Project 75I - It Begins
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Whoever will help us to miniaturize a 190 MW power plant (or supply one under TOT) to power our next Nuclear subs will get the P75I order. If we try to develop the nuclear reactor one on our own then we are seeing a delay of at least 10-15 years in rolling out the SSN/SSBN.
No strategic gains from buying big ticket items from Spain or Germany or South Korea or for that matter from Japan. Our only choice is Russia or France.
Barracuda from France which has some commonality across its conventional and nuclear subs and is helping Brazil build its N-submarine has an advantage here.
No strategic gains from buying big ticket items from Spain or Germany or South Korea or for that matter from Japan. Our only choice is Russia or France.
Barracuda from France which has some commonality across its conventional and nuclear subs and is helping Brazil build its N-submarine has an advantage here.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
No correlation between the nuclear power plant and P75I - they dont even have the same cast of characters or offer even a fig leaf of cover. France is helping Brazil with the sub portion of the nuclear submarine, Brazil is doing the nuclear bit. No wonder it is delayed.
BARC will do the miniaturization of the nuclear power plant, I dont think you want to give the P75I project to BARC !!. Similarly for the other organiztions...
BARC will do the miniaturization of the nuclear power plant, I dont think you want to give the P75I project to BARC !!. Similarly for the other organiztions...
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Good luck with our 'indigenous' efforts to Miniaturize a 190 MW reactor. I will be happy if it happens even in 2030. It means we will have to wait till at least 2035 for our planned SSN and 6000 ton SSBN's!!!! ![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
https://chanakyaforum.com/indian-navys- ... ater-stay/
Reports that P75I RFP will not require DRDO AIP. Meaning it would be a foreign OEM AIP
Reports that P75I RFP will not require DRDO AIP. Meaning it would be a foreign OEM AIP
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Guys a word of caution, sometimes in the past such reports have been put off in the Media just to get info the state of our Technology, remember media was saying Akash is being cancelled and Patriots are being purchased. Some of the Media reports are fishing reports, there are many commission agents wondering what is happening is a Project going the Trishul way or Akash way.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
@Aditya_V
In the case of AIP, there is a government issued Press release in March 2021 saying that the DRDO+L&T+Thermax land based prototype has been successfully tested and the next step is to create a marinised prototype
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.asp ... 03456&s=08
And an article that says the step after that would be to incorporate in Scorpene refit in 2023-2024
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 685_1.html
I don't understand how a media report is supposed to help "fish" here, let alone for specifics above. It's not as if the government needs to take cognizance of a 'media' report, especially in a forum like above ? Also the forum credits Ajit Dubey and ANI, (ANI has been seen as often close to the government inside thinking in breaking reports. And Ajit Dubey is the national security editor there https://www.linkedin.com/in/ajit-k-dube ... bdomain=in)
Could you suggest a cautionary scenario which might apply here ? Because my imagination fails on this.
In the case of AIP, there is a government issued Press release in March 2021 saying that the DRDO+L&T+Thermax land based prototype has been successfully tested and the next step is to create a marinised prototype
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.asp ... 03456&s=08
And an article that says the step after that would be to incorporate in Scorpene refit in 2023-2024
https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 685_1.html
I don't understand how a media report is supposed to help "fish" here, let alone for specifics above. It's not as if the government needs to take cognizance of a 'media' report, especially in a forum like above ? Also the forum credits Ajit Dubey and ANI, (ANI has been seen as often close to the government inside thinking in breaking reports. And Ajit Dubey is the national security editor there https://www.linkedin.com/in/ajit-k-dube ... bdomain=in)
Could you suggest a cautionary scenario which might apply here ? Because my imagination fails on this.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Speculation regarding that Project 75I RFP is a rejection of DRDO AIP, selling AIP is an opportunity, so any agent would like push that AIP and would like more details on DRDO AIP. Half the statements in the Chanakya article are based on unamed sources.
