India Advances Towards Submarine Self-Reliance with Project-76

India is nearing a major breakthrough in its push for defense self-reliance. Project-76, the country's ambitious undertaking to develop and construct its own sophisticated conventional diesel submarines, is gathering momentum. This program signifies a pivotal step towards India securing its underwater defense capabilities.

The foundation for Project-76's success is already in place. India's prior experience in designing the hull of its Arihant nuclear submarine program provides crucial insights and knowledge.

Furthermore, the country's established success in building multiple submarines domestically, such as with Project-75, offers vital infrastructure and a skilled workforce.

India's ongoing development of its own torpedoes and cruise missiles will ensure the new submarines are equipped with capable defensive and offensive systems.

Project-76 promises to elevate the Indian Navy's underwater fleet by incorporating cutting-edge technologies. A core element is creating a new, entirely indigenous submarine design, a move that will foster India's own expertise in submarine development.

Though full details are yet to be released, Project-76 aims to build six advanced submarines featuring Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology. This technology will vastly improve the submarines' underwater endurance. Experts anticipate the project's design phase to be completed in the coming years, with construction beginning before 2030.

 

[Akshat]

both parties.

You are saying German government will impose penalties on German government? Wow.

 

[desigandu]

P-76s construction (hopefully a 3000/4000 ton boat with AIP/prefer Lithium Ion Batteries with 6-8 VLS + 4-6 Torpedo tubes - could these have propulsor's like the Dutch ones being built by France) should be fast tracked and we should plan the first boat by 2032-2034, else we will have severe depletion in SSK numbers, even if we have 9 Scorpenes (about 2000 Ton) by 2030, and have the first P-75Is (hopefully the bigger 216/218 boats of 2500-3000 Tons) starting 2030...As far our SSN (about 6000 Ton like the French ones with propulsor's) is concerned it may not be available before 2032, that too at best 1 per year.

 

[Torontodude]

You are saying German government will impose penalties on German government? Wow.

The 2 parties are Buyer and vendor, not German govt 😀

 

[Akshat]

The 2 parties are Buyer and vendor, not German govt 😀

Please read the thread. The premise is that the Germans (aka German government) are not reliable. And hence we should sign iron clad agreements.

My question was who would enforce those ageeements.

So Mr. Sherlock, how would the vendors (who operate under the German law) enforce the agreements if German government doesn’t want them to at a later stage?

 

[ABHIJIT APSINGIKAR]

A submarine based on our SSBNs would be too large of a SSK. Even if you remove the ballistic missile section, a SSBN-based hull would come in at well over 4,000 tons, which is too large for a SSK. I would posit that Project 75A can draw a lot of lessons from the Arihant-class, as a 5,000-ish ton SSN would be ideal for our needs.

Not quite during cold war Soviet Union had this submarine called Golf-class ballistic missile submarines. They were conventional submarines which carried ballistic missiles. Obviously they could not carry just as many as an full-fledged nuclear powered ballistic missile sub (SSBN), but it was nevertheless equipped first with R-11FM and R-13 missiles and then later about three R-21 missiles per submarine.

As of now North Korea operates diesel-electric Hero Kim Kun Ok ballistic missile submarine. So it is possible, but since the conventional submarine has to resurface periodically, it loses element of surprise and is fairly easy to counter. So it is indeed possible to use the SSBN hull without reactor section, albeit with a much degraded power to weight ratio and a much poor buoyancy and speed.

 

[Anant]

Not quite during cold war Soviet Union had this submarine called Golf-class ballistic missile submarines. They were conventional submarines which carried ballistic missiles. Obviously they could not carry just as many as an full-fledged nuclear powered ballistic missile sub (SSBN), but it was nevertheless equipped first with R-11FM and R-13 missiles and then later about three R-21 missiles per submarine.

As of now North Korea operates diesel-electric Hero Kim Kun Ok ballistic missile submarine. So it is possible, but since the conventional submarine has to resurface periodically, it loses element of surprise and is fairly easy to counter. So it is indeed possible to use the SSBN hull without reactor section, albeit with a much degraded power to weight ratio and a much poor buoyancy and speed.

You can have a conventionally-powered SSBK. Absolutely no problem in that. Heck, even the KSS-III submarines are technically SSBK, even though they are classed as SSKs.

My point, however, is that if you are going to build a diesel-electic submarine based on a SSBN, it's better to have it built as a SSBK rather than a SSK. The Arihant-class come in at 6,000 tons each (for Arihant and Arighat). Even if you were to shrink the design and remove the ballistic missile section, you won't be able to get it's displacement below 4,500 tons or so, which is very large for a SSK. Of course, you can adapt that design for a 6,000 ton SSBK, but we need SSKs.

All the cases here are SSK designs adapted to become SSBKs, not the other way around.

The Golf-class, and the Zulu V-class for that matter, were essentially enlarged SSK designs with a few ballistic missile silos thrown into the sail.

In more modern times, the KSS-III essentially took a standard SSK design based on the Type 209-1400 and Type 214 submarines (both of which South Korea built 9 of each under license), enlarged it, and inserted a section to hold ballistic missiles.

The North Korean boat is a similar story, where they have heavily rebuilt one of their ancient Romeo-class SSKs to hold ballistic missiles.

All of these are baseline SSK designs modified to become SSBKs. None of them is a SSBK or SSBN design modified to become a SSK, because it simply isn't practical.