Tbh it was limited choice from the start after Rus non-entry, DSMC had discussion with MDL also initially but did not enter bidding. While navy & MoD both are adamant about its prospect, I am still a bit skeptical about the purpose (from mandatory Tech transfer perspective only).
Project 75 India Diesel-electric Submarine Programs (SSK) : Updates and Discussions
- Thread starter Himanshu
- Start date
It is good to see the process gathering pace. Considering the political risk of German submarines, if Spain can offer all necessary technology, then it is the best option.
They actually had to bring the Germans back after the Koreans backed out.
As long as the AIP trials succeed, the program will see an L1. So yeah, it's difficult to say what will happen during negotiations.
Not directly in link with this thread :
At least one french newspaper spoke of a potential sale of Short fins Barracuda to Netherlands. Official annonce in the very next weeks.
The french ambassador would have been informed, as those of the other losing competitors.
To be seen.
At least one french newspaper spoke of a potential sale of Short fins Barracuda to Netherlands. Official annonce in the very next weeks.
The french ambassador would have been informed, as those of the other losing competitors.
To be seen.
Missed this news, Type 212CD is the one offered to Netherlands.
“The Type 212CD E design proposed for the Netherlands shares the same core systems and components as the CD in order to manage risk,” said Isbrecht. “The pressure hull diameter is also the same.
“The difference lies in a hull insert to increase fuel capacity for longer endurance, and improve accommodation space for extended missions. The result is a slightly larger submarine of just over 80 m length and about 3,000 tonnes displacement.”
This aligns well with the requirements of the Indian Navy. I hope that this is exactly what is being offered to us.
www.navalnews.com
“The Type 212CD E design proposed for the Netherlands shares the same core systems and components as the CD in order to manage risk,” said Isbrecht. “The pressure hull diameter is also the same.
“The difference lies in a hull insert to increase fuel capacity for longer endurance, and improve accommodation space for extended missions. The result is a slightly larger submarine of just over 80 m length and about 3,000 tonnes displacement.”
This aligns well with the requirements of the Indian Navy. I hope that this is exactly what is being offered to us.
TKMS Offering Type 212CD E Submarine to the Netherlands - Naval News
With the Type 212CD E design, TKMS is pitching a military off-the-shelf solution to the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN).
www.navalnews.com
Naval Group choisi par les Pays-Bas pour la construction de quatre sous-marins
Naval Group a remporté le contrat pour la construction de quatre sous-marins pour la marine néerlandaise.
It is made : NL choose the Barracuda SSK.
Thank you to Austalia to have paid the R&D bill !
Next could be India.....
S-81 Issac Pearl. The Spanish offering for P-75I by navantia + L&T . First ever inside access to this 3000 ton giant Submarine while in active duty.
Yes, but this Type 212CD submarine lost the competition in the Netherlands to the 3300-tonne Blacksword Barracuda. A category where it seems the French had nothing to offer.
I don't believe the Dutch offer comes with AIP though.
It was the lack of AIP that killed France's chances in India.
With that said, I'm not sure why the IN is pressing ahead with AIP if others are moving towards battery-only systems. Lack of faith in battery-only may not be the only factor.
Versions of the Scorpene with AIPs have been sold to Malaysia and Chile, and negotiations are even under way with India. And the Barracuda line is natively compatible with nuclear propulsion or with an AIP (Shortfin Barracuda) or with lithium-ion batteries (Blacksword Barracuda).
IN rejected MESMA. Perhaps because Pakistan was already operating one and we didn't want to get sucked into their operational tempo with the same system. So the requirement is for FC.
As for Barracuda's compatibility, all that's great, no doubt, but the sub wasn't offered to India, and France didn't have an AIP ready for operational testing. India didn't kick France out, France left of its own accord.
Congrats on the win, lets hope it wont get cancelled like the last win. Netherlands chose the highest risk option.
P75I tender did specify that it should be close to reality or something that is already operational.
I think that the reality of French systems, when they are offered for export, is greater than the reality of Indian tenders.
I doubt it's that simple. When Australia went for their Barracuda, they decided on regular batteries and without AIP.
And why not? The Australians chose what suited them best at the time.
The cancellation of the French contract has nothing to do with any technical limitations of the submarines, but looks very much like a story we've seen before:
In the 1980s, we hoped to sell our nuclear attack submarines to Canada. Negotiations seemed to be well under way. "Both the Canadian navy and the political authorities were convinced of the merits of this solution," recalls Max Moulin, atomic engineer, Capitaine de Vaisseau and contributor to the naval reference work Flottes de combat. "Until the Americans stepped in with a counter-proposal to lend or make available American nuclear submarines. The Canadians then dropped the French contract. Except that "they never heard back from the Americans, and in the end had to buy second-hand British conventional submarines that were not in good condition.
Point being, their decision was based on the reliability of proven technologies already in service rather than experimental technologies. It's like the Rafale vs F-35 discussion all over again. One's proven and works, the other has better technologies and potential but is yet to work. But the F-35 has all these sexy new toys like Li-ion whereas the Rafale comes with a regular battery. So all those countries choosing the former is no different from if India chose the French SSK when the S-80 Plus is ready.
So the IN needs that guarantee of the predictability that comes with the S-80 Plus offer, which is no different from the IAF having chosen the predictability of the Rafale via MRFA rather than chase after a pie in the sky FGFA, which logically could have come in much faster had we signed a deal in 2018. The fact that the S-80 Plus is a Scorpene cousin helps matters a lot too, especially if there are a lot more customization options available with it, unlike Scorpene.
I'm not bothered about that since it doesn't affect India or anyone else. It's a separate issue.
You seem to think that AIP is a better solution than Li-Ion batteries while some people thinks the opposite, moreover the French had AIP technologies for a long time since we even equipped Agosta submarines with it, while Li-Ion technology is more recent.
No, I haven't said anything about the tech itself, just that its viability has been questioned by 2 major users of submarines, both IN and RAN.
RAN did not want either LIB or AIP, whereas IN wants both instead of merely relying on LIB alone. So the debate is about risk, not technology.
So RAN de-risked their SSK program by completely eliminating both technologies. Otoh, the IN is the opposite, they want to rely on both, but that's the point, they want to rely on both. I'm not expert at this, but if the IN has made such a decision, then it's possible relying on just one or the other comes with trade-offs and they would like to avoid that.
The IN has chosen to do the same for the Scorpene, LIB + AIP.