Project 75I - It Begins

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Apr 2015 11:27

The only problem with this option,building more Scorpenes,is that the cost of Scorpene components,and much has to be imported/sourced from France is v.expensive. Secondly,the Scorpene design is now quite old even if they have yet to enter IN service.France has come out with newer concepts for the future.In most recent global sub contests,the German U-boats,212,214,Dolfins (and now the proposal for a 218 design), have been clear winners.

This is perhaps why the IN has realized that more Scorpenes will not suit it and have opted for building 6 SSNs/SSGNs,which will be far more capable than MEMSA AIP Scorpenes along with a new P-75I programme which will incorporate new tech for conventional subs. The Akulas on 10 yr leases will one is sure be absorbed by the IN after 10 years,bought perhaps at depreciated,throw-away prices.At that time Russia will be operating more than 10 Yasen-1/2 class SSGNs,more advanced than the Akulas and might operate only the last few Akulas it built,the Gepard,etc,supposed to be equiv to Akula-3s.

In numbers matter equally,then the Russian boats are the toughest,cheapest to acquire and will last for decades.The ability to accommodate BMos and Russian weaponry,sensors, etc. which will feature on most of our subs,both nuclear and conventional,will help bring down acquisition and operational costs too. The ability for incorporating the DRDO AIP system in any firang design,supposed to be around the corner will be a major factor if it is a success.

Hitesh · Post by **Hitesh** » 03 Apr 2015 05:25

You can upgrade the Scorpene class. Nothing prevents the current Scorpene class from being current. It is a weapons platform, not a weapon. It is supposed to include growth for technological upgrades to prevent obsolescence. Why not create Scorpene Mk 2 that will compete with U-212/214/218?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Apr 2015 11:12

At what cost? That seems to be the big Q.

nikhil_p · Post by **nikhil_p** » 03 Apr 2015 11:17

Hitesh, the Scorpenes are a French design. We have ToT clause, most designs are not shared in entirety. Making a scorpene Mk2 wont be easy. Also, the french will want us to pay for any changes made, which increases the price.
Making changes to submarines is not easy - to add a plug in MESMA for example, you will have to cut open the hull, rewire and re-pipe everything and test everything again.

It is better to design an improved hull form.

Why pay twice the amount for an older design, when you can get a newer design and capability (maybe even design strength - if we design our own). Commonality of spares is both a boon and bane when it comes to warfighting.

member_28722 · Post by **member_28722** » 03 Apr 2015 17:12

If we are talking about cost... where does it say that P75I will be cheap?
We are talking about next gen AIP, VLS and a new design. No way all this is going to be cheap

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 06 Apr 2015 12:26

http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/5-s ... ub-project

5 shipyards earmarked for Rs 53,000 crore sub project

India plans to build a new line of 6 submarines under the long-pending project.
VISHAL THAPAR New Delhi | 4th Apr 2015

Five Indian shipyards have been shortlisted by a high-level committee of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for bidding to build a new line of six conventional submarines under the long-pending Project 75 (India), which will cost an estimated Rs 53,000 crore. This is expected to set off the most intense contest in the global arms bazaar after the IAF's MMRCA fighter jet competition.

The shortlisted shipyards include the public sector Mazagon Dock, Hindustan Shipyards, Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers (GRSE). Private sector shipyards figuring on this list are L&T and Pipavav. This is for the first time that the MoD will consider private sector shipyards for a major Indian Navy ship-building project in a head-to-head competition with the public sector.

The new line of submarines, along with the Scorpenes — six of which are currently under construction at Mumbai's Mazagon Dock — will comprise the future non-nuclear submarine fleet of the Indian Navy.

The MoD committee under the supervision of Secretary, Defence Production, G. Mohan Kumar conducted a survey of public and private sector shipyards for arriving at the shortlist. These shipyards will be invited to submit bids in partnership with a foreign shipyard to meet the Navy's specifications. An Expression of Interest (EOI) is likely to be issued soon to these companies. This will finally kick-off the long-delayed proposal initiated in 2007 for a second line of diesel-electrical submarines to stem the rapidly depleting submarine force levels.

The likely foreign collaborators are French DCNS, German HDW (TKMS), Russian Rubin Design Bureau (Amur Shipyard), Spanish Navantia, Swedish Kockums. The surprise packet could be the Japanese consortium of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) and Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI), which is likely to offer the Soryu class submarines, touted as the world's most advanced non-nuclear attack submarines.

