IN Scorpene Submarines - News & Discussions

[binayak95]

Eh ! Why would navy need a new project if it wanted same submarine ( Scorpion ) with same technology.

And don't tell me we are going to buy baracuda copy for an SSK at 2-3 billion a piece.

Because its the only viable option (and yes, Shortfin Barracuda IS a major contender). Take the Barracuda out and Scorpene is winner by default!

PS: HDW is BROKE. They are bankrupt - that disqualifies them.
Soryus are overpriced, Amur is a half baked cookie with a raw dough, Spanish S90 is even more worse of an option. Bacha kya?

 

[uoftotaku]

Eh ! Why would navy need a new project if it wanted same submarine ( Scorpion ) with same technology.

And don't tell me we are going to buy baracuda copy for an SSK at 2-3 billion a piece.

For $3B a piece the Russians will sell you a brand new Yasen with 40 BrahMos tubes....SSK is not that expensive. Americans build their Virginia's for half that price.

 

[IndianHawk]

For $3B a piece the Russians will sell you a brand new Yasen with 40 BrahMos tubes....SSK is not that expensive. Americans build their Virginia's for half that price.

I was talking about price of baracuda based ssk which the Australian bought. Check the price Australian paid for it.

35 billion USD for 12 French baracuda based ssk.

If we are going to buy baracuda based ssk that will be the price. And we have to buy Scorpion why not just order add-on from project 75? What is the need for new tender of 75i.

 

[IndianHawk]

Because its the only viable option (and yes, Shortfin Barracuda IS a major contender). Take the Barracuda out and Scorpene is winner by default!

PS: HDW is BROKE. They are bankrupt - that disqualifies them.
Soryus are overpriced, Amur is a half baked cookie with a raw dough, Spanish S90 is even more worse of an option. Bacha kya?

That's exactly my question . We already have Scorpion manufacturing . Dcns has already offered extra Scorpion which navy has declined.

We can't afford baracuda based ssk which Australia paid exhorbitant amount for.

So you tell me bacha kya?

Also I won't rule out HDW. German govt can make them solven overnight given Germany is the strongest economy in entire europe. HdW also has tech to manufacture non magnetic hull and it's weak position can make it take technology transfer more seriously than France or anyone else.

 

[uoftotaku]

I was talking about price of baracuda based ssk which the Australian bought. Check the price Australian paid for it.

35 billion USD for 12 French baracuda based ssk.

If we are going to buy baracuda based ssk that will be the price. And we have to buy Scorpion why not just order add-on from project 75? What is the need for new tender of 75i.

The figure reported is misleading.

A$35B is the total budget allocated to the programme not just the build cost. Means it includes maintenance for 30 years of service life also.

Build cost is estimated at A$1.2B per hull inclusive of ToT

 

[IndianHawk]

The figure reported is misleading.

A$35B is the total budget allocated to the programme not just the build cost. Means it includes maintenance for 30 years of service life also.

Build cost is estimated at A$1.2B per hull inclusive of ToT

These 35 billion dollars are not Australian dollars they are us dollars. In Australian dollars the deal was 50billlion.

So A$4.2B per ssk. Or us $3 per ssk.

Secondly performance based maintenance is now part of all standard defense deals. If we get the ssk from France we'll also sign maintenance agreement and pay through our nose.

Scorpion costs us 0.5 B a piece when it's just 2ton small SSK.
Barracuda conventional version is more advanced and over 4ton . It cost Australia 38billion USD for 12 submarine including manufacturing and maintenance that's 3.2B USD per submarine!!

Since we are only buying 6 our deal will be more costly not cheaper. We can build nuclear submarine for less money . So no chance for barracuda in India.

Scorpion we already have . Amur is too small. Swedish and Spanish too unknown .

HDW and German track record of tech transfer ( south Korean successful adoption and subsequent exports.) Makes HDW most likely candidate.

 

[uoftotaku]

The whole concept of 75i itself is flawed which is why its dragging so long. The requirement for a long endurance, oceanic SSK was drawn up by IN at a time when it was still not conceivable that SSN would be within our reach. They wanted an SSK with near SSN performance to compensate. However, circumstances have changed now, while the 75i program is still nowhere near conclusion (says a lot about the speed of our system).

In my humble opinion, the whole project should just be scrapped. Follow-on order for 6 more Scorpenes should be placed (since costs for infra and ToT at MDL are already sunk in) and just concentrate of the SSN program at L&T for long term.

A fleet of 12 SSK + 9 SSN + 5 SSBN/SSGN is sufficient for operational requirements

 

[Bleh]

The figure reported is misleading.

