IN Scorpene Submarines - News & Discussions

[VIP]

What is "low quality" in this? What part of the finish? Please specify.

Whom are you asking lol, he will come up with something very stupids, just wait

 

[darshan978]

Whom are you asking lol, he will come up with something very stupids, just wait

bjp walo ne banaya he isiliye
-typical khangressi:blah::blah:

 

[Prashant12]

An Alternative Plan For P-75I, India’s Submarine Construction Program

In recent times, an interesting proposal related to design selection for Project 75I (P-75I), which is the Indian Navy’s (IN’s) latest programme to acquire six diesel-electric submarines (SSKs) of imported design via license manufacture at a domestic shipyard under the Indian Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) new ‘Strategic Partnership’ (SP) policy, has arisen in Indian naval circles. Being a ‘successor’ programme to the Project 75 (P-75) Kalvari Class (Scorpene) build project which is currently underway at the Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL), the IN has apparently long sought a design for P-75I that is different from the Scorpene-2000 on which the Kalvari Class is based. However, owing to recurrent delays in getting P-75I off the ground, it is now being proposed by some quarters that an enhanced and further indigenized ‘Kalvari Class design’ itself should serve as a template for the project.

Proponents of this view also believe that this would make it easier to execute the anticipated Project 76 (P-76), which is supposed to be an IN program to acquire at least 12 SSKs of indigenous design by leveraging the capabilities built up via the P-75 & P-75I license build programs. It would therefore be worthwhile to examine the merits of the alternative proposal, especially by taking a look at what a similar path has yielded for South Korea.

Logistics Logistics
When envisaging a future IN SSK pool of around two dozen submarines (i.e 6 P-75, 6 P-75I and 12 P-76) essentially based on three different designs, the elephant in the room would of course be the logistical headache that is likely to be an outcome of such a mix. For instance, the weapon fit for these three classes of boats could be different, the naval facilities used for operating & maintaining these boats may also have to be different, and there would always be the issue of not being able to readily transfer trained submariners from one SSK class to another. All of this will naturally increase complexity and entail significant costs. Obviously, all this could be avoided to a great extent if P-75, P-75I and P-76 were more ‘related’ to each other, as it were.

In fact, the license build program for a P-75I that is altogether different from P-75 in any case would lead to additional monetary and time costs as a result of having to prepare the domestic supply chain for a new SSK design. And given that the SP policy seeks to primarily execute P-75I via a private domestic shipyard with no prior experience in SSK construction, a protracted time frame to get the first boat into the water cannot be ruled out either.

So, with all these issues in place, is it worth pursuing P-75I as it is currently envisaged or is the alternative being proposed i.e to continue building Kalvari Class derivatives, a better idea? I believe the alternative proposal holds water and for this we could take a closer look at Seoul’s Korean Attack Submarine program (KSS).

A Korean path for India?
Like in India, KSS also seeks to acquire technology from abroad and then create an indigenous SSK fleet in a step-wise manner that includes three phases. The first phase of KSS (KSS-I) kicked off with the induction of the first Chang Bogo Class submarine in 1993, which was basically a Type-209 built by Germany’s Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW), now a part of Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems (TKMS). ROKS Chang Bogo was followed by another eight units of its class, all built in South Korea. Of course, for the second and third Chang Bogo Class boats, most of the materiel was supplied directly from Germany. KSS-I was therefore extremely similar to India’s own acquisition of the Type-209 based Shishumar Class submarines whose first unit, also built in Germany, was inducted in 1986. The last two Shishumar Class boats were of course built by MDL under license from HDW, but as we know the project got truncated due to the political scandal that engulfed it. Ideally, India should have been able to continue this programme like the South Koreans would do by progressively increasing indigenous content.

In 2007, South Korea would commission the first Son Won-yil Class boat marking the culmination of Phase two of KSS (KSS-II), which involved the acquisition of nine units of an improved version of the Type 209 offered by TKMS called the Type 214. All nine were licence built by Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) with the addition of air-independent propulsion (AIP) systems. Thus, if one were to take P-75 as equivalent to KSS-I in import, a KSS-II equivalent design for the IN should naturally be a ‘Super Kalvari’ to be manufactured under P-75I. Such a design should have an increased percentage of indigenous components and sub-systems. For instance the SUBTICS combat management system (CMS) on the Kalvari Class could be replaced with an indigenous CMS derived from the indigenous CMS used by the IN’s Arihant Class nuclear submarines. This Super Kalvari could also be redesigned to incorporate an indigenous vertical launch system (VLS) for Brahmos missiles as is required of the P-75I design by the IN, in a manner akin to how an indigenous VLS is being incorporated into the Type 214 by the South Koreans. Moreover, given that an AIP system developed by the Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO) is in any case meant to be retrofitted onto the Kalvari Class boats, addition of the same to the Super Kalvari will not be a problem.

