American Tech in Spanish S-80 Plus Subs Raises Concerns for Indian Navy, Particularly ToT

India's pursuit of new submarines under Project-75I is encountering a potential roadblock due to concerns over American technology embedded in the Spanish S-80 Plus submarine, a leading contender in the Indian Navy's tender.

The heart of the matter lies in the extensive use of American systems within the S-80 Plus, including Lockheed Martin's advanced sonar technology crucial for underwater operations. While these systems offer cutting-edge capabilities, they have raised eyebrows among Indian naval officials due to potential challenges in technology transfer (ToT) and integration with indigenous systems.

India places a high value on ToT to foster self-reliance in defense capabilities. However, the integration of American technology complicates this goal, as the extent to which Navantia, the Spanish shipbuilder, can offer a comprehensive ToT package remains uncertain. Concerns about long-term operational autonomy and the ability to integrate Indian-made weapons into the submarine's combat system have also emerged.

The Indian Navy is set to meticulously evaluate the S-80 Plus's performance and seek clarification on ToT terms from both Navantia and its competitor, Germany's TKMS, in the coming weeks.

The spotlight is now on Navantia. To secure the contract, the Spanish company must address the Indian Navy's concerns head-on and present a convincing ToT package that aligns with India's stringent requirements for technological self-sufficiency. The outcome of these negotiations will not only shape India's submarine program but also have broader implications for defense technology transfer in the region.

As the Indian Navy navigates this complex situation, the integration of American technology in a key contender has added a new dimension to this critical defense acquisition. The focus remains on ensuring that any submarine deal aligns with India's long-term goals of self-reliance and technological advancement.

 

[charminar_waale_ismail_bhai]

Selecting either of these submarines have problem, we need to choose between problem with one Country (Germany) or problem from three Countries,(France, Spain and US) wonder why didn’t we have stringent requirements for TOT in Scorpene or Rafale, why we got 0 (Zero) TOT on those in-spite of spending $23Bln.

The problem isn't that we received zero ToT. The problem is that the DPSU staff who were imparted the transfer of technology had zero aptitude to absorb the advanced knowledge received. For many, the trainings were just fun trips and a deviation from monotony of life working at a government shipyard.
It is as if, the French would have tutored a class of chimpanzees and the result of TOT would have stayed the same as it is now.

 

[Anant]

We need those midget submarines also for different needs, it will take L&T a very long time to design a larger displacement submarine from the scratch, also it is just not the submarine alone we are looking to buy, it's also the technology that it brings with it, like AIP, Sonar, and others.

Perhaps, but they could play a role in Project 76.

Oh, and my response to your point yesterday about even the Rafale-M not being usable to its full potential in STOBAR:

You are correct, though more context is needed. Even the Rafale M cannot perform as well in STOBAR as it can in CATOBAR. However, the Rafale M has an empty weight of 10.6 tons. AMCA, before navalisation, would have a weight of about 12 tons. A navalised AMCA would come in at 15-16 tons at the least. That's atleast 4.5 tons heavier than the Rafale M, which doesn't help performance.

Coming to the MiG-29M, while it might, in theory, make for a good naval fighter, the problem here is that the MiG-29M has not been navalised, and probably never will, considering how old the baseline MiG-29 design is becoming. Russia has decided to not do this to replace their aging Su-33s, which suggests there could be some challenges surrounding a navalised MiG-29M.

 

[Pink Panther]

Perhaps, but they could play a role in Project 76.

Oh, and my response to your point yesterday about even the Rafale-M not being usable to its full potential in STOBAR:

You are correct, though more context is needed. Even the Rafale M cannot perform as well in STOBAR as it can in CATOBAR. However, the Rafale M has an empty weight of 10.6 tons. AMCA, before navalisation, would have a weight of about 12 tons. A navalised AMCA would come in at 15-16 tons at the least. That's atleast 4.5 tons heavier than the Rafale M, which doesn't help performance.

