I am asking for would have resulted in boats in the water by the 2024-25 at the latest.

While the 190 MW boats will not be in service any time before 2035.

The P75I we don't even know by when it will be in service.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

Pratyush, one can take a SSN design (Barracuda/Suffren) and downsize it to a SSK (Shortfin Barracuda). You cannot take a SSBN design and covert it into a SSN or SSK, without significant redesign. At that stage, it is a whole other boat and will share no similarities to the SSBN design. Thus the reason why P75 Alpha is on the drawing board. Your suggestion is simplistic. Both are submarines, so one design can work for the other. But that is not true.

To use an automotive analogy - both the Lamborghini Aventador and the Mahindra Thar are vehicles. Both have engines and both can move. Both have four tires. But how come the Mahindra Thar cannot generate the output that a Lamborghini Aventador can? This is the crux of your argument.

A 83MW reactor is NOT sufficient for a 4,000 to 5,000 ton boat. But you are certainly entitled to believe that. Even the Suffren Class - at 5,300 tons - uses a 150 MW K-15 LEU reactor. She is among the smallest of modern SSNs that is in service. A SSBN design will not work for a SSN or a SSK, no matter how much you believe it can be.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Pratyush »

Rakesh,

1) I have not said anywhere to use arihant design as the nuke attack submarine.

2) I am saying use the reactor and machinery to build a nuke attack submarine as a clean sheet design.

3) WRT, a reactor with 83 MW output being insufficient for what I have in mind. I am seeing close to 45 early US Navy fast attack hunter killers being powered by reactor making a lot less power. At speeds nearing 30 knots and in the displacement ranges that I am asking for.

4) the crux of my argument is not that Thar and Lambo are automobiles. So that thar should be able to match the Lambo in performance.

You have completely missed the point.

My point is, if I can design a 600 bhp 3 axel 30 ton truck. Then I should be able to design a 600 bhp 2 axel 10 ton truck.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

Pratyush wrote:1) I have not said anywhere to use arihant design as the nuke attack submarine.
This is your own post below....
Pratyush wrote:3) hydrodynamics are hydrodynamics, once you develop the skills to optimise a design for one set of requirement. It's relatively easy to transfer the skills for other set or requirements. Arihant design would have been completed by 2003-4 at the latest for her launching in 2009. A start at SSN even as late as 2010, would have resulted in a completed design by 2016-17. Along with a boat in the water by 2024-25.
How are you planning to use a SSBN design and port it over to a SSN design?

What you are suggesting above is not going to work. You are taking basic concepts i.e. hydrodynamics and design optimization and just replicating it across the board. That is not how it works. If engineering was that simple, then I fully expect a Boeing 747 to replicate the exact aerodynamic properties of a F-22 with thrust vectoring. Both are aerodynamic, as both can fly. But is that possible? :) We have to operate within the parameters of physics.
Pratyush wrote:2) I am saying use the reactor and machinery to build a nuke attack submarine as a clean sheet design.
That is not possible Pratyush. You cannot take a 83 MW reactor and put it inside a SSN boat and expect it to achieve the level of speed that is required. You need a much more powerful reactor. And that reactor requires a design that has to be tested and validated on shore and then placed inside a hull. That hull itself has to be tested - as a scale model - in a specialized facility. You cannot do cut-and-paste, no matter how much you would like to believe that to be true.
Pratyush wrote:3) WRT, a reactor with 83 MW output being insufficient for what I have in mind. I am seeing close to 45 early US Navy fast attack hunter killers being powered by reactor making a lot less power. At speeds nearing 30 knots and in the displacement ranges that I am asking for.
How many of those early US Navy fast attack hunter killers are in service today? Even the Los Angeles Class uses a 165MW nuclear reactor. The Virginia Class is even more powerful at 210MW. Only the Seawolf Class SSN uses a small reactor that even the Arihant Class SSBN, but those three boats do not operate in the traditional SSN role. Modern attack boats require reactors that generate high speed quickly, because of technologies that exist to counter them and the missions that they undertake. SSNs require both speed and silence to operate successfully. There is a fine balance between the two.

A SSBN does not require speed and high speed is actually detrimental to a SSBN, due to the shape of the hull.
Pratyush wrote:My point is, if I can design a 600 bhp 3 axel 30 ton truck. Then I should be able to design a 600 bhp 2 axel 10 ton truck.
The same exists for a SSBN and SSN. You cannot port over a vessel design or a reactor from one to the other. You cannot do cut-and-paste.

Both are two different designs with two different engineering requirements. Both are clean sheet designs.

General concepts (what you are suggesting) is not the same equivalent as real world engineering.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Pratyush »

Rakesh,

Let's conduct a thought excercise.

Can you tell me anything about powerplant of the Hotel, Echo, and November classes?

What can you tell me about the power plant that powered the Polaris and Posidon class and the contemporary attack submarine counter part for the USN?

What is the difference between the nuclear plant of the Le Triumphant and the Suferen class boat?

What is the difference for Vanguard and the Astute class power plant?

I have been making 2 fundamental arguments since the start of this discussion.

1) Skills developed for the design of an SSBN are transferrable to the design process for an SSN. Because the SSN however agile. Will never be performing performing barrel rolls. Or 9 g maneuvers, or require thrust vector engine's.

The control systems designed for SSBN. If ported to the SSN design as is are infact going to create a submarine hot rod. Because they have to manuver a much lighter mass through the water.

2) most of the major nuclear submarine builders have followed the same template for submarine construction. Build SSN and SSBN with same reactor. The Americans changed that with LA and Oiho.

