Project-75I class SSK Submarines

[Senior_Miguel]

Project, that is what I also said.

here....


And first sub in couple of years!

That is news for me.

Thanks for that.

Yeah, recently they got order worth 11,4 bln Krona to finish the design and start delivery of new subs in 2015-2024.

 

[Sea Eagle]

That isn't much of a valid concern. The subs themselves are proven even if the AIP performance is unknown. We can't classify a sub as unproven just because the AIP is not proven.

AIP performance is an important parameter. We are buying new generation SSK, simply we can't ingore it.

There are negative reviews about even proven systems.
India Looks to Modify Scorpene Subs With MESMA AIP Propulsion

Comapring MESMA with fuel cells based AIP is a complete joke. MESMA is an old tech. It makes a lot of noise while in operation. Heck! even the DRDO's AIP is better than it. Fuel Cell AIPs are a way to go. S-80 has the most advance AIP as of now.

 

[Zebra]

AIP performance is an important parameter. We are buying new generation SSK, simply we can't ingore it.



Comapring MESMA with fuel cells based AIP is a complete joke. MESMA is an old tech. It makes a lot of noise while in operation. Heck! even the DRDO's AIP is better than it. Fuel Cell AIPs are a way to go. S-80 has the most advance AIP as of now.

There are issues with S-80's AIP.

 

[Zebra]

Yeah, recently they got order worth 11,4 bln Krona to finish the design and start delivery of new subs in 2015-2024.

It says, "support, development, design and production of submarines and other underwater systems."

Saab receives orders from FMV and has signed a Letter of Intent regar

 

[Sea Eagle]

There are issues with S-80's AIP.

They corrected it AFAIK

 

[p2prada]

Ha ha ha, So sweet. All these years who fixed spanners in 'get proper clearances'. The funny part here is the Russian stooges keep talking.....'so what?' like nothing to worry in it and it is normal.

What you guys gonna do with so much of ToT? Did it help, I wonder.
I am asking it bcz it won't help to develop all new and your own anyway.

And still Russian stooges are not aware that their masters already refused ToT for Smerch.

Huh? What are you talking about?

And Smerch was too small a deal for ToT.

I agree with you here. Indian side is also responsible here, their fault is they bought another Russian junk. How come the price gone nearly $3 billion.
That too for old junk.

That "junk" is our best ship right now.

How many times you ask the same crap?

For Japan there are no requirement to reply the RFP bcz nobody sent it to them as of yet.

Again better go govt to govt deal. Just like past, all the Indian govts love to do business with the Russians on govt to govt basis.

We can't go govt to govt or the navy would have done that years ago. Please read DPP2006 to 2013.

And Japan has to reply, we sent out a global RFP to everybody.

As for the rest of the tripe you posted, yes, we love Russian junk as much as the Americans fear Russian junk. So, it's all fine for us.

 

[p2prada]

They could not afford it so they offered to us(NO Confirmation that the nation is ours ).....Its heavy for them so it will definitely be heavy for us as Arjun was also too heavy...

It wasn't a direct confirmation, but we are their biggest tank consumers.

We didn't need the Obj 195 for other reasons as well, apart from the fact that we plan to develop our own 4th gen tank. The Russians couldn't afford the Obj 195 so they moved to the less capable Armata, which could be a scaled down Obj 195.

The relation with Russia can be proved by the fact they leased us Nuke Sub,Sold us a A/C carrier and many others though it was for there own benefits too....

Quid pro quo. You deal with people you have the most benefit from. It's business.

yes they have offered technology beyond what we can get from any other country but I humbly deny the reason you gave regarding T-95.... .

Why so? It is the best tank in the world today. The first of the 4th gens

 

[p2prada]

AIP performance is an important parameter. We are buying new generation SSK, simply we can't ingore it.

Comapring MESMA with fuel cells based AIP is a complete joke. MESMA is an old tech. It makes a lot of noise while in operation. Heck! even the DRDO's AIP is better than it. Fuel Cell AIPs are a way to go. S-80 has the most advance AIP as of now.

