can't compare a 3000T design with a 1400T. the hull diameter is different, so a different design.
Project 75 India Diesel-electric Submarine Programs (SSK) : Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Himanshu
- Start date
The problem is no such submarine exists for the P-75I anyway.
The Swedes have a Type 612 concept, the Germans have a Type 216 concept. France's large Scorpene is also a concept. Russia's new Kalinka is completely unknown. And all 4 are paper boats.
Only Kilo class and SMX Ocean have 8m+ diameter hulls, among the subs available to us. And Kilo is too old.
And right now we do not know if the P-75I RFP will ask for an 8m hull. It's just speculation because of Brahmos 1 VLS. So, if IN asks for 8m+ hull, then no competitor has an advantage, including France.
Anyway, the A26 has a 3000T design on a 6m hull. It is longer instead of fatter. 80m vs 50m.
Last from me on this, but others haven't done even that, or say its equivalent in relevant systems.
But not all AIP designs are created equal. Take a Stirling engine designs and compare it fuel cells... can you tell me the difference? Note that "quiet" doesn't mean noise in this instance. AIP designs produce noticeable leakage in the form of thermal or chemical energy runoff or dilution.
I wrote about this previously:
CAG Raises Stink Over P8I Naval Aircraft Deal Done During UPA Regime
The A-26 design has a Stirling Cycle design. How does it compare to the Scorpene's MESMA or PAFC fuel cells in terms of non-acoustic signature leakage?
All submarines do, even the smallest of boats.
A-26 builds that into its design with hangers for special forces built into the submarine. Most, like the Shortfin Barracuda, have to support special forces with pods or lockout chambers.
Russian special forces tended to use torpedo tubes or midget submarines launched from a mothership. This picture gives a good idea of how large the torpedo tubes on a Kilo class submarine are in relation to humans.
It's a unique capability for the A-26, and even more rare on a submarine that small. For A-26 special forces support wasn't an added capability, they were built from the ground up with special forces support missions in mind.
Of course not. Russian submarine often sail with no more then 20 or 30 officers. But the level of automation on the A-26 is notable. Their sail doesn't have the command center directly under the periscope, which is a traditional set-up on smaller submarines.
The A-26's Optronics - a type of autonomous video-periscope - allows the command center to be moved to the bow of the submarine, more near the torpedo tubes, and affords the A-26 the pleasure of not having to have sailors marching through the command center to reach one end of the boat from the other. It quiets operations for the submarine's command.
Considering the A-26 is a Swedish submarine, and US products are, well, American, this can't be true. The US doesn't export Tomahawk, though nations have asked for it and some like Australia or Japan would be granted waivers for its export. In order for the A-26's VLS to be useful it has to accommodate non-American weapons like MdCN or Hyunmoo-3, or in India's case, Nirbhay. If it can only use American weapons then it makes no sense considering only the US and UK use Tomahawk.
The other option is for special missions craft to be launched and recovered by the VLS tubes, but the A-26 can already do that with its traditional torpedo tubes.
...
If anyone's wondering about the history to Swedish submarine design - from nuclear attack submarines to large-tonnage littoral combat boats - HiSutton has some great articles on the subject.
H I Sutton - Covert Shores - A-11 class SSN.
H I Sutton - Covert Shores - Porpoise littoral attack submarine.
H I Sutton - Covert Shores - A-21 Flundran AIP attack submarine.
I don't know of the authenticity of this, but he is usually on point.
edit : Alright we got a source.
edit : Alright we got a source.
Last edited:
These kinds of tweeter accounts will not be #Breaking anything!. A simple search will show the source if any. Follow actual journalists.
Also, the Australian contract specifically asks not the share Shortfin tech to anyone else. Obviously french can find leeway to do the same. But exact thing unlikely.
One of the aspects of Rafale deal is that we will have tech from nuke Barracuda flowing into our next gen nukes. I had mentioned it good two years back on another forum.
The Indian Barracuda will be different than Short Fins one, at least for a good reason : Australia don't need AIP when Indian navy needs it !
Australia emphasis the range. Indian navy needs range (every navy needs it) but not at such an extent, so the indian design may use all the Barracuda technology, but probably in a lighter hull. From a 4500 tons to 3000 or 3500 ?
After all the short fins is just 2 meters shorter than a SSN Barracuda, and just 100 or 200T lighter from the original 4600T... when a Scorpene is less than 2000 tons....
Cost won't be a problem. The Australian deal takes into consideration a lots of other costs and costs of building ( assembling) the submarine in Australia.
The French themselves have paid little over 9 billion USD for 6 Nuclear Powered SSNs.
Its smaller Diesel Electric derivatives will surely not cost us more than 7 billion usd for 6 subs.
As for Australia saying France not to sell it to anyone else, it simply means its variant. France holds the IPR for the basic design and a modified design for P75I would have been offered.
Even without Australian objection, the French offer to India would have been different.
And now that the Naval Group is offering this, TKMS should finally come up with a proper Type 216 derivative now. The Type 214 lost out to Scorpenes way back, no way it's going to win against this.
The French themselves have paid little over 9 billion USD for 6 Nuclear Powered SSNs.
Its smaller Diesel Electric derivatives will surely not cost us more than 7 billion usd for 6 subs.
As for Australia saying France not to sell it to anyone else, it simply means its variant. France holds the IPR for the basic design and a modified design for P75I would have been offered.
Even without Australian objection, the French offer to India would have been different.
And now that the Naval Group is offering this, TKMS should finally come up with a proper Type 216 derivative now. The Type 214 lost out to Scorpenes way back, no way it's going to win against this.
Correct. Australian focus was having long range endurance, so that the Submarine could have longer hours on station in the contested waters in South China Sea and other regions of interest.
Whereas in P75I, the foremost desire is to have Long Range Land Attack Capability and a proper AIP.
Its just like having a basic platform, and adding things according to the customer needs.
If the SMX Ocean has been offered, then that's the best news possible.
This sub will easily win the technical round of the tender. I'm guessing we will be seeing a single vendor situation in fact.
This sub will easily win the technical round of the tender. I'm guessing we will be seeing a single vendor situation in fact.
Isn't the SMX Ocean and the Short Fin the same sub - both being derivatives but conventional versions of the N powered Barracuda? @Bon Plan
SMX Ocean is the name of the concept in general. Shortfin Barracuda is an Australia-specific sub named after an Australian fish of the same name for the Australian competition.
Not necessarily. We also have a pretty big ocean to cover.
Our version will likely have to carry 12 Brahmos-1 in VLS, the hypersonic version with an enhanced ramjet. So that size will be necessary.
I thought the Indian Naval Plan was to deploy conventional subs to patrol littoral waters and the N subs in the deep ocean providing escorts to carrier fleets and SSBN's. It seems the medium endurance heavier tonnage conventional subs under P-76 will have a role somewhere in between the previously mentioned classes of subs.
The SMX Ocean has thrice the endurance, twice the weapons and twice the speed compared to normal SSKs, but it's still not comparable to an SSN practically. So the way the SMX Ocean and Scorpene will be used will be quite similar, it will just do more for longer.