"We are very much interested in Japan's technologies," Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar told Japanese media ahead of his visit to Tokyo last week. "We are looking at all kinds of defence cooperation with Japan in all fields," he said, when asked if India would consider the Soryu submarine. If this intent materialises, this will be the first time Japan will bid to supply military equipment to India. It'll be a transformative move laden with considerable geo-political significance.

This will be a landmark tender also because the private sector will be given a level playing field with the deeply-entrenched public sector in a major project. So heavily tilted is the current equation that as against military shipbuilding orders worth Rs 86,600 crore for the PSUs, the order book for private sector shipyards stands dwarfed at Rs 6,300 crore.

"India needs to acquire 95 warships by 2027. Defence PSUs cannot even meet half the requirement on time. To close the gap, involvement of the private sector is a necessity," points out an insider. According to a recent study by the consulting group Ernst & Young, the total value of warship and submarine building programmes over the next 15 years will be Rs 847,000 crore. After considering the maximum capacity of PSUs, this study puts the scope of defence business for private sector shipyards at Rs 25,000 crore a year.

With the contours of the long-delayed Project 75 (I) finally falling into place, observers view this as a desperately-needed relief for the Indian Navy, which is facing rapid depletion of its submarine arm. With a current strength of just 13 conventional and one nuclear-powered submarine, India is not just a way behind China, which has more than 50 submarines, but is even losing its underwater combat superiority to Pakistan, which has eight.

Age is also eroding capability. Against a recommended life span of 25-30 years for safe and reliable underwater operations, a staggering 84% of Indian submarines are more than 20 years old. Eight of the 13 conventional submarines are, in fact, more than 25 years old. Retirements or decommissioning of several old boats is looming large on the Navy. "For India not to be in trouble, at least 40% of its submarines must be less than 20 years old," pointed out a senior submarine veteran.

A CAG report disclosed that 63% of Indian submarines were scheduled to complete their intended lifespan by 2012. So, many of submarines are clearly operating beyond their intended lives. It had also pointed out that the usable strength — or operational availability — of in-service submarines is down to about 40%.

The situation looks desperate because not a single new conventional submarine has been inducted since the year 2000, and the 30-year submarine building programme approved in 1999 is running way behind schedule.

The ageing underwater arm will begin getting relief from September 2016, when the first of the six Scorpene attack submarines will be inducted. The subsequent five are scheduled for induction at intervals of nine months thereafter.

Going by traditional timelines for big ticket defence deals, the first of the second line — shipyards for which have been shortlisted now — is unlikely to be available to the Indian Navy before 2025-26.

Sources point out that the effort is not just aimed at augmenting the underwater fleet, but also developing a strong warship and submarine building base. But that's not going to be an easy road. The only Indian shipyard to have built submarines is the government-owned Mazagon Dock, which is choc-a-bloc with orders. The dependence of newbies on foreign technology providers will be obvious.

In fact, opinion in the MoD committee was divided on the capability of private shipyards like Pipavav, sources disclose. "It took a lot of convincing by Pipavav to make it to the short-list," sources told The Sunday Guardian. Pipavav, in a communication to the MoD and Navy last week, sought to impress that the recent acquisition of a controlling stake in the company by Anil Ambani's Reliance, and the debt restructuring, making Rs 5,500 crore working capital available, makes it well poised.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 24 Apr 2015 10:00

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 034037.cms
Rs 60,000-cr P75 I will be last order from abroad; Navy starts work on futuristic design

A top naval officer told ET that the government has cleared the project on the condition that all future acquisitions of conventional submarines will be based on an indigenous design and produced at Indian shipyards.

The Navy has accordingly initiated a futuristic design plan even though the next batch of conventional submarines under Project 76 would take several more years before a firm order is placed. "It has been decided that after P75 I, all future submarines will be of our own design and will be made in India. The government has been very clear on this and we have already begun the work, even though the requirement is of the future," Navy's Controller of Warship Production and Acquisition Vice Admiral AV Subhedar confirmed to ET.

A similar project for six new nuclear powered submarines will obviously be of Indian design as foreign collaborators cannot share such technology openly. Private firm L&T is already working with the Navy on this project Sources said that the decision was conveyed at the very top with the government keen that the Project 76 be completely indigenous.

So there you are on life after project 75i.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Apr 2015 10:22

The design might be desi,but have we mastered the art of building conventional subs and the various tech that comes with it as yet? The answer for the moment is no.The Scorpene programme is a case in point. We are still struggling to build a completely foreign design. Secondly,the technological challenge is enormous with the RMA taking place in sub warfare.UUVs,UCAVs,all launched from subs .The metallurgy for advanced steel,titanium hulls,etc. need to be mastered. NHPPs,sensors,sonars,combat systems,weaponry,etc. We have a v.long way to go. What is most likely is that the design /concept will be uniquely ours with help from collaborators,where we need assistance,like the ATV,where the design is ours,"with a little help from our friends",as the song says.

