Project 75 India Diesel-electric Submarine Programs (SSK) : Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Himanshu
- Start date
That will require a restart. Instead pushing the RFP to Dec is a better plan.
Without the Germans and French it will be again forced to extend.
The present June date was also an extension actually.
Korea and Spain defence majors ready to participate in 75 (I) submarine project
South Korean Daewoo and Spanish Navantia have proven air independent propulsion technology and are willing to build long endurance submarines under strategic partnership model with Indian MDL and L&T defence majors.
Daewoo and Navantia are still hopeful to bag this mess.
A silly reason really, one develops the system late and the other puts an unnecessary requirement of "proven" AIP.
For South Korea I would only request people to remember what happened in the Minesweeper deal.Korea and Spain defence majors ready to participate in 75 (I) submarine project
South Korean Daewoo and Spanish Navantia have proven air independent propulsion technology and are willing to build long endurance submarines under strategic partnership model with Indian MDL and L&T defence majors.www.hindustantimes.com
Daewoo and Navantia are still hopeful to bag this mess.
View attachment 24118
A silly reason really, one develops the system late and the other puts an unnecessary requirement of "proven" AIP.
And for Spanish, their S80 is still not in service.
If we sign either of the two, the first SSK will get commissioned in 2040.
It has chances of being contracted and commissioned?? Dam! better than what I was expecting.
HSL is trying to get Turks to build a 45,000 tanker when Turks themselves haven't built anything bigger than 18k tons and we are paying them money for it.....
So if we want we can do any idiotic thing. There's no limit to our idiocy.
The Germans and French don't have a chance to achieve tech specs without giving them years. So there's no point in them joining in.
This extension is only for the Koreans and Spanish, and it has to do with some contractual agreements at the financial end, like liabilities, so it's not about tech specs. We are most likely gonna be choosing one of the two remaining subs.
Different company, bad tender. The tender collapsed due to low benchmark pricing that didn't cater to new advanced tech.
Each tender's problem is its own separate thing. One tender's problems can't be compared to another's, never mind the fact that they are not even the same company.
The minesweeper deal failed because the tender wasn't flexible, not because of the Koreans.
It collapsed because Kangam was trying to offer a system of Italians without actually owing the IPs.
For the DSME-3000 too Koreans can claim that they own the IP of important sub systems, but they don't.
Let's see how the saga unfolds.
Unlike Fighter jets, submarines are unique. Adding a clause that it should actually be operational, we knocked out the only two actually good systems. They only two who actually fullfilled all specifications, would have been able to provide the ToT and would have been safe.
As per Parrikar, it was an issue from our side.
Lacuna in tender nixed minesweeper deal: Goa CM | India News - Times of India
India News: Former defence minister and Goa chief minister Manohar Parrikar said here on Wednesday that the negotiations to build 12 mine counter measure (MCM) ve
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
They don't "claim" IP ownership, they only get export permissions. And if permission is denied, it will be replaced with something else, which rarely happens. So most of the sub is expected to be owned by the OEM anyway. No one expects 100% OEM ownership.
We should go by the mantra that our experts actually know what they are doing.
The same with MMRCA, everything that were prototypes were rejected, which they discovered during flight evaluations. The SH, Mig-35 and Gripen E. So would you say we should have omitted flight evaluations to keep these 3 jets in the contest?
So the condition to test the AIP was crucial enough to avoid long term risk, and the fact that 2 contenders still survive means they are also good systems and we are still getting what we want irrespective of the draconian conditions attached.
It's not a good idea to pay for the development of stuff that don't exist when we are not in operational control of the R&D process. The IN already has a high risk SSN program, planning a high risk SSK program, so it doesn't make sense to engage in another high risk SSK import program when 2 readymade options are available for production right away.
Every major modern naval export of South Korea has actually seen not so rare moments where they claimed that they will fit a European sub system , but in between the program were forced to change to a local unproven alternative. Philippines, Indonesia, etc lots of examples.
That's fine. We won't get ToT on most of these systems anyway. What's important is how well these systems are integrated, and that's what's proven on the Korean sub.
Basically the hull, AIP and engine are Korean, alongside the combat management system and noise reduction tech. The batteries, electric motor and weapons will be Indian. The sonar, EW suite and other electronics can be European, although the Koreans have started indigenising a lot of stuff.
Good development imo. The liability cause easing should help TKMS as they had the operational AIP but still backed out.
On the face value I wouldn't think much as the Russians are way out of any contention in P75I. But concerns raised are actually valid.
‘No naval force has such submarines’Baranov said his bureau had first received papers from India for the P75I project in 2008. “You see, how many years have passed since the last version of RFP (Request for Proposal) was issued. So we think a whole book can be written about Russian participation in P75I,” he said.
Baranov said Russia’s major concern was that the requirements specified by the Indian Navy and the timelines for the same do not match. “The Indian Navy wants to have a state-of-art submarine with AIP (Air Independent Propulsion), with powerful missiles, weapons, and very high stealth. None of the world navies have a prototype of similar submarines. We are talking about development of an absolutely new product,” he said.
Stung by poor foreign response to submarine project, Modi govt tries to allay industry concerns
still rolling.
Stung by poor foreign response to submarine project, Modi govt tries to allay industry concerns
France's Naval Group, Russia's Rubin Design Bureau & Sweden's SAAB refused to part in Project 75 India, under which 6 conventional submarines will be built with air-independent propulsion system.
theprint.in
If we want a ToT on fuel cell from Siemens then we should stop funding the DRDO one. Better to use the same thing across all subs and save cost.Stung by poor foreign response to submarine project, Modi govt tries to allay industry concerns
still rolling.
Stung by poor foreign response to submarine project, Modi govt tries to allay industry concerns
France's Naval Group, Russia's Rubin Design Bureau & Sweden's SAAB refused to part in Project 75 India, under which 6 conventional submarines will be built with air-independent propulsion system.
Or put more money in DRDO one and use that only everywhere.
Their approach is so idiotic.
It's to avoid the same complications that bedeviled the MMRCA where Dassault refused to stand guarantee for HAL or the same issue which saw TKMS walk out of the present project & SAAB Kockums too, IIRC.If we want a ToT on fuel cell from Siemens then we should stop funding the DRDO one. Better to use the same thing across all subs and save cost.
Or put more money in DRDO one and use that only everywhere.
Their approach is so idiotic.
Who's going to guarantee the performance of the DRDO / NMRL AIP systems aboard the Project 75 (I) submarines? DRDO / NMRL, the local system integrator or the foreign OEM?
Thank God the IN froze on PFC as the AIP of choice & didn't include all other systems in the tender or we'd be in a future position of maintaining a Sterling Engine / MESMA AIPs on one set of Subs & the PFC on another set.