Project 75 India Diesel-electric Submarine Programs (SSK) : Updates and Discussions

[Ashwin]

Germany’s TKMS with MDL or Spain’s Navantia with L&T? Navy set to decide who will make 6 new submarines​

The first submarine under P75I is to be delivered in 7 years from the date of contract signing. So, if a contract is inked tomorrow, the first submarine will come by 2031 earliest.​

New Delhi: The Indian Navy is in the final stages of finalising the field evaluation trial (FET) report in connection with the much-anticipated Project 75 India (P75I), under which six new conventional diesel-electric submarines with proven Air Independent Propulsion Systems (AIP) will get added to the fleet.

Sources in the defence and security establishments told ThePrint that the naval headquarters will send their recommendation to the defence ministry this month.

The Navy is all set to recommend the joint bid of the state-run Indian shipyard, Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL), and the German naval giant, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems of Germany (TKMS), to manufacture the diesel-electric submarines in India, ThePrint has learnt.
The move follows the FET carried out by a team of the Indian Navy, which visited shipyards in Germany and Spain based on the bids submitted.

Following the defence ministry nod, the Indian Navy will form a cost negotiation committee and is looking to sign the contract for the submarines in a year.

The Indian Navy’s choice of the MDL-TKMS offer is set to come just ahead of German Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s upcoming visit to India in October next month.

The submarine deal will figure high up in the inter-governmental consultations because, in this case, Germany wants to go in for a government-to-government contract.

However, sources said there would be no agreement inked then, but the German side will get updates about the progress on the Indian side.

---

Why TKMS and MDL are ahead​

Sources in the defence establishment explained to ThePrint that P75I is the pioneering case that will progress under the strategic partnership model. Two shortlisted Indian applicant companies—MDL and Larsen & Toubro, India, received the request for proposal (RFP) for it.

They said that both the bidders submitted their compliance to the requirements as stipulated in the RFP in collaboration with their respective foreign collaborators, TKMS and Navantia, respectively.

The RFP stipulates the requirement of undertaking the FET of the AIP onboard a naval submarine at sea. Accordingly, the FET of the AIPs proposed by the foreign collaborators happened.

However, while the Germans proved their AIP on board a submarine, the Spanish could not because their first submarine with AIP will likely be operational only sometime in 2026.

“The requirement of FET of the AIP at sea had been enunciated clearly in the Expression of Interest Issued earlier in 2019 as also In the RFI Issued in 2007,” a source said.

Sources added that the requirement of a sea-proven AIP assumes significance since, unless sea-proven, safe and reliable for its designed functionality, the AIP system will expose the programme to significant technical and operational risks, cost and time overruns, and numerous challenges linked to integration.

The state-of-the-art proven fuel-cell AIP system, which will work in tandem with lithium-ion batteries, is one of the main demands of the Indian Navy.

The submarine is also supposed to have higher stealth features, which means that its design could be different from the ones currently operated by the Indian Navy.

The foreign company is supposed to hand over the submarine design to the Indian Navy.

The first submarine under P75I should be delivered seven years from the date of the contract signing. So, even if a contract gets signed tomorrow, the first submarine will come only by 2031 earliest.

The first submarine should have 45 percent of indigenous content, which is supposed to go up to 60 percent by the fourth submarine.

After the delivery of the first submarine, one submarine each is to be delivered every year.

 

[Bon Plan]

As I've pointed out earlier the issue isn't manufacturing but designing . We've manufactured both SSKs & SSBNs based on external designs since the late 80s / early 90s

Not at 100% (the manufacturing).
In the Scorpene case some parts are built in France, even for the last one. (as some watertight doors for exemple).
But if not 100%, it is very near.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Not at 100% (the manufacturing).
In the Scorpene case some parts are built in France, even for the last one. (as some watertight doors for exemple).
But if not 100%, it is very near.

Some parts are built in France coz after qualifying vendors out here to carry out the stipulated job work , Naval Group reneged on their word refusing certification for the end product in the event the job work was executed by the said vendors which led to the IN having no option but to issue such work orders on NG which in turn delayed the project ( there were other reasons the project was delayed ) & escalated the cost.