But India being India finds arguments for reinventing the wheel and find reasons for not getting on with the job.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

Pratyush wrote:Can you tell me anything about powerplant of the Hotel, Echo, and November classes?

What can you tell me about the power plant that powered the Polaris and Posidon class and the contemporary attack submarine counter part for the USN?
Before we get into the specs of the above vessels, can you please tell me how many - if any - of those vessels are in active service today?

What will their survivability be against a modern torpedo such as the Mark 48 from the US or the F-21 from France or the Spearfish from the UK?
Pratyush wrote:What is the difference between the nuclear plant of the Le Triumphant and the Suferen class boat?
The Triomphant Class SSBN uses a 150MW LEU reactor, that has to move a hull mass which weighs 14,000+ tons when submerged. The Suffren Class SSN also uses a 150MW LEU reactor, but has to move a hull mass which weighs 5,300+ tons when submerged. In a pinch and when required, which of these two vessels do you think will be able to move faster? Which of these two vessels will be able to capitalize on the sudden burst of speed that the reactor provides? Please factor physics, mass, dimension, hull shape, etc into account before answering :) Also consider that why would a SSN need to move at a high speed, which a SSBN does not do on a regular basis during her patrol?

This thought exercise you are doing is quite frankly very simplistic. Please note that the French SSBN and SSN use a reactor design that produces a maximum output of 150MW. The Arihant Class in comparison uses significantly less at 83MW, but weighs more than the Suffren Class. The Indian Naval Design Bureau is not staffed with imbeciles. If they thought a 83MW reactor design would work for a SSN, they would gladly have adopted it. You are assuming that just because one reactor can work for a SSBN, it will work just perfectly fine for a SSN. Again, please factor in physics, mass, dimension, hull shape, etc of both vessels.

What is the role of India's SSN/SSK fleet versus the role of India's SSBN fleet?

Stop thinking in simplistic terms --- what works for A, will work for B. It would have been utopia if it worked that way, but it does not.
Pratyush wrote:I have been making 2 fundamental arguments since the start of this discussion.

1) Skills developed for the design of an SSBN are transferrable to the design process for an SSN. Because the SSN however agile. Will never be performing performing barrel rolls. Or 9 g maneuvers, or require thrust vector engine's.
Completely invalid. Skills developed for the design of a SSBN are NOT transferrable to the design process of a SSN. Look at the submarine designs below - one is a SSN and the other is a SSBN. They are not even alike in any form. Skills learnt by the building crew can indeed be ported over, but the design is completely different. They are night and day, because they serve different roles. Everything is different between a SSBN and a SSN i.e. from acoustic signature to hull form to performance to capability. The list is endless. You cannot remove the SLBM module (VLS cells) from a SSBN and then call it a SSN either.

Astute Class SSN

Image

Vanguard Class SSBN

Image

Suffren Class SSN

Image

Triomphant Class SSBN

Image
Pratyush wrote:The control systems designed for SSBN. If ported to the SSN design as is are infact going to create a submarine hot rod. Because they have to manuver a much lighter mass through the water.

2) most of the major nuclear submarine builders have followed the same template for submarine construction. Build SSN and SSBN with same reactor. The Americans changed that with LA and Ohio.
Yet you are missing key fundamentals out of your argument. Using the same reactor has to provide the optimum output required for both vessels, in the roles that they will be required to operate in. If it cannot, a new reactor has to be developed. There is no way around that hurdle.

You are now doing a Rajnikant act, by throwing science & logic right out the window.
Pratyush wrote:But India being India finds arguments for reinventing the wheel and find reasons for not getting on with the job.
In this instance, the Indian Naval Design Bureau is absolutely correct. They have to reinvent the wheel, as much as you dislike it.

Physics never bends to our will. It is always the other way around. Unless you have divine powers :)
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Pratyush »

Rakesh,

You seriously cannot be thinking that i am asking for India to rebuild the first generation and second generation submarines from the examples i am presenting?

Are you?

Because you are repeatedly asking how many boats of these designs are still in service?

Second, if the skills are not transferrable in the design process between SSBN and SSN. Are you suggesting that the people who designed the SSBN get fired and new people got hired for the design of SSN? And, if new SSBN has to be designed, then the SSN people will be fired and SSBN people rehired?

As far as physics is concerned.

Arihant is approximately 6000 tons powered by a 83 MW reactor.

The sub concept I am advocating for is between 4000 to 5000 tons. Powered by the same reactor. Something that is 66% displacement of Arihant at the lighter end and 83% at the higher end. With corresponding increase in acceleration.

If it's fitted with the same control surfaces as Arihant. Them those surfaces have to manuver a substantially lighter object. With corresponding increase in manuverability.

Rajnikant or no Rajnikant

Physics will take care of itself ( remember no barrel rolls, or 9 g manuver, or 50 knot speed)

Besides acceleration is not the only measure of survival. The launch distance and engagement geometry plays an important role in evasion.

As a even a 6000 tons sub powered by 190 MW reactor is not going to be pulling barrel rolls or 9g turns. Nor will it be accelerating to 50 knots+ needed to outrun a modern torpedo.

Now coming to the decision making process of the Naval design beauro. About building an attack' boat powered by a higher power reactor. Ignoring the current reactor.

My problem with this approach is as follows;

1) we are going to have a fleet of a maximum of 6. That too by 2045 at the earliest.

By which time you are looking at a PRC fleet with perhaps 75 attack boats. Both Nuke and Diesel electric.

2) the diesel electric submarines are going to be limited to perhaps 12 by that time if we are lucky.

With these numbers regardless of what you do, PRC will win.

