Project-75I class SSK Submarines

[proud_indian]

IN won't touch Naval Group with a barge pole @BON PLAN

Why is that?

 

[Blademaster]

Why won't IN touch Naval Group with a barge pole if they are going to order 3 more subs?

 

[Fatalis]

Maje to L&T k bhi hai. On one hand they are providing AIP modules for 6 P-75 class (3 more in future) and on the other hand they are pitching for P-75I with Navantia.

 

[Fatalis]

L&T - Navantia MoU:

 

[Azaad]

This is what L&T will be getting as a partner. I mean we'd expect our guys to goof up like this. But for all our mismanagement , even we're not as stupid as this . Should be fun if Navantia is selected.

Modified for being too heavy, Spain's submarines are now too long!

The S-80 class of submarines was once offered to the Indian Navy

www.theweek.in

 

[Blademaster]

This is what L&T will be getting as a partner. I mean we'd expect our guys to goof up like this. But for all our mismanagement , even we're not as stupid as this . Should be fun if Navantia is selected.

Modified for being too heavy, Spain's submarines are now too long!

The S-80 class of submarines was once offered to the Indian Navy

www.theweek.in

It can happen when you are so busy chasing down the requirements that you lose sight of the ball.

 

[tomthounaojam]

It can happen when you are so busy chasing down the requirements that you lose sight of the ball.

Interesting read, thanks for the share.

 

[Azaad]

It can happen when you are so busy chasing down the requirements that you lose sight of the ball.

Requires a special breed to make it happen. Buoyancy is a factor of volume . For engineering to add 100 tons without noticing is a rare skill . It'd affect the CoG of the entire boat . Which is why rectification took a while. In brief , Spain lacks the expertise & experience. It'd be a case of the blind leading the blind.

For perspective check out DSME & the problems they're facing commissioning those subs they built for Indonesia. Matters had reached so far that the latter cancelled the rest of the order with DSME & are now in advanced talks with Naval Group who're another group of thugs .

 

[Blademaster]

Requires a special breed to make it happen. Buoyancy is a factor of volume . For engineering to add 100 tons without noticing is a rare skill . It'd affect the CoG of the entire boat . Which is why rectification took a while. In brief , Spain lacks the expertise & experience. It'd be a case of the blind leading the blind.

For perspective check out DSME & the problems they're facing commissioning those subs they built for Indonesia. Matters had reached so far that the latter cancelled the rest of the order with DSME & are now in advanced talks with Naval Group who're another group of thugs .

You'd be surprised when even the most experienced develop tunnel vision syndrome when chasing down the requirements.

100 tons can occur during adhering to requirements creep thing because 100 tons is not concentrated in one section but all over and you fail to account for the additional weight of all the things being added to the ship to comply with the requirements especially when it is a 3000 ton beast. 100 ton gain is only 3% incremental gain of weight.

 

[Azaad]

You'd be surprised when even the most experienced develop tunnel vision syndrome when chasing down the requirements.

100 tons can occur during adhering to requirements creep thing because 100 tons is not concentrated in one section but all over and you fail to account for the additional weight of all the things being added to the ship to comply with the requirements especially when it is a 3000 ton beast. 100 ton gain is only 3% incremental gain of weight.

I think you're not getting my larger point. If as a noob you had to select a technology partner whom would you opt for ? Would you opt for someone who's learning the ropes thru trial & error or would you opt for a veteran with a proven track record ?

 

[Blademaster]

I think you're not getting my larger point. If as a noob you had to select a technology partner whom would you opt for ? Would you opt for someone who's learning the ropes thru trial & error or would you opt for a veteran with a proven track record ?

Or you could say that they have learned their lessons and from their failures and have worked out the kinks in their design. And that their design have passed the real test - out in the ocean during sea trials.

 

[Azaad]

Or you could say that they have learned their lessons and from their failures and have worked out the kinks in their design. And that their design have passed the real test - out in the ocean during sea trials.

The last part is a lengthy process. They've just built their first subs. Overall parameters can only be assessed & judgment call made after these subs are retired.

Why do you think our LCA isn't getting much traction in the export market ? However good the product it's not time tested . Nor does HAL come with the kind of track record or a pedigree like say that of Dassault or Sukhoi or LM.

Why do you think except for low end Fighter Aircrafts sold to LDCs China hasn't had any success in the top end Air Superiority or Air Dominance Fighter Aircrafts ? China's been the the game much before we've entered it . Their export version of the top end J-10C has had only 1 customer - Paxtan & we know why the latter opted for it.

 

[Blademaster]

The last part is a lengthy process. They've just built their first subs. Overall parameters can only be assessed & judgment call made after these subs are retired.

Why do you think our LCA isn't getting much traction in the export market ? However good the product it's not time tested . Nor does HAL come with the kind of track record or a pedigree like say that of Dassault or Sukhoi or LM.

Why do you think except for low end Fighter Aircrafts sold to LDCs China hasn't had any success in the top end Air Superiority or Air Dominance Fighter Aircrafts ? China's been the the game much before we've entered it . Their export version of the top end J-10C has had only 1 customer - Paxtan & we know why the latter opted for it.

