Indian Nuclear Attack Submarine (Project 77) - Updates & Discussions

[Hydra]

Then how come they don't have them?

How come they sat and watched for 10 years as the last of the Pondicherry class retired with no replacement even in foreseeable future?

Why we now reduced to be looking for taking old Russian/Korean MCMVs on lease? This is something cash-strapped PN used to do. You don't consider this a problem brought on by poor planning & prioritization?

IAF doesn't have MMRCA, does this means that they are not giving priority to fighter aircrafts? They dont have new awacs too, does this means they dont give priority to aerial surveillance? Same with army & howitzers.

Added endurance and the ability to cruise at higher speed for far longer time.

And its more stealthier than diesel engine operated submarine

 

[Bon Plan]

And its more stealthier than diesel engine operated submarine

It depends.
for same generation sub (not to compare old SSK and brand new SSN or reverse ! ) : SSK are said to be quieter when only on battery or AIP (with diesel it's worst). On the other hand for SSN it depends of the speed : at low speed some are said to use natural convection only in the nuc reactor, so very quieter because no need op noisy pump. At higher speed... SSK can't just compete.

It's not without reason that USN leased a swedish SSK : they were trained to fight SSN only, and were very disappointed with small and quiet SSK.

 

[Bon Plan]

SSK is perfect for nearly static war mission : to be in front of a harbour or a well known maritime road.
SSN is perfect to cruise in a high maritime surface and to fight dynamically.
May be it's too simplistic, but the trend is here.

SSK with AIP is slightly more agile and moving, but always far from a SSN than can cruise all day long, in a relative silence, up do +/- 15 knots (and >25 in a crisis situation, because noisy at this speed).

 

[Hydra]

Exactly, ssks were quieter fir a brief period of a day or two when they are in battery/aip. For a longer period of deployment along with a carrier battle group ssn are tye perfect choice.
In simole words ssk are for sea denial &ssn on of the package for exploratory mission.
In over all, ssn are quieter.

I dont know how sweedish guys are achieving this much level of stealth for their naval vessels. Their Visby class is a two decade old design and it will beat any modern ship when comes to stealth,and their ssk has given a bloody nos for USN carrier battle group. Too bad that they left p75I competition with out offering it to us

SSK is perfect for nearly static war mission : to be in front of a harbour or a well known maritime road.
SSN is perfect to cruise in a high maritime surface and to fight dynamically.
May be it's too simplistic, but the trend is here.

SSK with AIP is slightly more agile and moving, but always far from a SSN than can cruise all day long, in a relative silence, up do +/- 15 knots (and >25 in a crisis situation, because noisy at this speed).

 

[Parthu]

IAF doesn't have MMRCA, does this means that they are not giving priority to fighter aircrafts? They dont have new awacs too, does this means they dont give priority to aerial surveillance? Same with army & howitzers.

And its more stealthier than diesel engine operated submarine

Obviously not. There is deep rooted problem with prioritization with all Indian armed forces. Its part of the reason why lot of people including Doval and MoD want National Security Strategy white paper that spells out what each service needs to buy, develop or do instead of each having own procurement strategy and plans to fight the next war.

 

[Hydra]

Obviously not. There is deep rooted problem with prioritization with all Indian armed forces. Its part of the reason why lot of people including Doval and MoD want National Security Strategy white paper that spells out what each service needs to buy, develop or do instead of each having own procurement strategy and plans to fight the next war.

If a military wing of us failed to procure some particular platform that doesn't means that it's their problem or it doesn't means that they don't want that,it's actually the problem of the mod. If you are finding fault with forces for failed capabilities then you are terribly wrong.

 

[Parthu]

If a military wing of us failed to procure some particular platform that doesn't means that it's their problem or it doesn't means that they don't want that,it's actually the problem of the mod. If you are finding fault with forces for failed capabilities then you are terribly wrong.

Who was holding up Para regiment reform and modernization?

Who are the ones insisting on maintaining separate infrastructure for the same platform across multiple services?

Who are the ones trying to stop Air Defence Command from taking shape?

Because its not MoD which identifies requirements or makes the SQRs. Its the military.

