Pakistan Embraces Affordable Submarine Power, India Doubles Down on Advanced Capabilities

Pakistan's recent unveiling of the Hangor-class submarines, built by China and priced at $410 million each, highlights the nation's strategic choice to prioritize affordability in modernizing its naval fleet.

This move contrasts sharply with India's focus on acquiring technologically advanced submarines at a significantly higher cost.

The Hangor-class submarines, while budget-friendly, faced a setback when Germany blocked the export of the planned MTU engines. As a result, the submarines are now equipped with Chinese diesel engines, raising concerns about potential performance limitations or heightened maintenance requirements.

Nevertheless, Pakistan plans to procure eight of these submarines, potentially expanding the fleet to 12, to replace their aging French Agosta 70 submarines.

India, in contrast, is investing heavily in cutting-edge submarine technology. The country's planned acquisition of three additional Kalvari-class submarines, each costing $1 billion, and the ambitious Project-75I to procure six more submarines exceeding $1 billion each, underscore its commitment to technological superiority.

The diverging strategies of the two nations reflect their distinct priorities. Pakistan's emphasis on cost-effectiveness aims to rapidly enhance its underwater capabilities within budgetary constraints, while India's focus on advanced technology seeks to gain a qualitative edge in submarine warfare.

The effectiveness of these contrasting approaches remains to be seen. While Pakistan's Hangor-class submarines offer a cost-efficient solution for fleet modernization, India's investment in advanced technology could potentially yield superior performance in terms of stealth, sensors, and weapon systems.

 

[Bharat007]

India should opt for German submarines. The strength of the Indian submarine fleet is depleting, with half of them being outdated (around 30 years old). At this juncture, national security is more important than the cost of weapons. There4, India must negotiate for an acceptable price to acquire German submarines at the earliest opportunity.

We have vast oceans where Pakistani and Chinese submarines are swarming, while India's lack of submarine strength can be risky.

 

[Neal.B]

India should opt for German submarines. The strength of the Indian submarine fleet is depleting, with half of them being outdated (around 30 years old). At this juncture, national security is more important than the cost of weapons. There4, India must negotiate for an acceptable price to acquire German submarines at the earliest opportunity.

We have vast oceans where Pakistani and Chinese submarines are swarming, while India's lack of submarine strength can be risky.

Type 212CD should be our immidiate choice but Navy gonna wait half a decade for Navantia.

 

[Avada kedavra]

Well the same thing india also did. Preferred low cost Russian junk over expensive tech from French and british during the cold war.

Both india & Pakistan have high number of disposable soldiers so they don't mind buying such junk. They can afford losing soldiers at the level of how much the Russians are losing today in ukraine.

They are willing to trade lives of soldiers in exchange for cheap & outdated tech.

 

[Anil Kumar]

Type 212CD should be our immidiate choice but Navy gonna wait half a decade for Navantia.

Type 212CD first submarine will be ready for Norwey navy after 2030. What indian navy can do for this

 

[Anil Kumar]

Currently no conventional submarine in world is full filling indian navy submarine P-75I requirement even half. Yet most of the people wants Navy to just purchase it immediately what ever it is. And when it's indigenous product people just start crying that it's not fulfilling our force requirement

 

[The Presence]

Well the same thing india also did. Preferred low cost Russian junk over expensive tech from French and british during the cold war.

Both india & Pakistan have high number of disposable soldiers so they don't mind buying such junk. They can afford losing soldiers at the level of how much the Russians are losing today in ukraine.

They are willing to trade lives of soldiers in exchange for cheap & outdated tech.

My head hangs in shame, but I have no arguments to deny.

Strip the T-72 and T-90s of their ERA, and you would see a WW2-era spherical turret hiding behind. Any half-decent tandem warhead can penetrate these things easily and initiate a devastating ammo cook-off, which will instantly vaporise the crew.