Is there an ANI tweet saying DRDO AIP is not part of project 75I
Is there an ANI tweet saying DRDO AIP is not part of project 75I
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
What these websites are claiming is that Indian navy wants DRDO to first prove its AIP on a naval platform (it is not satisfied with the land prototype version) and at the same time does not want to permit it to use a scorpene or on the P75I. So how will DRDO prove its AIP? By developing another separate submarine or use an upcoming to be retired U 208 or Kilo? ![ROTFL :rotfl:](./images/smilies/icon_rotfl.gif)
![ROTFL :rotfl:](./images/smilies/icon_rotfl.gif)
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
The Natasha Lobby is at play here. Just a couple of days back Russia again made a pitch for its Amur Submarine with promises of license for unlimited numbers, its AIP to be ready in "2 years" and its VLS capability.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
I think there were early reports that IN is *definitely* not looking at Russian tech for the P75i ., Natashas can remain where they are.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
indeed, the Amur class has been in "development" since 2004Vips wrote:The Natasha Lobby is at play here. Just a couple of days back Russia again made a pitch for its Amur Submarine with promises of license for unlimited numbers, its AIP to be ready in "2 years" and its VLS capability.
![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Putin is coming for Indo-Russia summit and that's why all thse media reports are fishing
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
There will be no summit unless some defense related item is finalized for import from Russia. There has to be Photo-Op of agreement being signed/exchanged. Right now there are major differences on the terms for a deal for the AK-203 which is a low-hanging fruit compared to the big ticket items.(Ka-226T and P75I).
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
The next step after the Land Based prototype is a marinised prototype - which can be fitted in a submarine hull form, with all the corresponding constraints. (But not an actual submarine)Vips wrote:What these websites are claiming is that Indian navy wants DRDO to first prove its AIP on a naval platform (it is not satisfied with the land prototype version) and at the same time does not want to permit it to use a scorpene or on the P75I. So how will DRDO prove its AIP? By developing another separate submarine or use an upcoming to be retired U 208 or Kilo?
The 270 kW Land based prototype in Ambernath completed testing in Mar 2021, and Marinised Engineered AIP Energy Module (MAREEM)was authorized even earlier.
https://peoplesdemocracy.in/2021/0321_p ... asses-test
Incidentally, the prototype reactor for Arihant was set up initially on land in Kalpakkam in 2006 and tested/operated, before one was approved to be installed on the Arihant. This approach was standard for US naval reactors as wellNext a Marinised Engineered AIP Energy Module (MAREEM), a pre-production version of an on-board AIP system, will be designed and installed on a test-bed submarine mock-up for a series of trials, after which the production version would be developed and manufactured by industry partners for fitment on operational submarines. This AIP is designed as a modular unit that can be fitted into special hull sections in submarines or even in other applications.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Exactly. This summit was supposed to be held in 2020 but postponed due to covid. Now as soon as Mr. Jaishankar said that they are looking forward for the summit few weeks ago we see all these media reports of failures of DRDO, etc. India has the most biased and paid media., it is not even funny anymore.Vips wrote:There will be no summit unless some defense related item is finalized for import from Russia. There has to be Photo-Op of agreement being signed/exchanged. Right now there are major differences on the terms for a deal for the AK-203 which is a low-hanging fruit compared to the big ticket items.(Ka-226T and P75I).
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
the only items India would be interested are strategic platforms, maybe a couple of nuclear submarines or S400 / 500s , for almost all tactical weapon systems India has enough competencies in equal or better systems. What about hypersonic weapon systems? They can also work on new nuclear power stations. The relationship needs to evolve or it will suffer a divorce or at best estrangedVips wrote:There will be no summit unless some defense related item is finalized for import from Russia. There has to be Photo-Op of agreement being signed/exchanged. Right now there are major differences on the terms for a deal for the AK-203 which is a low-hanging fruit compared to the big ticket items.(Ka-226T and P75I).
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Chanakya article is attributed to the national security editor of ANI. And yes, there is an ANI tweet, and ANI article had you bothered to look https://mobile.twitter.com/ani_digital/ ... 3006825475Aditya_V wrote:Speculation regarding that Project 75I RFP is a rejection of DRDO AIP, selling AIP is an opportunity, so any agent would like push that AIP and would like more details on DRDO AIP. Half the statements in the Chanakya article are based on unamed sources.
Is there an ANI tweet saying DRDO AIP is not part of project 75I
It says that DRDO AIP will not be required in Project75I RFP.
Look, maybe the IN wants to look at other AIPs (Though they did have mesma option for P75 and passed it up) and hates DRDO AIP.
Or it's possible that there is a RFP response dependency issue.
Its not as if one can say right now.
