Project 75I - It Begins

[Prem Kumar]

The Govt, if it has clarity & cojones, will pull up the IN and tell them in no unclear terms that the P-75I is dead. A "whole of country effort" will be set in motion, starting now, to accelerate the development of homegrown SSK (Project 76)

For just the cost of one P-75I boat, the entire R&D for P-76 can be funded! If more money is needed, so be it. We can afford it & it stimulates our own economy

The deadline must remain the same - the first P-76 hits the water in 7 years, with progressively better boats every year after that. A healthy run of say 15 or more SSKs must be committed

Its a shame if we cannot pull this off, but call ourselves an emerging superpower

[Rakesh]

X-Post from the International Naval News & Discussion thread...

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1996 ... 43651?s=20 ---> Japan has just rendered an entire generation of conventional submarines obsolete, and the world hasn’t fully realized it yet. With the Taigei class and its lithium-ion batteries, Tokyo already set a new benchmark: up to three weeks submerged without ever raising a snorkel. That, however, was merely the opening act. Today, Toyota and Panasonic are leading the global race in solid-state batteries, with prototypes arriving in 2027–2028, mass production after 2030, and Japan’s next submarine class will be the first to use them, either in pure battery form or as a hybrid with a small reactor for onboard recharging. This hybrid would be similar to what the Chineses are developing. The leap is staggering.

A 4,000 ton conventional submarine will patrol for 40 to 60 days without surfacing, sprint well above 20 knots for hours on end, and do it all more quietly than many nuclear subs, thanks to being significantly lighter and running solely on battery power. Solid-state cells weigh roughly one-third as much, generate 40 % less heat, and eliminate half the cooling systems. The result is a faster, stealthier hull that can travel thousands of kilometers without ever breaking the surface. Those hundreds of saved tons translate directly into more powerful electric motors, extra torpedoes and missiles, cutting-edge sensors, or greater crew comfort. The same hull now carries twice the energy or twice the weapons. It means that by 2035–2040, Japan will field conventional submarines with the endurance and sprint performance of today’s 8,000-ton nuclear boats, at one-third the cost and without the political baggage of uranium.

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1996 ... 25331?s=20 ---> The new German submarine costs three times as much as its latest-generation Japanese counterpart. The Japanese Taigei-class submarines, which I’ve mentioned in recent days and which are possibly the quietest in the world, have a production cost of around $460 million per unit in the 2023–2025 contracts. By comparison, the new German Type 212CD, widely regarded as one of the best conventional submarines on the planet, costs approximately $1.35 billion per boat. That’s almost three times the price of the Japanese submarine, which is also considered among the very best in the world. I’ve already pointed out the massive overpricing of German 4×4 vehicles, 30-35mm calibre ammunition, large-calibre ammunition, and now submarines.

Something is very wrong with the German defence industry. Efficiency and value for money seem to be completely foreign concepts to some relations between the defense companies and government. How much longer will it take before the Bundestag finally launches a serious investigation into these acquisitions?

[SRajesh]

^^* this and the anticipated increased defence spending has spooked China??

[fanne]

at this price we can get a nuclear sub, why not then?

[Rakesh]

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1996 ... 25331?s=20 ---> The new German submarine costs three times as much as its latest-generation Japanese counterpart. The Japanese Taigei-class submarines, which I’ve mentioned in recent days and which are possibly the quietest in the world, have a production cost of around $460 million per unit in the 2023–2025 contracts. By comparison, the new German Type 212CD, widely regarded as one of the best conventional submarines on the planet, costs approximately $1.35 billion per boat. That’s almost three times the price of the Japanese submarine, which is also considered among the very best in the world. I’ve already pointed out the massive overpricing of German 4×4 vehicles, 30-35mm calibre ammunition, large-calibre ammunition, and now submarines.

Something is very wrong with the German defence industry. Efficiency and value for money seem to be completely foreign concepts to some relations between the defense companies and government. How much longer will it take before the Bundestag finally launches a serious investigation into these acquisitions?

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1996 ... 27990?s=20 --->The Type 212CD is straight-up highway robbery, yet it remains the most advanced conventional submarine in existence today. The problem is: it simply cannot cost THIS much.

This entire industry has completely forgotten the lessons of World War II. German tanks were technically superior in almost every way, yet they were buried under an avalanche of Soviet T-34s and American Shermans tanks that cost less than half as much and were churned out at triple the production rate. That war proved, once and for all, that in a prolonged attrition conflict, quantity and low unit cost are what win, not exquisite engineering alone. A weapon has to be excellent, yes, but above all it has to be cheap enough to be produced in massive numbers and replaced the day after it’s lost.