A$35B is the total budget allocated to the programme not just the build cost. Means it includes maintenance for 30 years of service life also.

Build cost is estimated at A$1.2B per hull inclusive of ToT

That's a really reasonable price..

 

[uoftotaku]

T It cost Australia 38billion USD for 12 submarine including manufacturing and maintenance that's 3.2B USD per submarine!!

HDW and German track record of tech transfer ( south Korean successful adoption and subsequent exports.) Makes HDW most likely candidate.

Think about it logically, $3.2B projected sustainment for a sub over a 30 year service life is not unreasonable. Especially for a large, oceanic SSK with AIP like the Attack-class

Please read into the cost of MLU for our Sindhughosh class and the annual cost of battery replacement.

HDW has severe financial issues atm...which other members have already highlighted. That aside, don't forget the severe restrictions that German govt puts on its defense exports. SK case is very different, they have a domestic marine industry many many times larger and more technologically advanced than ours, tech absorption is much easier and in some cases not even required. I had mentioned this on this thread a few pages ago. At this point, SK is no longer encumbered by the German restrictions as they have replaced all critical systems with domestic equivalents. The boats they are exporting to Indonesia have all their own stuff on board

 

[bhavesh100]

Eh ! Why would navy need a new project if it wanted same submarine ( Scorpion ) with same technology.

And don't tell me we are going to buy baracuda copy for an SSK at 2-3 billion a piece.

Virginia class of USA COST IS $1.9 billion.

 

[BON PLAN]

For $3B a piece the Russians will sell you a brand new Yasen with 40 BrahMos tubes....SSK is not that expensive. Americans build their Virginia's for half that price.

I was talking about price of baracuda based ssk which the Australian bought. Check the price Australian paid for it.

35 billion USD for 12 French baracuda based ssk.

If we are going to buy baracuda based ssk that will be the price. And we have to buy Scorpion why not just order add-on from project 75? What is the need for new tender of 75i.

There is a big difference between a dry price and a complete price !
In the Australian exemple (SF Barracuda) : The price includes a full production in Australia (ie a harbour to upgrade, a Research and Dev center to create, workers to train, the tools and machines to install...), the accomodation to the australian needs (a US command and combat center, probably US weapons, unmatch range...) and the support for 30 or 35 years.

It like to compare the dry price of a Rafale (95 to 100 € million each) and a ready to use one (in the 200 - 220 € million).

 

[BON PLAN]

Virginia class of USA COST IS $1.9 billion.

And these 1.9 billion are only to built a sub.
You have to add, for any new customer and any new sub (or fighter, or main battle tank or...), the crew training, the cost of harbor accomodation, the spare parts, the test beds and tools, the weapons...
It cost a lot.

 

[WolfPack86]

India’s depleted underwater combat arm will finally get a much-needed boost when INS #Khanderi, the second of the six French-origin #Scorpene diesel-electric submarines under construction at Mazagon Docks, is commissioned later this month.

 

[WolfPack86]

IN to commission INS Khanderi Attack Sub on Sept 28 and launch new Stealth Frigate
Indian Navy's second Scorpene class submarine INS Khanderi will be commissioned on September 28, 2019, while a stealth guided-missile frigate under Project P-17A which is a follow-up of the Shivalik class (Project 17 class) will be launched into the sea for trials. The first submarine of the Scorpene class is INS Kalvari which was commissioned into the Indian Navy on December 14, 2017.

Another four Scorpene Class diesel-electric attack submarines are under different stages of construction. The submarines have been designed by French company Naval Group (formerly DCNS) and manufactured at Mumbai's Mazagon Dock Limited.

The attack submarines can travel at 37 kilometres per hour (20 knots) while their speed on the surface is 20 kmph (11 knots). They can cover a distance of 12,000km (6480 nautical miles).


INS Khanderi displaces 1,615 tonnes on surface and 1,775 tonnes when submerged. The 67.5 metres long INS Khanderi is powered by four MTU 12V 396 SE84 diesel engines and 360 battery cells and can remain on patrol for 50 days at a stretch at a depth of 350m. The submarine will have eight officers and 35 sailors. It will be armed with 18 SUT torpedoes which can be fired from six tubes, sea-skimming Exocet anti-ship missiles. It can also carry 30 anti-ship mines in place of torpedoes.

Apart from their primary role as an attack submarine, INS Khanderi and INS Kalvari along with their sister ships can also carry out reconnaissance (intelligence gathering as well as area surveillance/spying) missions and also lay anti-ship mines to target the enemy.