However, if the Indian Navy had focused on building my notional SSN with the Arihant reactor. Then the ship construction would have begun by 2016-17 and by 2030, 6 to 9 boats would have been in the water. At which time, construction would shift to the submarine that the Indian Navy is trying to build.

Gives us 12 to 15 nuke boats plus 12 SSK

This fleet gives us options. Then with the fleet that is currently planned.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

Pratyush wrote:Rakesh,

You seriously cannot be thinking that i am asking for India to rebuild the first generation and second generation submarines from the examples i am presenting?

Are you?

Because you are repeatedly asking how many boats of these designs are still in service?
I am not :) You brought up those examples in your post. I am asking a question, to which you are unable to answer.
Pratyush wrote:Second, if the skills are not transferrable in the design process between SSBN and SSN. Are you suggesting that the people who designed the SSBN get fired and new people got hired for the design of SSN? And, if new SSBN has to be designed, then the SSN people will be fired and SSBN people rehired?
I am not talking about people's skills here. That has little - if anything - to do with this. I am referring to the actual design of a SSBN and transferring that form factor over - sans the VLS - over to a SSN platform. Those very people - with that skill set - themselves will tell you that your suggestion is not going to work.
Pratyush wrote:As far as physics is concerned.

Arihant is approximately 6000 tons powered by a 83 MW reactor.

The sub concept I am advocating for is between 4000 to 5000 tons. Powered by the same reactor. Something that is 66% displacement of Arihant at the lighter end and 83% at the higher end. With corresponding increase in acceleration.

If it's fitted with the same control surfaces as Arihant. Them those surfaces have to manuver a substantially lighter object. With corresponding increase in manuverability.
Pratyush, have you conducted any studies to validate what you are stating? Do you have any empirical data to prove your assertion? In the lack of such, this is just an assumption of yours.

Below is the "modern" SSN fleet in the world, barring China. The Chinese SSN program is murky and there is very little info available. Whatever is available is spotty at best. But this is what we do know about modern SSNs (specs from Wiki). They are listed below in order of tonnage. I could not find the MW output of the PWR2 reactor on the Astute Class SSN, but did find the others. See the tonnage and then look at the corresponding reactor output. Also take a look at Project 75 Alpha and you will see how it falls in line with the others. The Australian SSN program (AUKUS) is way too early to get any specs out, but it will not be far from their US/UK counterparts.

But the take away is this - not a single SSN listed below has a small reactor. These reactors are all powerhouses in their own right. And SSNs need this level of power to do what is required of them. You cannot pop in a 83MW reactor into a 6,000 ton vessel and expect it to provide the level of performance that is required of a SSN. And reducing the tonnage is not going to help either, as the Barracuda Class amply illustrates below.

Barracuda Class - France
5,300 tons submerged
K-15 reactor producing 150 MW

Project 75 Alpha - India
6,000+ tons submerged
CLWR-B2 reactor producing 190 MW

Los Angeles Class - US
Close to 7,000 tons submerged
S6G reactor producing 150–165 MW

Astute Class - UK
7,800 tons submerged
PWR2 reactor producing ? MW

Virginia Class - US
Boats from Block I–IV: 7,900 tons submerged
Boats from Block V: 10,200 tons submerged
S9G reactor producing 210 MW

Akula I / Akula Improved / Akula II / Akula III Class - Russia
12,770 - 13,800 tons submerged (depending on variant)
OK-650B/OK-650M reactor producing 200 MW

Yasen Class - Russia
13,800 tons submerged
OK-650KPM reactor producing 200 MW
Pratyush wrote:Physics will take care of itself ( remember no barrel rolls, or 9 g manuver, or 50 knot speed)

Besides acceleration is not the only measure of survival. The launch distance and engagement geometry plays an important role in evasion.

As a even a 6000 tons sub powered by 190 MW reactor is not going to be pulling barrel rolls or 9g turns. Nor will it be accelerating to 50 knots+ needed to outrun a modern torpedo.
You want physics to take care of itself? :) This is the foundation of your argument?

Please take a look at the max range of modern torpedoes before making assumptions. A seasoned boat veteran will know the capabilities of his own boat and that of his enemy. A seasoned sub commander will know how to stay hidden despite enemy boats or other enemy assets looking out for her. If and when a submarine is detected, it is the Captain of the boat that shoulders that blame. And if a torpedo is fired at the boat, the Captain has made a fatal mistake as a sub commander.
Pratyush wrote:Now coming to the decision making process of the Naval design bureau. About building an attack' boat powered by a higher power reactor. Ignoring the current reactor.

My problem with this approach is as follows;

1) we are going to have a fleet of a maximum of 6. That too by 2045 at the earliest.

By which time you are looking at a PRC fleet with perhaps 75 attack boats. Both Nuke and Diesel electric.

2) the diesel electric submarines are going to be limited to perhaps 12 by that time if we are lucky.

With these numbers regardless of what you do, PRC will win.

However, if the Indian Navy had focused on building my notional SSN with the Arihant reactor. Then the ship construction would have begun by 2016-17 and by 2030, 6 to 9 boats would have been in the water. At which time, construction would shift to the submarine that the Indian Navy is trying to build.

Gives us 12 to 15 nuke boats plus 12 SSK

This fleet gives us options. Then with the fleet that is currently planned.
Using the 83MW Arihant reactor on a modern SSN boat, will result in an underpowered vessel. She will be cheaper than a 190MW reactor, but will be severely disadvantaged at the tactical level. She will lack the speed required to search & hunt surface and sub-surface fleets. SSNs (and even some SSKs) are called hunter killers for a reason. And add a VLS capability to the boat and that will sap even the little power that is available onboard. Your suggestion might save money and time, but will lack the capability required. We have to reinvent the wheel with the reactor design for Project 75 Alpha. There is no other way.