However,the intention is excellent. Over the last few decades,we've been operating Soviet/Russian,German and French Scorpenes in the near future. Another firang design will be chosen for the 75I programme. A decade down the line,we surely will be able to assess the best features of the various subs experienced and determine which amalgamation suits our needs best and what tech we can develop and acquire from local entities both public and pvt.. By then however,the proliferation of UUVs will be considerable,just as drone warfare has become so prevalent in warfare today. Larger mother subs operating long endurance UUVs are just round the corner in the USN. Perhaps conventional AIP subs may be too small for utilizing this U/W revolution when compared with N-subs. One would wish though that this aspect of U/W is opened up right now to pvt. industry along with manufacture of mini/midget subs. The futuristic sub tech required for the 75I and 76 programme should be identified early and similarly opened out to pvt. industry.

deejay · Post by **deejay** » 24 Apr 2015 10:28

^^^ Until, we do it we will never be able to do it. So let us do it. We did make a Nuke Sub. We are making more. We will make a conventional Sub too. The determination is needed and hopefully it is NOW available.

Nitesh · Post by **Nitesh** » 24 Apr 2015 10:46

Sorry if it sounds rhetorical, but with Arihant can we assume that we have mastered key subsystems like sub propeller design, propulsion, combat management system? What will be turbine here? The marine kaveri? Tt was tested for 12 MW power http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories257.htm

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 24 Apr 2015 10:48

I am not certain we need more SSK's or SSN's. Since I am a mango man, I may be worng here. But since the cost is nearly the same and SSNs bring in more capable platform in many aspects, we may be well servived to stop SSKs after 75I and go for SSN's only in future.

pankajs · Post by **pankajs** » 24 Apr 2015 11:02

That is why we should leave the decision on SSK vs SSN and how many of each to the Navy.

adityadange · Post by **adityadange** » 24 Apr 2015 13:01

Yagnasri, i am also a mango man but what i think is SSNs are by default bigger in size due to their power plants (ususally more than 5k tonnes) while ssk are smaller (somewhere around 2-3k tonnes). this should affect deployment of individual type of platform in specific area. like in shallow waters near coastal area a big ssn may not be suitable to operate. again operating cost of ssn must be much much higher than ssk. so if you want to protect your coast ssk seems more suitable. while for long journeys ssn seems better. for india it makes sense to operate both types given our requirements to protect long coastline and control ior.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 24 Apr 2015 13:33

Even a superpower like Russia and would be superpower China operate both types.AIP subs are much better for littoral warfare and in shallower waters.The USN has found out by exercising with an old Swedish conventional sub its merits which has surprised it. There have been many reports of diesel subs not being picked up by US carrier task forces. The cost factor is another determinant. An IN SSN/SSGN must be at least the size of the Arihant,able to carry 12/16 missiles in silos plus 18-24 torpedoes with a more powerful N-reactor giving it higher speeds .One would be able to afford at least 2-3 diesel/AIP subs for the cost of one SSN. The Amurs are supposed to be cheaper than even Kilos,which are in the region of $300M+ sold to Vietnam.An SSN built in India today would cost at least $1.5B .Even at $500M a conventional sub,one would be able to acquire 3.

In the Indian context given China's existing 60+ subs and Pak's major sub ambitions which will number at least 12,numbers also matter. There are also umpteen other sub operators in the IOR of both littoral and external navies.We need a minimum of 24 conventional/AIP subs apart from the SSBNs and SSN/SSGNs.which should also number around 16 in total.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 24 Apr 2015 17:46

Even a superpower like Russia

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 24 Apr 2015 19:10

SSKs are inherently suited to warfare in the Arabian sea. SSNs are better off in Bay of Bengal

Yagnasri wrote:I am not certain we need more SSK's or SSN's. Since I am a mango man, I may be worng here. But since the cost is nearly the same and SSNs bring in more capable platform in many aspects, we may be well servived to stop SSKs after 75I and go for SSN's only in future.

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 24 Apr 2015 22:44

Aditya G wrote:SSKs are inherently suited to warfare in the Arabian sea. SSNs are better off in Bay of Bengal

Care to elaborate on that? Why do you say that? The Arabian sea is quite deep enough for SSN's to come into their own. Secondly nothing would shut the Paki SSK's out of the seas than the constant fear of SSNs lurking around. The only superpower in the world uses SSNs only (yes they can afford it.. we can't). But our Project 75I are almost half as expensive as the Virginia Class ($2.6BN 2015) and with cost overruns which are the mandate in our yards they might just get a little more closer.