The third phase of KSS (KSS-III) seems quite similar to what P-76 seeks to achieve, in that it envisages the construction of an ‘all Korean’ SSK with the design IP residing in South Korea. KSS-III submarines will be completely built in South Korea, with a high percentage of Korean systems as replacements for all original German systems on the Son Won-yil class. Now, just as TKMS served as a design advisor for KSS-III, India could also initiate a joint design venture with Naval Group for P-76 in the future. In this manner, an indigenous SSK on par with the best submarines in the world can be developed. It would be able to incorporate a VLS extension, DRDO’s AIP, indigenous weapons and an indigenous CMS; all built exclusively to the IN’s requirements. Obviously, the carrot for Naval Group to help build an ‘indigenous Indian SSK’ would be participation in P-75I just as KSS-II was an incentive for TKMS to agree to KSS-III.

Super Kalvari
A Super Kalvari for P-75I would also take less time to build given that MDL already has the infrastructure and pedigree for this family of designs. Moreover, in partnership with MDL, a private shipyard could be developed to create a parallel line for SSK manufacture, something that will be utilized to the fullest extent when P-76 takes off. By having two shipyards build the same SSK design in parallel to each other, delays due to equipment sourcing and technology absorption can be mitigated to a great extent, thereby helping the IN reach its goal of acquiring a fleet of at least 24 highly advanced SSK units in a reasonable time frame and in an affordable manner.

http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2...-p-75i-indias-submarine-construction-program/

 

[Adioz]

An Alternative Plan For P-75I, India’s Submarine Construction Program

In recent times, an interesting proposal related to design selection for Project 75I (P-75I), which is the Indian Navy’s (IN’s) latest programme to acquire six diesel-electric submarines (SSKs) of imported design via license manufacture at a domestic shipyard under the Indian Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) new ‘Strategic Partnership’ (SP) policy, has arisen in Indian naval circles. Being a ‘successor’ programme to the Project 75 (P-75) Kalvari Class (Scorpene) build project which is currently underway at the Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL), the IN has apparently long sought a design for P-75I that is different from the Scorpene-2000 on which the Kalvari Class is based. However, owing to recurrent delays in getting P-75I off the ground, it is now being proposed by some quarters that an enhanced and further indigenized ‘Kalvari Class design’ itself should serve as a template for the project.

Proponents of this view also believe that this would make it easier to execute the anticipated Project 76 (P-76), which is supposed to be an IN program to acquire at least 12 SSKs of indigenous design by leveraging the capabilities built up via the P-75 & P-75I license build programs. It would therefore be worthwhile to examine the merits of the alternative proposal, especially by taking a look at what a similar path has yielded for South Korea.

Logistics Logistics
When envisaging a future IN SSK pool of around two dozen submarines (i.e 6 P-75, 6 P-75I and 12 P-76) essentially based on three different designs, the elephant in the room would of course be the logistical headache that is likely to be an outcome of such a mix. For instance, the weapon fit for these three classes of boats could be different, the naval facilities used for operating & maintaining these boats may also have to be different, and there would always be the issue of not being able to readily transfer trained submariners from one SSK class to another. All of this will naturally increase complexity and entail significant costs. Obviously, all this could be avoided to a great extent if P-75, P-75I and P-76 were more ‘related’ to each other, as it were.

In fact, the license build program for a P-75I that is altogether different from P-75 in any case would lead to additional monetary and time costs as a result of having to prepare the domestic supply chain for a new SSK design. And given that the SP policy seeks to primarily execute P-75I via a private domestic shipyard with no prior experience in SSK construction, a protracted time frame to get the first boat into the water cannot be ruled out either.

So, with all these issues in place, is it worth pursuing P-75I as it is currently envisaged or is the alternative being proposed i.e to continue building Kalvari Class derivatives, a better idea? I believe the alternative proposal holds water and for this we could take a closer look at Seoul’s Korean Attack Submarine program (KSS).

A Korean path for India?
Like in India, KSS also seeks to acquire technology from abroad and then create an indigenous SSK fleet in a step-wise manner that includes three phases. The first phase of KSS (KSS-I) kicked off with the induction of the first Chang Bogo Class submarine in 1993, which was basically a Type-209 built by Germany’s Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW), now a part of Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems (TKMS). ROKS Chang Bogo was followed by another eight units of its class, all built in South Korea. Of course, for the second and third Chang Bogo Class boats, most of the materiel was supplied directly from Germany. KSS-I was therefore extremely similar to India’s own acquisition of the Type-209 based Shishumar Class submarines whose first unit, also built in Germany, was inducted in 1986. The last two Shishumar Class boats were of course built by MDL under license from HDW, but as we know the project got truncated due to the political scandal that engulfed it. Ideally, India should have been able to continue this programme like the South Koreans would do by progressively increasing indigenous content.