But I am all in for a 83MW Arihant reactor on a SSN, to be used as a tourist vessel for rich folks who want to enjoy a dive into the deep.

Set aside whatever you know about timelines. Not a single Indian naval project ever arrives on time. We will be disadvantaged. It is a reality that YOs, JCOs and NCOs in the Indian Navy live with every day. After the Sindhurakshak explosion on 14 Aug 2013, one YO submariner remarked, "Sir, we sit daily on a ticking time bomb."
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by srin »

Btw, why not two 83MW reactors instead of just one?
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

srin wrote:Btw, why not two 83MW reactors instead of just one?
Will require a significant redesign of the vessel, that is currently on the drawing board. The design is reportedly close to competition, with around little over a year to go. Adding two reactors will add to the design delay. The 190MW reactor design is reportedly also underway by BARC, but no idea of where the project stands. Much of this stuff - as it should be - stays hidden under wraps. They are are reportedly reducing the number of refueling cycles required (over the life of the reactor) with the 190MW HEU reactor. Longer intervals between refueling cycles = more availability at sea. The next batch of SSBNs - the S5 Class - will use the same 190MW reactor.

The Akula lease is a good indication of where Project 75 Alpha is heading. The French gave a detailed presentation to then Naval Chief, Admiral Sunil Lanba on LEU reactors and other key technologies related to their nuclear submarine program. Not sure what the progress is on that. Also, the previous French Defence Minister, Florence Parly offered the Suffren Class design for the Indian Navy's P-75A program. Again, no news on that front, beyond that blurb.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Pratyush »

Rakesh wrote: I am not :) You brought up those examples in your post. I am asking a question, to which you are unable to answer.
yes you are. Because we both know that the service life of a submarine is 30 years at most. A submarine commissioned in 1965 will not be in service beyond 1995. So it's not in service.
Rakesh wrote:
I am not talking about people's skills here. That has little - if anything - to do with this. I am referring to the actual design of a SSBN and transferring that form factor over - sans the VLS - over to a SSN platform. Those very people - with that skill set - themselves will tell you that your suggestion is not going to work.
show me the exact sentence in any of my post in the last 24 hours where I have explicitly stated that Arihant be used as an attack submarine.
Rakesh wrote: Pratyush, have you conducted any studies to validate what you are stating? Do you have any empirical data to prove your assertion? In the lack of such, this is just an assumption of yours

Below is the "modern" SSN fleet in the world, barring China. The Chinese SSN program is murky and there is very little info available. Whatever is available is spotty at best. But this is what we do know about modern SSNs (specs from Wiki). They are listed below in order of tonnage. I could not find the MW output of the PWR2 reactor on the Astute Class SSN, but did find the others. See the tonnage and then look at the corresponding reactor output. Also take a look at Project 75 Alpha and you will see how it falls in line with the others. The Australian SSN program (AUKUS) is way too early to get any specs out, but it will not be far from their US/UK counterparts.

But the take away is this - not a single SSN listed below has a small reactor. These reactors are all powerhouses in their own right. And SSNs need this level of power to do what is required of them. You cannot pop in a 83MW reactor into a 6,000 ton vessel and expect it to provide the level of performance that is required of a SSN. And reducing the tonnage is not going to help either, as the Barracuda Class amply illustrates below.

Barracuda Class - France
5,300 tons submerged
K-15 reactor producing 150 MW

Project 75 Alpha - India
6,000+ tons submerged
CLWR-B2 reactor producing 190 MW

Los Angeles Class - US
Close to 7,000 tons submerged
S6G reactor producing 150–165 MW

Astute Class - UK
7,800 tons submerged
PWR2 reactor producing ? MW

Virginia Class - US
Boats from Block I–IV: 7,900 tons submerged
Boats from Block V: 10,200 tons submerged
S9G reactor producing 210 MW

Akula I / Akula Improved / Akula II / Akula III Class - Russia
12,770 - 13,800 tons submerged (depending on variant)
OK-650B/OK-650M reactor producing 200 MW

Yasen Class - Russia
13,800 tons submerged
OK-650KPM reactor producing 200 MW
Your argument is quite stunning actually. Because, it's staring you right in your face. But you are just not able to see it.

Let me try one last time.

Every reactor with the exception of the late cold war US reactor is common between the SSBN and SSN fleets.

Even with the "modern" very high powered reactors. They were designed that way because it was first needed to power a much larger SSBN then before. Because the missiles the SSBN was required to carry became much larger. Requiring a larger boat.

Attack submarines have been built arround that reactor. Because it was available and the wheel didn't have to be reinvented. Not because that reactor provided the attack' submarine the ability to perform subsurface barrel rolls and pull 9g turns. Which seems to be the main thrust of the argument.

WRT, the LA having a higher powered reactor. Her submerged displacement was approximately 7000 tons. Compared to approximately 4700 tons of the previous generation of submarines. A difference of nearly 33%. But natural, she will need a more powerful reactor.

Coming to the Indian Navy. The Indian 190 MW reactor has been designed for a larger SSBN carrying larger missiles in greater numbers. When compared to the Arihant.

The wheel is not getting reinvented. However much you want to believe that it will give the Indian SSN the ability to perform barrel rolls and pull 9g turns. Or even out run a modern heavy torpedo. Nor is the submarine going to be tooling along at 30 + knots 24*7*365.

rakesh wrote:
Please take a look at the max range of modern torpedoes before making assumptions.
I am well aware of the supposed ranges of modern weapons.