There are plenty of documentaries outlining khan achievements in the Barents sea. The Russian even in their hey day never really quite managed to clean up their own backyards.

Here is one of the PBS video on the same "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9CfwzsiulE"

The maximum width of the Arabian Sea is approximately 2,400 km (1,490 mi), and its maximum depth is 4,652 metres (15,262 ft). Estimated average depth is "8970"feet. Now that is deep enough to allow SSN's to dive down to depths much below a SSK's capability. So in the open ocean no Paki captain would be able sleep and dream his dreams of nuking the evil yindus since he would never know whether he is all alone in the sea.

So what do they do lurk closer to littoral waters.. sure but makes it easier for us as well.

Aditya G · Post by **Aditya G** » 24 Apr 2015 23:28

Depth is one of the reasons. The continental shelf extends much farther out in the Arabian sea.

Secondly, the water temperature and salinity are of a nature that cannot mask a noisy SSN.

Lastly, expected missions against Pak can be fulfilled perfectly well by SSKs. AIP SSKs will suffice.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 25 Apr 2015 06:27

Surya wrote:
Even a superpower like Russia

Gives a glimpse into the delusions of the mind.

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 25 Apr 2015 07:10

Aditya G wrote:Depth is one of the reasons. The continental shelf extends much farther out in the Arabian sea.

Secondly, the water temperature and salinity are of a nature that cannot mask a noisy SSN.

Lastly, expected missions against Pak can be fulfilled perfectly well by SSKs. AIP SSKs will suffice.

SSK are not very good at long term persistence. That is an SSN's job. They can hang around for much longer than a typical SSK even with AIP. An SSN can hang around for 40 days plus without surfacing and refreshing air. An SSK on the other hand has to come up at some time despite AIP.
The Arabian Sea and Indian Ocean are more saline than what the American and other countries who operate SSNs are used to. Sonar performance is not that great in our waters. That works in the favor of the SSN than not since they have the ability to dive deeper and use the Thermoclines as the Captain chooses.
The only reason we need SSks is cost.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 25 Apr 2015 15:47

Modern AIP SSKs have an endurance now of upto 60 days compared to 90 for an N-sub.The increase from 45 has been because of AIP.The muddy waters in the littorals and samller size of conventional subs has made them far more difficult to detect than an N-sub.The USN has borrowed a Swedish conventional sub (Gotland) to train with,simulating enemy subs and has been surprised with its performance.Now the Swedes use the Stirling engine AIP tech,which the Chinese have reportedly got their hands on.The German fuel-cell AIP system is rated by many as being the best,better than the French MESMA.New fuel cell subs better than the first gen AIP systems are being developed both by Russia and Germany,as well as our very own DRDO,hoping to fit them in time on the last twp Scoorpenes.As also mentioned,the cost factor also brings with it good reasons for buying an AIP sub.2-3 for 1 N-sub.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/sweden ... 1649695984
Sweden Has A Sub That's So Deadly The US Navy Hired It To Play Bad Guy

XCpt:

By mid summer of 2005 the Gotland arrived in San Diego and war games immediately commenced. Apparently the Navy got more than they were bargaining for when it came to finding and engaging the stealthy little sub. The Gotland virtually "sunk" many US nuclear fast attack subs, destoryers, frigates, cruisers and even made it into the 'red zone' beyond the last ring of anti-submarine defenses within a carrier strike group. Although it was rumored she got many simulated shots off on various US super-carriers, one large-scale training exercise in particular with the then brand new USS Ronald Reagan ended with the little sub making multiple attack runs on the super-carrier, before slithering away without ever being detected.

One contact of mine within the anti-submarine community said that the Gotland was the single biggest eye opener of their career, the little Swedish sub was "so silent it literally did not exist to our sensors." Apparently the Swedish crew knew exactly how to employ her strengths to devastating effects as that same contact described the sub as "a vastly demoralizing capability that changed the priorities within the surface and sub-surface warfare communities."

PS: For those who sneer at Russia's mil strength,esp. strat forces,read on,Russia is the only country that could destroy the USA,a superpower and on that score alone is one,stay deluded!

Russia remains the only country that could physically destroy the United States, so Russian strategic forces matter. Washington needs to make wise investments in its own strategic forces. If it does, current Russian programs present no cause for undue alarm—particularly as Moscow continues to adhere to the limits of the New START Treaty.