Bureaucrats and elected representatives don't know which end of the gun the bullets come out of. Its the forces that tell them what to buy, and what to buy first.

 

[Hydra]

Who was holding up Para regiment reform and modernization?

Who are the ones insisting on maintaining separate infrastructure for the same platform across multiple services?

Who are the ones trying to stop Air Defence Command from taking shape?

Because its not MoD which identifies requirements or makes the SQRs. Its the military.

Bureaucrats and elected representatives don't know which end of the gun the bullets come out of. Its the forces that tell them what to buy, and what to buy first.

Keeping a common infrastructure for all forces are the worst idea coined by mod & CDS. It's simply not easy, I personally knows the difficulty of such system ( no I am not a defense person). You cannot keep a all helicopters with IAF or all assault rifles with army and all vessels with navy.

Who was holding up Para regiment reform and modernization?

Who are the ones insisting on maintaining separate infrastructure for the same platform across multiple services?

Who are the ones trying to stop Air Defence Command from taking shape?

Because its not MoD which identifies requirements or makes the SQRs. Its the military.

Bureaucrats and elected representatives don't know which end of the gun the bullets come out of. Its the forces that tell them what to buy, and what to buy first.

And care to explain the rest of the queries you raised. Who is doing all those?

 

[Parthu]

Keeping a common infrastructure for all forces are the worst idea coined by mod & CDS. It's simply not easy, I personally knows the difficulty of such system ( no I am not a defense person). You cannot keep a all helicopters with IAF or all assault rifles with army and all vessels with navy.

And care to explain the rest of the queries you raised. Who is doing all those?

You have it backwards. All helicopters should not be with IAF, in fact all should be with AAC. Only few SAR/SOF helos should be with IAF.

Currently we are working with the mindset that anything that flies belongs to Air Force which is an outdated model. Modern force allocation should happen on basis of combat role & requirement, which is what happens in countries which follow NSS type white papers.

RAF & RN are pooling resources to create Lightning Force HQ (on the back of old Joint Force Harrier), providing not only common infrastructure, but common command & control and training resources for F-35s across air force & fleet air arm. That's how jointly you get to operate, and that's how much money can be saved by jointmanship.

Lightning Force HQ - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The current policies of our's are disjointed, each force is fighting it's own war. Theatre Commands, NSS, etc. these are all policy decisions designed to fix that very problem.

Keeping a common infrastructure for all forces are the worst idea coined by mod & CDS. It's simply not easy, I personally knows the difficulty of such system

Well then the US must be insane for creating such things as unified combatant commands, NORAD, joint transportation & logistics nodes and creating SOCOM.

And care to explain the rest of the queries you raised. Who is doing all those?

Think.

 

[AbRaj]

You have it backwards. All helicopters should not be with IAF, in fact all should be with AAC. Only few SAR/SOF helos should be with IAF.

Currently we are working with the mindset that anything that flies belongs to Air Force which is an outdated model. Modern force allocation should happen on basis of combat role & requirement, which is what happens in countries which follow NSS type white papers.

RAF & RN are pooling resources to create Lightning Force HQ (on the back of old Joint Force Harrier), providing not only common infrastructure, but common command & control and training resources for F-35s across air force & fleet air arm. That's how jointly you get to operate, and that's how much money can be saved by jointmanship.

Lightning Force HQ - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The current policies of our's are disjointed, each force is fighting it's own war. Theatre Commands, NSS, etc. these are all policy decisions designed to fix that very problem.



Well then the US must be insane for creating such things as unified combatant commands, NORAD, joint transportation & logistics nodes and creating SOCOM.



Think.

Thou shalt not question the hydra.
Sieg Hydra

 

[randomradio]

Relinquish control in what way? The SSNs are never likely to carry nuclear payloads so GoI would have little interest in controlling what is, in of itself, basically a tactical weapons platform similar to Scorpene/Kilo but with added endurance.

If you want PMO to foot the bill, then the PMO bureaucrats get a say in the SSN's future. It's not going to be fully under IN's control.

The only way IN retains full control is by increasing the IN's budget in order to afford them.