I don't deny about buying the most advanced, but you were talking about proven. Only the German and Swedish AIPs are proven, the rest are still developing new AIPs.

Regardless of how crappy MESMA is, it is proven since the Pakistanis seem to have been operating them for quite sometime now.

Also I don't really consider one fuel cell based AIP to be better than another in terms of technology. What matters more is its reliability how easily it can be maintained. It's like comparing high end mobile phones where the base technology is all the same, only difference is some minor specs and the build quality if you aren't short on money.

 

[Pulkit]

It wasn't a direct confirmation, but we are their biggest tank consumers.

We didn't need the Obj 195 for other reasons as well, apart from the fact that we plan to develop our own 4th gen tank. The Russians couldn't afford the Obj 195 so they moved to the less capable Armata, which could be a scaled down Obj 195.



Quid pro quo. You deal with people you have the most benefit from. It's business.



Why so? It is the best tank in the world today. The first of the 4th gens

You answered your own ques at the end with your initial statement....+ it is fourth gen which has not been proooved till now .. I dont know hw it cud hve helped us in making our own 4th gen and how much that wud hve costed us ...
Yes it is simply business and they did it when no other nation was willing to do business vid us....

 

[p2prada]

You answered your own ques at the end with your initial statement....+ it is fourth gen which has not been proooved till now .. I dont know hw it cud hve helped us in making our own 4th gen and how much that wud hve costed us ...

It wouldn't.

And anyway, new gen technology is always a good thing, whether proven or not. The point is to stay ahead, not follow.

 

[Senior_Miguel]

It says, "support, development, design and production of submarines and other underwater systems."

Saab receives orders from FMV and has signed a Letter of Intent regar

What Stokholm wants from Saab Kockums is to: conduct the overhaul of three Gotland-class subs, desing and build 2-4 new conventional AIP subs (probably of the A26 project or by working on a new design from the start) and design new light-weight torpedos for Gotlands and new subs. That's why the government favored Saabs plans of re-buying Kockums AB from the TKMS Group.

 

[Pulkit]

You yourself stated the reasons why the proj was abandoned .... So i said the same reasons are valid for us aswelll....

Yes new gen tech is good.... when they denied tech i mean tot of smerch why will they provide us this tech which till now they are unable to use....

Even if they do how much will it be costing us.....Its not gonna be cheap...

It wouldn't.

And anyway, new gen technology is always a good thing, whether proven or not. The point is to stay ahead, not follow.

 

[Zebra]

Huh? What are you talking about?

And Smerch was too small a deal for ToT.



That "junk" is our best ship right now.



We can't go govt to govt or the navy would have done that years ago. Please read DPP2006 to 2013.

And Japan has to reply, we sent out a global RFP to everybody.

As for the rest of the tripe you posted, yes, we love Russian junk as much as the Americans fear Russian junk. So, it's all fine for us.

They sent RFP to 'everybody', Japan is not there in that 'everybody' list.

Japan come back in defense business just recently.

RFP issued in 2010.

May be your 'tripe', yeah!

America fear with everybody's junk, nothing new in it.

To hell with your 'DPP2006 to 2013'.

Enjoy with it with your best 'junk' ship.

 

[p2prada]

They sent RFP to 'everybody', Japan is not there in that 'everybody' list.

Japan come back in defense business just recently.

RFP issued in 2010.

Actually, we are yet to issue the P-75I RFP.

 

[Zebra]

Actually, we are yet to issue the P-75I RFP.

That's even much better. No need for RFP.

Great.

 

[Zebra]

What Stokholm wants from Saab Kockums is to: conduct the overhaul of three Gotland-class subs, desing and build 2-4 new conventional AIP subs (probably of the A26 project or by working on a new design from the start) and design new light-weight torpedos for Gotlands and new subs. That's why the government favored Saabs plans of re-buying Kockums AB from the TKMS Group.

That's right. I guess.