Consider first the balance of U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear forces. The 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) requires that, by February 2018, the United States and Russia each reduce its strategic forces to no more than 700 deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and strategic bombers and no more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads.

According to data exchanged under New START, as of October 1, 2014 the United States had 1,642 deployed strategic warheads, compared to 1,643 for Russia. The number of deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and strategic bombers for the United States was 794, compared to 528 for Russia.

http://russianforces.org/current/

Current status
In January 2015 Russia was estimated to have 499 strategic launchers and about 1900 nuclear warheads. In its September 2014 New START data exchange Russia reported 528 deployed launchers with 1643 New START-accountable nuclear warheads.

The Strategic Rocket Forces were estimated to have 305 operational missile systems that include missiles that can carry 1166 warheads. These include 46 R-36M2 (SS-18) missiles, 60 UR-100NUTTH (SS-19) missiles, 72 road-mobile Topol (SS-25) systems, 60 silo-based and 18 road-mobile Topol-M (SS-27) systems, and 49 RS-24 missiles.

[Strategic Rocket Forces...]
The Russian strategic fleet includes 8 operational strategic missile submarines with SLBMs, whose missiles can carry 128 missiles with 512 nuclear warheads. Five operational Project 667BDRM submarines are based in the Northern Fleet. These submarines carry 80 R-29RM (SS-N-23) launchers. One Project 955 submarine with 16 Bulava SLBMs on board is also based in the Northern Fleet. The only remaining Pacific Fleet base hosts two 667BDR (Delta III) submarines, which carry 36 R-29R (SS-N-18) missiles. (Two Project 955 submarines are expected to join the Pacific Fleet in 2015.)
[Strategic fleet...]
The Russian strategic aviation consists of 66 bombers that carry an estimated 200 long-range cruise missiles and bombs. The bombers are 11 Tu-160 (Blackjack) and 55 Tu-95MS (Bear H). The bombers can carry various modifications of the Kh-55 (AS-15) cruise missile and gravity bombs.

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 25 Apr 2015 21:19

I am guessing you understand that the 90 day limitation for an SSN is only fresh food. Yes they did beat the American defenses. Still does not mean that they are now offensive platforms. Here are the reasons why:

1. From the Article you have quoted "The result of this unique, yet remarkably simple system is two weeks of submerged air independent propulsion while traveling at about 6mph."
2. Any quicker and your endurance comes down very quickly. Any slower and you are barely maintaining steerage. Not very flexible offensive capability. Excellent for Ambush in constrained waters.
3. I think the exercises above were running test of the Carrier Defenses against such a threat, When Carrier Ops are going on, there is no way a Gotland or any other SSK can even catch up with Carriers running at 30 knots constant. Going to top speed while chasing a Carrier you are as noisy as the neighbourhood watch SSN.
4. All SSK's are most vulnerable when they start operating away from littorals. In deep water with barely 2 Weeks plus few hours on Batteries you are going to come up sometime to get charged up especially on a 60 Day Patrol.

In conclusion - SSKs are useful - Yes
SSK's are quiet - on bats and AIP yes.
SSK's rule - errr not quite, once battery run out, we are noisy and close to the surface - snorkeling. Easy pickings for P8I.
SSK's for India - I vote for the best damn SSKs that money can buy.. Yes we need them to keep our force structures and costs intact.
Should we be an SSK only Navy heck no.. we need SSNs to be the local bully. Though we need to balance needs with money.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 25 Apr 2015 23:48

@Phillip, there are Naval War College essays written that explain the entire deal in a much better way. I have read a few but don't have them Handy. Reading Tyler Rogoway for anything that even remotely resembles a technical analysis is akin to reading Gizmodo when it comes to the electronic semiconductor industry.

He along with other bloggers like Axe run click bait shops in order to fill amateur twitter feeds!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Apr 2015 11:43

V,it's what I've been saying all along.The only true AIP sub is an N-sub.However,the cost of an N-sub is 2-3 times that of an N-powered one. Secondly,in littoral shallow waters,the smaller AIP sub has the advantage.USN exercises with a Swedish sub have been posted and the experience is available in many professional naval mags,not just bloggers. It isn't that easy for a P-8 to pick off a conventional sub. The muddy waters off the Indian coasts,thermoclines,etc.make detection v.difficult. Smaller conventional subs can lie waiting stealthily off chokepoints,naval bases,operating at silent speed for targets. Even Chinese conventional subs have surprised USN CBGs in the past. Here's a report on the latest launch of a new Kilo in Russia,where they are being built at record speed (just 2 years from laying down to launch),still being found relevant and essential for the RuN which has its own huge N-sub building programme.

http://en.portnews.ru/news/198762/

2015 April 27
Admiralty Shipyards launches Varshavyanka class submarine Krasnodar (photo)

Admiralty Shipyards has held a ceremonial launch of diesel-electric submarine Krasnodar, the Company says in its press release. The solemn ceremony has been attended by RF Navy Commander Admiral Victor Chirkov, Vice-Governor of Saint-Petersburg Sergei Movchan and Director General of Admiralty Shipyards Aleksandr Buzakov.