Which is why engagement geometry is vital for escape and evasion along with the ocean room for manuver.
Rakesh wrote: but will be severely disadvantaged at the tactical level. She will lack the speed required to search & hunt surface and sub-surface fleets. SSNs (and even some SSKs) are called hunter killers for a reason. And add a VLS capability to the boat and that will sap even the little power that is available onboard.
It seems that you think that surface and subsurface ships are always running at top speeds and criss crossing the oceans.

When they are on operations, they have operational areas and those areas are quite limited as compared to the vastness of the open ocean.

A submarine however slow, is not disadvantaged in handling such ships. Because those ships are limited by where they must be in order to accomplish their missions. A submarine can guided by other platforms such as air crafts and systems such as SOSUS. Where it can further localise the target.

What power a VLS is consuming during routine operations. Or even during its launching, that it's existence eats into the power budget of the submarine. The only power it will consume will be the diagnostic for the missile's computer system before launch. That is not going to be in dozones of MW range. Along with the power required to open the launch door. That is not going to be substantially higher than the power requirements for opening the torpedo doors.

For over 30 years, close to 100 submarines with reactors in the Arihant ball park have done the job. But it's not sufficient for the Indian Navy.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Pratyush »

srin wrote:Btw, why not two 83MW reactors instead of just one?
The USSR had built a lot of submarines using this approach. But that was before they stabilised on single reactor designs.

The operational requirement for them was to transit in to North Atlantic shipping lanes quickly for intradiction.

Once they stabilised on the single reactor designs. Focus shifted on building those boats.

Here again you will find Oscar as an exception. Because she was designed carry a massive Anti Ship missile.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by kit »

OT for this thread , but in light of the above interesting discussion is the fact nuclear submarines are designed around the reactors not the other way around. So the nuclear reactor size and capability is crucial.

You need compact high performance reactors (likely HEU) for SSNs , no way around this
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

Pratyush wrote:yes you are. Because we both know that the service life of a submarine is 30 years at most. A submarine commissioned in 1965 will not be in service beyond 1995. So it's not in service.
Why do you need to run around the bush? :D Just answer the question. Simple.
Pratyush wrote:show me the exact sentence in any of my post in the last 24 hours where I have explicitly stated that Arihant be used as an attack submarine.
That is what you are claiming. These are your own words below....
Pratyush wrote:2) A modern 83 MW reactor is perfectly capable doing everything that you have outlined when powering a modern 4000 to 5000 ton boat. Especially when it's already available within India.
Pratyush wrote:3) hydrodynamics are hydrodynamics, once you develop the skills to optimise a design for one set of requirement. It's relatively easy to transfer the skills for other set or requirements. Arihant design would have been completed by 2003-4 at the latest for her launching in 2009. A start at SSN even as late as 2010, would have resulted in a completed design by 2016-17. Along with a boat in the water by 2024-25.
Where is the modern 4,000 to 5,000 ton boat that you are stating that is readily available in India? Please show us the design or the hull of a 4,000 to 5,000 ton boat that a 83MW reactor is just itching to go inside of? Please illustrate to us all. Are we going to upscale the Scorpene, Kilo or HDW 209 design or are we going to downscale the Arihant design? Because in the absence of either, we have to create a new design. I am asking you again ----> Have you conducted any studies to validate what you are stating? Do you have any empirical data to prove your assertion? Show it.

India does NOT have an available SSN hull as of today. It does not *E-X-I-S-T* other than in your imagination. That SSN design is still being meticulously worked on at the Indian Naval Design Bureau. They have to finalize that design and then validate it. There is a lot of engineering involved here. Some facilities have to be built (and they are) to obtain the desired result. Design is not just a simple 2D drawing of a submarine outline. It is not like someone takes a piece of white paper, draws a submarine on it and goes VOILA!! Now lets insert our 83MW reactor inside! :lol:

Please understand the genesis of the ATV (Advanced Technology Vessel) program, which gave birth to the Arihant Class SSBN program. This was India's first attempt at creating a nuclear powered submarine. It started in the 1970s with an extremely limited budget. India was not awash with cash (compared to today) back in the 1970s. So "scaling back" was the ethos back then. The first goal was to validate the concept and only then could India move on to the next stage. Generous support was provided by the then Soviet Union and later Russia.

This 83MW reactor on the Arihant that you are seeing today is a result of that venture. But 83 MW is not enough today. Today's boats are heavier due to the more capable weapons, sonars, sensors, etc on board. Mission profiles have also changed and require boats with much greater speed and capability that a 83MW reactor will just not be able to provide. And with the experience gained from developing the 83MW reactor, BARC is now creating a new design of a 190MW reactor. It will be similar to the 190MW OK-650B/OK-650M reactor found on the Akula Class. That is one of the primary reasons why India even leased that vessel for 10 years.

This new 190MW CLWR-B2 reactor will power both the next generation Indian SSBN (known as S5) and the next generation SSN (Project 75 Alpha). A 83MW reactor is not going to meet the demand. And today, India has the money to nurture two nuclear powered submarine programs. That was a luxury not available to India in the 70s, 80s or even 90s. If the 83MW reactor was just perfectly fine and dandy, why would BARC fund the development of a new reactor that provides a max output of 190MW? Why would they go down that path? Just for fun?