 

[Zebra]

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140822/DEFREG01/308220022/Enstr-m-Sweden-Must-Keep-Sub-building-Know-how

Enström: Sweden Must Keep Sub-building Know-how

Aug. 22, 2014 - 03:08PM |
By GERARD O'DWYER

HELSINKI — Sweden's parliament, the Riksdag, has endorsed a government plan to increase defense spending by more than 10 percent in 2015-2024. To a great degree, this level of investment is in response to regional tensions over Russian aggression in Ukraine, and Sweden's need to strengthen its military organization and defense capability, with an emphasis on reinforcing its presence in the Baltic.

The crisis in Ukraine also has re-opened debate on Sweden's traditional position of military neutrality and its long-term relationship with NATO. Russia's involvement in Ukraine, together with its defense-strengthening near Nordic borders, has resulted in a slow but not dramatic growth in Swedish popular support for NATO membership. The Moderates, the party to which Defense Minister Karin Enström belongs, and which leads the country's Alliance coalition government, supports NATO membership.

Q. How important to Sweden is Saab's acquisition of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS)?

A. It was important for Sweden that we retained the technologies, skills and capability to produce advanced submarines. The Swedish government had already identified having an underwater capability as a national security interest. This was not really a surprise as previously we had identified having a strong capability to produce advanced fighter aircraft as also being a national security interest.

The acquisition gives Sweden greater control over the entire chain of submarine design and construction. It gives Sweden the ability to produce the submarines that it needs. It also gives Sweden the opportunity to establish cooperation with one or perhaps more international partners who are in the same position as we are, and who have a high degree of underwater competence. We needed to have a new industrial solution in the underwater area for the future. It was not just about Sweden having control, it was also influenced by a wish to have the possibility to pursue strategic international cooperation.

Q. Sweden has had the capacity to build submarines to a competitive standard for decades. How does the TKMS AB acquisition fit into the government's defense reform plans?

A. That we have the capability to build advanced submarines means we can now act more freely in this area, including the possibility that we may seek one or more international partners.

As an aside, Russian aggression in the Ukraine has of course profound implications for security in Europe, including the Nordic region and the Baltic Sea area. We have stated our intention to bolster Sweden's defense capacity and capability.

Q. What is the next phase in the armed force's submarine acquisition and modernization program?

A. The next phase will see our defense materiel administration, FMV [Försvarets Materielverk], place new orders both for the development of the next-generation submarine and the modernization of the Gotland-class submarines. We took a decision in 2010 to acquire two new submarines. The preconditions to commence this project are in place and we therefore hope that the development can start as soon as possible.

Q. Does the government's new underwater defense-industrial solution have an export dimension?

A. With the knowledge and expertise in place, as well as the intellectual properties fundamental to the continued development, production and maintenance of advanced submarines, we're convinced that there's an excellent capacity to meet both the needs of the Swedish Armed Forces and the needs on the international markets.

One shouldn't be careless when identifying national security interests. Within Europe, we are working hard to develop an open and transparent defense market, so we want the Sweden-based defense industry to be very competitive and develop solutions to stay relevant in the more open and competitive nature of the defense sector in Europe.

Q. What is the background to Sweden's decision to withdraw from its underwater cooperation, which included the design and possible construction of the A26 sub with TKMS?

A. The background to the Saab acquisition of TKMS began in 2010 when the Swedish government decided that the armed forces should have two new submarines. Negotiations between FMV and TKMS followed for the development and procurement of a new submarine. Last spring FMV concluded that the requirements for moving forward did not exist, and it wasn't possible to achieve a solution.

Taking into consideration the huge undertaking that this project presented, we want to establish cooperation with one or more strategic international partners. That would not have been possible to do under the cooperation that then existed. This is one important reason why it was necessary to seek out a new solution to secure the future of Sweden's underwater capability. FMV was unable to achieve the requirements we sought under the then-arrangement with TKMS. Following on Saab's acquisition of TKMS and its primary shipyards, we now have that solution in place.

Q. Apart from a strategic need, does Sweden see international cooperation as a means to grow its defense-industrial base and competitiveness?