In 2007, South Korea would commission the first Son Won-yil Class boat marking the culmination of Phase two of KSS (KSS-II), which involved the acquisition of nine units of an improved version of the Type 209 offered by TKMS called the Type 214. All nine were licence built by Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) with the addition of air-independent propulsion (AIP) systems. Thus, if one were to take P-75 as equivalent to KSS-I in import, a KSS-II equivalent design for the IN should naturally be a ‘Super Kalvari’ to be manufactured under P-75I. Such a design should have an increased percentage of indigenous components and sub-systems. For instance the SUBTICS combat management system (CMS) on the Kalvari Class could be replaced with an indigenous CMS derived from the indigenous CMS used by the IN’s Arihant Class nuclear submarines. This Super Kalvari could also be redesigned to incorporate an indigenous vertical launch system (VLS) for Brahmos missiles as is required of the P-75I design by the IN, in a manner akin to how an indigenous VLS is being incorporated into the Type 214 by the South Koreans. Moreover, given that an AIP system developed by the Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO) is in any case meant to be retrofitted onto the Kalvari Class boats, addition of the same to the Super Kalvari will not be a problem.

The third phase of KSS (KSS-III) seems quite similar to what P-76 seeks to achieve, in that it envisages the construction of an ‘all Korean’ SSK with the design IP residing in South Korea. KSS-III submarines will be completely built in South Korea, with a high percentage of Korean systems as replacements for all original German systems on the Son Won-yil class. Now, just as TKMS served as a design advisor for KSS-III, India could also initiate a joint design venture with Naval Group for P-76 in the future. In this manner, an indigenous SSK on par with the best submarines in the world can be developed. It would be able to incorporate a VLS extension, DRDO’s AIP, indigenous weapons and an indigenous CMS; all built exclusively to the IN’s requirements. Obviously, the carrot for Naval Group to help build an ‘indigenous Indian SSK’ would be participation in P-75I just as KSS-II was an incentive for TKMS to agree to KSS-III.

Super Kalvari
A Super Kalvari for P-75I would also take less time to build given that MDL already has the infrastructure and pedigree for this family of designs. Moreover, in partnership with MDL, a private shipyard could be developed to create a parallel line for SSK manufacture, something that will be utilized to the fullest extent when P-76 takes off. By having two shipyards build the same SSK design in parallel to each other, delays due to equipment sourcing and technology absorption can be mitigated to a great extent, thereby helping the IN reach its goal of acquiring a fleet of at least 24 highly advanced SSK units in a reasonable time frame and in an affordable manner.

http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2...-p-75i-indias-submarine-construction-program/

Nani??????????

P-76? Am I reading this right? This is awesome!!!!!!!!
6 P-75
6 P-75I
12 P-76


And the fact that P-75I will be a modified Kalvari will speed up induction!

:santa::santa::santa::santa::santa::santa:

 

[Kranthi]

An Alternative Plan For P-75I, India’s Submarine Construction Program

In recent times, an interesting proposal related to design selection for Project 75I (P-75I), which is the Indian Navy’s (IN’s) latest programme to acquire six diesel-electric submarines (SSKs) of imported design via license manufacture at a domestic shipyard under the Indian Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) new ‘Strategic Partnership’ (SP) policy, has arisen in Indian naval circles. Being a ‘successor’ programme to the Project 75 (P-75) Kalvari Class (Scorpene) build project which is currently underway at the Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL), the IN has apparently long sought a design for P-75I that is different from the Scorpene-2000 on which the Kalvari Class is based. However, owing to recurrent delays in getting P-75I off the ground, it is now being proposed by some quarters that an enhanced and further indigenized ‘Kalvari Class design’ itself should serve as a template for the project.

Proponents of this view also believe that this would make it easier to execute the anticipated Project 76 (P-76), which is supposed to be an IN program to acquire at least 12 SSKs of indigenous design by leveraging the capabilities built up via the P-75 & P-75I license build programs. It would therefore be worthwhile to examine the merits of the alternative proposal, especially by taking a look at what a similar path has yielded for South Korea.

Logistics Logistics
When envisaging a future IN SSK pool of around two dozen submarines (i.e 6 P-75, 6 P-75I and 12 P-76) essentially based on three different designs, the elephant in the room would of course be the logistical headache that is likely to be an outcome of such a mix. For instance, the weapon fit for these three classes of boats could be different, the naval facilities used for operating & maintaining these boats may also have to be different, and there would always be the issue of not being able to readily transfer trained submariners from one SSK class to another. All of this will naturally increase complexity and entail significant costs. Obviously, all this could be avoided to a great extent if P-75, P-75I and P-76 were more ‘related’ to each other, as it were.

In fact, the license build program for a P-75I that is altogether different from P-75 in any case would lead to additional monetary and time costs as a result of having to prepare the domestic supply chain for a new SSK design. And given that the SP policy seeks to primarily execute P-75I via a private domestic shipyard with no prior experience in SSK construction, a protracted time frame to get the first boat into the water cannot be ruled out either.

So, with all these issues in place, is it worth pursuing P-75I as it is currently envisaged or is the alternative being proposed i.e to continue building Kalvari Class derivatives, a better idea? I believe the alternative proposal holds water and for this we could take a closer look at Seoul’s Korean Attack Submarine program (KSS).

