A further comment following Russia to benefit from India's Project-75I AIP Transfer Exercise of August 21, 2021.
India, has effectively eliminated 3 contestants (Russia, France and Spain) from its long running Project-75I. Germany's TKMS also flagged it may drop out. This would only leave South Korea's (SK's) DSME. If India wants to avoid an uncontested "short list" of one India will need to significantly alter the transfer (and re-use) of AIP and other technology terms. Or perhaps India could pay a much higher price.
An uncontested result would give DSME superior bargaining power over India, in technology transfer and local content levels. Just as important DSME could sharply increase prices (eg. development, build per unit, training, spares, etc) upfront and then later, via onerous contract milestones.
It is also unclear what submarine type DSME is offering. I'm assuming India would want the, less than 2,000 tonne, medium sized, cheaper, Type 214, variant with AIP. DSME has built it as the KSS-2 for SK's navy. However NavalNews, June 16, 2021, reported DSME might also be offering India its 3,000+ tonne KSS-3 (with AIP and maybe for Lithium-ion Batteries (LIBs)).
DSME selling a KSS-3 to India would be a much more expensive proposition for India than a KSS-2. If India (via export customer sale dynamics) could cross-subsidize the very high development costs of the, so far, SK Navy only KSS-3 then DSME and the SK Navy would be very happy. Sale of the much larger, more expensive, KSS-3 would also attract a higher profit margin for DSME.
So India is likely to want to keep Germany's TKMS, with the Type 212, in the Project-75I shortlist along with DSME. Though even with TKMS there may be uncertainty for India. Indian selectors now have a choice of 2 AIP Type 212s from TKMS. TKMS may prefer to sell India 6 of the new, much larger, more expensive 2,500+ tonne Type 212CDs rather than 6 of the smaller, cheaper, established 212As (weighing in at less than 2,000 tonnes). TKMS might also give India the choice of medium sized Type 214 or large, 2,500 tonne, 214.
The longer India haggles and procrastinates over Project-75I the steeper the price increases offered by the declining short list of sellers.
4 comments:
Hi Pete
TKMS-AIP technologies including fuel cell, metal hydride cylinder and hydrogen generation system are proven. 212CD is one of the attractive options.
212A is the Baltic Sea-specific submarine, and its size is minimum as shown in adoption of one diesel. 212CD is larger than 212A. From a viewpoint of size, 212CD is not optimum for the use in the Baltic Sea.
Regards
Thanks so much for your comments Anonymous
Now all fixed.
Yes, its very true that India, or any oceanic navy, having a submarine with only one diesel (like the 212A) would be less safe than a sub with 2 or more diesels.
So a small or large Type 214 with 2 or more diesels would be better for India.
Also a 2,500 tonne Type 212CD with a non-magnetic steel hull and at least 2 diesels might be good for India, but expensive.
Regards
Pete
India's tender rules prohibit a single vendor situation to avoid arm twisting by the vendor.
Again, it is easy to misread India. Something else is brewing. I would say a game of chicken is underway between multiple vendors and India. Most vendors have called the 'first bluff'.
India might not be seeing it the same way. India might be wanting that nonmagnetic steel hull while also looking at PEMFC tech etc.
We have to see what happens. I get a feeling 6 more Scorpenes it might well be. The Spanish and the russians were never in the race.. it was always the French vs the Germans...
Hi Ghalib Kabir
So I think India will need to change the tender and future contract rules to keep Germany's TKMS in the P-75I submarine competition against South Korea's DSME. TKMS's ability to provide non-magnetic steel hull technology would be another reason to keep TKMS in the competition.
6 additional French designed Scorpenes (to the 6 Kalvari Scorpenes already bought by India) would make sense. But I was under the impression that India's new rules under P-75I excluded France's Naval Group because France has no operational second generation AIP?
Pete
Post a Comment