The RFP is already a super complex one, with SP route, a private and public yard receiving it and having to tie up with one of 6 OEM. The artcle says it will take 2 years to pick a winner. [time which can be used for maturing DRDO AIP tech with MAREEM]
If the RFP came out tomorrow, you can rest assured that each submarine OEM may have to modify their sub design (nothing off the shelf expected. at least Korea has a sub with VLS, the rest don't. France may be able to modify Barracuda but the Australian experience of costs is a bit cautionary, . Heck, Russia doesn't even have an operational AIP, and Korea is in the middle of transitioning to a different AIP (lithium) ) Thus their power and other parameters for an AIP will also change along with design. DRDO won't be able to provide those parameters.
The DRDO AIP technology will also need to be modified for each design and it's quite likely that the parameters aren't set or could be specified by the MoD. The DRDO technology hasn't been matured yet and P75I will need a different design in any case. Which will add to lead time for the P75I sub
There are different ways around it, including having the RFP ask for different options/quotes. O
r using the technical parameters of the shortlisted/winning solutions as a target for DRDO AIP P75I design, and so on . Due to storage options, this may require further modification of the sub/it may not be as easy as a plug. (to be seen)
You can have a look, check your options and even negotiate amendments to the RFP lter. Or have indigenous technology from a later sub onwards. But one thing is that asking for DRDO AIP might make "firm response" unfirm and will likely add to timeline of the first sub as DRDO AIP and maybe the sub get redesigned. (We're already talking 2030 for the first sub, and it will take a fair amount of time to issue the RFP, modify a solution, respond etc)
A lot of speculation on future direction, most of which is premature speculation, in absence of concrete info from a RFP.
And using that article to get illicit info on DRDO AIP is a bit tinfoil hats illogical. You haven't explained any scenario which would require the GoI to release illicit info.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Lets put this, a lot in the article is pure speculation with a lot of sources
But the headline of the Article and paras are
Put 10-15 articles out there then the GOI- official agaencies will have to answer baseless speculation. Vendor preparing the RFP will then adjust what on offer/ whats not . Should I quote with a prospective AIP in mind or without AIP in Mind.
What's the point in making a definite strong statement in the headline and the article when there is no real information in the Public Domain whether or not P75I will have or won't have DRDO AIP.
But the headline of the Article and paras are
Why would some one put a firm statement which is based on speculation, there is no quote or evidence that P75I will not have DRDO AIP but that's exactly what the article states.Indian Navy’s 6 new indigenous submarines won’t have indigenous AIP for prolonged underwater stay
Put 10-15 articles out there then the GOI- official agaencies will have to answer baseless speculation. Vendor preparing the RFP will then adjust what on offer/ whats not . Should I quote with a prospective AIP in mind or without AIP in Mind.
What's the point in making a definite strong statement in the headline and the article when there is no real information in the Public Domain whether or not P75I will have or won't have DRDO AIP.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Huma Siddiqui's take:
Indian Navy and the impending issue of AIP import for Project 75 (I) subs
Indian Navy and the impending issue of AIP import for Project 75 (I) subs
“The majority of Indian Naval submarines are from the pre-AIP era but even the recent Scorpene class submarines, three of which have been commissioned and the remaining three are at an advanced stage of build do not have an AIP on board. This is surprising since the contract for these had been signed in 2005 by which time AIP was an accepted technology on board and it is hoped that those in the decision making loop had sound reasons for it. Ironically, Pakistan’s first AIP submarine built by the same foreign OEM, Naval Group of France was entering service at the time,” he says.
It is also understood that the next submarine building programme, Project 75 (I) which was recently approved by the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) and is awaiting the issue of an RfP is not likely to insist on the indigenously developed AIP. “This may be a sensible decision since DRDO has often flattered to deceive and its insistence has often compromised combat capability. On the contrary, perhaps the best solution would be to ensure that each of the foreign OEMs in the fray offers a proven AIP with the option of switching to the indigenous AIP provided it is contemporary and performs satisfactorily on the Kalvari class submarines,” the former submariner states.
In his view, “the P75(I) submarines are unlikely to enter service before the early 2030s, by which time technology would have advanced even further and the AIP-lead acid battery combination would have been superseded by the AIP-lithium ion battery combination which would provide additional capability to the submarines. The irony however is that while the DRDO system may not be the preferred choice perhaps because it isn’t yet proven, three of the five foreign OEMs in the fray for P75(I) also do not have a proven fuel cell based system either.”