A. International cooperation stands as the cornerstone for providing our armed forces with the equipment it requires. It is natural to want to know if there are others who are interested in acquiring what the Swedish defense industry develops. We always look to see if there are any other potential partners in other nations interested, and have the same needs as we have, both regarding the Nordic countries and within the framework of the European Defence Agency, or other countries.

Sweden's defense industry is highly competitive, and it has developed a unique capability to build advanced platforms across the whole spectrum of land, air and sea. We are striving for an open and transparent harmonized market in Europe based on fair competition. I believe this will benefit the European and the Swedish defense industry.

Q. Is it becoming more difficult for smaller states, such as Sweden, to compete against much larger players in the sale of aircraft and submarines?

A. It's a challenge. Nowadays, our defense companies must be open to cooperate and collaborate with other countries in terms of strategic partners and exports. The technical demands today are very very high. It's favorable for us to have the high level of competence that we have within Sweden and Sweden-based [companies]; this applies for most countries. At the same time, competition, competitiveness and cooperation must be the way forward.

Q. Sweden is at an advanced stage in the sale of 36 Gripen-E aircraft to Brazil. What is the status of talks, and why did Sweden decide not to enter the Danish fighter replacement competition?

A. Negotiations between Saab and Brazil are ongoing, and we have not heard anything to indicate they will not be able to reach an agreement by the end of 2014.

Regarding Denmark, the decision we reached followed a thorough assessment, and we decided that it was better if we did not enter the Danish bidding process. I know there are other countries that have shown interest in the Gripen fighter jet, but I do not want to speculate in any numbers.

Q. What is Sweden's view on the process of strengthening Nordic defense cooperation [NORDEFCO]? And what would Sweden like to emerge from a bilateral defense arrangement with Finland?

A. The Nordic defense ministers in December signed a joint vision of our defense cooperation, [stating] that "deepened and strengthened Nordic defence cooperation will create opportunities for our respective countries to develop, maintain and use our military means more efficiently and in a more cost-effective manner." This will also be the baseline for the Swedish chairmanship of NORDEFCO in 2015. From a Swedish perspective, NORDEFCO is a very natural complement to the cooperation within the EU and NATO.

As regards defense cooperation between Sweden and Finland, both countries signed an action plan for deepened cooperation in May. This plan aims at increasing capabilities and efficiency through combined use of resources, increased interoperability and a closer dialogue on common challenges. We have identified a number of cooperation areas that are now being studied. The defense forces will deliver a preliminary joint report on feasible cooperation areas by October.

Q. Public support for NATO membership in Sweden is growing, but at a modest level. Does the government see NATO membership as a viable long-term option?

A. Sweden has a strong partnership with NATO. Our partnership will evolve with our contribution to the NATO Response Force and its Response Forces Pool. A NATO membership would be a major decision. For security and defense, Sweden has a tradition of seeking broad political agreements. Currently, there are only two out of eight parties in the Riksdag which are in favor of joining NATO. Our aim is therefore to develop our partnership with NATO in other ways.

Q. How does the government's backing for defense-industrial solutions for underwater and the Gripen-E fit into the reorganization of Sweden's military structure?

A. We intend to step up and increase the pace of defense reform, including in training, exercises and procurement. We have also reiterated the strategic importance of the Baltic Sea region. This is a strategic interest, and having an underwater capacity is a national security requirement for Sweden. â– 

 

[Punya Pratap]

Arihant has dived below "crushing depths"
Posted on August 21, 2014 by Bharat Karnad
Call up a recent photo of Arihant SSBN publicly available at

http://www.ndtv.com/news/images/story_page/INS_Arihant_650_final.jpg.

What do you see?

The most obvious thing that has not been commented on is the humpback on the hull — the so-called "one and a half hulls""– that
permits the boat to slice through water, performing diving and other actions more efficiently. It is a design aspect, along with several other design features, taken from the Russian Severodvinsk and Borei class nuclear subs.

The less obvious but far more significant things to notice is that Arihant has apparently returned from a mission where it dived below crushing depths of well over 300 meters, around 340-350 metres, to see how well the hull would hold up. It has held up beautifully.

