I have stopped believing anything the Indian Navy says, when it comes to capital acquisitions.
Saar, see this post ---> viewtopic.php?p=2591425#p2591425Yagnasri wrote: ↑10 Jul 2023 21:32 Did we get a full tech transfer from HDW fellows on their 209? If we have full tech, why have we not made them here? I know there was some scandal, but the tech was already given us to build, so why did we not? Why can not we start even now 209 tech as a base and advance from there?
Larsen & Toubro and Navantia, Spain signed a Teaming Agreement (TA) today for the purpose of submission of a techno-commercial bid for the Indian Navy’s prestigious P75 (India) submarine program.
When it is phoren, all exceptions are made. There is nothing like that new phoren smell!Lisa wrote: ↑11 Jul 2023 00:38 Navantia have been struggling with their own submarine project since 2012!
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... their-pens
Oops! The Spanish Navy Is Constructing New Submarines That Are Too Big For Their Pens
The sim game we play is called Democracy, something that does not exist in Communist China.S_Madhukar wrote: ↑11 Jul 2023 00:44 Every time the IN etc make these great announcements the dragons deliver half a dozen new ships or subs… we plan and they execute… wonder what sim games we play !!
) that they can't have the cake and eat it as well. At the end of the day, the service chief's are those who will lead their rank & file to a war. This will take time in our noisy democracy. What I have learned in the last 2 decades of following Indian armed forces procurements is that, they have a long learning curve and for one IN is far better than its 2 sister organizations. Other than the Submarine program, we can't point our fingers at the IN for not going for Indigenous equipment's or asking for the moon. They will eventually wake up and smell the coffee in the course of time to change their requirements instead of chasing a mirage. I am no way justifying the behavior of our armed forces but trying to find a reason why they do it and how it can be changed.Prem Kumar,Prem Kumar wrote: ↑11 Jul 2023 12:46 No heads rolled in 1962 debacle, none for Kargil intel failure, none whatsoever for Galwan incursion intel failure
The services (nor the MoD for that matter) don't prepare for a war because they think there won't be a war. They think the PMO, MEA, Unkil, Aunty etc will step in to stop a full-fledged war. So, they navel-gaze and talk about 8th gen warfare.
When heads roll and entire organizations are canned, then suddenly, they will smell coffee. But alas, for all his amazing work, Modi is a tinkerer, not a demolisher
The consensus is that switching from lead-acid to Li-ion batteries could boost the submerged time of diesel-electric submarines from roughly 2-3 days to around ten days.fanne wrote: ↑13 Jul 2023 02:02 I can propose a P75i that will not be MMRCA circus -
Have a sub that has the following -
0. Design - We have ToT for HDW and Scorpene. If we cannot copy, paste and make our own, what's the point. We are also making Arihant class. The design capability in may form exist, the will and budget could be a different issue.
1. LI-Ion batteries (it is rumored that these batteries, in weight for 1-1 replacement over acid batteries store 8-10 times more power).It is in all ways more capable than lead acid. We are experimenting one currently and perhaps get a better one (if we fail) from Japan or south Korea. This in itself can take the performance of a sub (to remain in water and also move fast using batteries) to the next 2-3 level up. If Lead acid helps a sub to remain submerged for 15 days, lithium ion can make it remain underwater for 60-90 days.One can go few notches up, and put more Li-ion (in place of AIP), and increase the endurance. Totally doable on our part as either indigenous option or as a subsystem import.
https://safety4sea.com/cm-lithium-batte ... 0batteries.
2. AIP - We are validating one right now. Same can be put nd it can give us 15-30 days of additional submerged endurance.
3. Torpedo launch tubes + torpedos - we made them for HDW and Scorpione
4. Ballistic missiles (VLS?) --> We make them for Arihant class, they are after all SSBN capable of launching K6 and K5
5. Optronics and other mast related tech- Just today one of DRDO lab refurbished one. Now the navy is moving to all camera/IR/Laser/Radar based mast, which pops up, gather 360 degree view of everything in various spectrum and comes back. This tech sounds very familiar to IRST/optronics used for LCA/Sukhoi. Regardless, Japan has been offering masts with all these features.
6. Systems automation - Shame on us if we as an IT superpower cannot develop a fully automated system by integrating all the above features. Dont know if Scorpene ToT gives some of these systems/sub systems
7. Hull mounted SONARS and towed sonars - I remember we making them some 20 years ago. Ifours are not the greatest, can be bought of the self.
8 Hull material (steel) etc. - That's the ToT we got from HDW and Scorpene
9. Engine - Diesel + electric. Electric engine are easiest to make (battery storage is trickiest) +Diesel engine. We may not have one (unless Toted), that has to be made or bought. Germany stopped Chinese from importing.
10. Screws/blades (or water propulsion)- If you believe we are asking one from France
If you look above, we have almost all the building blocks. It just needs some faith and action to get it done.
. Now, even if solid-state batteries hit that energy density, we're probably looking at a max increase in submerged endurance of a few weeks, assuming the sub operates at a power-conserving snail's pace. But, high energy density could shift the game for diesel-electric submarines. Instead of playing the long crawl around the underwater game, they could start operating like their nuclear cousins: higher speeds, shorter stints, and more surfacing to recharge batteries. We look at them behaving like nuke subs for 5-7 days and then recharge. It's a tactical trade-off - stealth versus agility-but it could diversify the playbook. However, as always, mission requirements, sub-capabilities, the other team's strength, and the specifics of the operational and tactical situation call the shots.This is all part of the game. The current procurement regime of any branch of the armed services will push the envelope to the limit and then bite the bullet. They are rich and powerful and able to defeat even the highest office.srin wrote: ↑22 Jul 2023 19:18 For some curious reason, nobody is talking about an event that happened in 2016. This makes the new Scorpene buy a big farce.
So, when we signed the P75 (the original Scorpene deal), it was for 6 submarines and 3 options. In 2016, there was this huge leak of Scorpene data, and so the 3 options were cancelled. Now, we are buying the same 3 scorpenes at a 2022 price.
Reference:
https://archive.li/mv6wN (TOI link)
https://thediplomat.com/2016/09/india-d ... ubmarines/
https://shipshub.com/classes/181-2.html
MDL had tied up with Germany’s TKMS for the Indian Navy’s Project 75I program to build six submarines. MDL has submitted the price bid for the project prior to the closure of the Indian Navy’s request for information on August 1. The project cost is “significantly” more than the $5.4 billion projected initially. Order placement is expected to take over two years, with the first first submarine to be delivered in six years from contract signing. L&T, which partnered with Navantia, is the competitor to MDL for this contract
MDL has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Indian Navy’s Warship Design Bureau to work jointly on indigenization of over 8,000 components used in the Scorpene submarines. Discussions are ongoing between the two on collaboration regarding Navy’s Project 76 for a class of indigenous diesel-electric submarines following Project 75I.
Thought this was inevitable after Larsen and Toubro (L&T) going with Navantia and MDL with TKMS, there were no other Indian co left to partner with South Korean firms (Hanwa/Daewoo) ... though I'm not very sure if an Indian company was allowed to partner with multiple OEM vendors and thus submit multiple bids etc.
So, it'll be those 4K Ton Type-216 derivatives then ... can't be sub-2K Ton Type-214 or barely-2K Ton Type-218SG clone, as not sure without 4K Ton type displacement, how come any of the VLS capability can be implemented/incorporated.