Coming to the MiG-29M, while it might, in theory, make for a good naval fighter, the problem here is that the MiG-29M has not been navalised, and probably never will, considering how old the baseline MiG-29 design is becoming. Russia has decided to not do this to replace their aging Su-33s, which suggests there could be some challenges surrounding a navalised MiG-29M.

MIG-29K was a variant made only for India because our Navy didn't want SU-33's because of it's size and the smaller form factor of our Carriers, they wnated to stuff as many MIG-29k's into a 45t displacement carrier, Russian's didn't have any intention of using them in their Navy, also Russians are more adopted to using SU-33's from Soviet days, a larger displacement carrier with catapult along with SU-33's that can carry truck load of armmaents would be the perfect choice, Rafale-M is even more expensive than airforce variant and if it couldn't be used to it's potential, then it's a waste of $7.5Bln, we could have used Naval Tejas instead.

 

[Pink Panther]

The problem isn't that we received zero ToT. The problem is that the DPSU staff who were imparted the transfer of technology had zero aptitude to absorb the advanced knowledge received. For many, the trainings were just fun trips and a deviation from monotony of life working at a government shipyard.
It is as if, the French would have tutored a class of chimpanzees and the result of TOT would have stayed the same as it is now.

any TOT will be like this only, so the foreign OEM's offer a lot of fake promises on TOT upfront and make us pay billions to buy their items, their TOT is just invite the DPSU employees to their country and take them for sight seeing, shopping and feed them good food and drink and finally make them attend a meeting where they screen them a video that explains about the low tech details of that product for a fraction of cost in their margin.

 

[Anant]

MIG-29K was a variant made only for India because our Navy didn't want SU-33's because of it's size and the smaller form factor of our Carriers, they wnated to stuff as many MIG-29k's into a 45t displacement carrier, Russian's didn't have any intention of using them in their Navy, also Russians are more adopted to using SU-33's from Soviet days, a larger displacement carrier with catapult along with SU-33's that can carry truck load of armmaents would be the perfect choice, Rafale-M is even more expensive than airforce variant and if it couldn't be used to it's potential, then it's a waste of $7.5Bln, we could have used Naval Tejas instead.

The Su-33 is not a good carrier aircraft, and, as strange as this may sound, is even more obsolete than the MiG-29K is. I agree we should be going for CATOBAR carriers, but the MiG-29K and the Su-33 are both hopelessly obsolete to consider large-scale procurement. If the Russians decide to finally decommission that scrapheap they call their aircraft carrier, we could look to buy a few MiG-29Ks to bolster numbers. The Su-33s are hopeless, though.

Coming to the Tejas N,that aircraft was too heavy for its engine to be suitable for proper carrier operations. The Tejas N, as originally presented, was too heavy to have a carry a full fuel and weapons load, had a bad thrust-to-weight ratio at takeoff, and had issues with the landing gear strength. The Navy had proposed using a different, more powerful engine in the Tejas N, but the IAF and HAL rejected that, claiming this would push development of the Tejas back. That is very much how things have been, with the INAA always becoming the red-headed stepchild to the IAF.

 

[charminar_waale_ismail_bhai]

any TOT will be like this only, so the foreign OEM's offer a lot of fake promises on TOT upfront and make us pay billions to buy their items, their TOT is just invite the DPSU employees to their country and take them for sight seeing, shopping and feed them good food and drink and finally make them attend a meeting where they screen them a video that explains about the low tech details of that product for a fraction of cost in their margin.

I am a advocate of doing away with the scam that is going on in the name of ToT and save the money.

Ever noticed, most foreign vendors act quite liberal when signing accord on ToT wherever it is one of the DPSU which acts as primary contractor for deal.

The moment a Private player steps in the game, the negotiation for ToT takes a totally different dimension.

Exp. For the offset and ToT clause in the C295 aircrafts by Tatas, the vendors were in negotiations for over a decade.