End result - NG got booted out of the Project -75 I coz the tender was deliberately framed in a way that NG wouldn't qualify technically.

Since then & before this incident we've plenty of material on NG's indiscretions from the Malaysians , the Aussies even the Norwegians out here. Ideal partners to work with as per the Norwegian.

 

[Bon Plan]

Some parts are built in France coz after qualifying vendors out here to carry out the stipulated job work , Naval Group reneged on their word refusing certification for the end product in the event the job work was executed by the said vendors which led to the IN having no option but to issue such work orders on NG which in turn delayed the project ( there were other reasons the project was delayed ) & escalated the cost.

End result - NG got booted out of the Project -75 I coz the tender was deliberately framed in a way that NG wouldn't qualify technically.

Since then & before this incident we've plenty of material on NG's indiscretions from the Malaysians , the Aussies even the Norwegians out here. Ideal partners to work with as per the Norwegian.

If these vendors are qualmified but are unable to produce according to the technical specifications, don't be surprised the parts are refused.
Because at the end it is the NG quality insurance that will be called into question.
A kind of problem amleady seen on MMRCA : Dassault had to guarantee the made in HAL Rafale quality but without any possibility to act on HAL skill & procedures. That doesn't work except maybe with Boeing (we now see the results).

 

[_Anonymous_]

If these vendors are qualmified but are unable to produce according to the technical specifications, don't be surprised the parts are refused.
Because at the end it is the NG quality insurance that will be called into question.
A kind of problem amleady seen on MMRCA : Dassault had to guarantee the made in HAL Rafale quality but without any possibility to act on HAL skill & procedures. That doesn't work except maybe with Boeing (we now see the results).

Unable to produce as per technical specifications is short hand for how to extract more money from the client over & above the contract value , about which a lot has been said here not just by the IN but the Malaysians , the Australians & the Norwegians. Watch this space for the Brazilians in the future. You can scroll back to check on it if you've any doubts. Let me know if you've problems locating it .

I could argue this in many other ways but I'd like to believe - All's well that ends well . Eventually all these incidents serve to remind our decision makers there's no substitute to indigenous development & that strategic partners are there to butter their bread , as it should be .

Hence NG's out of any further submarine procurement program of the IN & if our decision makers didn't botch up their planning there'd be no further need for the 3 Scorpenes as well nor desperate publicity by the NG every now & then about how their offerings are a perfect fit for the IN's requirement etc .

Hopefully once the MRFA circus is through we'd have no more need for Dassault or any other imported Fighters as well .

 

[Bon Plan]

Unable to produce as per technical specifications is short hand for how to extract more money from the client over & above the contract value , about which a lot has been said here not just by the IN but the Malaysians , the Australians & the Norwegians. Watch this space for the Brazilians in the future. You can scroll back to check on it if you've any doubts. Let me know if you've problems locating it .

LOL. your now classical anti french attitude....

Australians ? What a nice exemple. They scratch a 80 $ billion deal for 12 tailor made subs all built in Australia for a 350 $ billion deal for 8 subs (Ok, nuc one) with a max of 3 built on their soil. This shows if their opinion counts for anything.
Malysia? Never read anything on this. Last news was that they intend to purchase one Scorpene more....
Norwegians? not a single french weapon in their navy. Navantia is spanich, not french.

The close ties between Netherlands and Germany were not strong enough to avoid a french sub win....

 

[_Anonymous_]

LOL. your now classical anti french attitude....

Australians ? What a nice exemple. They scratch a 80 $ billion deal for 12 tailor made subs all built in Australia for a 350 $ billion deal for 8 subs (Ok, nuc one) with a max of 3 built on their soil. This shows if their opinion counts for anything.
Malysia? Never read anything on this. Last news was that they intend to purchase one Scorpene more....
Norwegians? not a single french weapon in their navy. Navantia is spanich, not french.

The close ties between Netherlands and Germany were not strong enough to avoid a french sub win....

I'm glad you asked. Officially , the Royal Malaysian Navy had a problem with NG not for the Scorpenes but for its littoral fleet of ships although this tweet suggests not everything was right with the Scorpene deal as well but there hasn't been anything else in the public domain or any official comment by the Malaysian authorities or their Navy on this.

