Apparently the sub is to be commissioned in 2023 . That's 3 years for a Diesel Electric sub. Ditto for the SSBN.
Apparently the sub is to be commissioned in 2023 . That's 3 years for a Diesel Electric sub. Ditto for the SSBN.
Project delivery was put on hold for sometime over some issues which were duly corrected, then accepted, hence more delay.
It's better than nothing!
Yes but I was specifically referring to the 3 years period for commissioning unless fit outs are pending.
3 years is 1 year more longer than what I, as a civilian, will prefer, however considering the losses we have suffered in recent past, SOPs might have been modified to test as much as possible before boat can be declared fully operational.
Can't really say much about French cooperation though. It can be none, little or massive. But if we are to get sub tech from France, we need to invest in their subs. We can't invest in some other area and then ask for sub tech.
The Koreans aren't interested in challenging China though. However their main goal is to keep both China and Japan off their back. They don't want a repeat of WW2 and the Korean War. We are investing in their tech so that they can invest in ours, it's merely quid pro quo.
Overall, I am not really hung up on which sub is chosen though. Both options are very good. The only problem is if Russia or Germany are chosen.
The navy has a proper plan for sub indigenisation. After SSBN and SSN, the next plan is to indigenise SSKs after the P-75I program is done and dusted. Ours is quite similar to what Korea is doing. They started off with a plan to build 9+9 imports, they chose the Type 209 and 214 for that, and followed that up with 9 indigenous subs. So they did it with 27 subs whereas we are planning the exact same thing with 6+6+12, with 6 Scorpene, 6 P-75I and 12 indigenous, willbe funny if we choose French for both the imports. 6 of the 12 indigenous subs became SSNs, but a new sub plan will be laid out before 2027 for the next 30 years, which may see us adding some more indigenous SSKs, although I suppose the main thrust will be towards SSNs of two different classes.
The Brahmos-1 family is fine. The Koreans are planning to use SLBMs from their subs which are much bigger and heavier. It may not be an IRBM or ICBM, but it's definitely gonna be as big or bigger than Brahmos. Also the issue with Brahmos is not the diameter, it's the length. At 9m it's pretty long. But it's not a problem for a submarine that has a beam of 10m like the KSS-III. It's diameter is merely 0.6m, so that's pretty normal. Let's not forget it easily fits between the MKI's nacelles, which is a very small space for such large missiles. Nirbhay has a diameter of 0.5m, pretty much the same as the Tomahawk and even the Korean Hyunmoo-3, which is expected on the KSS-III.
Btw, Korean BMs have been derived from Russia's Iskander. This missile has a diameter of nearly 1m. The SLBM may also be derived from it.
There's also the possibility of Brahmos-2 becoming available by the time the P-75Is are commissioned, so we have to take that into consideration as well. It's expected to be of a similar size as Brahmos-1.
Is this the Scorpene, the short fin Barracuda, the SMX Ocean, the Suffren class or some other unknown sub? Pls clarify as the entire thread seems to have gone haywire in the past few pages.
Evidently you didn't get the sarcasm & what's more exercise your moderation rights to shift those posts belonging to different threads to their rightful place.
Thank you for notifying. I wasn't up to date with the rest of the thread. Moved the post to relevant thread.
Welcome back. Been a long time since you last posted.
Thnx buddy ... just busy with job .Thank you for notifying. I wasn't up to date with the rest of the thread. Moved the post to relevant thread.
Welcome back. Been a long time since you last posted.
Found some pics of the Kalvari class diesel-electric submarines during various phases of their construction at the Mazagon Docks Ltd. The construction of the submarines began at MDL's dry docks. Sections of the internal pressure hull was built first.
The submarines were constructed using modular construction method. Which means the submarines were built in sections and then assembled.
Also, MDL has some massive drydocks. Each drydock seems capable of building at least 2 submarines simultaneously.
There seems to be at least 2 drydock engaged in the construction activities.
The second drydock is larger and seem to be capable of building more sections simultaneously.
The pressure hulls was initially built with many additional surfaces to allow easy and secure mounting of scaffolding and climbing ropes to the hulls.
In the photo below you can seen workers grinding off hooks/handles from a submarine's sail/tower. The hooks were used for mounting climbing ropes for workers working inside the tower. Once the work is complete the hooks are removed.
Most of the outfitting work is done after the submarine sections are assembled. But the engine is fitted in before assembly. The engine is of course built in a separate plant located close by and transported via giant trucks.
Once the engine arrives to the dry dock it is attached to one of the goliath cranes of the dock. The crane lifts the engine off the truck and places it onto a set of rollers. The rollers are directly in line of the engine section of the hull. Then the engine can be pushed on to the hull section using hydraulic rams.
continued below...
Last edited:
