Years ago, I told Ignorants that P76 will begin as soon as P-75I has made progress.
Can someone confirm if we're being offered the Type 212CD model, or Type 214 mod? If it's the former, the IN has probably already made up its mind.
It's a safer bet imo. There's no third country involvement. The Germans make everything from the combat system and weapons to hull and propulsion. Not so in case of the Spaniards.
To my mind, it looked like the IN was eyeing the Type 212 (stealth, advance AIP) and only keeping Navantia in the running to avoid a single vendor situation but you have a point there.The Germans are in the competition to soften the bill for L&T, like the German Typhoon did for Rafale.
With the Spanish offer, we should be able to choose many systems of our own instead of getting lumped with proprietary sh!t from Germany. So there will be much greater focus on indigenization, and a more willing OEM.
The S-80 provides quite a bit of commonality with Scorpene too.
And don't forget sanctions. There are very few countries that like sanctions more than Germany.
To my mind, it looked like the IN was eyeing the Type 212 (stealth, advance AIP) and only keeping Navantia in the running to avoid a single vendor situation but you have a point there.
If we didn't take part, it's because the tender required a submarine with an AIP already in operation, and that's not the case with the Scorpène. The fact that the S-80 is bigger than the Scorpene is simply because Navantia didn't even know how to calculate the mass that would allow the submarine to float.No, Its way bigger than Scorpene. Which is one of the key requirements of the tender. If scorpene was so good you should have participated.
It is bigger because the Spanish navy requested a larger design to meet staff requirements in 2002.If we didn't take part, it's because the tender required a submarine with an AIP already in operation, and that's not the case with the Scorpène. The fact that the S-80 is bigger than the Scorpene is simply because Navantia didn't even know how to calculate the mass that would allow the submarine to float.
The end of the Cold War meant that funding dried up and the joint venture had to wait until 1997 for their first sale - to Chile - of the new design, which was designated the Scorpène class in export markets. The same year Spain started to look again at its requirements, and in 1998 they indicated that they would buy four Scorpènes, optionally with an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system for greater endurance when submerged. A staff requirement for the S-80 Scorpène variant was completed in October 2001. This was soon overtaken by events, as the Armada (navy) became more interested in using submarines for power projection than in a more static, defensive role. This shift was codified in guidance of January 2002 from the Chief of Naval Operations and in the strategic defence review of February 2003. The new requirement called for a larger submarine with better endurance and land-attack missiles, which became known as the S-80A design. This was an AIP submarine with a hull diameter of 7.3 metres (23 ft 11 in) compared to 6.2 metres (20 ft 4 in) for the Scorpène family, a submerged displacement of around 2,990 tonnes versus 1,740 tonnes, larger rudder surfaces and a different fin position.
That's the German one on offer I believe, Type 212CD E. It's an export version of the new gen Type 212CD ordered by Germany and Italy.What happened to this design?
In the same wikipedia:It is bigger because the Spanish navy requested a larger design to meet staff requirements in 2002.
S-80 Plus-class submarine - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
There is a difference of 1100 tons between the Kalvari class and the S-80. So, even if you subtract that increase of 100 tons, there is still a significant difference. The difference in length is also substantial at 13 meters. So, your initial statement is wrong. Difference in size is because of differing requirements not some mistake. The naval group did not participate in this tender for the same reason. It was not because of the proven AIP, but it did not deter the Spaniards.In the same wikipedia:
Navantia engineers had miscalculated the weight of the submarines by some 100 t (98 long tons; 110 short tons) of the total 2000 tonne mass of the submarines, more than enough to sink the submarines if not fixed. As of 2013 Navantia announced the issue would delay the delivery of the first submarine to the Spanish Navy until at least 2017. That date proved to be optimistic. Lengthening the submarine created additional buoyancy. Navantia signed on the US company General Dynamics Electric Boat to help solve the excess weight design issue. In September 2014, the overweight issue was reported to have been resolved in design changes and the construction work to be ready to resume in late October 2014. In November 2014, Navantia again reported having completed the redesign work to address the problem of overweight. In all, the hull would be lengthened by 10 metres (33 ft), and the displacement increased by 100 tons.
It's true that they've changed the diameter a little, but between adding a section for the AIP (as we're going to do on the Scorpene) and 10 metres for calculation errors, that's a change in length which also contributes to the increase in size.
13 meters is not subtantial if you compare it to the 10 meters due to their mistake! And if you want to compensate for 100 tonnes of excess weight by lengthening, you'll need to create an additional buoyancy for the 100 t and for the mass of the new section: it's much more than 100 t.There is a difference of 1100 tons between the Kalvari class and the S-80. So, even if you subtract that increase of 100 tons, there is still a significant difference. The difference in length is also substantial at 13 meters. So, your initial statement is wrong. Difference in size is because of differing requirements not some mistake. The naval group did not participate in this tender for the same reason. It was not because of the proven AIP, but it did not deter the Spaniards.
Okay, I misread the wiki. The actual weight was 71 meters and 2200 tons. Now, after fixes, it is 81 meters and 2900 tons. It is bigger by design, but not this big. Anyway, it fits our requirement. Thats what matter today.13 meters is not subtantial if you compare it to the 10 meters due to their mistake! And if you want to compensate for 100 tonnes of excess weight by lengthening, you'll need to create an additional buoyancy for the 100 t and for the mass of the new section: it's much more than 100 t.
In the same wikipedia:
Navantia engineers had miscalculated the weight of the submarines by some 100 t (98 long tons; 110 short tons) of the total 2000 tonne mass of the submarines, more than enough to sink the submarines if not fixed. As of 2013 Navantia announced the issue would delay the delivery of the first submarine to the Spanish Navy until at least 2017. That date proved to be optimistic. Lengthening the submarine created additional buoyancy. Navantia signed on the US company General Dynamics Electric Boat to help solve the excess weight design issue. In September 2014, the overweight issue was reported to have been resolved in design changes and the construction work to be ready to resume in late October 2014. In November 2014, Navantia again reported having completed the redesign work to address the problem of overweight. In all, the hull would be lengthened by 10 metres (33 ft), and the displacement increased by 100 tons.
It's true that they've changed the diameter a little, but between adding a section for the AIP (as we're going to do on the Scorpene) and 10 metres for calculation errors, that's a change in length which also contributes to the increase in size.
Yes, but believe me, Navantia are a bunch of Charlots, and I wouldn't trust them with anything important. TKMS is our biggest competitor, but at least they're professionals.The benefits of their mistakes will be of advantage to India when our sub's designed.
Like the Chinese have done with the Yuan class, the IN too could have modified the Kilo/Lada class design with some Russian consultancy as a stopgap solution. But there was no initiative from them.P75 and P75I were planned in 1997. I'm obviously talking about the last many years, since 2018 or so. Unlike other verticals, the sub vertical is quite limited and comes with limited options. We gotta take what we can get. While Arjun Mk1A and T-90 Mk3 are decent temporary replacements for delays in the GNMBT and FRCV programs, the same with MRFA, LCA Mk2 and AMCA being indirect replacements for each other, the Scorpene does not provide crucial anti-China capabilities and any alternatives are not realistic within the timeframe the capabilities are expected.
In any case, P76 wasn't anywhere near the horizon in 1997. The plan was for 6+3 P75 and 6+3 P75I and 6 P76, with the last one taken up after P75I was half-way done, not immediately after P75I began.
Yes, but believe me, Navantia are a bunch of Charlots, and I wouldn't trust them with anything important. TKMS is our biggest competitor, but at least they're professionals.