Of course people who've more experience of dealing with Naval Group like the IN may be smirking at this bit .


Here's the low down.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1559323124709359620

Post in thread 'RMAF intercepts 16 Chinese air force planes over Malaysia' RMAF intercepts 16 Chinese air force planes over Malaysia

Here's what I had to say then -

Post in thread 'RMAF intercepts 16 Chinese air force planes over Malaysia' RMAF intercepts 16 Chinese air force planes over Malaysia

And here's your response , which you seem to have forgotten -

Post in thread 'RMAF intercepts 16 Chinese air force planes over Malaysia' RMAF intercepts 16 Chinese air force planes over Malaysia

And just coz I like you here's a detailed account of the murky dealings NG indulged in & the fall out.

https://corruption-tracker.org/case/the-malaysian-scorpene-submarine-affair

Anti French ? I'm an Indian National just as you're a French National. Hence I'm pro India just as you'd be pro France. Where's the question of being pro or anti any other country ?

 

[Bon Plan]

I'm glad you asked. Officially , the Royal Malaysian Navy had a problem with NG not for the Scorpenes but for its littoral fleet of ships although this tweet suggests not everything was right with the Scorpene deal as well but there hasn't been anything else in the public domain or any official comment by the Malaysian authorities or their Navy on this.

Of course people who've more experience of dealing with Naval Group like the IN may be smirking at this bit .


Here's the low down.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1559323124709359620

Post in thread 'RMAF intercepts 16 Chinese air force planes over Malaysia' RMAF intercepts 16 Chinese air force planes over Malaysia

Here's what I had to say then -

Post in thread 'RMAF intercepts 16 Chinese air force planes over Malaysia' RMAF intercepts 16 Chinese air force planes over Malaysia

And here's your response , which you seem to have forgotten -

Post in thread 'RMAF intercepts 16 Chinese air force planes over Malaysia' RMAF intercepts 16 Chinese air force planes over Malaysia

And just coz I like you here's a detailed account of the murky dealings NG indulged in & the fall out.

https://corruption-tracker.org/case/the-malaysian-scorpene-submarine-affair

Anti French ? I'm an Indian National just as you're a French National. Hence I'm pro India just as you'd be pro France. Where's the question of being pro or anti any other country ?

You spoke of Subs and put a news about frigates...
My impression is that Aziz missed the backchich.....

The first Gowind frigate was launched 24 of august. How is it serious to explain the ship doesn't perform weel when the first sea trial is even not made ???
I called that a fake news.

 

[_Anonymous_]

You spoke of Subs and put a news about frigates...
My impression is that Aziz missed the backchich.....

The first Gowind frigate was launched 24 of august. How is it serious to explain the ship doesn't perform weel when the first sea trial is even not made ???
I called that a fake news.

Didn't you read the tweet ? Re read it once more . Besides we were discussing practices of the Naval Group not the products. There's no problem whatsoever with its products.

 

[Amarante]

Unable to produce as per technical specifications is short hand for how to extract more money from the client over & above the contract value , (…)

The difference between strict adherence to the specifications and 'just about' is the life or death of 43 sailors (x(6+3)). The crew. Please be serious.

(…) practically everyone associated with Naval Group has had extremely nice things to say about them (…)

Go and explain it to the Flying Dutchmen:

With the court ruling against Germany's TKMS, Naval Group will be able to deliver four submarines to the Netherlands

(…)The way is now clear for official notification of the contract for the 'Orka' submarines. This should be done after the summer, i.e. after the signing of two agreements: one between the Dutch and French governments, the other between the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Naval Group to guarantee the involvement of local industry in this programme.

Naval Group will then have ten years to deliver the first two submarines [the Orka and the Zwaardvis] to the Koninklijke Marine once the contract comes into force. The other two, the Barracuda and the Tijgerhaa, are expected a little later.

(…) And just coz I like you here's a detailed account of the murky dealings NG indulged in & the fall out.

https://corruption-tracker.org/case/the-malaysian-scorpene-submarine-affair

(…)

Corruption? Alas, alas, alas, not everyone is as lucky as you are to live in an enchanted kingdom free from corruption.