That is because a private player will extract its pound of flesh and wont let the vendors off with just sham-showanof ToT.

Here is what MD of TASL said about Tata's contract to manufacturing C295:

“will literally take raw aluminium ingots on one end and convert it into a flyaway aircraft on the other end.”

 

[Deepak Hegde]

Yup but will the sonar tech be transferred?

Does it make a difference even if it is transferred ? Our jokers will mess it as usual and not be able to do anything with the ToT.

 

[Manoj Kumar G]

It's a fixed game. Germany tkms type 212 wil win

 

[Sandeep]

But Germany may not transfer those technology. Their Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control (BAFA or Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle) is unlikely to approve crucial technologies to be transferred to India. A few years ago, BAFA had shot down technology transfer of Ring Laser Gyros to India and sale of H&K small arms to India. Americans are more open yo transfer technologies to India.

Yes they have been reluctant to give any critical technology or weapons buts recently they have lifted a lot of the restrictions they imposed on us.

 

[charminar_waale_ismail_bhai]

The Su-33 is not a good carrier aircraft, and, as strange as this may sound, is even more obsolete than the MiG-29K is. I agree we should be going for CATOBAR carriers, but the MiG-29K and the Su-33 are both hopelessly obsolete to consider large-scale procurement. If the Russians decide to finally decommission that scrapheap they call their aircraft carrier, we could look to buy a few MiG-29Ks to bolster numbers. The Su-33s are hopeless, though.

Coming to the Tejas N,that aircraft was too heavy for its engine to be suitable for proper carrier operations. The Tejas N, as originally presented, was too heavy to have a carry a full fuel and weapons load, had a bad thrust-to-weight ratio at takeoff, and had issues with the landing gear strength. The Navy had proposed using a different, more powerful engine in the Tejas N, but the IAF and HAL rejected that, claiming this would push development of the Tejas back. That is very much how things have been, with the INAA always becoming the red-headed stepchild to the IAF.

Not to miss another point, Tejas N is a single engine aircraft. If you look at most naval aircrafts, those are dual engined, for the reason of redundancy.

 

[Jagjit Jagga]

Yes they have been reluctant to give any critical technology or weapons buts recently they have lifted a lot of the restrictions they imposed on us.

Why should india trust german shepherd? It is not like it hasn't barred the supply of military hardwares to Saudi Arabia. Even if "lot of restrictions" are lifted, no one can say for sure these unpredictable buffoons couldn't redo arms embargo in future.

Germany is the wild card of Europe when it comes about their dealings with non-western countries.

 

[Pink Panther]

If only repeating the lies could have turned them into truth...

Ok then list the TOT, why we couldn't make any more submarines ourself from the TOT offered on Scorpene 😂, we already know how to make a fighter jet, so don't tell that Dassalt taught HAL to make Tejas.

 

[Pink Panther]

The Su-33 is not a good carrier aircraft, and, as strange as this may sound, is even more obsolete than the MiG-29K is. I agree we should be going for CATOBAR carriers, but the MiG-29K and the Su-33 are both hopelessly obsolete to consider large-scale procurement. If the Russians decide to finally decommission that scrapheap they call their aircraft carrier, we could look to buy a few MiG-29Ks to bolster numbers. The Su-33s are hopeless, though.

Coming to the Tejas N,that aircraft was too heavy for its engine to be suitable for proper carrier operations. The Tejas N, as originally presented, was too heavy to have a carry a full fuel and weapons load, had a bad thrust-to-weight ratio at takeoff, and had issues with the landing gear strength. The Navy had proposed using a different, more powerful engine in the Tejas N, but the IAF and HAL rejected that, claiming this would push development of the Tejas back. That is very much how things have been, with the INAA always becoming the red-headed stepchild to the IAF.