Infact, only tkMS (ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems), Germany and Daewoo South Korea have a proven fuel cell system, with the latter having been derived from the former.
India’s own AIP still far away
For many years since, no serious attempt was made to develop an AIP capability till DRDO began work on an indigenous fuel cell based AIP system. It is understood that this indigenous system will be installed on the Kalvari class submarines as and when they commence their first major refit. “However, this system is still at a development stage on a test bed and could be some distance away from operationalisation,” Commodore Anil Jai Singh observes.
AIP for Indian Navy
With the Chinese presence growing in the Indian Ocean Region, the AIP on the Indian submarines is needed on an urgent basis. “Whether India will have to buy from an OEM only time will tell as indigenous AIP is going to take a long time before it can be fitted on any of the submarines,” according to a naval officer.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Agree with Barath that not insisting on DRDO AIP reduces complexity an risk. As we have seen in the Scorpene case, there are long delays in execution of contract from originally-agreed deadlines. India is short of submarines, so anything that delays more is not advisable.
If you use DRDO AIP on a new contract, the OEM will blame it for all delays and shortfalls in performance.
It is best to try out the DRDO AIP in one of the existing, perhaps older, subs in the fleet first.
I still think that six more Scorpenes should be ordered in continuation of the old contract, while this new contract is getting negotiated.
If you use DRDO AIP on a new contract, the OEM will blame it for all delays and shortfalls in performance.
It is best to try out the DRDO AIP in one of the existing, perhaps older, subs in the fleet first.
I still think that six more Scorpenes should be ordered in continuation of the old contract, while this new contract is getting negotiated.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
The only logical explanation for skipping DRDO AIP for the P 75I is that the AIP is not meeting performance criteria.
Else, if the tech works as advertised. Then scaling it up to meet the needs of a presumably larger boat is not a challenge. Nor is the ability of fitting it in the space required for a clean sheet or any derivative design.
Lets wait and watch for clarity to emerge.
PS:- for this project I am in favor of using the Arihant as a starting position and scaling her design down to 4000 tons or so and converting her to an AIP equipped conventional boat.
Else, if the tech works as advertised. Then scaling it up to meet the needs of a presumably larger boat is not a challenge. Nor is the ability of fitting it in the space required for a clean sheet or any derivative design.
Lets wait and watch for clarity to emerge.
PS:- for this project I am in favor of using the Arihant as a starting position and scaling her design down to 4000 tons or so and converting her to an AIP equipped conventional boat.
-
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 4243
- Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Why not do the following:
1) Order 6 more Scorpenes with Mesma AIP (or without AIP if its going to delay the induction). Arrest the depletion in numbers
2) Build an indigenous line of SSKs with DRDO's AIP
3) Have a provision for an additional 6 AIP-Scorpenes, if own SSK is not ready by 2030
With enough funds (which have to be spent on P75I anyway), I believe we can have our 1st SSK boat hitting the water in a decade. 2030s is the timeframe for 75I's anyway. Just cut the umbilical cord and do the homegrown SSK project with a consortium of L&T, MDL and DRDO on a mission mode. Like Kennedy's moonshot. Its not even as hard as a moonshot, given our Arihant experience.
1) Order 6 more Scorpenes with Mesma AIP (or without AIP if its going to delay the induction). Arrest the depletion in numbers
2) Build an indigenous line of SSKs with DRDO's AIP
3) Have a provision for an additional 6 AIP-Scorpenes, if own SSK is not ready by 2030
With enough funds (which have to be spent on P75I anyway), I believe we can have our 1st SSK boat hitting the water in a decade. 2030s is the timeframe for 75I's anyway. Just cut the umbilical cord and do the homegrown SSK project with a consortium of L&T, MDL and DRDO on a mission mode. Like Kennedy's moonshot. Its not even as hard as a moonshot, given our Arihant experience.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Do we even know what are the technical performance criteria for P75I (as opposed to P75?). I think the DRDO AIP is not quite matured - at the very least MAREEM or equivalent needs to be done first. I also think that even things which are "not a challenge" do take time, and effort. Doing anything for the first time in the country is a challenge. Doing it for a different design is less so but not a push button thing. And a suspect a submarine is not a super linear/modular plug and play equipment. Even if you want to create a modular design/plug, it may take some time/effort.Pratyush wrote:The only logical explanation for skipping DRDO AIP for the P 75I is that the AIP is not meeting performance criteria.