 

[_Anonymous_]

The difference between strict adherence to the specifications and 'just about' is the life or death of 43 sailors (x(6+3)). The crew. Please be serious.

In which case why did NG pre qualify those vendors ? The whole tender was on a nomination basis which means there was no competition as HDW / TKMS had been eliminated after preliminary discussions within GoI / MoD / IN which means there were no negotiations with any other party except Armaris / DCNS / NG where the terms were crystal clear from day 1.

NG was to supply the designs , ToT , function as a consultant & pre qualify Indian vendors where these submarines were to be built in India exclusively without exceptions.

NG ascented to this offer , went ahead to pre qualify Indian vendors during due diligence & when the final agreement was inked reneged on its commitment. It's really that simple.

There were plenty of other issues from pin pricks to not so major & not so minor disagreements with the result that till recently IN was vehemently opposed to exercising the option for an additional 3 Scorpenes which were part of the original contract & framed the tender of Project 75 ( I) such that NG couldn't be qualified.

We still don't know if the proposal for an additional 3 Scorpenes will go through ( in all likelihood it will as the IN is facing a dire shortage in serviceable submarines as of today which will be exacerbated in the near future ) now that IN is pre occupied with the Project 75 I where in all likelihood TKMS are the favourites to win. This tender was for NG to lose & they lost it.

Go and explain it to the Flying Dutchmen:

With the court ruling against Germany's TKMS, Naval Group will be able to deliver four submarines to the Netherlands

(…)The way is now clear for official notification of the contract for the 'Orka' submarines. This should be done after the summer, i.e. after the signing of two agreements: one between the Dutch and French governments, the other between the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Naval Group to guarantee the involvement of local industry in this programme.

Naval Group will then have ten years to deliver the first two submarines [the Orka and the Zwaardvis] to the Koninklijke Marine once the contract comes into force. The other two, the Barracuda and the Tijgerhaa, are expected a little later.

Why should I be explaining it to the Dutch ? They will take decisions in their national interest. Bottomline - 2 / 4 of NG's customers have cited unfair business practices on the part of NG & 2 of your prospective clients - Norway & Australia have not proceeded ahead with NG , the former at the pre qualification stage itself & the latter after the signing of the agreement.

Corruption? Alas, alas, alas, not everyone is as lucky as you are to live in an enchanted kingdom free from corruption.

You'd have to take it up with the Malaysians . They're the ones who've made these allegations .

 

[Bon Plan]

NG ascented to this offer , went ahead to pre qualify Indian vendors during due diligence & when the final agreement was inked reneged on its commitment. It's really that simple.

indian vendors were in reality not able to produce components (specially hatch) at the desired quality level. Is as simple as that.

I remember an indian sub contractor of Boeing (HAL ? ) that can't produce doors for civilian liners at the right quality level.

 

[_Anonymous_]

indian vendors were in reality not able to produce components (specially hatch) at the desired quality level. Is as simple as that.

If Indian vendors weren't competent to produce these parts why were they pre qualified by NG ? Clearly this wasn't a con game for once the agreement was signed & NG reneged from certifying the products of these vendors , IN & MDL were helpless . The only option was to issue orders on NG at inflated prices which is how NG boosts its profits.

Those same vendors are also part of IN N SSN & SSBN programs.

I remember an indian sub contractor of Boeing (HAL ? ) that can't produce doors for civilian liners at the right quality level.

Cut the bull sh!tting man . Tatas are mfg the entire cabins of the Apaches here . Dynamatic Technologies are manufacturing parts for Dassault , LM , Boeing etc for years . There are plenty of other vendors here & all you've is one damned example of some contract for measly doors which was cancelled years ago.

Do you think all those platforms & armaments we've built are for showcasing only ? Are you saying that only the French are the most honest & quality conscious people in the world ? That you're the last word in technology & probity.

I sincerely hope NG carries this same attitude as you do in life . We'd see how many of their existing customers get back to NG for replacements of Scorpenes 2-3 decades down the line. At least Dassault has a good reputation in this regard . They were in a position to sell their Rafales to most of those countries who had the Mirages in their armed forces. That's called customer retention.

 

[Aniruddha]

indian vendors were in reality not able to produce components (specially hatch) at the desired quality level. Is as simple as that.