A Korean path for India?
Like in India, KSS also seeks to acquire technology from abroad and then create an indigenous SSK fleet in a step-wise manner that includes three phases. The first phase of KSS (KSS-I) kicked off with the induction of the first Chang Bogo Class submarine in 1993, which was basically a Type-209 built by Germany’s Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW), now a part of Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems (TKMS). ROKS Chang Bogo was followed by another eight units of its class, all built in South Korea. Of course, for the second and third Chang Bogo Class boats, most of the materiel was supplied directly from Germany. KSS-I was therefore extremely similar to India’s own acquisition of the Type-209 based Shishumar Class submarines whose first unit, also built in Germany, was inducted in 1986. The last two Shishumar Class boats were of course built by MDL under license from HDW, but as we know the project got truncated due to the political scandal that engulfed it. Ideally, India should have been able to continue this programme like the South Koreans would do by progressively increasing indigenous content.

In 2007, South Korea would commission the first Son Won-yil Class boat marking the culmination of Phase two of KSS (KSS-II), which involved the acquisition of nine units of an improved version of the Type 209 offered by TKMS called the Type 214. All nine were licence built by Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) with the addition of air-independent propulsion (AIP) systems. Thus, if one were to take P-75 as equivalent to KSS-I in import, a KSS-II equivalent design for the IN should naturally be a ‘Super Kalvari’ to be manufactured under P-75I. Such a design should have an increased percentage of indigenous components and sub-systems. For instance the SUBTICS combat management system (CMS) on the Kalvari Class could be replaced with an indigenous CMS derived from the indigenous CMS used by the IN’s Arihant Class nuclear submarines. This Super Kalvari could also be redesigned to incorporate an indigenous vertical launch system (VLS) for Brahmos missiles as is required of the P-75I design by the IN, in a manner akin to how an indigenous VLS is being incorporated into the Type 214 by the South Koreans. Moreover, given that an AIP system developed by the Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO) is in any case meant to be retrofitted onto the Kalvari Class boats, addition of the same to the Super Kalvari will not be a problem.

The third phase of KSS (KSS-III) seems quite similar to what P-76 seeks to achieve, in that it envisages the construction of an ‘all Korean’ SSK with the design IP residing in South Korea. KSS-III submarines will be completely built in South Korea, with a high percentage of Korean systems as replacements for all original German systems on the Son Won-yil class. Now, just as TKMS served as a design advisor for KSS-III, India could also initiate a joint design venture with Naval Group for P-76 in the future. In this manner, an indigenous SSK on par with the best submarines in the world can be developed. It would be able to incorporate a VLS extension, DRDO’s AIP, indigenous weapons and an indigenous CMS; all built exclusively to the IN’s requirements. Obviously, the carrot for Naval Group to help build an ‘indigenous Indian SSK’ would be participation in P-75I just as KSS-II was an incentive for TKMS to agree to KSS-III.

Super Kalvari
A Super Kalvari for P-75I would also take less time to build given that MDL already has the infrastructure and pedigree for this family of designs. Moreover, in partnership with MDL, a private shipyard could be developed to create a parallel line for SSK manufacture, something that will be utilized to the fullest extent when P-76 takes off. By having two shipyards build the same SSK design in parallel to each other, delays due to equipment sourcing and technology absorption can be mitigated to a great extent, thereby helping the IN reach its goal of acquiring a fleet of at least 24 highly advanced SSK units in a reasonable time frame and in an affordable manner.

http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2...-p-75i-indias-submarine-construction-program/

I'm in support of building 2 to 3 more Scorpenes as a follow-up order to keep the production line busy and up the submarine numbers until we select, finalize and start building P75-I

However I would still say we need a different class of submarine for P75-I than Scorpene. We are relatively a very late entrants into submarine building, and we lack a host of technologies that advanced nations possess. We need to a detailed understanding of various designs, the methods used by different builders to overcome certain problems and we would be able to adapt the best of those for our future submarines.

We should also negotiate for different technologies in P75I which France has refused to transfer in Scorpene deal. That way we can club various technologies to make advanced submarines on our own under the indegenious SSK project. These techs can also be used for our N subs.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Armand2REP]

I'm in support of building 2 to 3 more Scorpenes as a follow-up order to keep the production line busy and up the submarine numbers until we select, finalize and start building P75-I

However I would still say we need a different class of submarine for P75-I than Scorpene. We are relatively a very late entrants into submarine building, and we lack a host of technologies that advanced nations possess. We need to a detailed understanding of various designs, the methods used by different builders to overcome certain problems and we would be able to adapt the best of those for our future submarines.

We should also negotiate for different technologies in P75I which France has refused to transfer in Scorpene deal. That way we can club various technologies to make advanced submarines on our own under the indegenious SSK project. These techs can also be used for our N subs.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

The most important part is to keep a production line going at all times. It is to retain the skilled workers because if they get laid off then all of the investment made into their training is washed away. It is not good to make two lines and then close because there is no work left for them and then wait years to never on a new order.