Else, if the tech works as advertised. Then scaling it up to meet the needs of a presumably larger boat is not a challenge. Nor is the ability of fitting it in the space required for a clean sheet or any derivative design.
Lets wait and watch for clarity to emerge.
PS:- for this project I am in favor of using the Arihant as a starting position and scaling her design down to 4000 tons or so and converting her to an AIP equipped conventional boat.
The point is that DRDO AIP is likely to take time to mature for P75 and again for P75I. And that works against the introduction timeline of the P75I.
Kakkaji's point about accountability of OEM is also valid.
The way out is to ask for options. Just because DRDO AIP isn't ready now, doesn't mean that it won't be ready in 5 years. Maybe you wind up with x% of P75I having the DRDO AIP. (because if things go right P75I design should be frozen before 5 years; metal cutting should already be under way)
I agree with you about scaling Arihant for an indigenous design. There was a statement made that they got not just design inputs, but different parameters as input which allowed them to modify. Arihant has VLS (even if ballistic instead of cruise). I just think that becomes the SSN first and then the indigenous SSK submarine that follows P75I (given the timelines)
I also like the idea of more Scorpenes in the interim, though I suspect that budget does get in the way or delays it. Heck, even improved Kilos would help with numbers. (though even less likely to get a case)
Huma Siddiqui is wrong, MESMA is proven. Others are not that far away.Infact, only tkMS (ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems), Germany and Daewoo South Korea have a proven fuel cell system, with the latter having been derived from the former.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
MESMA is not a fuel cell based AIP system. It uses steam turbine powered by steam generated from ethanol-oxygen combustion.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
As i said IN is definitely NOT looking at Russian tech for its new line of subs
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 420583.cms
Just a way of keeping out the Russians and bringing in western tech , likely HDW ( again ?!)
However, if the South Koreans are happy with sharing their lithium cell battery management tech ostensibly for their next line., it might as well go to SKorea
All the hullaballoo has nothing to do with DRDO AIP which is proceeding apace.
Everything to do with INs last capital acquisition in subs. May the best tech win !
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 420583.cms
Just a way of keeping out the Russians and bringing in western tech , likely HDW ( again ?!)
However, if the South Koreans are happy with sharing their lithium cell battery management tech ostensibly for their next line., it might as well go to SKorea
All the hullaballoo has nothing to do with DRDO AIP which is proceeding apace.
Everything to do with INs last capital acquisition in subs. May the best tech win !
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... arine.html
![Image](https://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2020/September/South_Korea_develops_lithium-ion_battery_for_new_Jang_Bogo-III_Class_diesel-electric_powered_attack_submarine_925_001.jpg)
I would give this beauty the best chance at the tender
![Image](https://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2020/September/South_Korea_develops_lithium-ion_battery_for_new_Jang_Bogo-III_Class_diesel-electric_powered_attack_submarine_925_001.jpg)
I would give this beauty the best chance at the tender
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Between South Korea and German Submarines the South Korean would be a better choice as it has the potential to have 6 to 10 VLS tubes. Would be interesting to see which class of missiles can be launched from these tubes (K15 or K4/K5).
But then South Korea is dependent on Germany for Diesel Engines (MTU) and Electric motor (Siemens) for powering these subs. How long will Germany continue to help Korea which only means losing potential business it can win?
But then South Korea is dependent on Germany for Diesel Engines (MTU) and Electric motor (Siemens) for powering these subs. How long will Germany continue to help Korea which only means losing potential business it can win?
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
@nachiket, you are right; oversight from my side and Huma Siddiqui is technically correct. But she misses the larger point that the requirement is for AIP, not fuel cells.