I remember an indian sub contractor of Boeing (HAL ? ) that can't produce doors for civilian liners at the right quality level.

Have you got any proof to back-up the bogus claims you are making here?

Also if according to you the Indian vendors were not able to make the components like the hatch to the desired quality level, then why would Naval Group select them in the first place?
Does Naval Group not perform any kind of background checks/POC tests when selecting vendors they will be working with?

 

[Bon Plan]

If Indian vendors weren't competent to produce these parts why were they pre qualified by NG ?

You can be pre qualified for olympic games and not finally qualified.

Those same vendors are also part of IN N SSN & SSBN programs.

The spec may be differents.
Scorpene may be qualified for 350m deep and your own subs only for 250m for exemple.

 

[Bon Plan]

Have you got any proof to back-up the bogus claims you are making here?

Also if according to you the Indian vendors were not able to make the components like the hatch to the desired quality level, then why would Naval Group select them in the first place?
Does Naval Group not perform any kind of background checks/POC tests when selecting vendors they will be working with?

Not any proof, but :
A component built in India is supposed to be cheaper, so why purchasing it in France if you can find it in india? (I'm quite sure some components assembled on Rafale are now 100% of indian origin to cut price).
The % of indian content is defined by contract. If component X can't be found, NG have to find something else to balance.

Also if according to you the Indian vendors were not able to make the components like the hatch to the desired quality level, then why would Naval Group select them in the first place?

Until you receive the first all vendor made component, you are not sure it is fully compliant.
It 's a common situation in Industry.

 

[Amarante]

In which case why did NG pre qualify those vendors ?

First of all, I'd like to say that I'm probably less familiar with the P-75I dossier than you are. That much is obvious. So some of my questions or comments may seem naive or whatever to you.
It doesn't matter that you don't provide the sources of the comments that follow, to which I'm replying. But that doesn't mean that I have the same confidence in politicians or corporate barons. French or otherwise.

I have no doubt that you are sincere and I therefore understand your anger. Even if... (1)
———-

Q1: Did NG have the choice to say "no" to these suppliers? How do we know that they were not imposed on him (if this is the case) at a political level. By Delhi, anxious to satisfy this or that particular State of the Union?

Q2: Couldn't NG's choice of this or that supplier have contractually included the possibility of suspending the collaboration under certain conditions? Valid and precise reasons?

The whole tender was on a nomination basis which means there was no competition as HDW / TKMS had been eliminated after preliminary discussions within GoI / MoD / IN which means there were no negotiations with any other party except Armaris / DCNS / NG where the terms were crystal clear from day 1

Which is not clear for me, because of the machine translation, sorry.
?Meaning: We (Indian decision-makers) choose NG by appointment, in return for which We ask NG to "choose" such and such national suppliers? cf. Q1.
Is that what you mean?

If Indian vendors weren't competent to produce these parts why were they pre qualified by NG ? Clearly this wasn't a con game for once the agreement was signed & NG reneged from certifying the products of these vendors , IN & MDL were helpless .

NOT a swindle, and powerless, precisely because the contracts provided for the possibility of NG suspending the collaboration? cf. Q2
Is that what tou mean?

Those same vendors are also part of IN N SSN & SSBN programs.

Total respects!

Are you saying that only the French are the most honest & quality conscious people in the world ? That you're the last word in technology & probity.

Thank you for that. Yes, it's true what you say: we're good, that's for sure. We're even the best at some things, I admit.
I say that in all modesty, since modesty is my main quality. Along with being French, of course.
For example - but not only - we have good legal experts who specialise in drawing up commercial contracts in reinforced concrete (2).

There were plenty of other issues from pin pricks to not so major & not so minor disagreements with the result that till recently IN was vehemently opposed to exercising the option for an additional 3 Scorpenes which were part of the original contract & framed the tender of Project 75 ( I) such that NG couldn't be qualified.

Nor do the Spanish, as their AIP is not 'proven'.
If the words have the same meaning in English and French, 'éprouvé'//proven also means: de-risked, after the launch of the S-83's AIP. A launch that will not take place before... 2028. If the deadlines are met.