Beyond the battery revolution that is already underway, we are on the cusp of a second, even more brutal underwater revolution: swarms of fully autonomous AI-armed UUVs whose sole mission is to hunt, track and kill submarines. Dozens, hundreds of these drones will saturate the operating area, surfacing briefly to receive updated orders and transmit targeting data, then diving again to relentlessly stalk their prey. What FPV drones are currently doing to multi-million-dollar tanks on land will be replicated under the sea by cheap, expendable, fully autonomous killers operating in the dark depths. When we invest billions in a platform, we have to war-game its obsolescence curve through the eyes of our adversaries over the next 10–15 years, not just admire the brochure.

The German defence industry is addicted to gold-plating. The products are magnificent, no question. But the costs are so obscene they annihilate every single advantage they claim to offer.

[Rakesh]

Six Project 75AS (Advanced Scorpenes) boats + upgrade the first six Scorpene (Kalvari Class) boats. And then followed by Project 76 (6 + 6 build program) and partner with the Japanese on lithium battery tech if required. What is the point of the Type 212CD?

[Anoop]

In an interview with Sandeep Unnithan, V. Adm Thakare mentions how MDL now needs to switch to the old welding process for HY80 steel for the German submarines from the HLES 80 steel used for the Scorpenes. Apparently the two steels have different requirements related to their work-over characteristics. I suspect that delay in retooling is one reason for the lack of enthusiasm for the 3 additional Scorpenes as part of P-75I and instead to go all in for the German subs. Committing to one line allows the retooling process to start earlier.

[bala]

One other thing mentioned by V. Adm Thakare is about Scorpene subs and the need to get 6 more. When India wanted to add 6 more and keep HLES 80 line open, the French increased the price a lot on scorpene. This just shows how bad contracts are created initially and how 1 exam wonder babus fail in rudimentary stuff. When a contract is made they should have indicated say 18 subs initially, with option to extend after each 6 subs or terminate, price remaining more or less the same (or some agreed inflation number). They need to think about alternates and how to deal with them contractually. Foreign suppliers start playing all kinds of games - periscope was another such issue.

[Manish_Sharma]

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1997 ... 53104?s=20

AUKUS, Mistakes and Opportunities

In 2016, Japan offered Australia state-of-the-art, diesel-electric, ultra-quiet submarines with the option of local production at the Henderson shipyard.

The Australian government rejected the proposal, claiming its goal was always nuclear-powered submarines.

Instead, Australia decided to spend roughly A$4-5 billion extending the life of its ageing Collins-class fleet until the 2040s . enough money to have bought seven-eight Japanese Taigei-class submarines outright.

If that’s really what the government wanted, the Americans and British certainly sent them the bill for AUKUS.
Australia is footing almost the entire cost: A$368 billion over three decades.

- The United States receives US$3 billion from Australia to expand its industrial base, build more Virginia-class submarines, and then sells 3–5 second-hand boats back to Canberra.

- The United Kingdom receives around £2.4 billion from Australia for design and infrastructure work, shares some development costs, and ends up using the exact same SSN-AUKUS design for its own future fleet at essentially no extra cost.

I’m genuinely intrigued by how they managed to sell the Australians on this deal. I’d love to meet and congratulate the American and British negotiators – true sales geniuses. Nuclear submarines must have been a childhood dream of that Australian government; there’s no other explanation.

But the problems don’t end there.

Just as the Americans have cancelled over 300 programmes and thrown away more than US$200 billion in the last 20 years, the British have serious and very recent issues with their own naval projects. It feels like a structural disease in the Western defence industry.

- The Astute programme is more than a decade late, costs have tripled, only 5 of the planned 7 boats have been delivered, and engineering problems keep cropping up.

- The Dreadnought class (replacement for the Vanguard ballistic-missile submarines) has ballooned by billions and is now delayed well beyond 2030 because of failures integrating propulsion systems and Trident missiles.

- And the crown jewels – the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales aircraft carriers – are operational but chronically short of compatible F-35s and cost a staggering £10 billion in overruns.

- The Type 45 destroyers suffered catastrophic electrical failures that left them inoperable for years, and the Type 26 frigate programme has been repeatedly cut back, reflecting completely misplaced priorities.

And a programme that is supposed to deliver eight submarines to Australia sometime around 2050–2060 is extremely unlikely to proceed as planned, not only because of budgets and operational complications, but because underwater drones are evolving fast and China is leading that race.

The Americans and British have a long naval history, but they are also visionaries who understand perfectly well that the future lies in decentralisation: swarms of UUVs, lithium or solid battery submarines, or even small nuclear-powered ones using micro-reactors. These platforms cost 10–20 % of today’s conventional SSNs to maintain, are lighter, and leave far more internal volume for weapons – meaning smaller, cheaper, and more heavily armed submarines.