But how can this be deduced?Look closely at the smooth skin on the hull. The titanium alloyed hull has withstood the quite enormous pressures on it in the deep without crimping. But on the differently metalled conning tower there is evidence of the skin being crunched — see the wavy formations? — at great depths. It cannot be reproduced in labs or synthetically. And it couldn't have happened because the Arihant dived to the 100 metre depth of the Vizag channel leading to the open sea. That the structure held up very well may be attributed to the extraordinary welding that fused the tower to the hull.

While it has been publicly put out that the Indian SSBN was working up its nuclear power plant to full power, etc., the fact is it takes no more than a month at the most, at a graduated pace, to reach the full 80 MW drive power. So for the rest of the last 8 months or so, it has been cruising and diving, including below crushing depths. After several more such deep dives the Arihant will have anechoic tiles — able to absorb sound waves, making detection by sonar more difficult — attached to its outer surface, and it will be ready for induction into fleet operations.

The most commendable aspect, other than the high-class technology and manufacturing skills of Indian welders, is the guts shown by the CO, XO, and the rest of the crew of the Arihant in making these repeated hazardous dives but required as a stern test for an SSBN.

The BIG QUESTION that arises is: With so much evidence of indigenous design and manufacturing skills on the Arihant, why is the Indian Navy still hankering for foreign submersibles and not trusting Indian capabilities to produce the Project 75i conventional submarine???

 

[Punya Pratap]

Experts your opinion please regarding the last para that I have put in Bold

 

[Pulkit]

Arihant has dived below "crushing depths"
Posted on August 21, 2014 by Bharat Karnad
Call up a recent photo of Arihant SSBN publicly available at

http://www.ndtv.com/news/images/story_page/INS_Arihant_650_final.jpg.

What do you see?

The most obvious thing that has not been commented on is the humpback on the hull — the so-called "one and a half hulls""– that
permits the boat to slice through water, performing diving and other actions more efficiently. It is a design aspect, along with several other design features, taken from the Russian Severodvinsk and Borei class nuclear subs.

The less obvious but far more significant things to notice is that Arihant has apparently returned from a mission where it dived below crushing depths of well over 300 meters, around 340-350 metres, to see how well the hull would hold up. It has held up beautifully.

But how can this be deduced?Look closely at the smooth skin on the hull. The titanium alloyed hull has withstood the quite enormous pressures on it in the deep without crimping. But on the differently metalled conning tower there is evidence of the skin being crunched — see the wavy formations? — at great depths. It cannot be reproduced in labs or synthetically. And it couldn't have happened because the Arihant dived to the 100 metre depth of the Vizag channel leading to the open sea. That the structure held up very well may be attributed to the extraordinary welding that fused the tower to the hull.

While it has been publicly put out that the Indian SSBN was working up its nuclear power plant to full power, etc., the fact is it takes no more than a month at the most, at a graduated pace, to reach the full 80 MW drive power. So for the rest of the last 8 months or so, it has been cruising and diving, including below crushing depths. After several more such deep dives the Arihant will have anechoic tiles — able to absorb sound waves, making detection by sonar more difficult — attached to its outer surface, and it will be ready for induction into fleet operations.

The most commendable aspect, other than the high-class technology and manufacturing skills of Indian welders, is the guts shown by the CO, XO, and the rest of the crew of the Arihant in making these repeated hazardous dives but required as a stern test for an SSBN.

The BIG QUESTION that arises is: With so much evidence of indigenous design and manufacturing skills on the Arihant, why is the Indian Navy still hankering for foreign submersibles and not trusting Indian capabilities to produce the Project 75i conventional submarine???

I am no expert but the need to immediately buy of Russian Subs is because of following reasons...

1)Depleting Sub fleet size Accidents and I dont know how long do they take to repair one of our subs is in repair for over 9 years .......
2)Increase in Chinese fleet...
3)Recent losses..
4)In ability to produce at higher rate(even Arihant is 4 years behind schedule which is no biggie but the equation has changed in the last few years..)...
5)Subs nearing Retirement.


Indian Subs are great and as per International standards great and unique.... Scorpène-class submarine is also under process and we will have few more of these too....