Today, the Germans are the only ones to actually respond to the call for tenders. This is no longer a selection process; it seems to me to be a disguised appointment.

(…) at the end it is the NG quality insurance that will be called into question.
A kind of problem amleady seen on MMRCA : Dassault had to guarantee the made in HAL Rafale quality but without any possibility to act on HAL skill & procedures.

« Unlimited liability »!

Dassault is not the only OEM to have had this concern: it is what prompted the Swedes to withdraw from the P-75I:

The Germans also announced their withdrawal from the P-75I, for the same reason. Then they came back ONLY AFTER the Indians agreed to relax this clause/condition of « Unlimited liability »
—————

As for the Russians, they seem to have given up on AIP fuel cells for good
В ЦКБ "Рубин" рассказали об энергетической установке подлодки - РИА Новости, 13.08.2024
Bas! Too difficult. ;-
——————

It pains me to say it, but when it comes to the technical side of things, I'd trust ze Germans more than the Spanish.
The problem is the sale of armaments: Ach Bundestag!

The Spanish will equip their S-80s with German torpedoes, and ITAR Harpoons... (a lot of US systems into the boat btw)

From that point of view, how do you intend to arm the 75I?
Brahmos-ng + Desi HWTs (sorry i don’t remember the name?

———-
(1) But, in the 'Attack-Australia' contract, why do you still believe in the fable of an astronomical increase in the bill, which would have pushed the Australians to withdraw?
This hypothesis (or hoax, we should say) is null and void. You haven't read the messages or the detailed articles I've posted in the "aukus" thread. My ego will get over it, but your obstinacy in still believing in this hoax raises questions.


(2) And without sand in the concrete. Unlike Russian wrecks, which are full of sand at the bottom of the water.

Speaking of Russian submarines (apologies for the digression):
China-Russia: towards an unspoken military alliance? (asialyst.fr 14.09.24):

According to Kurt Campbell (deputy state secretary), Russia has begun to supply China with sensitive military technologies in the areas of submarines, missiles and other sectors: "(...) Most of these activities are taking place clandestinely. We are concerned that in a number of military areas there is a certain determination [on Russia's part] to give China its best efforts. These include operations [related to submarine technology], aeronautical design activities, including stealth technology, which also includes missile capabilities."
(...)
American researchers, quoted by the daily [FT], recently claimed that the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA), with Russian assistance, is close to completing the development of a new Type 096 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) with a quieter propulsion system that makes it more difficult to detect. American military circles are also pointing out that China is particularly interested in Russian submarine technology, which is still far ahead of Beijing's (...)". Etc.

« War economy »
/deepl

 

[Amarante]

[edit] i apologize, 2 links in my previous msg are non-compliant

1/ ze Germans vs « unlimited liability », thePrint. in 16.08.22:

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

2/China-Russia: toward an unspoken military alliance? (asialyst.fr 14.09.24):

Chine-Russie : vers une alliance militaire non dite ?

Pour la première fois, les États-Unis ont accusé la Chine de livrer un soutien militaire direct "très substantiel" à la Russie qui l'aide à poursuivre sa guerre en Ukraine en échange de technologies militaires de pointe. Ces accusations semblent illustrer une coopération étroite de nature à...

asialyst.com

 

[_Anonymous_]

First of all, I'd like to say that I'm probably less familiar with the P-75I dossier than you are. That much is obvious. So some of my questions or comments may seem naive or whatever to you.
It doesn't matter that you don't provide the sources of the comments that follow, to which I'm replying.

There are no official sources for these for obvious reasons . France is a friend & strategic partner. Whatever I've put out here has been gleaned mostly from SM namely Twitter & YT videos where mention of this has been made in passing mostly by ex servicemen especially Indian Navy by people directly involved in the project then & who were in senior leadership roles. I've posted a few of these tweets in the past out here which would be at least 2 years old or more.

There's neither an article on this particular issue or any allegations by a top ranking official now retired made in public like in the case of the ex Naval Chief of the Royal Malaysian Navy for reasons given in my opening paragraph.

PBut that doesn't mean that I have the same confidence in politicians or corporate barons. French or otherwise.