And India is a country - especially when it comes to military platforms - that will rinse & repeat sub-systems & components, if it works fine on another platform. But to set aside fundamental concepts of physics and let physics take care of itself (as you advocate) is not a path that the services adopt. They are bound by the laws of science, just like all of us are. Perhaps you are not bound by those laws of science. You would do wonders for China's propaganda machine. They will pay you a nice sum :)

Could it be - as you admitted in your post above - that today's submarines are heavier compared to her predecessors, despite all your talk of barrel rolls and 9g turns? Today's submarines require more powerful reactors, due to their requirements. Why should India be any different? The time and money saved with your 83MW venture on a 4,000 to 5,000 ton boat (that does not even exist!) will come up short against the PLAN's SSNs and their CBGs. This involves lots of money and time. It will be delayed and India will be at a disadvantage because of it, till the vessel arrives. But those are the cards we have to play with. Unless we get SSNs off the shelf from Russia or elsewhere.
Pratyush wrote:Coming to the Indian Navy. The Indian 190 MW reactor has been designed for a larger SSBN carrying larger missiles in greater numbers. When compared to the Arihant.
That is not the full story, as the 190 MW reactor will be used on the Project 75 Alpha as well.

You are just going to have to accept that reality, no matter how much you cry wolf.
Pratyush wrote:The wheel is not getting reinvented. However much you want to believe that it will give the Indian SSN the ability to perform barrel rolls and pull 9g turns. Or even out run a modern heavy torpedo. Nor is the submarine going to be tooling along at 30 + knots 24*7*365.
It is being reinvented, regardless of what you believe. The Navy knows what it is doing and certainly sees no point in putting in a 83MW reactor in a 6,000+ ton SSN. Neither will they use a mythical, non-existant 4,000 to 5,000 ton boat that lives only in your head. What you believe is quite frankly irrelevant to the Indian Navy.
Pratyush wrote:For over 30 years, close to 100 submarines with reactors in the Arihant ball park have done the job. But it's not sufficient for the Indian Navy.
The Foxtrot Class SSK also served the IN well. One of them was eventually used as a test bed for some subsystems. Why don't we just build more Foxtrot Class boats, instead of wasting money on P-75I?

In the same vein, the November Class SSN was the then Soviet Union's first nuclear powered, attack submarine. She had a pair of 70MW reactors. Instead of 83MW Arihant Class SSBNs or the unicorn 83MW 4,000 to 5,000 ton SSN, why don't we just build these instead?

These vessels are old designs, but they did the job. Why waste time & money on newer and more capable vessels?

While we are it, lets retire the surface fleet and move back to sail powered, wooden vessels with cannons. They will be really cheap. Our naval personnel can switch out their whites for pirate uniforms. Will be lots of fun!
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

kit wrote:OT for this thread , but in light of the above interesting discussion is the fact nuclear submarines are designed around the reactors not the other way around. So the nuclear reactor size and capability is crucial.

You need compact high performance reactors (likely HEU) for SSNs , no way around this
Sirjee, don't say logical things. You will hurt the feelings and sentiments :mrgreen:
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Pratyush »

Rakesh understand this. No matter how much you try to say that I am asking for an SSN derravative of Arihant.

If I was asking for an arihant SSN. Then it would not be in the water by 2024. Which is what I have started in the section you have quoted. Instead, i would have stated that she would be in the water by 2016-17. In the basis of what you have taken from my post.

Not that the construction starts in 2016 with boat in the water by 24. Which is what I have said in section's you have quoted.


Not that hard to understand, unless you are deliberately doing that.

Second let's take foxtrot that you have used as an example.

It was used for 30 + years. So it's successor kilo class and type 209 in the Indian Navy should both be is larger? If we follow your logic. Yet only one is larger

The other half the size of the other one. Why is that?

What about the Scorpean. She should also be larger than the foxtrot, or the kilo or the type 209? Is she? Afterall she is 25 to 30 years after both of them.

If am taking your argument to it's logical conclusion.

Anyway, I have made my peace with this stupid program.

Lets continue with this stupid program for another few years.

Let's limit our self to 6 SSNs by 2045. Which is what we are going to have with our building speeds. By which time the PLAN will have 60 to 75 modern subs. With more than a few of them permanently based in Gwader. Sitting right below our lines of communication both from Suez and the Gulf.

Let's continue with this delusion that this program will give us valuable technology needed to build something on our own.
Pratyush
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12197
Joined: 05 Mar 2010 15:13

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Pratyush »

Rakesh wrote:
kit wrote:OT for this thread , but in light of the above interesting discussion is the fact nuclear submarines are designed around the reactors not the other way around. So the nuclear reactor size and capability is crucial.

You need compact high performance reactors (likely HEU) for SSNs , no way around this
Sirjee, don't say logical things. You will hurt the feelings and sentiments :mrgreen:
Kit, Modern western submarine reactors are HEU because they are life of ship reactors.

https://fas.org/wp-content/uploads/medi ... esting.pdf


It means that the submarine once in the water dosent require any refueling during the entire service life of the boat. This results in a ship that's not out of service for between 4 to 5 years of her 30 odd years of service for refueling. Saving on cost incurred on multiple core renewals.

The like posted above lists many more advantages of HEU and life of ship reactors.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

Pratyush wrote:Rakesh understand this. No matter how much you try to say that I am asking for an SSN derravative of Arihant.

If I was asking for an arihant SSN. Then it would not be in the water by 2024. Which is what I have started in the section you have quoted. Instead, i would have stated that she would be in the water by 2016-17. In the basis of what you have taken from my post.

Not that the construction starts in 2016 with boat in the water by 24. Which is what I have said in section's you have quoted.


Not that hard to understand, unless you are deliberately doing that.
Your timelines have to align with reality Pratyush. Superimpose your own timelines with the political circus that goes on in India.

As a nation, we are still debating on aircraft carriers vs submarines in 2022. We are yet to resolve that issue. You want our netas and babus to discuss nuclear powered attack submarines? They will get asthma attack when they see the cost of the Project 75A program. They are only concerned with votes and job security. What else do they really care about?