The Krasnodar submarine, the forth one in the series being built by Admiralty Shipyards, was laid down in February 2014. All six submarines of the series are named after Hero-Cities or Cities of Military Glory. The Novorossiysk, the lead submarine of the series, was delivered to RF Navy on August 22, 2014. The Rostov-on-Don – on December 30, 2014. The Stary Oskol, the third submarine of the series has passed the state trials. Submarines Veliky Novgorod and Kolpino are under construction according to the schedule.

Submarines of the modified 636 projects feature enhanced (compared to previous projects) combat characteristics. Non-nuclear powered submarines of improved Kilo-class (NATO reporting name) or Varshavyanka class advanced project 636 feature an optimal combination of stealth capabilities and target detection range, the newest navigation system, modern automated information management system, powerful high-speed torpedo and missiles. The boats are mainly intended for anti-shipping and anti-submarine operations in relatively shallow waters.

Admiralteiskie Verfi OJSC (Admiralty Shipyards) is a key enterprise of shipbuilding, a centre of conventional submarine building of Russia. The shipyard is affiliated with the United Shipbuilding Corporation OJSC. A number of contracts are being successfully implemented at the shipyard for domestic and foreign customers. Four series of submarines are under construction now for RF and foreign Navies. Besides, the Igor Belousov rescue vessel with the deep-operating vehicle Bester-1 is under trials. The Company’s staff numbers 6,500 persons. In 2014 the company celebrated 310 years since the founding of Admiralty Shipyards....

member_25400 · Post by **member_25400** » 28 Apr 2015 13:56

Hitesh wrote: And I am telling you that no other navy would do what the IN would do - create 5 different lines of subs at the same time. It is not strategically feasible because you need to account for the infrastructure and the supporting industry that comes with it

Hitesh, US had large number of single type of boomer and of attack subs each substantially because of Admiral Rickover and his efforts to control nuke construction (and partly as outcome of procurement struggle between Rickover, Congress and others).
US also had very large construction yards - Newport news, Electric boat/Groton - which could derive economies of scale)

USSR, which had been very conservative before, went for a huge diversity in design options, from Titanium hulled fast/deep boats, to high automation to liquid sodium reactors to quieter boats and so on. This forced diversity allowed it to pick the best innovations, even in failures. But the Soviet collapse meant that they could hardly even maintain these boats. Even other innovations like Losharik got strangled.

Now Russia is going in for new boomer, new attack, and new conventional/AIP lines because it has the need and has the shipyards.

China has gone in for large variety of submarine types, featuring first and second generation boomers, attacks subs, conventional etc. in addition to legacy fleets.

When you have design capacity, but not manufacturing capacity, you try for larger number of one-off designs to force innovation and pick winning systems. When you have large manufacturing capacity and large needs (not wish lists) and somewhat mature design, you go for large number of standardized boats. In between, you try to go for spiral evolution. And you try to reconcile these with the strategic mandate of what you must do (as opposed to wish to do) and the costs.

Indigenous designs can hardly be called proven/mature, (1st gen Arihant, 0.5 gen AIP,...) while the bought out designs are now getting obsolete. While the total number of boats may be small, once the items already on order are manufactured, it might suffice. Going for 2nd line/3rd line may not give you economy of scale as there are contractual limitations on which shipyards can be used and which components must be imported. Also scaling up existing shipyards for Scorpene for cost-optimization can be easily matched or exceeded by going with differing shipyard)
'
So if the already announced number suffices, should we perhaps to go for more number of innovative one-off prototypes and try to build design strengths in cyclic fashion. Ah-but our naval design bureau is also quite near its limits....when you take into account aircraft carriers, frigates, patrol boats and mistrals that are already on plan. Perhaps this may be the first limitation to tackle and expand though..

The announced SSK+SSN+Scorpene+P75I will keep shipyards busy, especially with other warships. Perhaps our design bureaus can try to standardize equipment/missiles and other systems for future platforms and retrofits now ?

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 Apr 2015 21:25

barath_s wrote:
US had large number of single type of boomer and of attack subs each.......

