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.

 

[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.