Project 75 India Diesel-electric Submarine Programs (SSK) : Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Himanshu
- Start date
Logically speaking, based on public information, IN should have gone for 3 additional units AIP of same sub with MDL and 6 new submarines from another shipyard with VLS and AIP (4 from new shipyard and 2 from MDL) to speed up the delivery.
What armament would IN want on P75I?The Shortfin falls short of an SSN, and we are getting SSNs anyway, so it is a bit of a downgrade compared to what an SSN can do at more or less the same cost.
We are looking at something that's in between the Shortfin and the Scorpene. Like the SMX 3.0, which seems to be a smaller cousin of the Shortfin.
DCNS unveils SMX 3.0, the submarine concept-ship tailored to the needs
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-4068738923530102"; /* Navy Recognition 468x15 link */ google_ad_slot = "6873402760"; google_ad_width = 468;www.navyrecognition.com
Greatest folly. Untill we plan for 24 more SSKs within next 15 years in addition to the 12 we are buying, investing in 2nd production line is idiotic.
L&T already has a sub building unit. In any case, if capacities are properly utilized, at present, there's no need for any additional shipyards to the existing capacity including pvt shipyards. Part of the reason why we feel the need for pvt shipyards stems from long gestation periods between planning & commissioning various vessels - the reasons for doing so having been highlighted in your previous posts, which makes it seem as though all are shipyards have their order book full for the next decade.
A Multirole torpedo in the class of Black shark or F21 , a 1000km range precise land attack cruise missile and possibly a short range high speed anti ship missile in the form of Exocet/Harpoon.
All that's fine if the goal was only to shore up numbers. But an expansion of the Scorpene project would mean a delay in P-75I, hence the IN's greater importance towards P-75I. The main goal is introducing new capability, not simply increasing the numbers of a contemporary class of submarines. I doubt we can afford both.
But there seems to be a plan to split the P-75I order between two shipyards. Hopefully that's the case.
Second line considering just that. We need at least 2 dozen SSKs apart from a fleet of SSNs for diverse kind of deep water action. That's why I mentioned logically, but alas here that's very rare bird!
The facility at MDL is now ready to actually start construction on 7th Scorpene right away. And if P75I project RFP is released today , then say accelerated evaluation and bids will take minimum 12 months, say 2021 the winner is chosen and with the budget of 2022, the first thing we sign is for P75I. Then it will take another 6-8 months for stage to be set for actual steel cutting in MDL itself, so that's 2023 beginning at the very least.
And MDL can do work on 2 Scorpenes simultaneously, so its idiotic that we are not ordering atleast 2 more. This will lead a gap of 3 years and that specialised skill will again go away, which will not only cost the P75I more dollars but also delay it by atleast 24-36 more months.
Perhaps submarine launched anti air missile for limited range for extreme conditions if feasible, opening additional dimension perhaps. There might be future for some new emerging weapons being tested worldwide.
We do not have enough numbers sanctioned and enough dollars in our wallet to actually order that many subs. The logical thing is for 6 more P75 and then 12 more P75I to be built in a single yard till 2035. That will help us reach the 24 SSK numbers (which sadly has been cut to 18 now) by 2035. After that the shipyard can look to work on an indigenous SSK design to augment numbers, maybe build some for exports.
Last edited:
Only Type212 is the modern submarine which has a program to integrate such a missile, but it does so because most of its duties will be in shallow waters.
Inplace of sacrificing space in torpedo tubes for say a magazine of 4 IGLA-S , that should be utilised by either a submarine launched Nirbhay or a MdCN. Focus should be on decoys , which can tackle multiple advanced torpedoes.
Seeing the current situation of IN submarine fleet, I seriously fear we don't have enough numbers to deal with a major naval conflict, especially if enemy has sophisticated systems in service. Numbers do add heft to the fleet. HDWs days are gone a while ago, we are just scrapping the bottom of the glass to get extra juice but at a great price. Similar situation is there with Russian SSKs. I have been pretty close to these boats in early 2010s and believe me their condition is barely workable. Our people are just managing somehow.
That's again a good option, logically speaking. But hey who thinks logically in our establishment!
The original plan was to use 6 Scorpenes to replace the 4 outgoing vela class SSK one on one and 2 oldest Type 209s. The next 6 was to replace the 6 oldest Kilos (we had a program to upgrade 4 Kilos at that time). And when the P75I came , that would have replaced the upgraded Kilos and remaining 2 Type 209s. Thus maintaing the 18 number, and the follow on then would have caused a expansion after 2025.Seeing the current situation of IN submarine fleet, I seriously fear we don't have enough numbers to deal with a major naval conflict, especially if enemy has sophisticated systems in service. Numbers do add heft to the fleet. HDWs days are gone a while ago, we are just scrapping the bottom of the glass to get extra juice but at a great price. Similar situation is there with Russian SSKs. I have been pretty close to these boats in early 2010s and believe me their condition is barely workable. Our people are just managing somehow.