Like Super Sukhoi we could make super SU-33/SU-30M from fresh frames with all the advance gadgets to make those relevant, Rafale airforce variant carry's barely 3.5ton more payload over single engine F-16, due to naval conversion Rafale-M would have added some extra weight that would transalate to even lower payload by 1-3 tons almost equalling F-16's payload capacity, so if in case if we make a naval variant Tejas MK2, it's payload will be pretty closer to Rafale-M payload, so there is not much of a difference between a single engine Tejas MK2 and twin engine Rafale-M in terms of specs, Tejas Mk2 naval could be easily used in a carrier equipped Catapult launch without sacrificing its payload carrying capacity, we just need to give or take here and there, I think Navy rushed too soon without doing a thorough analysis only for the purpose of tips.

 

[Pink Panther]

Zero TOT? When did you return from galaxy andromeda?

why don't you list the TOT then, so that everybody here is aware of.

 

[beencensured]

How can you be so unthoughtful man. Scamgress is talking about wealth redistribution, handing it over to one unproductive community who do not want to work & you speak of brain drain? Really?

Maybe if you can fix regressive mindset and value our county as capable. So, many want handouts, there need to be work done, Value capable people, but instead value is to useless vote bank and that too only too loot as never satisfying the needs of majority. Nehru invented the "tyranny of the Majority" as the bstard did not want to develop the country and do vote bank politics to loot the country. Whereas democracy is majority rule, and majority wants development electricity, water, education, healthcare, jobs and so on.

 

[beencensured]

Why would they work for India when we had emergency and license Raj during their early years?

In fact I would go further educated back then were not wanted and government drove them away from India as it did not want development and wanted only a Conversion Raj. Especially to show off then to west in life magazines the poverty of India.

But realize Trillions of dollars of loss to economy as India is less developed and such talented people were not wanted. People from IIT's could not get jobs.

 

[Akshat]

In fact I would go further educated back then were not wanted and government drove them away from India as it did not want development and wanted only a Conversion Raj. Especially to show off then to west in life magazines the poverty of India.

But realize Trillions of dollars of loss to economy as India is less developed and such talented people were not wanted. People from IIT's could not get jobs.

But how is US responsible for that?

 

[beencensured]

Here is why, drdo aip is not sea proven yet, these things take time often 2-3 or more years. Scorpene is 1990s tech.

Five to ten years, and never used, and so never proven. You type of jokers set a new standard.,

 

[Anant]

Like Super Sukhoi we could make super SU-33/SU-30M from fresh frames with all the advance gadgets to make those relevant, Rafale airforce variant carry's barely 3.5ton more payload over single engine F-16, due to naval conversion Rafale-M would have added some extra weight that would transalate to even lower payload by 1-3 tons almost equalling F-16's payload capacity, so if in case if we make a naval variant Tejas MK2, it's payload will be pretty closer to Rafale-M payload, so there is not much of a difference between a single engine Tejas MK2 and twin engine Rafale-M in terms of specs, Tejas Mk2 naval could be easily used in a carrier equipped Catapult launch without sacrificing its payload carrying capacity, we just need to give or take here and there, I think Navy rushed too soon without doing a thorough analysis only for the purpose of tips.

Again, not easy to navalise a fighter directly. You can navalise the Su-30MKI, but the massive size of the aircraft means the weight penalty will be even higher, not to mention that the size will mean a decrease in how many aircraft you can carry on a carrier.

Coming to the Rafale M, one of things France did very cleverly was to design the Rafale M from a stripped out Rafale design. That has allowed them to get the weight difference between a Rafale C and a Rafale M to just under a ton rather than the standard 3-5 tons. Therefore, the Rafale M, when operating with CATOBAR, can carry almost 9.5 tons of payload across 13 hardpoints. In contrast, even the Tejas Mk 2, before navalisation, has a maximum payload of about 6.5 tons.