When USN had Polaris A2 / A3 SLBMs, they had 5 types of SSBN, 5 'George Washington' class, 5 'Ethan Allen' class, 9 Lafayatte' class, 10 'James Madison' class and 12 'Benjamin Franklin' class

Only Seawolf could be considered as single type.

K

VibhavS · Post by **VibhavS** » 29 Apr 2015 01:37

Each class that the US built was an improvement over the older one. Now they went through 5 classes of SSBNs during the cold war. Where they tried pressing home every new technological improvement.

We Indians have not invested much into that approach especially for submarines, fighters (LCA is Case Study of wasted effort) and tanks (Arjun being the other case study). Surface Warships you will not find me complaining (maybe a little.. we could build them a little faster and take design decisions a little quicker...but heck cant win 'em all)

But Philip Sir, we need to invest bcos no invest in an SSN line=no SSN. Therefore no cutting edge design, manufacturing and other skills. Another thing that gets my goat is that we build the Arihant and are working on another one. There is no way in hell that we cant design a SSN. SSN's would be little more simpler than a SSBN since there is no requirement for ballasting and stability while launching missiles. Though complexity increases based on how much performance is expected.

Secondly with SSK's you are an ambush hunter, an excellent hunter but you don't go places. You really cannot go to far. You do not have flexibility and reach. A prime example is the Battle of the Atlantic, where the flaws of diesel electric power came out much to the German's detriment.
SSN's are also great intelligence tools. That is where their value lies. SSNs can transit faster and hang around longer. Also please do note that the Virginia and Sea Wolf Class have reactors that "do not need pumps to keep the water flowing" unless they really start going faster (hearsay alert - 10 knots is the quiet speed for the Virginia class per some chaiwalla). Wish I could find what that use pumps for circulation speed is. But note with the right reactor design SSNs outclass SSKs. We need to invest in design and development, we cannot surmount 40 years of US lead just in a single class.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 29 Apr 2015 16:16

Vibhav,There should be no problem as the IN has planned ,approved by GOI for 6-8 SSNs,plus we may get at lease another Akula-2. If we have 8 SSGN/SSNs in addition to our planned number of SSBNs,we would have around 12-16 N-subs in addition to the conventional/AIP subs.24 conventional subs should be sufficient for the IOR,with the SSNs operating further beyond.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 13 Jul 2015 02:16

Indian Navy to soon invite tenders for six conventional submarines

NEW DELHI: The Indian Navy will soon invite tenders for building six conventional submarines after a high-level committee of the Defence Ministry submitted its report identifying shipyards capable of executing the about Rs 60,000 crore project.

"The Committee has visited all the shipyards in the country and has submitted its report recently. It is under consideration of the Defence Ministry," defence sources said.

Though they remained tightlipped about the name of shipyards that have been shortlisted, the sources said a Request for Proposal (RFP) will be issued soon once the report has been studied in detail.

Besides the state-run shipyards, private players like Larsen & Toubro (L&T) and Pipavav Defence & Offshore Engineering Company, in which Anil Ambani-led ADAG has announced its decision to pick up a controlling stake, are eyeing the mega deal.

Defence sources had earlier said both L&T and Pipavav are strong contenders, besides the state-run Mazagon Dockyard Limited (MDL).

MDL is already making six Scorpene submarines. Asked if MDL would be the natural winner, sources said, the eco-system has to be developed and hinted that the order may go to a particular shipyard which could then outsource a part of the project to others.

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 13 Jul 2015 05:57

I think the cheapest option for 75I would be to let the Chhota Bhai build new Kilos at Pipavav.

I don't think India can afford a second line of western subs.

member_22539 · Post by **member_22539** » 13 Jul 2015 06:19

^That may be true, but what India cannot afford even more is delays and contract violations by Russians.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 13 Jul 2015 09:21

There would be no problem with Kilos,look how swiftly and cheaply the Viets have got their Kilos,but I don't see the IN wanting more of them as we already have 9 Kilos which have been upgraded.There's a limit as to how much that design can be improved. The Russians have some new deisgns up their sleeve and I think if a Russian boat is chosen it will be something new. Since we are acquiring Russian N-boats and tech,we may want something from the West for having the best from both sides. Later on maybe,the Kilos will be replaced by new Russian conventional designs. What we need now is augmenting the inventory as well as replacing old boats.