@Vips : yes on the design having VLS. Incidentally, even the K-VLS has a (taller) block 2. https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ma ... adex-2021/ However, I figure India will ask for its own I-VLS/I-VLS Block 2 in the design. Since the Dosan Ahn Changho-class has a 9.6m beam it will likely need modifications/design adaptations if it were required to launch the K4 (K4 has 12 m height). (But we knew that P75I was unlikely to be an off the shelf design)
@Vips : yes on the design having VLS. Incidentally, even the K-VLS has a (taller) block 2. https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/ma ... adex-2021/ However, I figure India will ask for its own I-VLS/I-VLS Block 2 in the design. Since the Dosan Ahn Changho-class has a 9.6m beam it will likely need modifications/design adaptations if it were required to launch the K4 (K4 has 12 m height). (But we knew that P75I was unlikely to be an off the shelf design)
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
HDW-214 is really cutting tech. I have seen some videos. Germans have prototyped it. I think it could be a good investment to try and mature their tech. Plus it will give a better know how for building up to date tech.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Fitting that many VLS in small submarine will have great repercussion on speed and range even a 6000+ Ton LA class has payload of only 12 Tomahawk (6 Brahmos in VLS weight more than 12 Tomahawk). And IMO sub launch Brahmos is dead end best option is Nirbhay and Brahmos-M from 21 inch tubes.Vips wrote:Between South Korea and German Submarines the South Korean would be a better choice as it has the potential to have 6 to 10 VLS tubes. Would be interesting to see which class of missiles can be launched from these tubes (K15 or K4/K5).
The whole P-75i makes little sense we already have scorpene tech let’s modify the Scorpene and continue building it.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Relevant so posting verbatim., and this is not my original postviveks wrote:HDW-214 is really cutting tech. I have seen some videos. Germans have prototyped it. I think it could be a good investment to try and mature their tech. Plus it will give a better know how for building up to date tech.
so here it goes
" U-212 and U-214 are answers to different problems, and therefore they are different.
U-212 is the result of a german requirement for a submarine with a nonmagnetic hull. This requirement has to do with the average depth of the Baltic Sea (56m). In those circumstances, the most important defence method of a submarine is just to go to the bottom and try to disappear in the sonar. Hence, the need for a non-magnetic steel hull.
Unfortunatelly, non-magnetic steel is also known in the industry as «sweet.steel.» Meaning that it is «softer» than the steel used in the U-214. Thats why a U-214 can go deeper than a U-212, although in the shallow water of the Baltic the U-212 would go un-notices while the U-214 would probably be caught by sonar.
Actually the family legacy of U-212 is not U-209, but the Thyssen project from the 1970s that resulted in the TR-1700 submarine from Argentina. The fastest Diesel-electric submarine in the world. The same basic layout with two decks is also found in the Dolphin class from Israel, although without non-magnetic steel nor AIP.{ Not true !!}
U-214s legacy is the U-209, although much changed. It is narrower and longer that U-212. It was not thought for the Baltic, but for open deep sea operation. Therefore U-214 will have no bottom of the sea limit, other than the limit imposed by the resistance of its stronger hull.
Both U-214 and U-212 can operate in shallow waters or deep waters, but U-212 has the edge on shallow water, while U-214 has the edge on deep water.
The systems can be changed and installed on either vessels, depending on the requirement of the users.
U-212 has older systems than the U-214 (which is just natural as the projects are almost 10 years apart).
Note that U-212 was never offered as an option to a navy. When it was offered to the Italian navy, there was no U-214 yet.
U-212 uses an imported combat system partially made in Norway by Kongsberg, known as MSI-90, while U-214s combat system is made in germany.by Atlas-Elektronik, being the latest version of the ISUS-90 system.
There are many differences in combat systems, but one of the most important results in U-212 being only able to fire torpedoes, while U-214 can fire both torpedoes and submarine launched sub harpoon missiles. This will change in future versions of U-212 though.
The consolidation of german naval industry ended with the competition between both models in the 1990s.
One cant just say which of them is better. The U-212 was an absolute german need for the Baltic conditions. Italy wanted an AIP submarine, and there wasnt really any real choice at the time. When a navy makes an option for a model, the most logical option is to stick to it, and thus Italy is going to get an additional two U-212.
For a navy that is going to protect shallow waters, there is no doubt about the clear superiority of U-212. In deep sea operations away from the shores, U-214 will fare better."
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
India issues tender for Rs 50,000 crore project to build six submarines
https://www.aninews.in/news/national/ge ... 720133631/
https://www.aninews.in/news/national/ge ... 720133631/
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 677
- Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
MoD issues RFP for construction of six P-75(I) submarines for Indian Navy
Posted On: 20 JUL 2021 4:03PM by PIB Delhi
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePa ... ID=1737191
Posted On: 20 JUL 2021 4:03PM by PIB Delhi
https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePa ... ID=1737191
As a major initiative towards ‘Make in India’, Ministry of Defence (MoD) has issued Request of Proposal (RFP) for the first acquisition programme under the Strategic Partnership Model for construction of six AIP fitted Conventional Submarines named Project 75(India) [P-75(I)] for the Indian Navy, on July 20, 2021. The RFP was issued to shortlisted Strategic Partners (SPs) or Indian Applicant Companies for the project viz, M/s Mazagaon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL) and M/s Larsen & Tubro (L&T). The project cost is over Rs 40,000 crore.