That's what successive MoDs do to every single tendered deal. It's not like this is new or unknown behavior. The number of non-G2G, non-FMS, non-'fast-tracked' big ticket deals concluded by the previous ~20 years of MoD can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. But if IN prioritized more efficiently they could have gotten away with a G2G deal much sooner.

This has nothing to do with the IN. The Koreans backtracked. It would have been possible if the Koreans were being responsible, like how Dassault was during MMRCA. If the OEM is the one making unreasonable demands, you can't support it.

If we talk about ifs and buts, then if only the DRDO could deliver the technologies needed to make our own minesweepers, then the IN wouldn't have to go through with this charade.

The IN had done its due diligence in the tender.

Leasing at this point is not a mature decision - rather it's the only choice left as its the only way to transfer existing hulls without significant amount of CAPEX upfront.

Leasing was never a choice, it became a choice only recently due to the changes in procurement rules.

The reason why it's a mature decision is because when you lease something, you are buying something that doesn't necesssarily meet all your requirements. So you are making do with something when you have to do your duty without all the capabilities that are actually necessary. It's easier to say, "Hey, we lost our destroyer to a mine because your bureaucrats decided we do not need a minesweeper", pass on the blame to someone else. The IN is far too responsible for that.

We are not talking about how someone is going to lose 2 marks in their final score because they submitted their assignment late. This involves matters of life and death.

 

[RISING SUN]

Eye on China, India’s plan for 6 nuclear-powered attack submarines back on track

Monday’s significant test should be seen as part of the navy’s overall capability-building plans, ranging from the ongoing plan to build six nuclear-powered attack submarines or SSNs to the commissioning of its second aircraft carrier, INS Vikrant, later this year.

www.hindustantimes.com

 

[Hydra]

For Navy, 6 nuclear-powered submarines take priority over 3rd aircraft carrier

India’s emphasis on submarines to counter China comes against the backdrop of Beijing raising its capacity to build a destroyer in just 5 years.

www.hindustantimes.com

 

[lcafanboy]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1374699491496890374

https://twitter.com/x/status/1374704947640475648

https://twitter.com/x/status/1374719508678541317

So enlarged scorpenes with nuclear reactor is on cards. Not bad at all. I say it's the best way to utilize the infrastructure made for scorpene subs. With all costs sinked in it will keep cost low and more importantly faster delivery. This is some bright thinking from defence ministry bamboos if true.....

 

[Ashwin]

For Navy, 6 nuclear-powered submarines take priority over 3rd aircraft carrier

India’s emphasis on submarines to counter China comes against the backdrop of Beijing raising its capacity to build a destroyer in just 5 years.

t.co

Hard to believe SSN program is yet to get AoN and still contemplating which partner to choose. As the reporter has bad reputation will have to wait and watch.

 

[Bon Plan]

For Navy, 6 nuclear-powered submarines take priority over 3rd aircraft carrier

India’s emphasis on submarines to counter China comes against the backdrop of Beijing raising its capacity to build a destroyer in just 5 years.

www.hindustantimes.com

It cost more for 6 SSN than 1 carrier.

 

[Killbot]

It cost more for 6 SSN than 1 carrier.

6 SSN are more effective for IN's doctrine than AC...?

 

[Hydra]

It cost more for 6 SSN than 1 carrier.

If you add air wing & support fleet of a single AC,then cost will be more or less same.

 

[Hydra]

6 SSN are more effective for IN's doctrine than AC...?

History says ,no one won the war with its subsurface fleets. You can hurt enemy a lot but for winning a war you need a powerful surface fleet and AC is the backbone of any powerful surface fleet.
And we enjoyed our surface fleet superiority in 71 war & during kargil war, and now we are changing our strategy when we required to boost surface fleet.

 

[Killbot]

History says ,no one won the war with its subsurface fleets. You can hurt enemy a lot but for winning a war you need a powerful surface fleet and AC is the backbone of any powerful surface fleet.
And we enjoyed our surface fleet superiority in 71 war & during kargil war, and now we are changing our strategy when we required to boost surface fleet.

Well, changing strategy works too. Not that im an expert. And more ACs are coming in the next decade, maybe. And when was the last major naval conflict? Were subs of the kind of sophistication we have now available then?