India's SSN will come. It will be delayed, like most Indian Naval programs out there, but it will come. But you don't want to be in a situation with a boat that is not capable of handling its mission, because we were solely focused on what the Chinese are putting out to sea and we put out a sub-standard boat to just keep up with the Chinese numbers. India's SSN has to be able to meet the mission requirements. Project 75A is not an ego contest for our Admirals.

Admirals may like to boast about their aircraft carriers or other surface combatants. They may even boast about their air fleet. But when it comes to their submarines, they are pin drop silent. No Admiral worth his salt will talk about his submarines in any forum, outside of people who are in the need to know. Navies of the world do not talk about their submarines. Boat Captains the world over live up to the adage - Run Silent, Run Deep. They have no other choice. Their own life and the life of their crew depends on staying silent, both literally and figuratively.

The only Admiral that opened his mouth was yours truly. Mithai = Akula II. Not a day goes by on this forum without some BRFite reminding me of my faux pas. This is my legacy :lol: Bees Saal Baad Bhi!!!!
Pratyush wrote:Second let's take foxtrot that you have used as an example.

It was used for 30 + years. So it's successor kilo class and type 209 in the Indian Navy should both be is larger? If we follow your logic. Yet only one is larger

The other half the size of the other one. Why is that?
Yes, the Kilo (3,075 tons) is larger in submerged displacement than the Foxtrot (2,515 tons).

And the HDW 209 (1,810 tons) is indeed smaller in submerged displacement than than the Foxtrot.

Please look at the Type 206 boat, the design that preceded the HDW 209. Her submerged displacement was 500 tons. Comparatively, the HDW 209, Type 1100 was 1,210 tons submerged displacement. That is more than double of the HDW 206! For the Germans, that was a large increase in submerged displacement but provided greater capability. The variant the Indian Navy got was the HDW 209, Type 1500 which has a submerged displacement of 1,810 tons. Also take a look at the Germany Navy, her coastline, her naval philosophy, her previous submarine programs, her export submarines, etc. It will make sense why their submarines were that puny back then. Take a look at the Russian coastline and geography. Then you will understand why the Russians never had the luxury of operating tiny boats like their German counterparts.

Take a look at the Dolphin Class. A series of boats operated by the Israeli Navy, but made by HDW of Germany. They are based off the Type 212. The first batch (Dolphin-I) have slightly larger submerged displacements than the Type 212. But the next batch (Dolphin-II) has a 500 tonnage difference of submerged displacement. Nothing is known about Israeli boats, but they are rumoured to carry nuclear-tipped missiles.

Stop viewing in isolation and look at the larger picture. With a requirement for greater & increased capability, comes a corresponding need for a larger platform. Especially true with military platforms.
Pratyush wrote:What about the Scorpean. She should also be larger than the foxtrot, or the kilo or the type 209? Is she? Afterall she is 25 to 30 years after both of them.

If am taking your argument to it's logical conclusion.
Same as above. See the French submarine programs that preceded the Scorpène (Agosta, Daphne, Aréthuse). Also see the endurance of the Scorpène in relation to something like the Shortfin Barracuda. The lack of submerged endurance on diesel-electric submarines gave birth to systems like AIP, of which the French created one called MESMA. It alleviated that problem to a large extent.

You are taking things to simplistic conclusions, not logical ones.
Pratyush wrote:Anyway, I have made my peace with this stupid program.

Lets continue with this stupid program for another few years.

Let's limit our self to 6 SSNs by 2045. Which is what we are going to have with our building speeds. By which time the PLAN will have 60 to 75 modern subs. With more than a few of them permanently based in Gwader. Sitting right below our lines of communication both from Suez and the Gulf.

Let's continue with this delusion that this program will give us valuable technology needed to build something on our own.
While the Chinese are building at a rapid pace, please understand that a number advantage alone does not translate into a win for the Chinese.

There are counters available to every scenario that the Chinese can put out to sea. I will leave it at that.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

I believe I may have mentioned this earlier on BRF.

The PLAN completed a study of their adversarial navies, especially that of the Japanese Navy (JMSDF). The PLAN concluded that the greatest threat to their CBGs is not the JMSDF's surface fleet, but rather the JMSDF's submarine arm - the Oyashio Class, the Sōryū Class and the latest Taigei Class. Achaari Chicken Cutlet Sandwich!

Just imagine what the US Navy's Virginia Class boats (among their other assets) will do to the PLAN. Chicken Dabba Gosht! :)
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

X-Post from CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions thread ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7803&start=440#p2565235
Rsatchi wrote:^^Rakesh
From the Naval point: Conventional Subs. should be the item isnt it??
Project 75 (Scorpène Class) is a fiasco on many levels, with ToT (or the lack of it) being one of them. Designing our own conventional submarine may not be in our reach as of yet. See this article below....

Lessons from Project 75
https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2021-06-07
07 June 2021

Also see this post ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6905&p=2565264#p2565264

Either India is just not negotiating properly with the OEM or the selected PSU in India is not able to absorb the technology. But something is definitely rotten or there is some other reason. Scorpène Class is our second submarine line that is built in India, with the first being a pair of HDW 209 boats. Other customers that purchased similar boats are not only churning out submarine designs of their own...but selling those designs on the international stage. South Korea comes to mind.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

India’s Submarine Decision
https://www.delhipolicygroup.org/public ... ision.html
13 May 2022

By Commodore Lalit Kapur (Retd.)
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

We fight to win and win with a knockout, because there is no runner up in wars
https://satyaagrah.com/shorts/shorts-de ... up-in-wars
27 July 2022
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by arvin »

X- post from Defence R&D Thread
Vips wrote:Bharat Forge, General Atomics to collaborate for li-ion battery systems.