 

[Steven Rogers]

An Alternative Plan For P-75I, India’s Submarine Construction Program

In recent times, an interesting proposal related to design selection for Project 75I (P-75I), which is the Indian Navy’s (IN’s) latest programme to acquire six diesel-electric submarines (SSKs) of imported design via license manufacture at a domestic shipyard under the Indian Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) new ‘Strategic Partnership’ (SP) policy, has arisen in Indian naval circles. Being a ‘successor’ programme to the Project 75 (P-75) Kalvari Class (Scorpene) build project which is currently underway at the Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited (MDL), the IN has apparently long sought a design for P-75I that is different from the Scorpene-2000 on which the Kalvari Class is based. However, owing to recurrent delays in getting P-75I off the ground, it is now being proposed by some quarters that an enhanced and further indigenized ‘Kalvari Class design’ itself should serve as a template for the project.

Proponents of this view also believe that this would make it easier to execute the anticipated Project 76 (P-76), which is supposed to be an IN program to acquire at least 12 SSKs of indigenous design by leveraging the capabilities built up via the P-75 & P-75I license build programs. It would therefore be worthwhile to examine the merits of the alternative proposal, especially by taking a look at what a similar path has yielded for South Korea.

Logistics Logistics
When envisaging a future IN SSK pool of around two dozen submarines (i.e 6 P-75, 6 P-75I and 12 P-76) essentially based on three different designs, the elephant in the room would of course be the logistical headache that is likely to be an outcome of such a mix. For instance, the weapon fit for these three classes of boats could be different, the naval facilities used for operating & maintaining these boats may also have to be different, and there would always be the issue of not being able to readily transfer trained submariners from one SSK class to another. All of this will naturally increase complexity and entail significant costs. Obviously, all this could be avoided to a great extent if P-75, P-75I and P-76 were more ‘related’ to each other, as it were.

In fact, the license build program for a P-75I that is altogether different from P-75 in any case would lead to additional monetary and time costs as a result of having to prepare the domestic supply chain for a new SSK design. And given that the SP policy seeks to primarily execute P-75I via a private domestic shipyard with no prior experience in SSK construction, a protracted time frame to get the first boat into the water cannot be ruled out either.

So, with all these issues in place, is it worth pursuing P-75I as it is currently envisaged or is the alternative being proposed i.e to continue building Kalvari Class derivatives, a better idea? I believe the alternative proposal holds water and for this we could take a closer look at Seoul’s Korean Attack Submarine program (KSS).

A Korean path for India?
Like in India, KSS also seeks to acquire technology from abroad and then create an indigenous SSK fleet in a step-wise manner that includes three phases. The first phase of KSS (KSS-I) kicked off with the induction of the first Chang Bogo Class submarine in 1993, which was basically a Type-209 built by Germany’s Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW), now a part of Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems (TKMS). ROKS Chang Bogo was followed by another eight units of its class, all built in South Korea. Of course, for the second and third Chang Bogo Class boats, most of the materiel was supplied directly from Germany. KSS-I was therefore extremely similar to India’s own acquisition of the Type-209 based Shishumar Class submarines whose first unit, also built in Germany, was inducted in 1986. The last two Shishumar Class boats were of course built by MDL under license from HDW, but as we know the project got truncated due to the political scandal that engulfed it. Ideally, India should have been able to continue this programme like the South Koreans would do by progressively increasing indigenous content.

In 2007, South Korea would commission the first Son Won-yil Class boat marking the culmination of Phase two of KSS (KSS-II), which involved the acquisition of nine units of an improved version of the Type 209 offered by TKMS called the Type 214. All nine were licence built by Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) with the addition of air-independent propulsion (AIP) systems. Thus, if one were to take P-75 as equivalent to KSS-I in import, a KSS-II equivalent design for the IN should naturally be a ‘Super Kalvari’ to be manufactured under P-75I. Such a design should have an increased percentage of indigenous components and sub-systems. For instance the SUBTICS combat management system (CMS) on the Kalvari Class could be replaced with an indigenous CMS derived from the indigenous CMS used by the IN’s Arihant Class nuclear submarines. This Super Kalvari could also be redesigned to incorporate an indigenous vertical launch system (VLS) for Brahmos missiles as is required of the P-75I design by the IN, in a manner akin to how an indigenous VLS is being incorporated into the Type 214 by the South Koreans. Moreover, given that an AIP system developed by the Defence Research & Development Organization (DRDO) is in any case meant to be retrofitted onto the Kalvari Class boats, addition of the same to the Super Kalvari will not be a problem.