Project-75(I) envisages indigenous construction of six modern conventional submarines (including associated shore support, Engineering Support Package, training and spares package) with contemporary equipment, weapons & sensors including Fuel-Cell based AIP (Air Independent Propulsion Plant), advanced torpedoes, modern missiles and state of the art countermeasure systems. This would provide a major boost to the indigenous design and construction capability of submarines in India, in addition to bringing in the latest submarine design and technologies as part of the project.
Post receipt of responses to the Expression of Interest (EoI), shortlisting of potential Strategic Partners (SPs) and Foreign OEMs was undertaken. The shortlisted SPs to whom the RFP has been issued would be collaborating with any of the shortlisted Foreign OEMs viz, M/s Naval Group-France, M/s TKMS-Germany, M/s JSC ROE-Russia, M/s Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering Co Ltd-South Korea and M/s Navantia-Spain. These five foreign firms are the world leaders in the field of conventional submarine design, construction and all other related technologies. The foreign OEMs will be the technology partner in the SP Model. Foreign OEMs will enable SP for construction of submarines, achieving high levels of indigenization, and ToT for various technologies. These OEMs would enable setting up of dedicated manufacturing lines for these submarines in India by providing ToT for submarine design and other technologies and make India the global hub for submarine design and production.
The project would not only aid in boosting the core submarine/ship building industry but would also greatly enhance manufacturing/industrial sector, especially the MSME by development of an industrial eco-system for manufacture of associated spares/systems/equipment related to submarines. In order to achieve these objectives, the RFP has key features like mandatory level of indigenous manufacture of platforms, ToT for design/ manufacture/ maintenance of submarines and a few critical equipment and systems, setting up of an eco-system in India for such indigenisation and incentivisation for other key technologies, etc.
The overall aim would be to progressively build indigenous capabilities in the public/private sector to design, develop and manufacture complex weapon systems for the future needs of the Armed Forces. This will be an important step towards meeting broader national objectives, encouraging self reliance and aligning the defence sector with the ‘Make in India’ initiative of the Government.
-
- BRFite
- Posts: 677
- Joined: 05 Apr 2019 18:23
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
One doubt...
Who will decide the OEM...? Will MoD/Navy decide an OEM and then ask one of MDL/L&T to collaborate...? Or MDL/L&T will themselves select 1 out of 5 OEMs each and Navy will award the tender to one of these 2...?
If it is the latter, then it is not possible to split the order between MDL and L&T as news reports indicated earlier...
Also, in the latter case, Navy will not have a say in what submsrine to be bought...
All these days I thought it is the former, but the PIB press release seem to indicate that it's the latter...
Who will decide the OEM...? Will MoD/Navy decide an OEM and then ask one of MDL/L&T to collaborate...? Or MDL/L&T will themselves select 1 out of 5 OEMs each and Navy will award the tender to one of these 2...?
If it is the latter, then it is not possible to split the order between MDL and L&T as news reports indicated earlier...
Also, in the latter case, Navy will not have a say in what submsrine to be bought...
All these days I thought it is the former, but the PIB press release seem to indicate that it's the latter...
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
https://twitter.com/CovertShores/status ... 59079?s=20 ---> New workings, Type-212CD (related: http://hisutton.com/U212-AIP-Submarine.html ) submarine for Germany and Norway will feature angled outer hull for added stealth. Sketch based on public dimensions.
![Image](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8SQdylWYAIGtBJ?format=jpg&name=medium)
![Image](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E8SQdytWQAIFSfY?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
According to a Defence channel: The P75I is in for major delay if Indian govt stands by its condition that the competing submarine should be equipped with a 'proven and already working AIP'.
The above condition had reduced the number of competing Platforms to just South Korea and Germany. But Germany has now baulked at the various requirements of the the Navy:
-Indigenous content of 45% in the first submarine and 60% for the sixth submarine,
-Budget of 43,000 crores is too low
-Compulsory TOT to Indian Vendor
-Unlimited liability even after the manufacturing is with he private sector vendor.
If it opts out then the navy will be faced with a single vendor situation which is not allowed as per rules for awarding any contract.