Bharat forge as signed a collaboration deal with American technological giant General Atomics for the creation of lithium-ion battery systems for the Indian Navy.

According to Bharat Forge, the two parties have also decided to collaborate on permanent magnet motors.

Submarines among other naval units employ lithium-ion battery technology.

The agreement was signed in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, on the sidelines of the DefExpo. The Electromagnetic Systems Group (GA-EMS) of General Atomics and Bharat Forge will work together in accordance with the parameters of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to develop Lithium-Ion battery systems for naval platforms for the Indian Navy.
Kilos likely to be first beneficiary of this deal.
I think one sub already allocated for R&D purpose.
Under water union of American and Russian systems.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by kit »

arvin wrote:X- post from Defence R&D Thread
Vips wrote:Bharat Forge, General Atomics to collaborate for li-ion battery systems.

Bharat forge as signed a collaboration deal with American technological giant General Atomics for the creation of lithium-ion battery systems for the Indian Navy.

According to Bharat Forge, the two parties have also decided to collaborate on permanent magnet motors.

The agreement was signed in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, on the sidelines of the DefExpo. The Electromagnetic Systems Group (GA-EMS) of General Atomics and Bharat Forge will work together in accordance with the parameters of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to develop Lithium-Ion battery systems for naval platforms for the Indian Navy.
Interesting ., the next step would be GA / BF collaboration on EMALS !!
Thakur_B
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2404
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Thakur_B »

arvin wrote:X- post from Defence R&D Thread
Vips wrote:Bharat Forge, General Atomics to collaborate for li-ion battery systems.

Bharat forge as signed a collaboration deal with American technological giant General Atomics for the creation of lithium-ion battery systems for the Indian Navy.

According to Bharat Forge, the two parties have also decided to collaborate on permanent magnet motors.

Submarines among other naval units employ lithium-ion battery technology.

The agreement was signed in Gandhinagar, Gujarat, on the sidelines of the DefExpo. The Electromagnetic Systems Group (GA-EMS) of General Atomics and Bharat Forge will work together in accordance with the parameters of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to develop Lithium-Ion battery systems for naval platforms for the Indian Navy.
Kilos likely to be first beneficiary of this deal.
I think one sub already allocated for R&D purpose.
Under water union of American and Russian systems.
Do kilos even have that much life left to take advantage of LI battery lobgetivity? These batteries will easily last up to 10 years.
RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5620
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by RoyG »

Rakesh wrote:X-Post from CDS Appointment & Command Restructuring: News & Discussions thread ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7803&start=440#p2565235
Rsatchi wrote:^^Rakesh
From the Naval point: Conventional Subs. should be the item isnt it??
Project 75 (Scorpène Class) is a fiasco on many levels, with ToT (or the lack of it) being one of them. Designing our own conventional submarine may not be in our reach as of yet. See this article below....

Lessons from Project 75
https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2021-06-07
07 June 2021

Also see this post ---> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6905&p=2565264#p2565264

Either India is just not negotiating properly with the OEM or the selected PSU in India is not able to absorb the technology. But something is definitely rotten or there is some other reason. Scorpène Class is our second submarine line that is built in India, with the first being a pair of HDW 209 boats. Other customers that purchased similar boats are not only churning out submarine designs of their own...but selling those designs on the international stage. South Korea comes to mind.
Lack of strategic vision and ability to absorb the tech. Outside of a few agency programs, the gov cannot give enough incentive to retain talent.
arvin
BRFite
Posts: 672
Joined: 17 Aug 2016 21:26

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by arvin »

Thakur_B wrote: Do kilos even have that much life left to take advantage of LI battery lobgetivity? These batteries will easily last up to 10 years.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-i ... 2021-04-20
As a stop-gap, three Kilo class submarines have been put through a second medium refit (MR) at a Russian shipyard with a fourth scheduled to depart this year. A medium refit is usually done only once in the 30-year life of a submarine. The second refit slaps on an additional decade to the submarine hull taking it to around 40 years. These MRs, costing around $200 million (Rs 1,400 crore) each, were initiated around five years ago when it became increasingly clear that the navy was not getting new submarines in a hurry. With the delays in Project 75I and the dip in the force levels, the navy could well be forced to take a call to upgrade the only three Kilos which have not had a second medium refit. This will enable them to serve through the lost decade.
3 - 4 Kilos have gone through second medium refit with Russian shipbuilder Zvezdochka. That extends their life by a decade into the 2030s.
Hoping that the remaining three can be given life extension by a decade along with improved power pack.
ks_sachin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2906
Joined: 24 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: Sydney

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by ks_sachin »

The Kilo’s will be the Navy’s Mig21s!!!

What a fiasco borne out of a lack of fwd planning. The Navy top brass as well as the IAF top brass not to mention the IA top brass has been reading the Arabian Nights too thoroughly!!!

Submarines, fighter planes and rifles cannot materalise by rubbing a fantastical lamp!!!
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

https://twitter.com/DesiEscobar07/statu ... Udb9J4aV5g ---> The P-75I program is being given another extension, with a new deadline for bid submission being set for August 2023.
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

The Project 75 (I) for the next-gen submarine will be cleared by next year; a new plan for Minesweepers, says Navy Chief
https://www.financialexpress.com/defenc ... f/2900116/
04 Dec 2022
Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 18274
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: Project 75I - It Begins

Post by Rakesh »

Germany to consider re-bidding if Indian MoD and Indian Navy removes some liability clauses in P-75I tender
https://www.theigmp.org/2022/12/germany ... ender.html
04 Dec 2022
Post Reply