The third phase of KSS (KSS-III) seems quite similar to what P-76 seeks to achieve, in that it envisages the construction of an ‘all Korean’ SSK with the design IP residing in South Korea. KSS-III submarines will be completely built in South Korea, with a high percentage of Korean systems as replacements for all original German systems on the Son Won-yil class. Now, just as TKMS served as a design advisor for KSS-III, India could also initiate a joint design venture with Naval Group for P-76 in the future. In this manner, an indigenous SSK on par with the best submarines in the world can be developed. It would be able to incorporate a VLS extension, DRDO’s AIP, indigenous weapons and an indigenous CMS; all built exclusively to the IN’s requirements. Obviously, the carrot for Naval Group to help build an ‘indigenous Indian SSK’ would be participation in P-75I just as KSS-II was an incentive for TKMS to agree to KSS-III.

Super Kalvari
A Super Kalvari for P-75I would also take less time to build given that MDL already has the infrastructure and pedigree for this family of designs. Moreover, in partnership with MDL, a private shipyard could be developed to create a parallel line for SSK manufacture, something that will be utilized to the fullest extent when P-76 takes off. By having two shipyards build the same SSK design in parallel to each other, delays due to equipment sourcing and technology absorption can be mitigated to a great extent, thereby helping the IN reach its goal of acquiring a fleet of at least 24 highly advanced SSK units in a reasonable time frame and in an affordable manner.

http://www.delhidefencereview.com/2...-p-75i-indias-submarine-construction-program/

This written by my friend Alan.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[Guest]

Endurance mode user trial of NMRLs Land-based Prototype (LBP) for Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) complete.

Endurance mode user trial of Land-based Prototype (LBP) for Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) System for submarines for a period of 14 days was successfully completed at Naval Materials Research Laboratory (NMRL), Ambernath, on 2 December 2017.

Primary performance parameters as per trial directives were met satisfactorily. The endurance trial was carried out in presence of Indian Navy and part of the plant was operated by Navy’s representatives. Easy operability and safe operation of the plant was appreciated by the user.

The AIP, developed by Naval Materials Research Laboratory (NMRL) is a 250 kW Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell (PAFC) based system, that allows up to 14 days of underwater endurance for a submarine running solely on power supplied by this system.

NMRL’s AIP system incorporates a set of innovations that make it a rather contemporary system. For one, NMRL’s AIP package has an onboard hydrogen generation plant, which produces hydrogen ‘in situ’ that too without any combusion, unlike many other AIP configurations where hydrogen for a mission has to be carried on board in tanks.

PAFC has much longer service life than any other commercially viable FC type and has much better tolerance to impurities in the reactants used even when compared to polymer electrolyte fuel cells (PEMFC). But, PAFC operating temperatures are usually higher in comparison to PEMFC and overall power to weight ratio is lower.

The PAFC is designed such that series/parallel stacks can be used for power generation levels of up to 500 kw, this modularity of NMRL’s AIP solution enable it to be used in submarines other than the Scorpene as well. This also naturally increases the survivability of the system, since even if one of the modules fails, the control system for the PAFC stacks can reconfigure the remaining operational units to continue to supply power output, albeit at a reduced quantum.

The development of an indigenous AIP system by DRDO and its complete domestic industrialization is a significant milestone in the development of FC technology in India. Apart from the Scorpene programme, whatever diesel-electric submarine design is chosen for construction under Project-75I is also likely to be a recipient of NMRL’s AIP solution.

 

[WolfPack86]

More Kalvari Class submarine for Indian Navy?

French President coming to India on a three-day visit, will be accompanied by CEOs of almost all top French defence firms. This includes the chief of Dassault Aviation Eric Trappier; Chairman and CEO of Naval Group Hervé Guillou; Thales CEO Patrice Caine; and Safran Group CEO Philippe Petitcolin.

Along with Rafales he eyes deal of at least three more Scorpene class submarine for Indian Navy.

And possibly a good news regarding Kaveri engine too is coming
https://www.facebook.com/pg/TeamINDRA/photos/?ref=page_internal

 

[tharun]

What are the dimensions of the DRDO AIP system?
Mesma AIP is 8.3 meter in length and 305 tonne in weight.
latest report states 14 days..if we can double the length that the current drdo aip we can achieve 20+ days.

 

[tharun]

Endurance mode user trial of NMRLs Land-based Prototype (LBP) for Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) complete.

Endurance mode user trial of Land-based Prototype (LBP) for Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) System for submarines for a period of 14 days was successfully completed at Naval Materials Research Laboratory (NMRL), Ambernath, on 2 December 2017.

Primary performance parameters as per trial directives were met satisfactorily. The endurance trial was carried out in presence of Indian Navy and part of the plant was operated by Navy’s representatives. Easy operability and safe operation of the plant was appreciated by the user.

The AIP, developed by Naval Materials Research Laboratory (NMRL) is a 250 kW Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell (PAFC) based system, that allows up to 14 days of underwater endurance for a submarine running solely on power supplied by this system.