Even after knowing this, even after seeing so many instances of this happening in real life, there's no urgency of equipping these things with a potent Hardkill APS.

Arjun is so much better than these junk tin-cans. My heart goes out to all the Drivers, Commanders and Gunners serving in these literal Rolling Coffins.

 

[Aravind Raveendran]

We need the Type212cd subs asap and it's better to get 3-4 scorpenes in the meantime.

 

[Rajesh]

Should go for 6 more scorpene orders as this cirus will take years to even decide who the OEM is . Deciding an OEM to manufacture will again take years and the retirement of the 30+ years old subs will happen in the other side. Better to have 6 more scorpene and work with Germany for a new sub hope it comes with vls and a bigger one as well.

 

[Mango_Indian]

instead of buying another 3 Scorpenes, why not order another 6 and let them be delivered hopefully in the next 10 years with AIP.

In parallel, order another 6 HDW submarines through L&T while we continue to make another 4 Arihant ++ class nuclear submarines at Vishakhpatnam.

At least we will have approx 25 odd modern submarines in the next 10 - 12 years on this path. Instead of the current analysis / paralysis

 

[Shankh Bhattacharjee]

The Chinese product lasts less than the made in china tag

 

[Aayush Pratap]

Let's get the Black Shark rounds first.

 

[Sandeep]

It’s best that they buy the Chinese junk as it’s technology in very unreliable, faulty and doesn’t work as China claims it can. Pakistan and Thailand have complained a lot about it’s performance and constant need for maintenance, spares, parts, constant equipment malfunction and expensive imports from China.

India need to quickly decide and build the 6 P75I submarines that we want as it will take about 10 years or more before they finish constructing them and by then we will be retiring a few kilo submarines which won’t increase the number of submarine strength we want. We also need to start constructing our P75A nuclear attack submarines which is the most important type as it will allow us to deploy it close to China if needed. With our ballistic submarine we need to carry on producing them as fast as possible but we also need to produce a much larger submarine that can hold more and long range nuclear missiles. Also with the technology from P75I we will be able to produce about 12 similar and better conventional submarines which we need to build up our submarine capabilities and strength.

 

[Anant]

Type 212CD first submarine will be ready for Norwey navy after 2030. What indian navy can do for this

Assuming the Type 212CD was on offer, and we were to select it to start detailed negotiations tomorrow, we wouldn't have the first boat entering service until atleast 2032-33.

 

[Anant]

Well the same thing india also did. Preferred low cost Russian junk over expensive tech from French and british during the cold war.

Both india & Pakistan have high number of disposable soldiers so they don't mind buying such junk. They can afford losing soldiers at the level of how much the Russians are losing today in ukraine.

They are willing to trade lives of soldiers in exchange for cheap & outdated tech.

To give credit where it is due, France did offer the Daphne-class to us in the 1960s. However, Bhikaristan already had those boats on order, and their limited range was an issue for us.

The Brits also offered us new-build Oberon-class boats, but they were too expensive for our defence budget at the time, and the British were not ready to give any credit for those. Our first generation of submarines had to be the Foxtrot-class; there really weren't any viable alternatives.

However, when we look at the 1980s acquisitions, we should have gone ahead with the planned 6 (and maybe even 8) Type 209-1500 submarines. The Swedish were also offering the excellent Näcken-class submarine, but thanks to a certain political party interfering in military matters, we got stuck with the Kilo-class.

Had we got, say, 8 Näcken-class and 8 Type 209-1500 boats, we would have had considerably better submarines today, not to mention the closer defence partnerships would have benefitted us in getting something like, say, a modified Götland-class or the upcoming Blekinge-class for replacing the older boats. Then again, the Germans and the Swedes both promised a lot of technology and knowledge transfer for submarines, so we would have been building our own boats by now, instead of going with the Russians, who "generously" offered to transfer the knowledge of overhauling the submarines rather than design and construction knowledge. Add to that the fact that the government ended up cancelling the 5th and 6th Type 209-1500 boats (which were supposed to be completely built in India) on (later disproven) allegations of corruption, and you can quickly see Khangress' agenda.