That's again a good option, logically speaking. But hey who thinks logically in our establishment!
But the water is under the bridge, instead of adding a minor refit to two newer Type209s, we are going to have full fledged MLUs for 10 more years for 2 newer Type209s and minor refits for 2 older ones extending the lives by 5 years. And also upgrading 4 more Kilos to extend their lives by another 10 years to make up for the short fall.
UK is having problems maintaining its skill in submarine building, even when it has a allocation of budget in place and a plan laid out till 2032 atleast. We should learn from their problems. Because unlike ship building, submarine building is not something which we can afford to learn and forget again and again.That's again a good option, logically speaking. But hey who thinks logically in our establishment!
Most likely the new near-hypersonic Brahmos in VLS. Deploy UAVs and also LR-LACM. An SRSAM capability is also required, although this can come in through torpedo tubes.
The main issue is the platform that offers these capabilities. Cursory reading shows that design for VLS systems are rare on diesel-electric submarines. We are looking at unbuilt models like the SMX30 you listed or some enlarged version of the Amur class proposed by Russia. The South Koreans are inducting the Dosan Ahn Changho-class submarine which has VLS capabilities that could be modified to suit the needs of the IN but, like the Shortfin Barracuda you mentioned earlier, might be too close in size to a normal SSN.
There are two problems with it...
One is obsolescence. Any attempt at exercising options would mean we can't negotiate for new technologies, it will have to be the same version that we ordered back in the day. The Scorpene today is already outdated since it was configured before 2005. This is the same as MKI, we are still inducting the same jet that was configured back in 1995, making it almost obsolete. The Scorpene was designed for induction between 2012 and 2017. So if you want a new version of Scorpene, then you have to abandon the options clause and request for a new AON, making it a whole new deal.
Second is money. Yeah, it makes sense to keep the line chugging, but the Scorpene costs a lot more than it's worth today. Indian contracts are the worst negotiated contracts in the world. We pay a massive escalation up and over the original cost of the sub when it comes to long term projects. It's the same reason why we are paying $3B for the new Akula class simply because they have added a massive escalation over more than a decade, which boosts the actual price to a billion bucks. So any attempt at a new Scorpene will see prices exceeding $1B for each sub since 15 years have elapsed. This is the main reason why the govt said all long term projects must be signed under GTG so new negotiations can take place by bringing escalation down to realistic amounts. It's the same reason why Phalcon ended up going all the way to $1.3B when the actual price is just $800-900M for the 2 aircraft, which is why it was renegotiated.
So if we go for more Scorpene, all we are doing is buying something that will get killed easily when it becomes available 10 years down the line, since it will already be 25 years old then, and we will end up paying more than twice as much.
For long term projects, the options clause must be exercised within the first 5-7 years. If it exceeds that then you are dealing with excessive price and obsolescence. This is the main reason why the IAF is going for a new tender for the MMRCA requriement, since MMRCA is now heading towards obsolescence and a massive amount of escalation has been added on to the initial bid price by now, making it meaningless. Otoh, the IAF exercised the options clause for MKI within the first few years of delivery of the first jet, which made it a very good decision. This is also why the CDS recommends piecemeal induction of MRFA requirement with renegotiation at every step after every batch, which is how everyone else does.
Otoh, MoD is much more flexible with Indian IP. They allow reconfiguration and renegotiation here, at least it's a whole lot more quicker than imports. HAL tried playing the escalation game with LCA Mk1A by taking advantage of the same done for M2000, Mig-29 and MKI. But they spectacularly failed because MoD simply decided to renegotiate the contract and even cut HAL down to size during the process.
The new SPM process allows reconfiguration and renegotiation to a certain extent mainly because the main party is an Indian company, not the foreign OEM. So all new foreign subs will come in only through this process now.
And a VLS that accomodates Brahmos. I think there was a picture of Brahmos loading on a Talwar class frigate. That pic will gives me the true impression on how big Brahmos actually is.
But the main question is if the cost effeciency of maintaining an existing line is that much worse than indefinitely idling it and losing skilled talent/momentum. Didn't the IN order a 4th Arihant to avoid idling the production of nuclear submarines? There is a need to expand and modernize the fleet anyways so why is the production of diesel-electric treated differently in that regard? 2 or 3 extra Scorpenes equipped with AIP can't be worse than having nothing or aging Type 209s?