NMRL’s AIP system incorporates a set of innovations that make it a rather contemporary system. For one, NMRL’s AIP package has an onboard hydrogen generation plant, which produces hydrogen ‘in situ’ that too without any combusion, unlike many other AIP configurations where hydrogen for a mission has to be carried on board in tanks.

PAFC has much longer service life than any other commercially viable FC type and has much better tolerance to impurities in the reactants used even when compared to polymer electrolyte fuel cells (PEMFC). But, PAFC operating temperatures are usually higher in comparison to PEMFC and overall power to weight ratio is lower.

The PAFC is designed such that series/parallel stacks can be used for power generation levels of up to 500 kw, this modularity of NMRL’s AIP solution enable it to be used in submarines other than the Scorpene as well. This also naturally increases the survivability of the system, since even if one of the modules fails, the control system for the PAFC stacks can reconfigure the remaining operational units to continue to supply power output, albeit at a reduced quantum.

The development of an indigenous AIP system by DRDO and its complete domestic industrialization is a significant milestone in the development of FC technology in India. Apart from the Scorpene programme, whatever diesel-electric submarine design is chosen for construction under Project-75I is also likely to be a recipient of NMRL’s AIP solution.

Is that the pic of AIP?
30 char 30 char

 

[nongaddarliberal]

We should construct submarines in batches of 12 rather than batches of 6. Chinese submarine construction is cranking up really fast, and we will need at least 30 modern SSK's in the future to stop the PLAN on their tracks at the Malacca strait. 40 submarines would be ideal, and not unrealistic.

 

[Armand2REP]

We should construct submarines in batches of 12 rather than batches of 6. Chinese submarine construction is cranking up really fast, and we will need at least 30 modern SSK's in the future to stop the PLAN on their tracks at the Malacca strait. 40 submarines would be ideal, and not unrealistic.

I am hoping that the follow on order for Scorpene will be signed with Macron's visit. The new revolution for SSK submarines is the invention of solid-state lithium batteries which we are putting in the Australian Short-fin Barracuda. If we can get these added to all of the Scorpenes it will increase their endurance by a factor of four.

 

[undeadmyrmidon]

I am hoping that the follow on order for Scorpene will be signed with Macron's visit. The new revolution for SSK submarines is the invention of solid-state lithium batteries which we are putting in the Australian Short-fin Barracuda. If we can get these added to all of the Scorpenes it will increase their endurance by a factor of four.

..................................................................................................................................

 

[Guest]

Is that the pic of AIP?
30 char 30 char

Yes, that section is to be welded on a submarine.

 

[Shashwat]

What are the dimensions of the DRDO AIP system?
Mesma AIP is 8.3 meter in length and 305 tonne in weight.
latest report states 14 days..if we can double the length that the current drdo aip we can achieve 20+ days.

Not more than 10% of the length of the sub (7m) and should not be in excess of 300tonn. It should also be naturally buoyant.

With this Kalvari will be around 75m and 2000+ tonne surfaced.

 

[Prashant12]

Indian Navy considers adding 3 more French subs to its fleet

Indian Navy may consider the option for producing next line of three submarines from France. But any decision to this regard will only happen after the completion of its ongoing Scorpene submarine project. French firm DCNS is already building six Scorpene submarines in the Mumbai based defence public sector undertaking Mazagaon Dock Limited.

"Yes, there are speculations and even demand to have three additional submarines in MDL. Since we already have production line set up along with expertise, other options can be looked into. But first, existing submarine project should complete on time," Vice Admiral Srikant said on the sidelines of the launch of a special series on the Indian submarines on Discovery Channel.

During French President Emmanuel Macron's visit to India last week, both countries discussed the issue of having additional submarines for Indian Navy. France has been pushing for the programme, but its Presidential polls had put the negotiations on hold. The strength of the Indian Navy's submarine fleet has dwindled from a total of 21 submarines in the 1980s to 14 conventional submarines plus one homemade Arihant-class nuclear submarine and one Russian Akula-class submarine operating on lease. To make the situation more worse, at a given point of time, Indian navy is operating with half of its submarine fleet strength as most of them are in the last leg of their active operational life and are on mid-life upgrades. And the matter raises serious concerns when we compare it with our neighbour China, which has strength of 65 submarines.

While on the Indian Navy's upcoming Project 75 India, Vice Admiral Srikant said that government is in the process of selecting Strategic Partner. "Project will be under the Strategic Partnership Model and once partner is selected, things will roll out soon. We can not give a deadline to it," Srikant added.

The Indian Navy on December 8, 2017 celebrated golden jubilee of its underwater fleet.

Discovery Channel is coming out with a special four part series ‘Breaking Point: The Indian Submariners’ starting from March 19, which will give the viewers a closer look into the world of complex, high-technology platform like the submarines.