I feel that we should examine as far as poss. more German U-boats since we've operated the U-209s successfully for a long time. These will augment and replace the 4 U-209s in service,of which the last two can be upgraded more effectively.Either we acquire new U-214/216s,or even try at acquiring the Greek U-boats and saving some money.Wednesday is D-Day for the Greeks,Either they fall in line with the EU or fall pout of the Eurozone. They will be cash strapped and will need money. The only problem with the German/French/Swedish subs are that they can't accommodate BMos in current Mk-1 avatar.Once BMos-M arrives ,it may be poss.,but the Russians may object,as it would give their rivals the same advantage. One key factor is the AIP system. We are developing our own and hope to have it aboard even the last 2 Scorpenes if poss. This is going to be a very interesting contest,both capability and cost.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 15 Jul 2015 15:42

Nitesh wrote:Sorry if it sounds rhetorical, but with Arihant can we assume that we have mastered key subsystems like sub propeller design, propulsion, combat management system? What will be turbine here? The marine kaveri? Tt was tested for 12 MW power http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories257.htm

NO
Kaveri is a gas turbine. For a nuclear submarine we need a steam turbine - totally different animals.

For a non-nuc we need diesel engines and electric motors. For these I put the Germans a curt above the rest, MTU for diesels and Siemens for electric motor.

Submarine propeller design is a subject nobody will talk about. Comabt management systeme - maybe we fine tune our own Pachendriya.

K

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Jul 2015 13:53

Delays and "contract violations" by any entity should face penalties not just Russia.Russia paid up $40M years ago for late delivery/weapon system for the first Talwars. Why protect the DPSUs which took 19 yrs to build a B class FFG and 12 years to build a P-17 Shivalik! And what about the Scorpenes? Years delayed and escalation galore! Have the French been penalised? Nothing Russian about this contract,why the bias?

There should be a level playing field esp. now when pvt. entities are entering the game,Reliance/Pipavav to build Russian deisgned frigates and L&T to also corner work. Incidentally,L&T are way ahead of scheddule in delivering the 54 fast ICVs for the CG,27 already built,at their Katupalli shipyard near Madras. Pvt. and DPSU will now be competing against each other for almost all major defence work under the "make in India" mantra. Those who perform should be rewarded.Perform or perish.

Cain Marko · Post by **Cain Marko** » 16 Jul 2015 18:20

Kakkaji wrote:I think the cheapest option for 75I would be to let the Chhota Bhai build new Kilos at Pipavav.

I don't think India can afford a second line of western subs.

Yup, keeping in mind the latest talwar news and the yasen
Possibility, this is quite practical why not hsl though considering their experience?

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 16 Jul 2015 20:04

Cain Marko wrote:
Yup, keeping in mind the latest talwar news and the yasen
Possibility, this is quite practical why not hsl though considering their experience?

HSL will be too busy building the nuke subs - the Arihants and the planned 6 SSNs.

MDL is also busy building the Scorpenes

I think the P75I should go to a private shipyard.

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 16 Jul 2015 20:52

Kakkaji wrote:
Cain Marko wrote:
Yup, keeping in mind the latest talwar news and the yasen
Possibility, this is quite practical why not hsl though considering their experience?
HSL will be too busy building the nuke subs - the Arihants and the planned 6 SSNs.

MDL is also busy building the Scorpenes

I think the P75I should go to a private shipyard.

L&T Kattupalli should be a good choice.

Ankit Desai · Post by **Ankit Desai** » 16 Jul 2015 21:09

Karthik S wrote:
Kakkaji wrote:.....

HSL will be too busy building the nuke subs - the Arihants and the planned 6 SSNs.

MDL is also busy building the Scorpenes

I think the P75I should go to a private shipyard.
L&T Kattupalli should be a good choice.

+1 It should go to L&T. Experience gained during Arihant's construction should not go waste. MDL will be busy not only constructing Scorpion but Kolkata class(?) destroyers too. It is evident from google map that its yards are full.

It is ask of the hour that private yards should be involved in warship/subs construction. If Pipavav got warship than L&T should get subs.

-Ankit

srin · Post by **srin** » 16 Jul 2015 21:37

I beg to differ.

The private shipyards (or any private manufacturing) shouldn't get anything on the platter. It is hard-nosed commercial negotiation - pure and simple.
Do they have the required facilities, working capital etc ?
Are their people skilled enough to build it and within given time-frame ?
Most important, how expensive is it to build it ?

JTull · Post by **JTull** » 16 Jul 2015 23:26

Why is that? How else do you build capability? Most of the space and defense production gains recently have been due to involvement of 100s of private players. If you want large independent integrators then you need to make an investment.

It is yesteryear's' philosophy that public sector enterprises get free ToTs and on the platter union-appeasing orders to guarantee delayed and over-budget deliveries, while private players must be cheapest, fastest integrators without any ToT and with extensive penalty clauses built in.