I have no doubt that you are sincere and I therefore understand your anger. Even if... (1)
———-

There's no anger. What's done is done. I was merely referring to those past incidents in a larger context . Hence I've posted it in this thread else I'd have created a new thread.

Q1: Did NG have the choice to say "no" to these suppliers? How do we know that they were not imposed on him (if this is the case) at a political level. By Delhi, anxious to satisfy this or that particular State of the Union?

Of course it did . Why would it be imposed on NG ? As I've stated before it was a nomination tender or a single vendor situation. There was no competition. NG could easily declare what's doable & what isn't.

There's no question of any pressure by Delhi or any other place. Either you pre qualify those vendors after due diligence , who've been presented by Indian Navy & Mazgaon Docks Ltd - the manufacturing agency or you don't with reasons assigned. It's really as simple as that & it's an open & shut case .

Q2: Couldn't NG's choice of this or that supplier have contractually included the possibility of suspending the collaboration under certain conditions? Valid and precise reasons?

These conditions could well have been part of the contract but by the looks of it NG which had committed to these terms during negotiations did a volte face after the agreement was signed. Much the same was observed in the case of Dassault during the MMRCA tender though the clause in this case was a stupid one but the principle stands.

You can't sign on to a document accepting the terms unconditionally without even a comment or a dissenting note in case of Dassault & once you're selected completely reject the obligations you've signed for. In case of the MMRCA that was the stumbling block which eventually led to the cancellation of the tender. In case of the Scorpenes things had moved too far for such a cancellation . In other words NG had the IN by its balls .

Which is not clear for me, because of the machine translation, sorry.
?Meaning: We (Indian decision-makers) choose NG by appointment, in return for which We ask NG to "choose" such and such national suppliers? cf. Q1.
Is that what you mean?

Yes , by and large the first part of the statement is true. NG was the sole vendor in this particular case . It's what is known in Government circles as a nomination basis tender when there's just one vendor.

Mazgaon Docks Ltd ( MDL ) was the principle contractor. The sub contractors who were to be vetted by NG were introduced to them by MDL who in turn were to be introduced to NG's own sub contractors for the ToT which would be supervised by NG.

NOT a swindle, and powerless, precisely because the contracts provided for the possibility of NG suspending the collaboration? cf. Q2
Is that what tou mean?

The contract would have had stipulations for suspension & cancellation for both parties & this could well be among those reasons which could trigger off a hypothetical situation of suspension or cancellation of it.

My larger point was NG was supposed to do due diligence certifying those Indian sub contractors or vendors were capable enough to be entrusted with job work post ToT which they complied with during negotiations & once the agreement was signed they reneged citing incompetence of those Indian contractors & if I recall right threatened non certification of those assemblies & consequently the final product.

The implications of this is clear. The signed contract had certain values in terms of money to be paid for WORK TO BE EXCLUSIVELY EXECUTED IN INDIA. The moment those Indian vendors were disqualified it meant that those assemblies would have to be provided by NG made in France which automatically escalated the prices.

Trust that clarifies.

Total respects!

Thank you for that. Yes, it's true what you say: we're good, that's for sure. We're even the best at some things, I admit.
I say that in all modesty, since modesty is my main quality. Along with being French, of course.
For example - but not only - we have good legal experts who specialise in drawing up commercial contracts in reinforced concrete (2).

Are you being sarcastic ? That's my forte.

Nor do the Spanish, as their AIP is not 'proven'.
If the words have the same meaning in English and French, 'éprouvé'//proven also means: de-risked, after the launch of the S-83's AIP. A launch that will not take place before... 2028. If the deadlines are met.

Hence my earlier statement the tender was designed in such a manner as to prevent participation by NG & get TKMS qualified on technical grounds . Navantia was there to make up the numbers so that TKMS didn't squeeze us.

Today, the Germans are the only ones to actually respond to the call for tenders. This is no longer a selection process; it seems to me to be a disguised appointment.

Yes . Precisely my point. That would've been the case with NG had they not indulged in what they did. This was NG's tender to lose particularly given the fact that they were already awarded the Scorpene tender just as the upcoming tender would be TKMS's tender to lose , as I've already pointed out plenty of times before.

« Unlimited liability »!

That clause was withdrawn later on receipt of objections by TKMS.