"The submarine arm has largely been away from the public eyes because it operates from the depths, beneath the water, and quietly add to the nation’s security cover. However, as we celebrate our golden jubilee of existence, we wanted to reach out to the nation and give them an insight into the life of our supremely talented officers who take grave risk to ensure that the maritime borders remain secure. We are proud to partner with a channel like Discovery and bring forth this unique four-part Breaking Point series on Indian Submariners. We believe this series will be an eye-opener for majority of our countrymen offering a never-seen-before insight into the life a submariner and the challenges he faces on a day to day basis," vice admiral Srikant further said.

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2...r-adding-3-more-french-subs-to-its-fleet.html

 

[Prashant12]

Indigenous module for submarines undergoing trials


All Scorpènes will be equipped with AIP technology in due course

The indigenous Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) module, which enhances the ability of submarines to stay under water, is in an advanced stage of trials, a senior officer of the Navy said on Friday. It is being developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). All Scorpène submarines will be equipped with it in due course.

“The DRDO AIP is in an advanced stage of experimental trials. Once proven on shore, it has to be tested on a marine platform,” Vice-Admiral Srikanth said, speaking at the launch of a four-part series by the Discovery channel on Indian submariners to commemorate 50 years of the Navy’s underwater arm.

Asked whether the Navy would order three additional Scorpène submarines, Vice-Admiral Srikanth said a decision would be made after the current project was completed. “Yes, there is speculation, and even demand, to have three additional submarines at Mazagon Dock Limited. Since we already have the production line, along with expertise, the option can be looked into. But first, the existing project should complete on time.”

Earlier, the Navy planned to install the AIP module on the fifth and sixth submarines. But delays in development meant it could not be done before the last two submarines were launched.

The first Scorpene submarine Kulvari has joined the Navy. It will go for a normal refit in 2023. The next two submarines are in various stages of sea trials. Under a revised plan, the AIP module will be installed on the submarines during upgrades. However, it is a complex and costly task.

Six Scorpene submarines are being made at Mazagon Dock Limited under technology transfer from France.


http://www.thehindu.com/news/nation...marines-undergoing-trials/article23274795.ece

 

[lcafanboy]

Indigenous AIP module for submarines undergoing trialsSunday, March 18, 2018
By: The Hindu

Source Link: CLICK HERE


The indigenous Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) module, which enhances the ability of submarines to stay under water, is in an advanced stage of trials, a senior officer of the Navy said on Friday. It is being developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). All Scorpène submarines will be equipped with it in due course.

“The DRDO AIP is in an advanced stage of experimental trials. Once proven on shore, it has to be tested on a marine platform,” Vice-Admiral Srikanth said, speaking at the launch of a four-part series by the Discovery channel on Indian submariners to commemorate 50 years of the Navy’s underwater arm.

Asked whether the Navy would order three additional Scorpène submarines, Vice-Admiral Srikanth said a decision would be made after the current project was completed. “Yes, there is speculation, and even demand, to have three additional submarines at Mazagon Dock Limited. Since we already have the production line, along with expertise, the option can be looked into. But first, the existing project should complete on time.”

Earlier, the Navy planned to install the AIP module on the fifth and sixth submarines. But delays in development meant it could not be done before the last two submarines were launched.

The first Scorpene submarine Kulvari has joined the Navy. It will go for a normal refit in 2023. The next two submarines are in various stages of sea trials. Under a revised plan, the AIP module will be installed on the submarines during upgrades. However, it is a complex and costly task.

Six Scorpene submarines are being made at Mazagon Dock Limited under technology transfer from France.
http://www.defencenews.in/article/Indigenous-AIP-module-for-submarines-undergoing-trials-537051

 

[Pulkit]

Indigenous AIP module for submarines undergoing trialsSunday, March 18, 2018
By: The Hindu

Source Link: CLICK HERE


The indigenous Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) module, which enhances the ability of submarines to stay under water, is in an advanced stage of trials, a senior officer of the Navy said on Friday. It is being developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). All Scorpène submarines will be equipped with it in due course.

“The DRDO AIP is in an advanced stage of experimental trials. Once proven on shore, it has to be tested on a marine platform,” Vice-Admiral Srikanth said, speaking at the launch of a four-part series by the Discovery channel on Indian submariners to commemorate 50 years of the Navy’s underwater arm.

Asked whether the Navy would order three additional Scorpène submarines, Vice-Admiral Srikanth said a decision would be made after the current project was completed. “Yes, there is speculation, and even demand, to have three additional submarines at Mazagon Dock Limited. Since we already have the production line, along with expertise, the option can be looked into. But first, the existing project should complete on time.”

Earlier, the Navy planned to install the AIP module on the fifth and sixth submarines. But delays in development meant it could not be done before the last two submarines were launched.

The first Scorpene submarine Kulvari has joined the Navy. It will go for a normal refit in 2023. The next two submarines are in various stages of sea trials. Under a revised plan, the AIP module will be installed on the submarines during upgrades. However, it is a complex and costly task.

Six Scorpene submarines are being made at Mazagon Dock Limited under technology transfer from France.
http://www.defencenews.in/article/Indigenous-AIP-module-for-submarines-undergoing-trials-537051