India had launched the Shivalik class stealth frigate programme in 2000 and commissioned three such warships - INS Shivalik ( commissioned April 29, 2010), INS Satpura (August 20, 2011) and INS Sahyadri (July 21. 2012). Indian Navy has ordered seven Project 17A class stealth frigates out of which four will be constructed in MDL and the remaining three at Kolkata's Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd (GRSE).

The frigates of Project 17A class will have improved stealth features, better radar and weapons system. These frigates will carry BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles and Barak surface-to-air missiles. Their top speed is 52 kmph (28 knots) and they will also be able to carry two helicopters, which can be either HAL Dhruvs or Sea King Mk 42Bs. The maximum range of Project 17A frigates will be 10,200km (5,500 nautical miles) at 30-33 kmph (16-18 knots).
http://www.defencenews.in/article/I...Sept-28-and-launch-new-Stealth-Frigate-606984

 

[bose]

If the Scorpene leaks are not that serious then India should go for six more Scorpenes with DRDO AIP [with higher displacement ~ 2500 t] as a continuity to current production line in Mazagon ... This will save lot of time ...

Rest spend the money on SSK [ India can negociate with Russia for more Akulas types] ...

India needs at least 35 Submarines to keep China at check ...

 

[IndianHawk]

The whole concept of 75i itself is flawed which is why its dragging so long. The requirement for a long endurance, oceanic SSK was drawn up by IN at a time when it was still not conceivable that SSN would be within our reach. They wanted an SSK with near SSN performance to compensate. However, circumstances have changed now, while the 75i program is still nowhere near conclusion (says a lot about the speed of our system).

In my humble opinion, the whole project should just be scrapped. Follow-on order for 6 more Scorpenes should be placed (since costs for infra and ToT at MDL are already sunk in) and just concentrate of the SSN program at L&T for long term.

A fleet of 12 SSK + 9 SSN + 5 SSBN/SSGN is sufficient for operational requirements

That's logical . But navy wants two lines of conventional submarine. So that later it can build 12 local submarine from expertise gained.

 

[IndianHawk]

Think about it logically, $3.2B projected sustainment for a sub over a 30 year service life is not unreasonable. Especially for a large, oceanic SSK with AIP like the Attack-class

Please read into the cost of MLU for our Sindhughosh class and the annual cost of battery replacement.

HDW has severe financial issues atm...which other members have already highlighted. That aside, don't forget the severe restrictions that German govt puts on its defense exports. SK case is very different, they have a domestic marine industry many many times larger and more technologically advanced than ours, tech absorption is much easier and in some cases not even required. I had mentioned this on this thread a few pages ago. At this point, SK is no longer encumbered by the German restrictions as they have replaced all critical systems with domestic equivalents. The boats they are exporting to Indonesia have all their own stuff on board

I am thinking logically it's still very expensive for an SSK. We can build and run indegenios SSN for the same price or less. And maintain it for 30 years.

If we were buying nuke submarine I'd agree with that price , not for a mere ssk.

 

[IndianHawk]

Virginia class of USA COST IS $1.9 billion.

And Virginia class in all nuclear. Much much more capable than any ssk could ever be !

 

[IndianHawk]

There is a big difference between a dry price and a complete price !
In the Australian exemple (SF Barracuda) : The price includes a full production in Australia (ie a harbour to upgrade, a Research and Dev center to create, workers to train, the tools and machines to install...), the accomodation to the australian needs (a US command and combat center, probably US weapons, unmatch range...) and the support for 30 or 35 years.

It like to compare the dry price of a Rafale (95 to 100 € million each) and a ready to use one (in the 200 - 220 € million).

So will be buy a submarine to not use it? Not maintain it? Stop this nonsense of dry price .

State the full price of manufacturing , maintainance and service. Because everyone will have to pay that price eventually.

 

[uoftotaku]

That's logical . But navy wants two lines of conventional submarine. So that later it can build 12 local submarine from expertise gained.

The Navy wants a lot of things, many of which are neither financially feasible nor practically logical. Like 3 carriers built to 3 different sizes and designs with 3 different propulsion systems and 3 completely different air wings. Having a 24 hull SSK fleet is not required, having a 24 hull SSK fleet with 3 or 4 totally different classes is madness.

It's upto the Govt to take a firm hand on proceedings and dictate a clear and concise strategic vision and tell the Navy to fit its planning accordingly. Create strategic partnerships, and don't give anyone a chance to do their usual chai-paani paisa circus with global tenders sent out to every tom, dick and harry