Happy Chai, Biskoot and Samosa's for the Bureaucrats![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
The above condition had reduced the number of competing Platforms to just South Korea and Germany. But Germany has now baulked at the various requirements of the the Navy:
-Indigenous content of 45% in the first submarine and 60% for the sixth submarine,
-Budget of 43,000 crores is too low
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
-Compulsory TOT to Indian Vendor
-Unlimited liability even after the manufacturing is with he private sector vendor.
If it opts out then the navy will be faced with a single vendor situation which is not allowed as per rules for awarding any contract.
Happy Chai, Biskoot and Samosa's for the Bureaucrats
![Twisted Evil :twisted:](./images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germ ... SKBN2082E5Vips wrote: -Budget of 43,000 crores is too low![]()
:
50 billion for 12 subs so 25 B for 6 = 25,000 crores so its rather decent figure ! .. maybe some bells and whistles attached "TOT" but the so is the aussie deal
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Project 75 (I) hits a huge roadblock, one major contender pulls out; Know more
By: Huma Siddiqui | August 19, 2021 6:40 PM
The long awaited Project 75 (I) gets ground after one of the major bidders has withdrawn from the race. The Ministry of Defence in July had issued a Request for Proposal (RfP) for the construction of six conventional diesel-electric submarines (SSK) under the Make in India initiative and in collaboration with an established foreign submarine builder.
According to sources the Germany based M/s tkMS (ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems) which had offered Type 218 Invincible Class submarines has sent a letter to the government citing three major reasons for withdrawing from the contest.
Highly placed sources have confirmed to Financial Express Online receiving a letter from the M/s TKMS based in Germany, citing reasons for withdrawing from the Project 75 (I).”
What are the reasons cited for withdrawal?
Lack of Flexibility in the RfP
“The company highlights the rigidity of RfP. The time given to respond for such a huge deal is very short. In big ticket projects the response time is around 12-15 months,” the source quoted above explained.
The RfP for the Project 75 (I) was issued on July 10, 2021 after the DAC had put its stamp of approval in June 2021. And for this the date for responding has been stated as November this year.
“Before responding each and every aspect has to be considered, preparing the response in compliance with the RfP which is voluminous takes time,” the source added.
Liability clause
Another reason for withdrawing from the contest is the Liability Clause. The company is expected to take responsibility for the boats which will be made by the shipyards identified by the government. If anything goes wrong the OEM will be held responsible and will have to pay the penalty,” the source said.
Adding, “It is essentially an unlimited Liability Clause for the next 30 years.”
Mazagon Docks Ltd, Mumbai, and Larsen & Tubro are the two shortlisted firms who will be working on the six submarines under Project 75 (I). Each of them will build three each.
Technology Transfer
The intended degree of Transfer of Technology (ToT) is not specified. There is no clarity in how much technology needs to be transferred.
The Ministry of Defence had issued a statement on the RfP being issued which has clearly stated that India is looking for deep Transfer of Technology from the foreign OEM which would help in developing the indigenous capability to design and build submarines.
There is also a focus on the contract being awarded to the lowest bidder (L1), which will deter the OEM from transferring its complete technology and sharing its Intellectual Property (IP).
How does the pulling out of the German company impact the project?
The Project 75 (I) submarines are expected to be fitted with Fuel-Cell based Air Independent Propulsion (AIP).
There are only two companies in the world who have fuel cell system AIP which are tried and tested and already fitted on submarines. These include M/s tkMS (ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems), of Germany. This was the first company in the world which designed and developed this technology.
And the other company which has this technology which is based on the technology of the German company is Daewoo of South Korea.
With the German company pulling out of the race, a single vendor situation has been created.
Re: Project 75I - It Begins
Even if we give the contract to South Korea despite the single vendor situation, it is still dicey as South Korean submarines require German engine and motors!
We can of course order more scorpenes to be fitted with DRDO AIP's but then we wont have the VLS capability.
Time and space for Admiral Philipowski to peddle retro-fitted Kilo's/Amur's.![Smile :)](./images/smilies/smile.gif)
We can of course order more scorpenes to be fitted with DRDO AIP's but then we wont have the VLS capability.
Time and space for Admiral Philipowski to peddle retro-fitted Kilo's/Amur's.
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/smile.gif)
Last edited by Vips on 20 Aug 2021 01:33, edited 1 time in total.