Dassault is not the only OEM to have had this concern: it is what prompted the Swedes to withdraw from the P-75I:

Dassault ? You mean NG.

In any case the IN didn't want NG . Neither were they keen on Saab AB / Kockums Shipyard.

The Germans also announced their withdrawal from the P-75I, for the same reason. Then they came back ONLY AFTER the Indians agreed to relax this clause/condition of « Unlimited liability »
—————

As for the Russians, they seem to have given up on AIP fuel cells for good
В ЦКБ "Рубин" рассказали об энергетической установке подлодки - РИА Новости, 13.08.2024
Bas! Too difficult. ;-
——————

It pains me to say it, but when it comes to the technical side of things, I'd trust ze Germans more than the Spanish.
The problem is the sale of armaments: Ach Bundestag!

The Spanish will equip their S-80s with German torpedoes, and ITAR Harpoons... (a lot of US systems into the boat btw)

From that point of view, how do you intend to arm the 75I?
Brahmos-ng + Desi HWTs (sorry i don’t remember the name?

———-

IN has specified incorporation of VLS for the Brahmos & other Indian armaments like torpedos apart from other electrical instrumentations & electronic sensors. We're not privy to the extecompliance of those stipulations by TKMS. The details would be out once the agreement to this effect is signed .

(1) But, in the 'Attack-Australia' contract, why do you still believe in the fable of an astronomical increase in the bill, which would have pushed the Australians to withdraw?
This hypothesis (or hoax, we should say) is null and void. You haven't read the messages or the detailed articles I've posted in the "aukus" thread. My ego will get over it, but your obstinacy in still believing in this hoax raises questions.

That's what commentators in Australia have alleged. In any case the Australian government changed the goalposts later.

(2) And without sand in the concrete. Unlike Russian wrecks, which are full of sand at the bottom of the water.

Speaking of Russian submarines (apologies for the digression):
China-Russia: towards an unspoken military alliance? (asialyst.fr 14.09.24):

According to Kurt Campbell (deputy state secretary), Russia has begun to supply China with sensitive military technologies in the areas of submarines, missiles and other sectors: "(...) Most of these activities are taking place clandestinely. We are concerned that in a number of military areas there is a certain determination [on Russia's part] to give China its best efforts. These include operations [related to submarine technology], aeronautical design activities, including stealth technology, which also includes missile capabilities."
(...)
American researchers, quoted by the daily [FT], recently claimed that the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA), with Russian assistance, is close to completing the development of a new Type 096 nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) with a quieter propulsion system that makes it more difficult to detect. American military circles are also pointing out that China is particularly interested in Russian submarine technology, which is still far ahead of Beijing's (...)". Etc.

« War economy »
/deepl

What makes you think we aren't receiving the same technologies ? After all our N submarine program is based on Russian designs & have been constructed in consultation with them.

Why do you think we have ignored Washington & the west's constant urging to sever ties with Russia ? There's far too much at stake in our strategic sectors with the Russians.

Besides the Russians have been with us in our hour of need. We tend not to abandon our friends in their hour of need. These are time tested ties built over decades.

 

[_Anonymous_]

Not any proof, but :
A component built in India is supposed to be cheaper, so why purchasing it in France if you can find it in india? (I'm quite sure some components assembled on Rafale are now 100% of indian origin to cut price).
The % of indian content is defined by contract. If component X can't be found, NG have to find something else to balance.

I'm merely giving you a sense of what senior retired officers had to say about NG's business practices. If everything had gone smoothly in textbook manner , NG would be the front runner in the upcoming tender. The very fact they aren't even participating should tell you a tale of its own .

You're in the mfg sector aren't you ? How many instances can you recall of clients changing contractors for high value long gestation precision engineering projects especially if those contractors have successfully executed such a project for the very same client in the recent past ? While you're at it you can also think of the reasons for such an occurrence .

Until you receive the first all vendor made component, you are not sure it is fully compliant.
It 's a common situation in Industry.

Then why did NG certify those vendors in the first place. They could have clearly told IN such expertise didn't exist in India & that the IN would have to procure them from outside which in this case was <surprise surprise> France.

Aren't we going around in circles ?