And what does Australia get left with? Far more than just a submarine partnership with Japan – an entire security ecosystem.

By 2026-2028, Japan plans to have the HVPG hypersonic glide vehicles fully operational with ranges up to 2,000 km.

Their upgraded Type 12 missiles will reach 1,000–1,500 km and can be launched from ships, aircraft, and land batteries.
This is enough to cover and protect the entire Australian coastline for thousands of kilometers.

And finally, a 3,000 km-range hypersonic missile is being integrated into the Taigei-class and its successor.
That arsenal is far beyond anything currently fielded by any Western nation and only Russia and China have comparable systems.

-------------------------------------------

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1999 ... 03429?s=20

Those investing in submarines today may be wasting money.

A Virginia-class submarine, powered by an S9G reactor, has a submerged displacement of around 10,000 tons and costs approximately $4–5.8 billion. Its top speed is over 30 knots.

Now imagine a much smaller reactor, with power and weight around 15% of the Virginia's, used solely to continuously recharge a solid-state battery bank. Solid-state batteries weigh about half as much as lithium-ion batteries while offering 2-3x more energy capacity.

In practice, this means that with the same battery weight, such a sub could achieve roughly 3x the energy gain, In terms of speed, solid-state batteries deliver double or higher discharge rates (potentially 10–20C vs. 5–10C for lithium-ion), ideal for sustained sprints above 30 knots lasting many days and a cruising speed around 25 knots.

All this with 15% less overall weight, much quieter operation on batteries alone, and the same endurance as a conventional nuclear sub.

And the cost? A micro-reactor would be 15–25% the price of a conventional one, small, modular, low-temperature/low-pressure.

This means that when a more modern reactor is needed, you simply swap the module.

A micro-reactor paired with solid-state batteries could make a Virginia-class sub $1.2-1.6 billion cheaper, quieter, and leave far more space for weapons, additional batteries, or crew comfort.

That's why this system would put all existing submarines at a disadvantage in terms of cost, space, and stealth.

Those not adopting micro nuclear reactors can follow what the Germans, Japanese, and French are doing.

The Japanese pioneered lithium-ion batteries with diesel chargers, giving their submarines excellent value for money.

The Germans chose a fuel cell AIP system to recharge lithium-ion batteries, while the French opted for a similar Japanese-style approach with a battery configuration allowing up to 80 days endurance, making the new Scorpène highly competitive.

Starting around 2030, production will shift to solid-state batteries, tripling the capacity of these conventional submarines and enabling silent navigation at around 25 knots for days,making them superior in stealth and speed to many nuclear submarines currently in service.

Submarines powered by solid-state batteries, recharged via micro-reactors, fuel cells, or diesel, will be superior: better armed, cheaper, and stealthier than anything we know today.

[Manish_Sharma]

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1997 ... 38081?s=20

The era of monsters like AUKUS is over.

When the AUKUS program – which I will discuss in the coming days – was designed, it was already obsolete. Its most likely future is cancellation as many US programs during the last years.

Just as drones in Ukraine dominated the battlefield in Ukraine, and proved that anything big and slow becomes vulnerable and almost useless, the same fate now reaches submarines.

Hundreds of underwater drones will hunt submarines for hours or days until they find them, and China leads these breakthrough technologies.

Two stand out:

- Magnetic Wake Detection: developed by Northwestern Polytechnical University (NPU), it tracks magnetic disturbances left by moving submarines, even stealth Seawolf-class ones. Chinese UUVs already integrate this with existing MAD systems, mapping persistent wakes in real time. In 2025 tests, it merged with acoustic networks and AI to form a vast detection grid.

- CPT Atomic Magnetometer (quantum sensor): the most promising, it eliminates low-latitude blind spots with extreme precision. Initially tested on tethered aerial drones, it is now being adapted for submerged UUVs using rubidium for omnidirectional anomaly detection. CASC researchers are miniaturising and mass-producing it; in simulations, AI-equipped UUVs distinguished real targets from false positives (e.g. whales) with 95% accuracy.

None of this is theoretical – it is already part of China’s Underwater Great Wall, a mobile sensor network fusing magnetic, passive sonar and AI data.

This is exactly why Japan’s new submarine - using lithium batteries- program draws so much attention: excellent cost, real innovation, and units entering service before 2032 will also be modern long-range (1,000-3,000km) missile platforms even for hypersonic missiles.

They are cheap enough that the AUKUS budget could hypothetically buy hundreds of them.

The future lies in smaller, cheaper, more numerous units – never the opposite. Modern warfare is entering the age of decentralisation, and programs like AUKUS are its exact antithesis.

--------------------------------------------

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1997 ... 53104?s=20

https://x.com/pati_marins64/status/1998 ... 91860?s=20