Re: Submarines of the Indian Navy Quote:
Originally Posted by V.Narayan To tack on an AIP on a Kalvari boat will be a retrofit job - a little bit like taking your ICE Honda City car and retrofitting an EV+ICE hybrid powerpack. Might also require cutting the hull in two and inserting a section to create the extra volume. Can be done but a highly inelegant solution and any cutting and rejoining of a submarine hull is a job fraught with risk. The whole hull every square inch will need to be surveyed with ultrasound devices for microscopic cracks that could rupture explosively at depth. |
True, on the current spec design, the AIP module was to be a retrofit job to existing hulls, I thought there was a follow on order where the AIP module would be integrated into the hull from the onset - thereby negating the justifiable risks associated with cutting an existing pressure hull to add a new module. This was basically the B spec of the Kalvari class order right? Quote:
The new tender represents submarines in my opinion of a half generation beyond the Scorpene ie designed to be long distance EVs from day one without the cut and patch jobs of our example above. The German designs at least has variants in the 3000 tonne category with extraordinary submerged loitering times
|
I guess my confusion and reticence here is to do with timelines and the inevitable delays a fresh Indian defence tender process introduces. If the current Scorpenes are all being brought up to have the domestic AIP, I just feel that maybe in the interests of budget and time constraints it makes sense that we just tack on further Kalvari-B boats so to speak. Sure they're a smaller weight class than this proposed new tender design but it'll likely be cheaper by far too and surely fielding more of the Kalvari boats is in the interests of logistics and the shipbuilding industrial base. By the time additional orders are placed India could be well on its way to multiple decades of operating the type with a robust system for not just spares but yards with expertise in operating the type.
I guess where I'm going with this is the IN's surface vessel template, where they took one hull type and essentially incrementally iterated from it. In the undersea domain the presence of the SSBN project sort of throws that philosophy out the window somewhat but that was driven by strategic needs. For the conventional boat fleet I don't see why the Scorpene platform can't form the genesis point for similar iterative conventional boat classes down the line, building off a nascent but present domestic shipyard base.
But let's hash it out, I want to understand what the differences in the mission profile of these new boats will be from the Kalvari-B spec, ie, what will they be envisioned to do that the AIP equipped boats can't currently offer? Because if we can get 80% of the way with the Kalvari's, then is it worth it from a time, cost, industrial base and force structure view point to add another hull type to the mix?
Presumably the main differences will likely be enhanced range, ability to have some sort of VLS system for lobbing stand off munitions (cruise missiles) and potentially the flexibility to operate special forces modules. - a) How much further do these new boats need to go on sorties compared to AIP Kalvaris? There's an argument to be made that if being able to chase let's say PLAN boats further out into the IOR or beyond is the aim, then surely that's the remit of the SSN programme boats. But, SSNs are an order of magnitude more expensive than a conventional boat and therefore this could be that cost consideration compromise option. But why then do we not look at forward basing Kalvari boats further out in the IOR (in a scenario where we can afford more of them should we go down that route). With more boats available IN planners would be afforded more flexibility in tasking the boats across the entire purview of the IN's security committments.
- b) Where it breaks down somewhat for the Kalvari is the inclusion of that VLS cells for launching cruise missiles. You'd need to potentially design yet another add on module for this, which again adds time and risk to the existing design, not to mention the Kalvari C-spec now could end up weighing in around that 3000 ton mark for the new boat tender.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gansan Just a doubt. If the French subs are so good, why doesn't the French Navy use them at all? |
Think the Marine National opted for an all nuclear fleet like the other two nuclear NATO powers. Never thought about why they'd do it - not like the French to go in lockstep with the Americans or Brits. The French not opting for SSKs is likely a strategic decision as to the make up and roles of their submarine force rather than any other reason. That being said it does raise an oddity in that they have a fairly robust SSK pipeline on offer for export but with no usage domestically. |