Well based on the requirements put forth by the IN there are not many contenders so IN can't be too choosy. It seems that only the Shortfin Barracuda or S-80 Plus fit the bill and IN has a terrible experience with Naval Group and really doesn't want to go through that experience again. Perhaps Navantia would be more amenable to IN's wishes and needs as it needs an export customer to get their reputation back.

 

[Hari Sud]

The last part is a lengthy process. They've just built their first subs. Overall parameters can only be assessed & judgment call made after these subs are retired.

Why do you think our LCA isn't getting much traction in the export market ? However good the product it's not time tested . Nor does HAL come with the kind of track record or a pedigree like say that of Dassault or Sukhoi or LM.

Why do you think except for low end Fighter Aircrafts sold to LDCs China hasn't had any success in the top end Air Superiority or Air Dominance Fighter Aircrafts ? China's been the the game much before we've entered it . Their export version of the top end J-10C has had only 1 customer - Paxtan & we know why the latter opted for it.

The same argument applies to Korean fighter (very new) but they managed a sale in comparison to HAL.

HAL track record is not the best and it’s sales techniques are not the greatest.

 

[Azaad]

Well based on the requirements put forth by the IN there are not many contenders so IN can't be too choosy. It seems that only the Shortfin Barracuda or S-80 Plus fit the bill and IN has a terrible experience with Naval Group and really doesn't want to go through that experience again. Perhaps Navantia would be more amenable to IN's wishes and needs as it needs an export customer to get their reputation back.

That's what I remarked earlier that Navantia was there to make up the numbers. This project is for TKMS & Germany to lose. Ideally this should've been a contest between NG, TKMS & Mitsubishi- Kawasaki combine but the Japanese weren't interested, IN & MDL didn't want NG & TKMS baulked at the specifications & T&C's IN & MoD came up with. It took a lot of to & fro to get TKMS to participate.

Then there were the hanger ons like Rubin Design Bureau Russia, DSME from RoK & Navantia from Spain. Tender specs were drawn in such a way a to eliminate NG & RDB. DSME was a contender till news of the Indonesian Navy broke. Hence Navantia to make up the numbers. Trust that clarifies.

In any case it's my last post on the topic for as of now there remains plenty of things to be accomplished on this issue & my PoV can best be classified as an educated guest. No point in speculating further.

 

[Blademaster]

The same argument applies to Korean fighter (very new) but they managed a sale in comparison to HAL.

HAL track record is not the best and it’s sales techniques are not the greatest.

The Koreans only got the order because they were willing to bribe a lot.

 

[shade]

That's what I remarked earlier that Navantia was there to make up the numbers. This project is for TKMS & Germany to lose. Ideally this should've been a contest between NG, TKMS & Mitsubishi- Kawasaki combine but the Japanese weren't interested, IN & MDL didn't want NG & TKMS baulked at the specifications & T&C's IN & MoD came up with. It took a lot of to & fro to get TKMS to participate.

Then there were the hanger ons like Rubin Design Bureau Russia, DSME from RoK & Navantia from Spain. Tender specs were drawn in such a way a to eliminate NG & RDB. DSME was a contender till news of the Indonesian Navy broke. Hence Navantia to make up the numbers. Trust that clarifies.

In any case it's my last post on the topic for as of now there remains plenty of things to be accomplished on this issue & my PoV can best be classified as an educated guest. No point in speculating further.

You mean to say the Navantia thing is just so that they can give the Germans the contract?
Or scrap the current tender/requirements and re-issue a new one?

 

[Azaad]

The same argument applies to Korean fighter (very new) but they managed a sale in comparison to HAL.

HAL track record is not the best and it’s sales techniques are not the greatest.

Which RoK fighter are you referring to?

 

[Azaad]

You mean to say the Navantia thing is just so that they can give the Germans the contract?
Or scrap the current tender/requirements and re-issue a new one?

You do need more than 1 participant in a tender, don't you ? Nomination based tender is a thing of the past in this day & age. It's either that or a G2G transaction which was what Rafale was . I don't need to add on what happened as far as the opposition response went .

If you wanted your preferred vendor to win , how would you game the system ? By inserting clauses tech or commercial that rival contenders find difficult to comply with. Then you have something called Technical Evaluation once tenders are deposited where T1 is the first choice & assigned a certain weightage such that even if the undesirable contender emerges as the L1, you've your own preferred vendor designated as T1 to offset commercial advantages.

Trust that clarifies.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I think you're not getting my larger point. If as a noob you had to select a technology partner whom would you opt for ? Would you opt for someone who's learning the ropes thru trial & error or would you opt for a veteran with a proven track record ?

Depends on the option. I mean MDL have already signed up with Naval group. Russia, Sweden and Germany have withdrawn. Germany now wants to do in G2G deal. Korea is also thinking about withdrawal and haven’t signed up with an builder yet.

One can play rummy with only 13 cards. These are the options for L&T.