Now, you could theoretically navalise the Tejas Mk 2. However, that then runs into the same problem as to why the Tejas N was rejected: For the additional weight of a Tejas Mk 2 over a Tejas Mk 1, the F414 engine actually would mean a worse thrust-to-weight ratio for STOBAR for a naval Tejas Mk 2 than the F404 would bring for the Tejas N. There is a massive difference in payload and other operational characteristics between the Rafale M and a hypothetical Tejas Mk 2 N.

Again, any aircraft operating off STOBAR can be made to operate off CATOBAR with some minor modifications. However, considering that CATOBAR carriers for the Navy are still atleast 20 years away, the TEDBF is a perfectly good program. N-AMCA, Tejas Mk 2 N, and Tejas Mk 1 N all have insurmountable issues for STOBAR operations. Oh, and the Navy would have done far more research than you or I before they decided to reject the Tejas N and proceed with TEDBF development.

 

[Anant]

Not to miss another point, Tejas N is a single engine aircraft. If you look at most naval aircrafts, those are dual engined, for the reason of redundancy.

Agreed, Sir, but what happens is that the moment you say that, people immediately point out that the F-35 is also a single-engined aircraft, which is why I tend to not use that argument nowadays, or simply use it as a supporting argument.

 

[Anant]

Yeah, but a IAC2 will eat the naval budget. So building more subs is not possible fiscally.

It's very much possible. IAC-II may cost 3-4 billion USD, but that cost is divided across 10-12 years. Hence, a small increase in capital budget actually accounts for a carrier.

That said, there is only so much capex one can pursue in this way. In the long-term, capital expenditure in the military needs to increase.

 

[Pink Panther]

Again, not easy to navalise a fighter directly. You can navalise the Su-30MKI, but the massive size of the aircraft means the weight penalty will be even higher, not to mention that the size will mean a decrease in how many aircraft you can carry on a carrier.

Coming to the Rafale M, one of things France did very cleverly was to design the Rafale M from a stripped out Rafale design. That has allowed them to get the weight difference between a Rafale C and a Rafale M to just under a ton rather than the standard 3-5 tons. Therefore, the Rafale M, when operating with CATOBAR, can carry almost 9.5 tons of payload across 13 hardpoints. In contrast, even the Tejas Mk 2, before navalisation, has a maximum payload of about 6.5 tons.

Now, you could theoretically navalise the Tejas Mk 2. However, that then runs into the same problem as to why the Tejas N was rejected: For the additional weight of a Tejas Mk 2 over a Tejas Mk 1, the F414 engine actually would mean a worse thrust-to-weight ratio for STOBAR for a naval Tejas Mk 2 than the F404 would bring for the Tejas N. There is a massive difference in payload and other operational characteristics between the Rafale M and a hypothetical Tejas Mk 2 N.

Again, any aircraft operating off STOBAR can be made to operate off CATOBAR with some minor modifications. However, considering that CATOBAR carriers for the Navy are still atleast 20 years away, the TEDBF is a perfectly good program. N-AMCA, Tejas Mk 2 N, and Tejas Mk 1 N all have insurmountable issues for STOBAR operations. Oh, and the Navy would have done far more research than you or I before they decided to reject the Tejas N and proceed with TEDBF development.

it is not 1 ton difference between Rafale-C and Rafale-M, it is solid 3 tons, Rafale-M will carry even lower payload in STOWBAR, Naval Tejas is based on MK1 and not MK2, that we all know has poor specs, but MK2 is only short by 3 tons compared to F16, US even played with the idea of using F16 in carrier doing landing and takeoffs, they have multiple engines for F16 that can increase the payload, especially the engine in UAE's F16, which has roughly the same power as Rafale's Twin engines, so it is quiet possible to use Tejas Mk2 or even a new variant of MK2 with high output GE engines or even single izdeiye-30, it is definitely possible, we don't need to spend $300+ Million to buy a foreign naval fighter, when there is a will there is a way, Disclaimer, this is a hypothetical scenario, what happen's if China bombs on one of our carriers packed with 24 Rafale-M's in one kill and sunk it, we have to make an order of 24 new Rafale-m"s and wait for 15 more years, this is why we need few different kinds of locally developed Naval jet's, single engine jets save us a lot of money compared to twin engines.