 

[Avada kedavra]

To give credit where it is due, France did offer the Daphne-class to us in the 1960s. However, Bhikaristan already had those boats on order, and their limited range was an issue for us.

The Brits also offered us new-build Oberon-class boats, but they were too expensive for our defence budget at the time, and the British were not ready to give any credit for those. Our first generation of submarines had to be the Foxtrot-class; there really weren't any viable alternatives.

However, when we look at the 1980s acquisitions, we should have gone ahead with the planned 6 (and maybe even 8) Type 209-1500 submarines. The Swedish were also offering the excellent Näcken-class submarine, but thanks to a certain political party interfering in military matters, we got stuck with the Kilo-class.

Had we got, say, 8 Näcken-class and 8 Type 209-1500 boats, we would have had considerably better submarines today, not to mention the closer defence partnerships would have benefitted us in getting something like, say, a modified Götland-class or the upcoming Blekinge-class for replacing the older boats. Then again, the Germans and the Swedes both promised a lot of technology and knowledge transfer for submarines, so we would have been building our own boats by now, instead of going with the Russians, who "generously" offered to transfer the knowledge of overhauling the submarines rather than design and construction knowledge. Add to that the fact that the government ended up cancelling the 5th and 6th Type 209-1500 boats (which were supposed to be completely built in India) on (later disproven) allegations of corruption, and you can quickly see Khangress' agenda.

not give credit? you mean no tech transfer.

THe british centurion tanks were the frontline tanks of the indian military in both 1965 and 1971. WHy didnt they just order the next generation instead of going for the junk T64s

 

[Oleg Olkha]

We need the Type212cd subs asap and it's better to get 3-4 scorpenes in the meantime.

To develope the skills and capabilities needed to administer the often highly complex projects... Currently, the technological capabilities of the tkMS shipyard allow building several boats at the same time. (type 212CD, type Dolphin-2 plus,-"Drakon", type "Dakar", type 218SG (Singapore) type 209/1500... (Egipt) , type 214AIP, each module (Turkey?) But It will take time to compare technical specification policies and prices... Is one of the most labor-intensive. Regards and I wish you success!

 

[Anant]

not give credit? you mean no tech transfer.

THe british centurion tanks were the frontline tanks of the indian military in both 1965 and 1971. WHy didnt they just order the next generation instead of going for the junk T64s

India never operated the T-64. We had the T-54 and the Vickers MBT, which were followed by the T-72. As for the T-72, that is an interesting story too.

When the Army started looking for a replacement for the Vijayanta (the license-built Vickers MBT) and the T-55, two alternatives were given: The British Chieftain 800 (what would later evolve into the Challenger 1), and the French AMX-40. The French design was provisionally chosen, but was later rejected because it's protection was, even by the standards of the time, very weak.

Then, Indira Ghandy went on a visit to the USSR, and being the paid KGB agent that she was, promptly restarted the competition with Russian MBTs on her return. Even in this competition, the Chieftain 800 was poised to win, but politics meant the T-72 got the green-light. By the way, all contenders in these competitions had agreed to local production, and the Brits were even offering a portion of the fleet to comprise the then-under-development Challenger 1. However, at this point, cost intervened, and the T-72 just went ahead. For reference, the Chieftain 800 and Challenger 1 were estimated to cost around 4 million USD at the point, while the T-72 cost around 1.5 million USD apiece.

 

[RG]

India must adopt is mix strategy, all Subs need for be top of the line, like Rafale in airforce. it should use cheaper options, quantity is a quality too. This will help build more domestic capability. using large sums for few acquisition would dry up funding for other bread and butter projects.

 

[Hari Sud]

Good news for India. Chinese copied and reverse engineered submarines never work.