 

[NSR]

Again, not easy to navalise a fighter directly. You can navalise the Su-30MKI, but the massive size of the aircraft means the weight penalty will be even higher, not to mention that the size will mean a decrease in how many aircraft you can carry on a carrier.

Coming to the Rafale M, one of things France did very cleverly was to design the Rafale M from a stripped out Rafale design. That has allowed them to get the weight difference between a Rafale C and a Rafale M to just under a ton rather than the standard 3-5 tons. Therefore, the Rafale M, when operating with CATOBAR, can carry almost 9.5 tons of payload across 13 hardpoints. In contrast, even the Tejas Mk 2, before navalisation, has a maximum payload of about 6.5 tons.

Now, you could theoretically navalise the Tejas Mk 2. However, that then runs into the same problem as to why the Tejas N was rejected: For the additional weight of a Tejas Mk 2 over a Tejas Mk 1, the F414 engine actually would mean a worse thrust-to-weight ratio for STOBAR for a naval Tejas Mk 2 than the F404 would bring for the Tejas N. There is a massive difference in payload and other operational characteristics between the Rafale M and a hypothetical Tejas Mk 2 N.

Again, any aircraft operating off STOBAR can be made to operate off CATOBAR with some minor modifications. However, considering that CATOBAR carriers for the Navy are still atleast 20 years away, the TEDBF is a perfectly good program. N-AMCA, Tejas Mk 2 N, and Tejas Mk 1 N all have insurmountable issues for STOBAR operations. Oh, and the Navy would have done far more research than you or I before they decided to reject the Tejas N and proceed with TEDBF development.

Not true.
Too many posters with Rafale-M stars glowing in their eyes so they keep blowing sunshine up Rafale-Ms fanny regardless of cost, available armaments, etc

 

[Pink Panther]

Five to ten years, and never used, and so never proven. You type of jokers set a new standard.,

He means not proven at real time in Submarine, so far it has been proven only in test lab, testing in realtime might throw a lot of challenges that they might have never anticipated in lab, we need to a give a old retired sub to DRDO for testing purposes.

 

[Pink Panther]

Not true.
Too many posters with Rafale-M stars glowing in their eyes so they keep blowing sunshine up Rafale-Ms fanny regardless of cost, available armaments, etc

Also Rafale-M has a specific requirement to use Mistral, it can't use the missile same way as Rafale-C variant, which is again a drawback.

 

[beencensured]

He means not proven at real time in Submarine, so far it has been proven only in test lab, testing in realtime might throw a lot of challenges that they might have never anticipated in lab, we need to a give a old retired sub to DRDO for testing purposes.

I mean they suppose to fit the last sub, but they choose not to. They play these game of self defeat. Still untill you use it, how can it be proven. Just making a joke like an old sub would not have a crew. New sub have less maintenance issue. So, another irrational comment hust to delay induction on behest of Pakistan/ China/ and everyone not wanting India as superpower.

 

[beencensured]

Finally someone said it. Unlike France or Germany this s80 product is supported by American submakers. It has too many American and british components. Its spanish design , but also too many countries involved.

But we have our own sonar, and etc. It gives more to greater percent indigenous.

 

[beencensured]

"Number one enemy"? What are you eating these days? US is unreliable but not an enemy. Thought Bharatiyas knew their no. 1 enemy is china. Seems some are still in the dark & stumbling very badly.

China does not poach our best and brightest, and assassinated two our pm Lal Bahadur Shastri Indira Gaannddhhi, involved in genocide in Pakistan like 1971 war, send terrorist like they did in Kashmir and Punjab, do 26/11 like with CIA operative David Headly., but does support terrorist Pakistan/ Taliban.